"replacement theology" - what is it?

[garee]

Yes, I do believe that he will arrive on the clouds of heaven and so does scripture:

"After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Jesus was taken up into heaven in a cloud and he will return arriving on the clouds of heaven, just as the scripture above states and Matt.24:30 proclaims.

Scripture informs us that the one time demonstration of Christ the Holy Spirit of God putting flesh .

2Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Where does the idea come that we will still know him after the flesh contrary to what is revealed . And what we be the purpose of putting on the flesh again for another demonstration of the work of pouring out His spirit (not seen) .would that not be like crucifying him over and over to public shame as if one demonstration was not enough?

I would think that, "yet now from now on know we Him no more", would mean just that, forever more. God is not a man as us and neither is there a days man between God and man. Christ resisted all attempts-of men worshiping God by walking by sight as if God was a man as us. When we think of Him we do not think of Him as having form as if he did have beginning of days and end of Spirit life.

 

[plainguy]

I read the links Grace thanks. I don't think anybody really knows when it was written but I don't understand why it even matters. I mean what difference does it make in the understanding of the book, do you know?

Nobody does know with certainty. We can only come to our own conclusion(s) by a preponderance of the evidence. But her implication was, and I think I have this right ... "Why would John write apocalyptically of an event (the destruction of Jerusalem) in 90 something A.D. if it already occurred in 70 A.D. ? ". This brings up an entirely new debate, naturally, that being .. when was the Book of Revelations written ? What should be obvious is that those who adhere to the late date theory (90's A.D.) are the futures crowd in pertaining to the destruction of Jerusalem etc. The early date adherents (pre 70 A.D.) see much/most of Revelations as pertaining to an audience/time period relevant people ...i.e. ... the Jews of that generation. Hope I've said enough here to clear up your inquiry .

 

[ZEEK]

What passages in Revelation are, allegedly, referring to AD 70?

 

[KJV1611]

I'm sure you've heard of dual fulfillment. But maybe not. For instance in 168 BC we know that Daniel's prophecy was fulfilled in reference to Daniel's prophecy and yet, in Thessalonians we have the Abomination that causes desolation again as spoken through the prophet Daniel.

Jeremiah 31 [SUP]31[/SUP] "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, [SUP]32[/SUP] not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. [SUP]33[/SUP] "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, " I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. [SUP]34[/SUP] They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

This also has a dual fulfillment. Jesus came as Messiah, the New Covenant began at the last supper and the ministers of the gospel is the New Covenant.

Not all Israel know Him yet, it's future. They won't be teaching know the Lord th his neighbor because they will all know Him.

Hi Desertrose, yes I've heard of dual fulfillment and that could be true but I've never seen that to be true. I'll use your example in your last sentence there.

"Not all Israel know Him yet, it's future. They won't be teaching know the Lord th his neighbor because they will all know Him."

All of physical Israel will never come to know the Lord, this is a false teching that comes from people who don't understand that passage. I am not talking about you , I'm sure you (like me) were taught that "all Israel" means all flesh descendants of Israel.... it does not mean that though.

Romans 11:26 KJV
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

All Israel in the verse above is spiritual Israel, the true Israel, the children of the promise. All of those children will be saved. The children of promise or spiritual Israel comes in 2 forms - saved Jews (Israel) and saved Gentiles (Israel). So all Israel, saved Jews and saved Geniles, will be saved. All of the promised seed both Jew and Gentile will be saved. So Jeremiah 31 has been fully fulfilled, there is no "other" part to be fulfilled later.

 

[ZEEK]

The teaching bit is to do with the end of the Levitical priesthood. imo.

There is a separate prophecy in Daniel for the separate AoD events, so the concept of dual fulfilment has no traction in that instance I am afraid DR

 

[valiant]

LUKE 2:4.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David,
which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

HEB. 7:14.
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

But Joseph adopted him. We don't know what tribe Mary came from.

 

[plainguy]

What passages in Revelation are, allegedly, referring to AD 70?

Just noticed what I wrote... ooops. Wasn't sure who you were talking to .. but I see it now. Insert prophecy where I wrote revelations.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by Ahwatukee

Yes, I do believe that he will arrive on the clouds of heaven and so does scripture:

"After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Jesus was taken up into heaven in a cloud and he will return arriving on the clouds of heaven, just as the scripture above states and Matt.24:30 proclaims

Acts 1 merely said that He would come in the flesh as they saw Him go in the flesh. The other details were extraneous.

His coming in the clouds of Heaven to God refers to Daniel 7.13-14.

 

[LaurenTM]

Do you even know what Revelation is about? There is nothing new in Revelation that wasn't already prophesied about in the Old Testament. Have you ever read Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Micah, Daniel or Isaiah?

well, of course you could not answer so you ask if I know what Revelation is about...also known as the deflect and go dark manouever

I imagine you are still hoping someone...anyone...well clue you in.....

anyone who understand what it IS about, understands that preterists become very defensive and go running off in all directions

you can't answer....you don't have the answer....so create an 'escape clause' in which you pretend to be so shocked at the dumb poster you have to deal with, that you can't answer

wait...that works both ways

 

[LaurenTM]

YAWN........

somebody send her a dictionary

she has a very limited vocabulary...

 

[LaurenTM]

But Joseph adopted him. We don't know what tribe Mary came from.

there are 2 genealogies of Jesus...through Matthew and one through Luke

they are not the same....Luke's begins with Adam...Matthew with Abraham

traditional Bible scholars, beginning with the historian Eusebius believe that Luke's lineage, is actually that of Mary

some modern Bible scholars believe both genealogies are made up

seems you either believe the Bible or you do not...the farther one has to go to prove their interpretation...such as Pretersim attempting to present all of Revelation as fulfilled, the farther from the faith presented in the gospels one actually goes

A conservative explanation, believing Luke's genealogy is actually Mary's is presented in the following article at CARM

Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?

Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side?) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There are differences of opinion with two main options being offered. The first is that one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

READ THE REST HERE

I would think any serious Bible student would know the above...whether or not they agree with it...rather than just surmise that Mary is a wild card of some sort



it is believed that Luke's genealogy is actually that of Mary

 

[ZEEK]

Nobody does know with certainty. We can only come to our own conclusion(s) by a preponderance of the evidence. But her implication was, and I think I have this right ... "Why would John write apocalyptically of an event (the destruction of Jerusalem) in 90 something A.D. if it already occurred in 70 A.D. ? ". This brings up an entirely new debate, naturally, that being .. when was the Book of Revelations written ? What should be obvious is that those who adhere to the late date theory (90's A.D.) are the futures crowd in pertaining to the destruction of Jerusalem etc. The early date adherents (pre 70 A.D.) see much/most of Revelations as pertaining to an audience/time period relevant people ...i.e. ... the Jews of that generation. Hope I've said enough here to clear up your inquiry .

Revelation was written in AD 96. That is well documented.

It seems that the argument that it was written pre AD96 is based on the fact John does not mention Jerusalem's destruction.

1) Is that true?
2) If God dictated it, then who are we to argue if Jerusalem's destruction is not mentioned?

 

[LaurenTM]

Revelation was written in AD 96. That is well documented.

It seems that the argument that it was written pre AD96 is based on the fact John does not mention Jerusalem's destruction.

1) Is that true?
2) If God dictated it, then who are we to argue if Jerusalem's destruction is not mentioned?

not if you are a Preterist as is the op and a few others

you CANNOT date Revelation anywhere near 90 anything AD...or it throws out your entire PRETERISM from the latin word praeter, meaning past or beyond

of course, snorting in derision is their usual reaction when presented with the more believable of the 2 dates

and yes, they make a big deal out of John not memorializing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD...and conclude that Revelation is a fullfilled prophecy and the Bible is basically an allegory with metaphors and few historical facts to confuse the rest of us who are not preterists or partial p's.

preterists just loose it if you jar their special timeline in any way!

 

[LaurenTM]

Originally Posted by LaurenTM

do you suppose that my offering of verses and context will be any different than those you have already denied?

seriously?

cause I don't...


KJV1611:

Are you capable of answering the question?

Edit to clarify. I mean are you capable of answering the question or are you going to continually make derogatory remarks to me. It gets really old. I like discussing the bible but you don't seem to want to discuss the issues.

your questions on Revelation have been answered many times

you don't accept the answers because they mess with your timeline

I understand that you cannot do otherwise

I did answer you...and you basically dodged and snorted at me as I noted in the posts above while your buddy used her apparently very limited vocabulary to create a small applause at your efforts

 

[ZEEK]

It was written 96AD.

 

[Desertsrose]

Hi Desertrose, yes I've heard of dual fulfillment and that could be true but I've never seen that to be true. I'll use your example in your last sentence there.

"Not all Israel know Him yet, it's future. They won't be teaching know the Lord th his neighbor because they will all know Him."

All of physical Israel will never come to know the Lord, this is a false teching that comes from people who don't understand that passage. I am not talking about you , I'm sure you (like me) were taught that "all Israel" means all flesh descendants of Israel.... it does not mean that though.

Romans 11:26 KJV
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

All Israel in the verse above is spiritual Israel, the true Israel, the children of the promise. All of those children will be saved. The children of promise or spiritual Israel comes in 2 forms - saved Jews (Israel) and saved Gentiles (Israel). So all Israel, saved Jews and saved Geniles, will be saved. All of the promised seed both Jew and Gentile will be saved. So Jeremiah 31 has been fully fulfilled, there is no "other" part to be fulfilled later.

Hi KJV, I've actually been taught both ways, one from a Baptist Church another from a Conservative Charismatic Church. I didn't really know what I believed until I read Ezekiel. Have you read Ezekiel?

One of the things I've noticed you do is to take a lot of scripture figurative instead of literal. The way I've been taught, which I believe is the correct way to read and study scripture is to take it all as literal, unless it's obvious that is figurative or metaphorical. So for instance when Jesus says He's a door or a gate, we know He's not literally a door or gate.

Using one of your previous posts, I do believe the stars will fall from the heavens and I do believe Jesus will come in the clouds. It's not obviously figurative so we take it literally. I know of so many believers who pick and choose what they want as literal and what they want as figurative. There's no rhyme or reason, and it makes no sense at all.

So when we read about the nation of Israel with the 12 tribes and their physical plots of land, etc., there's no way our Father in heaven is speaking of spiritual Israel.

The all Israel is referring to the 1/3 of the Jews who are left (the remnant) after the other 2/3rds have died. The end times is not easily understood and there's many prophets who prophesied about God's promises to the natural physical Jewish nation. There are pieces to the puzzle all throughout. God has made promises to the Jewish nation that never came to pass. They are still to happen in their future. I agree that the spiritual Israel is made up of Jew and gentile, one in Messiah.

How come you can't seem to separate the natural physical nation from the spiritual. There are obvious scriptures that speak of the natural physical nation and you seem to always want to attribute those scriptures to the spiritual Israel?

 

[kaylagrl]

So Zeek,want to discuss this in regards to Replacement Theology?!


Quote "The main reason to march on Israel is to get rid of a terrorist state that is an existential threat to the world, and the root cause of most of the world's problems"

 

[KJV1611]

So Zeek,want to discuss this in regards to Replacement Theology?!


Quote "The main reason to march on Israel is to get rid of a terrorist state that is an existential threat to the world, and the root cause of most of the world's problems"

I would like to know why you're so supportive of a bunch Palestinian murdering, Jesus hating Jews.

 

[kaylagrl]

I would like to know why you're so supportive of a bunch Palestinian murdering, Jesus hating Jews.

And
between you and Zeek Ive proved my argument about Replacement (under all its disguises) are anti-semtic. As Golda Meir said "Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." Its not Israel that is doing the murdering,they are defending themselves. Or do you not agree with self defense or would you be fine with a man popping up from a tunnel in your backyard with your wife and children defenseless? Jesus hating Jews? All those who are unsaved hate God and His commands,why pick out the Jews in particular? To bad Hitler didn't kill them all huh? As Ive said time and again,replacement = anti-semetic,haven't been proven wrong yet. And your attitude is anti-christ.

 

[KJV1611]

And
between you and Zeek Ive proved my argument about Replacement (under all its disguises) are anti-semtic. As Golda Meir said "Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." Its not Israel that is doing the murdering,they are defending themselves. Or do you not agree with self defense or would you be fine with a man popping up from a tunnel in your backyard with your wife and children defenseless? Jesus hating Jews? All those who are unsaved hate God and His commands,why pick out the Jews in particular? To bad Hitler didn't kill them all huh? As Ive said time and again,replacement = anti-semetic,haven't been proven wrong yet. And your attitude is anti-christ.

Those people in Israel right now are not God's people. If they are then they would still be in exile... read the coditions below for Israel to return to the land. Now tell me, does those people in Israel right now meet that requirement?

Leviticus 26:40-42 KJV
If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
[41] And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
[42] Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

I don't have anything against Jews, thery're lost people just like any other lost people.