Replacement/Supersessionism Theology,Why it Matters

[Angela53510]

It is incorrect to say that apantesis means 'meet and return'. It occurs regularly in LXX with the simple meaning of meeting, for example, in battle. See 1 Sam 4.1 and often.

Yes, well, the LXX is a translation. It can give us some idea of word meanings, but it is best to check NT words against the same word in the NT. The LXX was translated some 300 years before Christ. Word meanings changed a lot in that time. And as someone who has studied both Greek and Hebrew, and done word studies and compared the LXX to the NT words, and back to the Hebrew, I can assure you that the LXX is approximate, and sometimes even different than the same word in the NT. If you want examples, I can provide, but I am not on my computer, and I have to go out right away, so it will take me a while.

 

[DP]

Great assertions again without any facts. I am still looking for the facts that premillennialism has always been the teaching of scripture. Most of you don't even give credit to the person who in the modern, most recent times, the last 200 years, originated the basis of the more recent advocates who themselves cannot agree just what it means.

There is a vast difference between what the Bible is teaching according to the Apostles who were given the revelation for this Messianic Age, than what some man thinks it might mean. One would think that the Bible arrived by mail to Miller and Darby and it was up to them to determine what it might mean. The sad fact is that even after 200 years, no one can actually factually state what the theory actually means. It constantly is evolving with every new proponent thinking he has the better idea. Hardly the Gospel once given in the beginning 2000 years ago.

So, where are the facts, not man's opinions that premillennialism has always been a teaching of scripture?

Did anyone ever say premillennialism has always been the teaching of Scripture? I missed that if someone here said it.

Nor should anyone say amellennialism has always been the teaching of Scripture either, because most of the early 1st & 2nd century Church fathers were premillennialists. And I think I've already posted that evidence from their writings and witness by later 3rd and 4th century Church fathers.

 

[DP]

God hasn't rejected all of Israel, there are still some who come to faith in Christ just like Paul did. There is a remnant, but salvation on a large scale has left Israel and is gone to the Gentiles. But there will still be Jews to be saved... not because they are Jews, but because they are God's elect just like I'm God's elect.... elect meaning chosen by Him to inherit the promises made to Abraham and his seed Christ.

But you are missing the fact that God Himself preserved a remnant of Israel that would believe, just like He told Elijah when he thought he was the only prophet left in the days of Jezebel.

And when Jesus chose His Apostles, we are shown He went up to them and commanded them to follow Him. He didn't ask first if they believed. They got up and left what they were doing and followed Him.

Apostle Paul was even a special example of this per Acts 9, for Paul (then Saul) was a devout follower of the Pharisees and was hunting down Christians on the way to Damascus when Jesus directly intervened with Paul, and removed any doubt.

When God appeared to Moses, could there be any doubt that God had chosen him? same with Abraham, Noah, etc. With Jeremiah, God said He knew him before he was in his mother's womb.

God even said He chose Israel over all nations to be a special people to Himself:

Ex 19:5-6
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine:
6 And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
KJV


Deut 7:6
6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
KJV

At the same time, I would warn those of the seed of Israel to not be haughty either, because the purpose of God's choosing there about being "a kingdom of priests" means in God's service to... all other peoples. That's means not being a burden upon the nations, but being a help to the nations. The greatest in His Kingdom is also to be the greatest servant. God chose Israel to be the bearers, protectors, and ambassadors of The Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations. And He has done that with lost Israel and the remnant of Israel that He preserved (Rom.11) along with Gentiles that also have believed on Jesus Christ.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant

It is incorrect to say that apantesis means 'meet and return'. It occurs regularly in LXX with the simple meaning of meeting, for example, in battle. See 1 Sam 4.1 and often.

Yes, well, the LXX is a translation. It can give us some idea of word meanings, but it is best to check NT words against the same word in the NT. The LXX was translated some 300 years before Christ.

The LXX translation COMMENCED 300 years before Christ but it continued on for centuries and copies we have are much later than that and were revised. Furthermore the NT writers grew up on and continually used LXX. Thus they would take the way it used words as a guide. The NT does not have its own Greek. It used common koine Greek. And this is especially important with a word used only four times. LOL how can you possibly say what it means from only four uses, two of which are parallels, and one of which is the one being questioned?

I too am well versed in Greek and Hebrew at advanced level, having won prizes for it along the way. As I am sure you know the actual translation is not 'meet' but 'unto a meeting'. In view of the wide external evidence and the almost total lack of NT evidence I will dogmatically repeat that it DOES NOT have intrinsic within it the meaning 'meet and return with the one met'. That is purely wishful thinking.

Word meanings changed a lot in that time. And as someone who has studied both Greek and Hebrew, and done word studies and compared the LXX to the NT words, and back to the Hebrew, I can assure you that the LXX is approximate, and sometimes even different than the same word in the NT. If you want examples, I can provide, but I am not on my computer, and I have to go out right away, so it will take me a while.

I am sorry but this argument does not hold. The external sources agree with LXX and the NT evidence is totally inconclusive.

 

[kaylagrl]

I am not aware that anyone apart from God has blamed 'all Jews' for the crucifixion of Christ. But I seem to remember that God destroyed 'all Jews' in 70 AD. He did not discriminate apart from those who were still part of the true Israel, the election of Israel, whom He saved through prophecy. However, that was that generation, not Jews living since.

We ALL crucified Christ. So how can we blame others?



True but a different view was taken in Acts 4.25-27





Hardly an unbiased witness An understandably bitter man trying to find something to blame.



well if the Roman Catholic church denounces it, it MUST be right. They are no judge of true doctrine.





Now that is simply a lie. There is no hiding the fact. In my view you simply ignore the New Testament because of your bias.




I forgive you because you are a woman. If you thought logically you would realise that you are reading into my views something totally foreign to them. I do not judge the Jews one way or the other. They are in God's hands. I simply teach what God has said about the situation that Jesus Christ the Messiah brought into fruition the true Israel, rejecting the unbelieving.





And that's your opinion. None of the men you cited, however bad their behaviour, taught those things. You just make sweeping generalisatons





LOL how can a theology which makes one claim to be semitic be anti-semitic? Beats me lol But then you are a woman. Logic is not your strong point





None of those quotes mentioned replacement theology (which I don't believe in. The new church WAS the true Israel. It did not replace it. God broke the unbelievers off.





WE are His chosen people. God rejected them. However we are responsible for how we treat ALL people.





Lol I prefer to live in the Apostolic past when the Apostles taught that we are the true Israel (John 15.1-6; Matt 21.43; Rom 11.12-24; Eph 2.11-22; 1 Peter 1.9; Gal 3.29; James 1.1; etc)





Of course it is NOT. No one suggests a replacement. The true Israel continued on in the persons of the Apostles and all the Jews who were converted by them. For a number of years only Jews formed the church, and there were a great many of them. They were the true Israel abiding in the true vine. Unbelieving Jews were cast off. So Israel continued on in those who believed in the Messiah. Then God showed them that they had to accept Gentile proselytes as Israel always had done. Those Gentiles then became Israelites. And so the true Israel continued to grow until it is what it is today.

Unbelieving Jews are no longer a part of Israel. Not are unbelieving Gentiles. I do not believe in persecuting any of them. But I do believe that they are under the wrath of God.





I have written a commentary on it, and in order to do that you have to understand it thoroughly, So I think I know it better than you do.





My pleasure and no offence intended

Quote "We ALL crucified Christ. So how can we blame others?"

Ahh Im glad to hear you say that! There's hope for you yet!

Quote "True but a different view was taken in Acts 4.25-27"

Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus.

That does not say all Jews are culpable. Jews and Gentiles both share blame,our sin sent him to the cross. But to pin Jews as Christ killers is wrong. Im glad you dont agree with that.


Quote "Hardly an unbiased witness An understandably bitter man trying to find something to blame."

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] Sooo all history is written by unbiased people? Well thats nice to know. One person writing on the subject was simply an example. That doesnt constitute every person who has written on the subject.And Im certain they are not all biased.


Quote "[/FONT]well if the Roman Catholic church denounces it, it MUST be right. They are no judge of true doctrine."

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] Ok we've agreed twice,no Im scared. No the RCC is certainly no judge of truth imo but I said "among other churches" I mentioned the RCC because they were the biggest "teacher" of Replacement Theology starting with the church fathers.

Quote "[/FONT]Now that is simply a lie. There is no hiding the fact. In my view you simply ignore the New Testament because of your bias."

Yeah the "I know you are but what am I " routine has gone on for twenty pages. I think we both know where the other is coming from.

Quote "And that's your opinion. None of the men you cited, however bad their behaviour, taught those things. You just make sweeping generalisatons "

Dont get what you're saying here.Are you talking of the church fathers? Please expand on this part.

Quote "LOL how can a theology which makes one claim to be semitic be anti-semitic? Beats me lol But then you are a woman. Logic is not your strong point"

So because you claim promises that arent yours you are semtic? You take promises of the Jews then claim to be a Jew in their stead and leave them with all the curses.Well how sweet of you! I know women just arent logical. But its scientifically proven that we women use both sides of our brain while men only use half. Perhaps thats why you embrace an old theology, that has been renounced by sensible people, that goes in circles and allegorizes half the Bible to prove it.


Quote "None of those quotes mentioned replacement theology (which I don't believe in. The new church WAS the true Israel. It did not replace it. God broke the unbelievers off.

Call it hanging out the wash,I dont care.If you believe the church now has the promises that belonged to the Jews you believe replacement theology,or a form of it.

Quote "WE are His chosen people. God rejected them. However we are responsible for how we treat ALL people."

God has not rejected them. When you got up this morning was the sun still there? Were there stars last night? Then God hasn't changed his mind.The promises remain.

Quote "Lol I prefer to live in the Apostolic past"

Well just do that to your little hearts content.One day God may open your eyes. Just remember this illogical female told you the truth first.

Quote "Unbelieving Jews are no longer a part of Israel."

Not according to Romans 11.

Quote "I do not believe in persecuting any of them. But I do believe that they are under the wrath of God."

Well Im happy to hear the first part. Anyone that hasnt accepted Christ is under Gods wrath. But according to Romans 11 they will become believers when they see "whom they have pierced"


Quote "I have written a commentary on it, and in order to do that you have to understand it thoroughly, So I think I know it better than you do."

You did? And who published you? You may well know it better then I,but you dont know it better then God. You say you dont believe in the RCC but you seem to indicate here that a regular person cant read the Bible for themselves and understand it. You dont believe that now do you?


Oops missed one...

I forgive you because you are a woman. If you thought logically you would realise that you are reading into my views something totally foreign to them. I do not judge the Jews one way or the other. They are in God's hands. I simply teach what God has said about the situation that Jesus Christ the Messiah brought into fruition the true Israel, rejecting the unbelieving.

Well once again you can call it whatever you will but you're still holding the theory that the church gets all the blessings that belong to Israel and that is replacement theology.But i'll forgive you even more so because you are a man and only using half a brain.

Quote "My pleasure and no offence intended "


Me neither.If we're lucky they wont kick us both off the sight.I enjoy the thrust and parry but I dont think the mods do.



















[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

 

[vanscyocdavid]

while the Jews are god children were Gods original children hey are no longer his people Paul said there is neither Jew nor Gentile how do we interpret that

 

[valiant]

Valiant said - "We ALL crucified Christ. So how can we blame others?"

Ahh Im glad to hear you say that! There's hope for you yet!

Phew lol

Valiant - "True but a different view was taken in Acts 4.25-27"

Indeed Herod

and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus.

That does not say all Jews are culpable. Jews and Gentiles both share blame,our sin sent him to the cross. But to pin Jews as Christ killers is wrong. Im glad you dont agree with that.

But it DOES cite Psalm 2 and turns 'the peoples' (Gentiles) in Psalm 2 into 'the people of Israel'. Thus the early Christians who were the true people of Israel (no Gentiles at that time) saw the unbelieving people of Israel as the equivalent of Gentiles!!! Very significant.

Valiant - "

Hardly an unbiased witness An understandably bitter man trying to find something to blame."

Sooo all history is written by unbiased people? Well thats nice to know. One person writing on the subject was simply an example. That doesnt constitute every person who has written on the subject.And Im certain they are not all biased.

LOL and I am absolutely certain that they did not all come to your conclusion. In all history we must discern the bias otherwise we will be led astray.

Valiant "

well if the Roman Catholic church denounces it, it MUST be right. They are no judge of true doctrine."

Ok we've agreed twice,no Im scared.

LOL Gotcha!

No the RCC is certainly no judge of truth imo but I said "among other churches" I mentioned the RCC because they were the biggest "teacher" of Replacement Theology starting with the church fathers.

well I'm not convinced that the church fathers saw the church as Israel. You will have to prove that (fifty citations will do ).

Valiant - "

Now that is simply a lie (that I ignore verse after verse). There is no hiding the fact. In my view you simply ignore the New Testament because of your bias."

Yeah the "I know you are but what am I " routine has gone on for twenty pages. I think we both know where the other is coming from.

Valiant - "

And that's your opinion. None of the men you cited, however bad their behaviour, taught those things. You just make sweeping generalisatons "

Dont get what you're saying here.Are you talking of the church fathers? Please expand on this part.

I am saying that none of the early fathers spoke of the kind of thing that Hitler did. Hitler did not get his ideas from them (he may have got some from the RC church but that is another matter)

"

LOL how can a theology which makes one claim to be semitic be anti-semitic? Beats me lol But then you are a woman. Logic is not your strong point"

So because you claim promises that arent yours you are semitic?

Because our claim is to be made one with the early and continuing Jewish believers we are certainly making ourselves semitic. We would hardly do that if we were anti-Jewish

You take promises of the Jews then claim to be a Jew in their stead and leave them with all the curses.

LOL I don't put any curses on them. Have a word with God about the curses HE put on them.

Well how sweet of you!

Yep that's me

I know women just arent logical.

It is an acknowledged scientific FACT that on the whole men are 'logical' thinkers and women are 'intuitive' thinkers.

But its scientifically proven that we women use both sides of our brain while men only use half

I will refrain from a cutting remark that comes to mind

. Perhaps thats why you embrace an old theology, that has been renounced by sensible people, that goes in circles and

allegorizes half the Bible to prove it.

I acknowledge my theology is old. It is 1st century AD and is found in the New Testament. I know a lot of people have renounced it following the mythical ideas of some of the 2nd century early fathers who were very poor interpreters of the word. That is sad.

Valiant said - "

None of those quotes (of the early fathers) mentioned replacement theology (which I don't believe in. The new church WAS the true Israel. It did not replace it. God broke the unbelievers off).

Call it hanging out the wash,I dont care.If you believe the church now has the promises that belonged to the Jews you believe replacement theology,or a form of it.

No the promises were to ISRAEL. And having become proselytes of the Messiah believing Jewish Christian church we ARE, like them, Israel.

Do you realise that you people disinherit the believing Jews for the sake of the unbelieving Jews?. Theological madness.

Valiant said- "

WE are His chosen people. God rejected them. However we are responsible for how we treat ALL people."

God has not rejected them.

LOL 70 AD? The great tribulation on the Jews which has lasted for 2000 years? Sounds like rejection to me.

When you got up this morning was the sun still there?

No LOL just rain and cloud

Were there stars last night?

Nope LOL

Then God hasn't changed his mind.The promises remain.

Of course they remain - as applicable to the true believing Israel. This is the point you miss. Israel did not cease. It continued on in the believers in the Messiah. And they were augmented by Gentile proselytes just as had always happened. WE ARE ISRAEL We have not replaced it.

Valiant said "

Lol I prefer to live in the Apostolic past"

Well just do that to your little hearts content.One day God may open your eyes. Just remember this illogical female told you the truth first.

I have continually studied the word for 65 tears under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I am sure that He has not directed me wrongly Soon I will be in a place where I can say, 'see, Lynn was wrong,' LOL

"

Unbelieving Jews are no longer a part of Israel."

Not according to Romans 11.

yes Romans 11.12-24 is very specific about it. The olive tree - the true Israel Jer 1.16 - is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, whilst unbelieving Jews are cut off. These true believers are the all Israel which will be saved. They are the election, beloved for the fathers' sakes.

"

I do not believe in persecuting any of them. But I do believe that they are under the wrath of God."

Well Im happy to hear the first part. Anyone that hasnt accepted Christ is under Gods wrath. But according to Romans 11 they will become believers when they see "whom they have pierced"

LOL Rom 11 makes no mention of 'Him Whom they have pierced' - try Revelation Some unbelieving Jews may become Messiah believers and thus become part of the true Israel, the church. But certainly not all Jews around the world. Conversion of everyone has never happened and never will. It is not God's way. The all Israel who will be saved are the true Israel..

"I have written a commentary on it, and in order to do that you have to understand it thoroughly, So I think I know it better than you do."

You did? And who published you? You may well know it better then I,but you dont know it better then God.

No thats why I'm glad that HE showed me what it meant

You say you dont believe in the RCC but you seem to indicate here that a regular person cant read the Bible for themselves and understand it. You dont believe that now do you?

Yes and no. Obviously individuals can be helped by the Holy Spirit to come to a certain level of truth, but I know from my own experience how long it takes to understand it in depth. I brought 60 years of learning to my study of Romans.

Incidentally as a bright young man I wrote a book defending pretrib. I am ashamed of it now. I was so naïve. But God gradually showed me all the fallacies I was accepting in order to hold that false position.


O

ops missed one...

Hope it didn't hurt LOL

Valiant said - I forgive you because you are a woman. If you thought logically you would realise that you are reading into my views something totally foreign to them. I do not judge the Jews one way or the other. They are in God's hands. I simply teach what God has said about the situation that Jesus Christ the Messiah brought into fruition the true Israel, rejecting the unbelieving.

Well once again you can call it whatever you will but you're still holding the theory that the church gets all the blessings that belong to Israel and that is replacement theology.

Only because IT IS ISRAEL. Don't you see how your labels hide from you what we really believe?

I'm not quite clear. Don't you believe that God's blessings are poured out on His church? You have a funny idea of Christianity.

But i'll forgive you even more so because you are a man and only using half a brain.

Being a man that's all I need LOL

"

My pleasure and no offence intended "

Me neither.If we're lucky they wont kick us both off the site. I enjoy the thrust and parry but I dont think the mods do.

I think they can see that we are not offending each other



By the way if you put ]quote[ at the beginning and ]/quote[ at the end of a passage (with the brackets the other way round) it will be shown as an inset.

 

[kaylagrl]

while the Jews are god children were Gods original children hey are no longer his people Paul said there is neither Jew nor Gentile how do we interpret that

Read back the first couple pages,this has been answered already.

 

[kaylagrl]

Phew lol

[/SIZE]





But it DOES cite Psalm 2 and turns 'the peoples' (Gentiles) in Psalm 2 into 'the people of Israel'. Thus the early Christians who were the true people of Israel (no Gentiles at that time) saw the unbelieving people of Israel as the equivalent of Gentiles!!! Very significant.






LOL and I am absolutely certain that they did not all come to your conclusion. In all history we must discern the bias otherwise we will be led astray.





LOL Gotcha!



well I'm not convinced that the church fathers saw the church as Israel. You will have to prove that (fifty citations will do ).









I am saying that none of the early fathers spoke of the kind of thing that Hitler did. Hitler did not get his ideas from them (he may have got some from the RC church but that is another matter)





Because our claim is to be made one with the early and continuing Jewish believers we are certainly making ourselves semitic. We would hardly do that if we were anti-Jewish



LOL I don't put any curses on them. Have a word with God about the curses HE put on them.



Yep that's me



It is an acknowledged scientific FACT that on the whole men are 'logical' thinkers and women are 'intuitive' thinkers.



I will refrain from a cutting remark that comes to mind



I acknowledge my theology is old. It is 1st century AD and is found in the New Testament. I know a lot of people have renounced it following the mythical ideas of some of the 2nd century early fathers who were very poor interpreters of the word. That is sad.





No the promises were to ISRAEL. And having become proselytes of the Messiah believing Jewish Christian church we ARE, like them, Israel.

Do you realise that you people disinherit the believing Jews for the sake of the unbelieving Jews?. Theological madness.





LOL 70 AD? The great tribulation on the Jews which has lasted for 2000 years? Sounds like rejection to me.



No LOL just rain and cloud



Nope LOL



Of course they remain - as applicable to the true believing Israel. This is the point you miss. Israel did not cease. It continued on in the believers in the Messiah. And they were augmented by Gentile proselytes just as had always happened. WE ARE ISRAEL We have not replaced it.





I have continually studied the word for 65 tears under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I am sure that He has not directed me wrongly Soon I will be in a place where I can say, 'see, Lynn was wrong,' LOL





yes Romans 11.12-24 is very specific about it. The olive tree - the true Israel Jer 1.16 - is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, whilst unbelieving Jews are cut off. These true believers are the all Israel which will be saved. They are the election, beloved for the fathers' sakes.





LOL Rom 11 makes no mention of 'Him Whom they have pierced' - try Revelation Some unbelieving Jews may become Messiah believers and thus become part of the true Israel, the church. But certainly not all Jews around the world. Conversion of everyone has never happened and never will. It is not God's way. The all Israel who will be saved are the true Israel..





No thats why I'm glad that HE showed me what it meant



Yes and no. Obviously individuals can be helped by the Holy Spirit to come to a certain level of truth, but I know from my own experience how long it takes to understand it in depth. I brought 60 years of learning to my study of Romans.

Incidentally as a bright young man I wrote a book defending pretrib. I am ashamed of it now. I was so naïve. But God gradually showed me all the fallacies I was accepting in order to hold that false position.


O

Hope it didn't hurt LOL





Only because IT IS ISRAEL. Don't you see how your labels hide from you what we really believe?

I'm not quite clear. Don't you believe that God's blessings are poured out on His church? You have a funny idea of Christianity.



Being a man that's all I need LOL






I think they can see that we are not offending each other



By the way if you put ]quote[ at the beginning and ]/quote[ at the end of a passage (with the brackets the other way round) it will be shown as an inset.

Another one I will have to get back to you on. I have a hubby coming home from work and ready for supper.
BTW the cutting comment you bit back on the "half a brain" comment Ive already heard.I wont let you know what my response was... You wouldnt have gotten that comment if you hadnt thrown out the insult to women. Ask crossnote about the dog,he bites!


Now we need to find something we agree on and start a thread on that.I like you dang it,you're growing on me like stink on a skunk.Knock that off! And no,Im not changing my theology, I dont like you nearly that much.

 

[Cassian]

Did anyone ever say premillennialism has always been the teaching of Scripture? I missed that if someone here said it.

No one has to this point, but that is precisely what you must do to show evidence that it has always been understood scripturally from the beginning. So, far all that has been presented are tenets of some the more well known proponents, mostly all within the last 50- 60 years.

Nor should anyone say amellennialism has always been the teaching of Scripture either, because most of the early 1st & 2nd century Church fathers were premillennialists. And I think I've already posted that evidence from their writings and witness by later 3rd and 4th century Church fathers.

Which is why you become so confused. You assume that Church Fathers do what you do. Unfortunately for you they were never sola scripturist. The Church never depended on what they said. Man never determined what scripture or God's original deposit of His revelation means. That was all given by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles.

Just so you know and become enlightened. There were only a few Church Fathers, all from Asia Minor, who wrote about some of the premillennial ideas from Cerintheis, Papias being the first. The Church itself never held these views. As I have already mentioned twice, the Church condemned the primitive premil teachings of these few Church Fathers in 381. They condemned them because they did not align with scripture. They conflicted with scripture. The view that has always been held is what today is called amillennialism. It is this view that the Holy Spirit gave in the beginning and has preserved unchanghed for 2000 years.

However, I'm sure that you and other premillennial/dispensational proponents will continue to attempt to fine out just what it might mean. That it does not align with scripture is not what is important. Only the persons self interpretationis what is important. You have not reached consensus yet during the last 200 years that the view has had some traction. There will always be some man who will impose is best intellectual effort, just as you claimed, to attempt to better develop the view and thus gain a name for himself. Most of it makes for good movie scripts and good science fiction.

 

[Bookends]

Im seeing many posts here lately that worry me. It seems some Christians here dont understand replacement theology,why it is heresy and why it is dangerous. They dont know the history of this theology and the harm done to the Jewish people. So I hope to discuss it here.

First a definition :Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology, is a Christian theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish peopleand Judaism.It holds that the Christian Church has replaced the Israelites as God'schosen peopleand that the New Covenant has replaced or superseded the Mosaic covenant. From a supersessionist's "point of view, just by continuing to exist, the Jews dissent".This view directly contrasts with dual-covenant theology which holds that the Mosaic Covenant remains valid for Jews. Supersessionism formed a core tenet of the Church for the majority of its existence, and remains a common assumption among Christians. Since the Holocaust some mainstream Christian theologians and denominationshave rejected supersessionism. Wikipedia

So to open, did you know that Hilter wasn't the first to put Jews in ghettos and make them wear the yellow Star of David? Do you know that it was Pope Pius VII who began this persecution of the Jews? And that some of the church Fathers before him were antisemitic? The Jews are under attack once again and it greatly disturbs me to see "Christians" so called also persecuting Jews. So Ive started off and will continue to add to the thread along the way. Id like to discuss the history of the early church,the beginning of antisemitism, and why Christians should support,not persecute,the Jews. Feel free to add any thoughts. Please do not derail the thread for you own purposes. I will bring it back on point if you do!

Just FYI, I believe the Church is a continuation of Israel, not a replacement. However, I believe replacement theology has more biblical support then your dispensational, premil, future millennial golden age theology. I also believe replacement theology is less dangerous then your eschatological system. But lets put this aside, for each of our systems are pretty much ingrained in our brain/belief system that whatever I say or you say will not change each other's thinking. All I'd like to do is ask you a few questions about Matthew 21:43.

43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

(Please read the whole chapter to get the context and answer my questions)

1. Who was Jesus talking to?
2. Who is Jesus reprimanding?
3. Who is this other nation?

 

[Bookends]

We have been grafted in.

grafted into what?


hint: Ephesians 2
[h=3]Brought Near by His Blood[/h]

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

 

[valiant]

Did anyone ever say premillennialism has always been the teaching of Scripture? I missed that if someone here said it.

Nor should anyone say amellennialism has always been the teaching of Scripture either, because most of the early 1st & 2nd century Church fathers were premillennialists. And I think I've already posted that evidence from their writings and witness by later 3rd and 4th century Church fathers.

LOL I would love to see the evidence from the 1st century fathers (of whom there was only one)

 

[Bookends]

Well Id rather you walk away if you couldnt properly add to the thread. But it is not garbage. It is a heretical theology and a way satan uses to persecute the Jews. Every Christian should know the truth about it.

Most Christians of your view believe and support that we should help and encourage Jews to go back to their homeland, whereas, they will eventually be in a battle and 1/3 of the Jews will die, 1/3 of the Jews will be scattered again.

The worst persecution you could possibly give them is to keep them from knowing who their King really is, and from entering the Kingdom God has setup with is son on the throne of David now (Acts 2).

 

[wolfwint]

"The view that has always been held is what today is called amillennialism. It is this view that the Holy Spirit gave in the beginning and has preserved unchanghed for 2000 years." from valliant

Well, what is obvisiouly is the fact. "Amillenanialism" and "pre ore post ore How ever millenianialism" are cant find a solution, because of the different using from hermeneutic and exegesic tools. Even when we talk about the same vers we can got different meanings.
So an amillenialist can argue with an amillenialist because they have the same base of hermeneutic and exegetic. If an amillenialist is argue with a premillenialist the cant come to an solution!

But the matter is not what we are believing, but what the Lord says.
We can discuss about any doctrine, but we have limits. Limits then when we try to say God what he has to do, ore how something should come.


I suppose we all would agree if we say that the Lord God will fulfill his promisses which he has made in the past.
If we state that the Volk of Israel (Jacob) has no future and that the church is now the true Israel, then we also must say that God will not fulfill his promisses which he made in the OT through the prophets to the nation of Israel!
But if God will not keep the promisses which he has made, then what reason we should have to trust his prommises which he made for us?

If you believe that God will not keep his promisses with his nation Israel as he has prommised in the OT, then you are not on a biblical way!
F.e. the book of Joel is not fulfilled yet, even when Peter quotet this partly in Act 2.

If you deny that the volk of Israel is Gods choosen Volk, even it is present far away from the Lord, then your teaching is wrong and against God himself. The teaching of so called "amillenianism" is not going along with Gods sight with his volk Israel. Of course I will not change your mind. But it comes as the Lord will and not how we think it will come. And for that I am glad! He is full of mercy and love! More then we deserve!
Hope you will find the truth!

 

[wolfwint]

Sorry I wrote wrongly that the quote was from Valliant but it was from Cassian. Excuse me please!!

 

[kaylagrl]

Just FYI, I believe the Church is a continuation of Israel, not a replacement. However, I believe replacement theology has more biblical support then your dispensational, premil, future millennial golden age theology. I also believe replacement theology is less dangerous then your eschatological system. But lets put this aside, for each of our systems are pretty much ingrained in our brain/belief system that whatever I say or you say will not change each other's thinking. All I'd like to do is ask you a few questions about Matthew 21:43.

43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

(Please read the whole chapter to get the context and answer my questions)

1. Who was Jesus talking to?
2. Who is Jesus reprimanding?
3. Who is this other nation?

Im afraid you are right,we wont change each others minds. Replacement Theology has been responsible for antisemitism down through history. Of course those who believe the theology wont admit this. To change the name doesnt change the belief. Unfortunately your questions have been answered again and again in these pages and anyone who jumps in is just starting the circle again. Romans 11 is clear,God is not done with the Jews.

 

[valiant]

"The view that has always been held is what today is called amillennialism. It is this view that the Holy Spirit gave in the beginning and has preserved unchanghed for 2000 years." from valliant

Well, what is obvisiouly is the fact. "Amillenanialism" and "pre ore post ore How ever millenianialism" are cant find a solution, because of the different using from hermeneutic and exegesic tools. Even when we talk about the same vers we can got different meanings.
So an amillenialist can argue with an amillenialist because they have the same base of hermeneutic and exegetic. If an amillenialist is argue with a premillenialist the cant come to an solution!

But the matter is not what we are believing, but what the Lord says.
We can discuss about any doctrine, but we have limits. Limits then when we try to say God what he has to do, ore how something should come.


I suppose we all would agree if we say that the Lord God will fulfill his promisses which he has made in the past.
If we state that the Volk of Israel (Jacob) has no future and that the church is now the true Israel, then we also must say that God will not fulfill his promisses which he made in the OT through the prophets to the nation of Israel!
But if God will not keep the promisses which he has made, then what reason we should have to trust his prommises which he made for us?

This simply brings out that you do not even understand what we teach. WE ARE the new nation of Israel promised by Jesus (Mtt 21.43). WE ARE the true Israel (John 15.-6). And GOD IS fulfilling His promise TO US, the nation of Israel.

Furthermore Hebrew 11 tells us that the promises to Abraham are to be fulfilled in a heavenly land (Heb 11.10-16). Now I know premills prefer to IGNORE the New Testament if it does not agree with their view. But tHAT is th FACT.

If you believe that God will not keep his promisses with his nation Israel as he has prommised in the OT, then you are not on a biblical way!

see above

F.e. the book of Joel is not fulfilled yet, even when Peter quotet this partly in Act 2.

Peter said THIS IS THAT. If you disagree, prove it. I prefer to believe the New Testament

If you deny that the volk of Israel is Gods choosen Volk, even it is present far away from the Lord, then your teaching is wrong and against God himself

Yes we ARE God's chose volk. See 1 pet 1.9.

The teaching of so called "amillenianism" is not going along with Gods sight with his volk Israel.

well not in the eyes of the blind lol

Of course I will not change your mind. But it comes as the Lord will and not how we think it will come. And for that I am glad! He is full of mercy and love! More then we deserve!
Hope you will find the truth!

we have. God pulled me out of the mire of premill and showed me what the Bible ACTUALLY says and means

 

[mpaper345]

We should support the Jews,for the Old Testament covenant was given to them,in which the Gentile could take hold of that covenant,and the New Testament covenant was given to the Jews,in which the Gentile can take hold of that covenant.

Jesus said that salvation is of the Jews,and the nation of Israel has to come to the truth that Jesus is their Messiah.

God said that the Gentile should not boast against Israel,because if they being a wild olive branch can be grafted in to the tree,how much more can the Jew be grafted in to the tree.

God said He is going to make a full end of all Gentile nations,but He will not make a full end of Israel,but they will not be wholly unpunished,and the nation of Israel will be the only operating government during the millennial reign of Christ.

The truth is Israel is the Church,in which the Gentile can take hold of that covenant,and God said He always has a remnant of Jews that follow Him in the truth,even when they were rebellious majority wise.

The Church does not replace Israel,for Israel is the Church,and the New Testament covenant was given to them,and Israel will be the only operating government in the millennial reign of Christ,and the new earth will be called the New Jerusalem.

God chosen people are the Jews,and are only the Jews,and when a Gentile gets saved,then they become a Jew inward,and can be a part of God's chosen people,the Jews.

 

[kaylagrl]

Most Christians of your view believe and support that we should help and encourage Jews to go back to their homeland, whereas, they will eventually be in a battle and 1/3 of the Jews will die, 1/3 of the Jews will be scattered again.

The worst persecution you could possibly give them is to keep them from knowing who their King really is, and from entering the Kingdom God has setup with is son on the throne of David now (Acts 2).

Nope,dont believe in helping send Jews back to their homeland.God is and will do that. His plan,not mine.I disagree with those sending money to some random charity that "says" their helping Jews go back to their homeland. I do believe in helping charities to support Jews like any other charity.