Revolution in Iran

[Cameron143]

Maybe they should try to remember the 1st commandment.
Thou shall not have any god before me.
No earthly political group before God.

What earthly political group do you believe I place above God?

 

[Churchgoer]

What earthly political group do you believe I place above God?

Not you haha

Them.

 

[ZNP]

The proposed argument can be falsified at its foundation. Its central mistake is moving from grammatical plurality—six infinitives—to an alleged continuous fulfilment throughout the Church Age. That conclusion does not follow from the Hebrew syntax.

The decisive problems​

First, six objectives do not imply six successive historical eras. A single decree or program can contain several distinguishable purposes that are accomplished together, partly together, or at designated points within the stated period. For example, one military campaign may be commissioned “to defeat the enemy, liberate the city, restore the government, secure the border, punish the rebels, and establish peace.” Six infinitives do not prove a centuries-long, uninterrupted process.


Daniel 9:24 merely says that seventy sevens have been decreed for the accomplishment of six purposes. The infinitives identify the goals of the seventy-sevens program; they do not independently establish its chronology. The chronology must come from verses 25–27, where the seventy sevens are actually divided into seven, sixty-two, and one. The critic is therefore trying to derive a temporal scheme from grammatical forms that do not supply one.


Second, the text explicitly identifies the objects of the prophecy: “thy people” and “thy holy city.” In Daniel’s prayer, “thy people” repeatedly means Israel, and the holy city is Jerusalem. The prophecy is not decreed upon an undefined multinational Church. The Hebrew text states that the seventy sevens are decreed upon Daniel’s people and Jerusalem.


Third, Daniel 9 itself disproves uninterrupted fulfilment. Messiah is cut off after the sixty-ninth seven, and Jerusalem and the sanctuary are subsequently destroyed. Yet the final seven does not begin until the ruler of verse 27 confirms a covenant for one seven. Thomas Ice stresses precisely this point: the events after the sixty-ninth week and before the seventieth demonstrate the necessity of an interval. Fruchtenbaum likewise outlines Daniel 9:26 as containing Messiah’s death, Jerusalem’s destruction, and continuing war before treating Daniel 9:27 separately as the seventieth seven or Great Tribulation.

On Point 1 (six infinitives ≠ six eras): Agreed that grammatical plurality alone doesn't prove duration — that was never the argument. The argument is that six distinguishable infinitives require six distinguishable fulfillments, and "seal up the vision and prophecy" cannot be one of them at the cross, since prophecy (Revelation) continued for sixty more years afterward. That's not a grammar argument. It's a chronology argument from the text's own aftermath. Answer that specific clause, not the syntax point in general.


On Point 2 ("thy people/thy holy city" = ethnic Israel only): This assumes the very thing in dispute — that OT covenant terms can't find their referent in the church — rather than proving it. Scripture says otherwise:

• Believers are called "sons of God," "heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:14-17)
• Gentile believers are "no more strangers... but fellow citizens with the saints" (Eph. 2:19)
• The church is explicitly named "Jerusalem which is above" (Gal. 4:26) and "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22)
• Paul calls believing Jews and Gentiles together "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16)

So: is a born-again Christian, adopted as a son and made a fellow-citizen, not "God's people"? Is the church, which Hebrews and Galatians name Jerusalem, not "God's city" in some legitimate sense? If yes to either, then explain why Paul and the writer of Hebrews used that language. If no, then "thy people/thy holy city" restricted to literal ethnic Israel/geographic Jerusalem is a premise imported into the text, not a decisive finding drawn from it.

On Point 3 (the gap, backed by Ice/Fruchtenbaum): Citing dispensational scholars to prove the dispensational reading is circular — it's the position vouching for itself, not independent confirmation. The actual question: what in the syntax of 9:26-27 requires an unstated multi-thousand-year gap between week 69 and week 70, rather than the church age itself being the content of the middle clauses — administered continuously from the cross forward, with the 70th week still future at the close? That reading requires no inserted gap. His does. The burden is on the position that has to posit an interval the text never mentions.

The falsifiability question: What feature of the text — not theological necessity — would lead you to reconsider that "seal up the vision and prophecy" can't mean "finished at the cross," given prophecy demonstrably continued afterward?

 

[ZNP]

That is an absolutely false statement—absurd on its face.

The assertion that “Daniel 9:24 is a prophecy about the Church Age” is not an interpretation of the passage. It is a direct contradiction of the passage.

Gabriel explicitly states that the seventy weeks are decreed upon “thy people” and “thy holy city.” Daniel’s people are Israel, and Daniel’s holy city is Jerusalem. The entire chapter concerns Israel’s covenant transgression, Jerusalem’s desolation, the sanctuary, and the fulfilment of Israel’s prophetic program. The Church is neither named nor remotely identified as the subject of the seventy weeks.

Daniel had just confessed the sins of Israel:


He then pleaded for Jerusalem and the sanctuary:


Gabriel’s answer therefore concerns the very people, city, and sanctuary about which Daniel had been praying. To suddenly insert the Church into verse 24 is not exegesis. It is theological sleight of hand.

The Church was still a mystery unrevealed in Old Testament prophecy. Paul explicitly describes it as a mystery formerly hidden but later revealed to the apostles and prophets. Daniel 9, by contrast, concerns Israel’s national prophetic timetable. The seventy weeks govern the history of Israel and Jerusalem—from the decree to restore Jerusalem, through the appearance and death of Messiah, the destruction of the city and sanctuary, the final seven-year period, and the ultimate establishment of everlasting righteousness.

The wording could hardly be clearer. Gabriel did not say:

“Seventy weeks are determined upon a future multinational body composed of Jews and Gentiles.”

He said:

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and thy holy city.”

Furthermore, the objectives of Daniel 9:24 have not been fulfilled in or by the Church Age. Israel’s national transgression has not yet been brought to its appointed conclusion. Jerusalem does not presently exhibit everlasting righteousness. Prophetic revelation has not reached its final consummation. The most holy place anticipated by the prophecy has not been anointed. These objectives await the completion of Israel’s seventy-week program and the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom.

The cross supplied the basis of reconciliation, but Daniel 9:24 is not merely a prediction that Christ would provide atonement. It describes the complete divine program decreed for Israel and Jerusalem. That program was interrupted after the sixty-ninth week, when Messiah was cut off. The subsequent destruction of Jerusalem occurred after the sixty-nine weeks, while the final week remains future.

Calling Daniel 9:24 a “Church Age prophecy” therefore requires the interpreter to ignore Daniel’s prayer, redefine Daniel’s people, relocate Daniel’s city, erase Israel from its own prophecy, and import the Church into a text that never mentions it.

That is not biblical interpretation. It is replacement theology imposed upon the text.

Daniel 9:24 is about Israel.

Daniel 9:24 is about Jerusalem.

Daniel 9:24 is about the completion of Israel’s national prophetic program.

The Church Age occurs during the interval between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks; it is not the subject of the seventy weeks themselves. Anyone claiming otherwise must first explain why Gabriel’s words “thy people” and “thy holy city” should mean something entirely different from what they plainly meant to Daniel.

1. "Seal up the vision and prophecy" — still unaddressed. If this clause was fulfilled at the cross, prophetic revelation should have ceased there. Instead the entire New Testament was written decades later. This isn't a side issue — it's the specific clause that breaks a strict cross-only reading. What is the answer?

2. The counter-texts — still unaddressed. I didn't merely say "the church is God's people" as an assertion. I cited Scripture explicitly applying Daniel's language to the church: believers are named "sons" and "heirs" (Rom. 8:14-17); Gentile believers are called "fellow citizens with the saints" (Eph. 2:19); the church is directly named "Jerusalem which is above" (Gal. 4:26) and "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22); Jew and Gentile together are called "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). You haven't shown these texts don't mean what they say — you've just re-asserted that "thy people" can't include what Paul and Hebrews explicitly include. That's not exegesis of Daniel 9; it's silence on Galatians and Hebrews.

3. "Mystery" proves the opposite of what you're using it for. Paul's own definition of the church as "mystery" is not "absent from the OT" — it's "hidden in the OT, now disclosed" (Rom. 16:25-26, Eph. 3:4-6, cf. Col. 1:26). That's the standard pattern of NT fulfillment: a fuller meaning of OT covenant language, unveiled, not invented. Citing "mystery" to prove the church can't be typologically present in Daniel 9 actually concedes the mechanism — hidden-then-revealed — that the church-age reading depends on.

Still no answer to the falsifiability question: what feature of the text — not theological necessity — would move you off a strict cross-only reading, given #1 above?

Until those three are engaged, "Daniel 9:24 is about Israel" is an assertion repeated, not a case made.

 

[cv5]

1. "Seal up the vision and prophecy" — still unaddressed. If this clause was fulfilled at the cross, prophetic revelation should have ceased there. Instead the entire New Testament was written decades later. This isn't a side issue — it's the specific clause that breaks a strict cross-only reading. What is the answer?

2. The counter-texts — still unaddressed. I didn't merely say "the church is God's people" as an assertion. I cited Scripture explicitly applying Daniel's language to the church: believers are named "sons" and "heirs" (Rom. 8:14-17); Gentile believers are called "fellow citizens with the saints" (Eph. 2:19); the church is directly named "Jerusalem which is above" (Gal. 4:26) and "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22); Jew and Gentile together are called "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). You haven't shown these texts don't mean what they say — you've just re-asserted that "thy people" can't include what Paul and Hebrews explicitly include. That's not exegesis of Daniel 9; it's silence on Galatians and Hebrews.

3. "Mystery" proves the opposite of what you're using it for. Paul's own definition of the church as "mystery" is not "absent from the OT" — it's "hidden in the OT, now disclosed" (Rom. 16:25-26, Eph. 3:4-6, cf. Col. 1:26). That's the standard pattern of NT fulfillment: a fuller meaning of OT covenant language, unveiled, not invented. Citing "mystery" to prove the church can't be typologically present in Daniel 9 actually concedes the mechanism — hidden-then-revealed — that the church-age reading depends on.

Still no answer to the falsifiability question: what feature of the text — not theological necessity — would move you off a strict cross-only reading, given #1 above?

Until those three are engaged, "Daniel 9:24 is about Israel" is an assertion repeated, not a case made.

Unaddressed to YOU.
Not to me. For me, every scintilla nuance and infection of Daniel 9 is fully realized, and cross-linked coordinated and congruent with the ENTIRE content of the Bible cover to cover, confidently and flawlessly.

BTW, It is YOU that is flailing around incoherently "wanting answers". Not me. Why? Because I already have all of the right answer and I know it......

 

[cv5]

1. "Seal up the vision and prophecy" — still unaddressed. If this clause was fulfilled at the cross, prophetic revelation should have ceased there. Instead the entire New Testament was written decades later. This isn't a side issue — it's the specific clause that breaks a strict cross-only reading. What is the answer?

2. The counter-texts — still unaddressed. I didn't merely say "the church is God's people" as an assertion. I cited Scripture explicitly applying Daniel's language to the church: believers are named "sons" and "heirs" (Rom. 8:14-17); Gentile believers are called "fellow citizens with the saints" (Eph. 2:19); the church is directly named "Jerusalem which is above" (Gal. 4:26) and "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22); Jew and Gentile together are called "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). You haven't shown these texts don't mean what they say — you've just re-asserted that "thy people" can't include what Paul and Hebrews explicitly include. That's not exegesis of Daniel 9; it's silence on Galatians and Hebrews.

3. "Mystery" proves the opposite of what you're using it for. Paul's own definition of the church as "mystery" is not "absent from the OT" — it's "hidden in the OT, now disclosed" (Rom. 16:25-26, Eph. 3:4-6, cf. Col. 1:26). That's the standard pattern of NT fulfillment: a fuller meaning of OT covenant language, unveiled, not invented. Citing "mystery" to prove the church can't be typologically present in Daniel 9 actually concedes the mechanism — hidden-then-revealed — that the church-age reading depends on.

Still no answer to the falsifiability question: what feature of the text — not theological necessity — would move you off a strict cross-only reading, given #1 above?

Until those three are engaged, "Daniel 9:24 is about Israel" is an assertion repeated, not a case made.

"Jew and Gentile TOGETHER are called "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16)."

Completely FALSE. And standard Reformed/amil snake oil.

When Galatians 6:15–16 is read in its immediate contextual flow, Paul’s argument relies on a CONTRAST between two distinct groups: Gentile converts (the "uncircumcision") and Jewish believers (the "circumcision").

Here is the contextual breakdown demonstrating why "the Israel of God" in verse 16 refers specifically to **believing ethnic Jews**, rather than acting as a catch-all label for the entire Gentile-inclusive Church.

## 1. The Immediate Context: Verse 15 Establishes the Two Groups
In verse 15, Paul explicitly sets the stage by identifying two distinct categories of people that existed within the early Christian assemblies:

> **Galatians 6:15 (KJV):** *"For in Christ Jesus neither **circumcision** availeth any thing, nor **uncircumcision**, but a new creature."*>
* **Uncircumcision:** Uncircumcised Gentile believers who were being pressured by Judaizers to take on the Mosaic Law.
* **Circumcision:** Circumcised Jewish believers who had been raised under the Mosaic Covenant.

Paul's core declaration in verse 15 is that physical markers (being circumcised or uncircumcised) add no spiritual merit regarding salvation; what matters is being a **"new creature"** (*kainē ktisis*) in Christ.

## 2. Verse 16 Directly Maps to the Two Groups of Verse 15

In verse 16, Paul pronounces a apostolic blessing (*benediction*) that structurally mirrors the two groups he just named in verse 15:
> **Galatians 6:16 (KJV):** *"And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on **them**, and mercy, **and upon the Israel of God**."*
>
### Group A: "Them" (*autous*)
* **Who they are:** *"As many as walk according to this rule"* \rightarrow **Gentile believers** (the "uncircumcision" of v. 15).
* **The Context:** The entire Letter to the Galatians was written to Gentile converts who were walking according to Paul’s "rule"—namely, that Gentiles are saved by faith alone without needing to undergo circumcision or take on the Mosaic Yoke. Paul pronounces "peace and mercy" on these Gentile brethren who stand firm in their Christian liberty.
### Group B: "The Israel of God" (*ton Israēl tou Theou*)
* **Who they are:** **Believing ethnic Jews** (the faithful remnant of the "circumcision" of v. 15).
* **The Context:** Throughout Galatians, Paul strongly opposes the legalistic "Judaizers" who tried to force Torah-observance on Gentiles. However, Paul wants to make it abundantly clear that he is not anti-Jewish, nor is he condemning his physical brethren who believe in Jesus. By adding a distinct blessing *"and upon the Israel of God,"* Paul singles out those ethnic Jews who, like himself, trust in Messiah Jesus rather than legalistic ritual.
## 3. Grammatical & Lexical Consistency Across Paul's Epistles
Beyond the immediate flow of verses 15–16, three structural realities reinforce this interpretation:
* **The Function of *Kai*:** The conjunction *kai* between the clauses naturally functions copulatively ("and"), distinguishing "them" (the Gentile believers walking by this rule) from the second group ("and upon the Israel of God").

* **Pauline Usage of "Israel":** Across all of Paul's letters, the term *Israēl* appears approximately 30 times. In every single other instance, Paul uses it to refer to physical, ethnic descendants of Jacob/Israel—never once using it to mean a Gentile or the Church as a collective whole.

* **The Remnant Concept (Romans 9–11):** Paul explicitly defines "true" Israel within national Israel in **Romans 9:6–8** and **Romans 11:5** as the *remnant* according to the election of grace—ethnic Jews who embrace Messiah. These believing Jews are precisely "the Israel of God."
## Summary Matrix
| Text Element | Galatians 6:15 | Galatians 6:16 | Identity |
|---|---|---|---|
| **First Group** | *"Uncircumcision"* | *"As many as walk according to this rule... peace be on **them**"* | Gentile believers who walk in gospel freedom without Mosaic rituals. |
| **Second Group** | *"Circumcision"* | *"...and mercy, and upon **the Israel of God**"* | Believing ethnic Jews (the faithful remnant) who trust in Christ. |
| **Unifying Basis** | Both become a **"New Creature"** in Christ Jesus. | Both receive the apostolic blessing of peace and mercy. | Saved by the same grace, while retaining dis
tinct physical backgrounds. |

 

[cv5]

You should blame yourself. You don't even know that under the new covenant there is neither Jew nor Greek; only the new man, the new creation.

You are ignorant of the correct intended message of those those passages as well? Pity.

Let me get back to you.....

 

[Cameron143]

You are ignorant of the correct intended message of those those passages as well? Pity.

Let me get back to you.....

No need. You don't seem to be able to handle simple verses. You'll simply trip over your explanation. You don't even understand the new covenant.

 

[Beekeeper]

First, six objectives do not imply six successive historical eras. A single decree or program can contain several distinguishable purposes that are accomplished together, partly together, or at designated points within the stated period. For example, one military campaign may be commissioned “to defeat the enemy, liberate the city, restore the government, secure the border, punish the rebels, and establish peace.” Six infinitives do not prove a centuries-long, uninterrupted process.


Daniel 9:24 merely says that seventy sevens have been decreed for the accomplishment of six purposes. The infinitives identify the goals of the seventy-sevens program; they do not independently establish its chronology. The chronology must come from verses 25–27, where the seventy sevens are actually divided into seven, sixty-two, and one. The critic is therefore trying to derive a temporal scheme from grammatical forms that do not supply one.

Tick Tock.
But the timeline is broken.
Well they say a broken clock can be right twice a day.
The statement above, apart from the time interpretation, of course is true.

 

[ZNP]

"Jew and Gentile TOGETHER are called "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16)."

Completely FALSE. And standard Reformed/amil snake oil.

When Galatians 6:15–16 is read in its immediate contextual flow, Paul’s argument relies on a CONTRAST between two distinct groups: Gentile converts (the "uncircumcision") and Jewish believers (the "circumcision").

Here is the contextual breakdown demonstrating why "the Israel of God" in verse 16 refers specifically to **believing ethnic Jews**, rather than acting as a catch-all label for the entire Gentile-inclusive Church.

## 1. The Immediate Context: Verse 15 Establishes the Two Groups
In verse 15, Paul explicitly sets the stage by identifying two distinct categories of people that existed within the early Christian assemblies:

> **Galatians 6:15 (KJV):** *"For in Christ Jesus neither **circumcision** availeth any thing, nor **uncircumcision**, but a new creature."*>
* **Uncircumcision:** Uncircumcised Gentile believers who were being pressured by Judaizers to take on the Mosaic Law.
* **Circumcision:** Circumcised Jewish believers who had been raised under the Mosaic Covenant.

Paul's core declaration in verse 15 is that physical markers (being circumcised or uncircumcised) add no spiritual merit regarding salvation; what matters is being a **"new creature"** (*kainē ktisis*) in Christ.

## 2. Verse 16 Directly Maps to the Two Groups of Verse 15

In verse 16, Paul pronounces a apostolic blessing (*benediction*) that structurally mirrors the two groups he just named in verse 15:
> **Galatians 6:16 (KJV):** *"And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on **them**, and mercy, **and upon the Israel of God**."*
>
### Group A: "Them" (*autous*)
* **Who they are:** *"As many as walk according to this rule"* \rightarrow **Gentile believers** (the "uncircumcision" of v. 15).
* **The Context:** The entire Letter to the Galatians was written to Gentile converts who were walking according to Paul’s "rule"—namely, that Gentiles are saved by faith alone without needing to undergo circumcision or take on the Mosaic Yoke. Paul pronounces "peace and mercy" on these Gentile brethren who stand firm in their Christian liberty.
### Group B: "The Israel of God" (*ton Israēl tou Theou*)
* **Who they are:** **Believing ethnic Jews** (the faithful remnant of the "circumcision" of v. 15).
* **The Context:** Throughout Galatians, Paul strongly opposes the legalistic "Judaizers" who tried to force Torah-observance on Gentiles. However, Paul wants to make it abundantly clear that he is not anti-Jewish, nor is he condemning his physical brethren who believe in Jesus. By adding a distinct blessing *"and upon the Israel of God,"* Paul singles out those ethnic Jews who, like himself, trust in Messiah Jesus rather than legalistic ritual.
## 3. Grammatical & Lexical Consistency Across Paul's Epistles
Beyond the immediate flow of verses 15–16, three structural realities reinforce this interpretation:
* **The Function of *Kai*:** The conjunction *kai* between the clauses naturally functions copulatively ("and"), distinguishing "them" (the Gentile believers walking by this rule) from the second group ("and upon the Israel of God").

* **Pauline Usage of "Israel":** Across all of Paul's letters, the term *Israēl* appears approximately 30 times. In every single other instance, Paul uses it to refer to physical, ethnic descendants of Jacob/Israel—never once using it to mean a Gentile or the Church as a collective whole.

* **The Remnant Concept (Romans 9–11):** Paul explicitly defines "true" Israel within national Israel in **Romans 9:6–8** and **Romans 11:5** as the *remnant* according to the election of grace—ethnic Jews who embrace Messiah. These believing Jews are precisely "the Israel of God."
## Summary Matrix
| Text Element | Galatians 6:15 | Galatians 6:16 | Identity |
|---|---|---|---|
| **First Group** | *"Uncircumcision"* | *"As many as walk according to this rule... peace be on **them**"* | Gentile believers who walk in gospel freedom without Mosaic rituals. |
| **Second Group** | *"Circumcision"* | *"...and mercy, and upon **the Israel of God**"* | Believing ethnic Jews (the faithful remnant) who trust in Christ. |
| **Unifying Basis** | Both become a **"New Creature"** in Christ Jesus. | Both receive the apostolic blessing of peace and mercy. | Saved by the same grace, while retaining dis
tinct physical backgrounds. |

Wow, OK, so then Peter was wrong in Acts 2:16-21, that which was spoken by Joel the prophet could not have been fulfilled by the birth of the church on Pentecost. And James was wrong in Acts 15:16-18 about rebuilding the fallen tabernacle of David and all men seeking unto the Lord including Gentiles. So much for Hosea 1:10 and 2:23, those people who were called "not my people" becoming "sons of the living God". One more major mistake by Paul in applying that verse to the church in Romans 9:25-26 when he said the Gentiles will be called "my people". Peter too was wrong about this when he said "which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Not only so but this puts Pauls complete mission in question because he applied Isaiah 49:6 to his mission on Earth in Acts 13:47 "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" when he had the nerve to say "for so hath the Lord commanded us." Clearly Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James should have checked with cv5 before speaking and mailing out their epistles.

But you know what, Jesus also said it when he applied Jeremiah 31:31-34 (New Covenant "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah") in Luke 22:20 to the Lord's table "this cup is the new testament in my blood" and Hebrews 8:8-13, which quotes the passage in full and applies it to those under the New Covenant through Christ's priesthood — not a future ethnic-Israel-only covenant.

Sorry cv5, Jesus is Lord, not you.

And if you do try to waste our time with your response make sure you also respond to these examples:

• Genesis 12:3 / 22:18 (Abrahamic blessing to "all nations/families of the earth") → Galatians 3:8-9, 14, 29: "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul treats Gentile believers as direct recipients of the Abrahamic covenant, not adjacent beneficiaries.
• Deuteronomy 32:21 ("I will provoke you to jealousy by those which are not a nation") → Romans 10:19, quoted by Paul as already-happening in the Gentile mission.
• Isaiah 54:1 ("Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear") → Galatians 4:27, applied by Paul to "Jerusalem which is above... which is the mother of us all" (v.26) — the very verse that sits one chapter before "the Israel of God."
• Exodus 19:5-6 ("ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation") → 1 Peter 2:9: "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." Same audience as the Hosea citation two verses later.
• Psalm 118:22 / Isaiah 28:16 / Isaiah 8:14 (rejected stone/cornerstone/stone of stumbling) → Romans 9:32-33, 1 Peter 2:6-8, Acts 4:11. In 1 Peter especially, believers themselves are called "lively stones... built up a spiritual house" on that cornerstone — corporate temple imagery from Israel's own scriptures applied to the mixed church.
• Isaiah 66:20-21 (Gentiles brought as an offering, some taken "for priests and for Levites") → Romans 15:16, Paul describing his own Gentile-focused apostleship in explicitly Levitical/priestly terms — "ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable."
• Jeremiah 31:33 / Leviticus 26:12 ("I will be their God, and they shall be my people") → 2 Corinthians 6:16-18, Paul quoting covenant-formula language and applying it directly to the church as "the temple of the living God."

Your entire argument about Daniel 9:24 collapses. Poof!

 

[cv5]

Wow, OK, so then Peter was wrong in Acts 2:16-21, that which was spoken by Joel the prophet could not have been fulfilled by the birth of the church on Pentecost. And James was wrong in Acts 15:16-18 about rebuilding the fallen tabernacle of David and all men seeking unto the Lord including Gentiles. So much for Hosea 1:10 and 2:23, those people who were called "not my people" becoming "sons of the living God". One more major mistake by Paul in applying that verse to the church in Romans 9:25-26 when he said the Gentiles will be called "my people". Peter too was wrong about this when he said "which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Not only so but this puts Pauls complete mission in question because he applied Isaiah 49:6 to his mission on Earth in Acts 13:47 "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" when he had the nerve to say "for so hath the Lord commanded us." Clearly Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James should have checked with cv5 before speaking and mailing out their epistles.

But you know what, Jesus also said it when he applied Jeremiah 31:31-34 (New Covenant "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah") in Luke 22:20 to the Lord's table "this cup is the new testament in my blood" and Hebrews 8:8-13, which quotes the passage in full and applies it to those under the New Covenant through Christ's priesthood — not a future ethnic-Israel-only covenant.

Sorry cv5, Jesus is Lord, not you.

And if you do try to waste our time with your response make sure you also respond to these examples:

• Genesis 12:3 / 22:18 (Abrahamic blessing to "all nations/families of the earth") → Galatians 3:8-9, 14, 29: "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul treats Gentile believers as direct recipients of the Abrahamic covenant, not adjacent beneficiaries.
• Deuteronomy 32:21 ("I will provoke you to jealousy by those which are not a nation") → Romans 10:19, quoted by Paul as already-happening in the Gentile mission.
• Isaiah 54:1 ("Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear") → Galatians 4:27, applied by Paul to "Jerusalem which is above... which is the mother of us all" (v.26) — the very verse that sits one chapter before "the Israel of God."
• Exodus 19:5-6 ("ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation") → 1 Peter 2:9: "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." Same audience as the Hosea citation two verses later.
• Psalm 118:22 / Isaiah 28:16 / Isaiah 8:14 (rejected stone/cornerstone/stone of stumbling) → Romans 9:32-33, 1 Peter 2:6-8, Acts 4:11. In 1 Peter especially, believers themselves are called "lively stones... built up a spiritual house" on that cornerstone — corporate temple imagery from Israel's own scriptures applied to the mixed church.
• Isaiah 66:20-21 (Gentiles brought as an offering, some taken "for priests and for Levites") → Romans 15:16, Paul describing his own Gentile-focused apostleship in explicitly Levitical/priestly terms — "ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable."
• Jeremiah 31:33 / Leviticus 26:12 ("I will be their God, and they shall be my people") → 2 Corinthians 6:16-18, Paul quoting covenant-formula language and applying it directly to the church as "the temple of the living God."

Your entire argument about Daniel 9:24 collapses. Poof!

Wow, OK, so then Peter was wrong in Acts 2:16-21, that which was spoken by Joel the prophet could not have been fulfilled by the birth of the church on Pentecost.

Like Adam, I am not deceived by this Biblically illiterate replacement theology snake oil.
Lucky me huh?
Oh and BTW, everyone in Acts 2 was.......Jewish ROFL!

Peter’s quotation of Joel in Acts 2 does not mean that Joel’s end-times prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. Peter’s immediate purpose was to answer the accusation that the disciples were drunk:

“These are not drunken, as ye suppose … but this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.”

In other words: What you are witnessing is not intoxication; it is a supernatural manifestation produced by the Spirit of God—the ***same kind*** of divine activity (SIMPLE AT THAT LITTLE BUDDY!) described by Joel.

There was one clear point of correspondence: in both passages, the Holy Spirit is poured out and produces an extraordinary, publicly observable manifestation. Arnold Fruchtenbaum identifies precisely this relationship: Joel and Acts share an outpouring of the Holy Spirit accompanied by unusual supernatural effects. Acts 2 therefore illustrates the kind of divine power Joel foretold without exhausting or cancelling Joel’s prophecy.

The differences are decisive.

Joel says that the Spirit will be poured out upon “all flesh.” At Pentecost, the Spirit was poured out upon a limited company of believers gathered in Jerusalem—not upon all humanity, all Israel, or even all believers then living.

Joel mentions:

• sons and daughters prophesying;
• old men dreaming dreams;
• young men seeing visions;
• servants and handmaids receiving the Spirit;
• blood, fire, and pillars of smoke;
• the sun becoming darkness;
• the moon becoming blood;
• the arrival of the great and terrible Day of the Lord;
• deliverance associated with Mount Zion and Jerusalem.

Acts 2 records none of those events except the outpouring of the Spirit and its resulting supernatural manifestation. There is no darkened sun, blood-red moon, fire, smoke, universal prophetic activity, national deliverance of Israel, or commencement of the Day of the Lord.

Joel’s context places the outpouring within Israel’s latter-day restoration. The land is restored, Israel is delivered, the Spirit is poured out, the nations are judged, and the Messianic Kingdom follows. Fruchtenbaum’s outline accordingly places Joel 2:28–32 within “the salvation and restoration of Israel,” after the restoration of Israel’s land and before the judgment of the Gentile nations.

Pentecost did not fulfil that sequence.

Peter was therefore not saying:

“Joel’s prophecy has now been completely fulfilled, and its promises have been transferred from Israel to the Church.”

He was saying, in effect:

“Do not mistake this supernatural phenomenon for drunkenness. What you are seeing is an operation of the Holy Spirit comparable in character to the Spirit-produced manifestations foretold by Joel.”

The phrase “this is that” identifies the divine explanation for what the crowd was observing. It does not require identity between every detail of Acts 2 and every detail of Joel 2. Had Peter intended to declare a complete fulfilment, the actual events should correspond to the contents of the prophecy. They plainly do not.

Pentecost was a real and unique outpouring of the Holy Spirit marking the formation of the Church, but Joel’s prophecy awaits its literal fulfilment in connection with Israel’s national repentance, restoration, the Day of the Lord, and the coming Messianic Kingdom.

Thus Acts 2 does not transform Israel into the Church. It does not transfer Joel’s promises to the Church. It simply demonstrates that the supernatural power operating at Pentecost was the power of the same Holy Spirit whose far greater latter-day outpouring Joel had foretold.

Similarity of divine manifestation is not identity of prophetic fulfilment.
Illustration is not exhaustion.
Pentecost anticipates Joel’s outpouring; it does not replace it.

 

[cv5]

Wow, OK, so then Peter was wrong in Acts 2:16-21, that which was spoken by Joel the prophet could not have been fulfilled by the birth of the church on Pentecost. And James was wrong in Acts 15:16-18 about rebuilding the fallen tabernacle of David and all men seeking unto the Lord including Gentiles. So much for Hosea 1:10 and 2:23, those people who were called "not my people" becoming "sons of the living God". One more major mistake by Paul in applying that verse to the church in Romans 9:25-26 when he said the Gentiles will be called "my people". Peter too was wrong about this when he said "which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Not only so but this puts Pauls complete mission in question because he applied Isaiah 49:6 to his mission on Earth in Acts 13:47 "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" when he had the nerve to say "for so hath the Lord commanded us." Clearly Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James should have checked with cv5 before speaking and mailing out their epistles.

But you know what, Jesus also said it when he applied Jeremiah 31:31-34 (New Covenant "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah") in Luke 22:20 to the Lord's table "this cup is the new testament in my blood" and Hebrews 8:8-13, which quotes the passage in full and applies it to those under the New Covenant through Christ's priesthood — not a future ethnic-Israel-only covenant.

Sorry cv5, Jesus is Lord, not you.

And if you do try to waste our time with your response make sure you also respond to these examples:

• Genesis 12:3 / 22:18 (Abrahamic blessing to "all nations/families of the earth") → Galatians 3:8-9, 14, 29: "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul treats Gentile believers as direct recipients of the Abrahamic covenant, not adjacent beneficiaries.
• Deuteronomy 32:21 ("I will provoke you to jealousy by those which are not a nation") → Romans 10:19, quoted by Paul as already-happening in the Gentile mission.
• Isaiah 54:1 ("Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear") → Galatians 4:27, applied by Paul to "Jerusalem which is above... which is the mother of us all" (v.26) — the very verse that sits one chapter before "the Israel of God."
• Exodus 19:5-6 ("ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation") → 1 Peter 2:9: "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." Same audience as the Hosea citation two verses later.
• Psalm 118:22 / Isaiah 28:16 / Isaiah 8:14 (rejected stone/cornerstone/stone of stumbling) → Romans 9:32-33, 1 Peter 2:6-8, Acts 4:11. In 1 Peter especially, believers themselves are called "lively stones... built up a spiritual house" on that cornerstone — corporate temple imagery from Israel's own scriptures applied to the mixed church.
• Isaiah 66:20-21 (Gentiles brought as an offering, some taken "for priests and for Levites") → Romans 15:16, Paul describing his own Gentile-focused apostleship in explicitly Levitical/priestly terms — "ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable."
• Jeremiah 31:33 / Leviticus 26:12 ("I will be their God, and they shall be my people") → 2 Corinthians 6:16-18, Paul quoting covenant-formula language and applying it directly to the church as "the temple of the living God."

Your entire argument about Daniel 9:24 collapses. Poof!

"And James was wrong in Acts 15:16-18 about rebuilding the fallen tabernacle of David and all men seeking unto the Lord including Gentiles."

Your biblically illiterate fatal flaw is that James never says the Church is the rebuilt tabernacle of David, nor that Amos 9 was fulfilled at the Jerusalem Council. He says the present salvation of Gentiles agrees with what the prophets had already revealed about God’s intention to bless Gentiles.

The claim that Acts 15 turns the Church into the “rebuilt tabernacle of David” is not exegesis. It is replacement theology smuggled into the passage and then attributed to James.

James does not say:

“The words of Amos have now been fulfilled in the Church.”

He says:

“To this agree the words of the prophets.”

That distinction is decisive. James is not announcing the fulfilment of Amos 9. He is demonstrating that the salvation of Gentiles as Gentiles is completely consistent with the prophetic Scriptures.

The issue before the Jerusalem Council was not whether Israel possessed a future. The issue was whether Gentile believers had to be circumcised and become Jewish proselytes in order to be saved. Peter had explained that God purified the Gentiles’ hearts by faith. Paul and Barnabas then reported God’s work among the Gentiles. James concluded that Gentile believers should not be compelled to enter Judaism.

James’s argument is therefore simple: If the prophets already foretold that Gentiles would bear God’s name and share in Messianic blessing, then Gentiles need not first become Jews in order to be accepted by God.

That is Gentile inclusion. It is not Israel’s replacement.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum classifies James’s use of Amos as “literal prophecy plus application.” Amos 9 literally predicts the future Messianic Kingdom, in which the fallen Davidic government will be restored and Gentiles will receive blessing. James applies that established prophetic truth to the controversy in Acts 15: since God intends to save Gentiles as Gentiles in the Kingdom, there is no biblical basis for forcing Gentile believers to become Jewish proselytes in the present age.

The replacement interpretation collapses the moment Amos 9 is read beyond the two extracted verses. Amos describes:

• the restoration of David’s fallen dynasty;
• the rebuilding of Israel’s ruined cities;
• Israel’s possession of the nations;
• extraordinary agricultural abundance;
• Israel being planted permanently in its own land;
• Israel never again being uprooted from that land.

None of this describes the formation of the Church in Acts 15. The apostles did not rebuild Israel’s ruined cities. The Church was not planted permanently in the land promised to Israel. The Davidic kingdom was not visibly restored at the Jerusalem Council. Amos’s concluding promises plainly concern Israel’s future national restoration. Fruchtenbaum likewise treats Amos 9:14–15 as a permanent regathering of Israel into its land.

Indeed, James’s wording preserves rather than destroys the distinction between the present Church Age and Israel’s future kingdom:

“Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.”

That is God’s present work: taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name.

James then quotes:

“After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down.”

The present Gentile ingathering is not called the rebuilding of David’s tabernacle. The two works are distinguished. God is presently gathering a people from among the Gentiles; afterward comes the restoration of the fallen Davidic order. The Church does not become David’s kingdom merely because both Jews and Gentiles receive salvation.

Furthermore, the “tabernacle of David” is not a poetic synonym for the Church. In Amos, it refers to the fallen house or dynasty of David—the national kingdom whose political rule had collapsed. To make it the Church requires “David” to stop meaning David, his house to stop meaning his dynasty, Israel’s cities to stop meaning cities, and Israel’s land to stop meaning the land. That is not interpretation; it is systematic demolition of the nouns in the passage.

The accusation that James would otherwise be “wrong” is therefore absurd. James understood Amos perfectly. He did not claim that Amos was exhausted, fulfilled or transferred to the Church. He cited Amos to prove that the admission of uncircumcised Gentiles was no innovation: God had always revealed that Gentiles would seek Him and bear His name.

Acts 15 teaches:

Gentiles may be saved without becoming Jews.

It does not teach:

Gentiles become Israel, the Church becomes David’s kingdom, and Israel loses its national promises.

The replacement argument depends entirely upon inserting a sentence James never uttered: “The Church is the rebuilt tabernacle of David.” Remove that invented premise, and the entire argument disintegrates.

James did not replace Israel.
James did not redefine Israel.
James did not transfer Israel’s land and kingdom to the Church.

He merely proved that the salvation of Gentiles as Gentiles agrees perfectly with the prophets—and that fact leaves every promise to national Israel wholly intact.

 

[cv5]

Wow, OK, so then Peter was wrong in Acts 2:16-21, that which was spoken by Joel the prophet could not have been fulfilled by the birth of the church on Pentecost. And James was wrong in Acts 15:16-18 about rebuilding the fallen tabernacle of David and all men seeking unto the Lord including Gentiles. So much for Hosea 1:10 and 2:23, those people who were called "not my people" becoming "sons of the living God". One more major mistake by Paul in applying that verse to the church in Romans 9:25-26 when he said the Gentiles will be called "my people". Peter too was wrong about this when he said "which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Not only so but this puts Pauls complete mission in question because he applied Isaiah 49:6 to his mission on Earth in Acts 13:47 "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" when he had the nerve to say "for so hath the Lord commanded us." Clearly Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James should have checked with cv5 before speaking and mailing out their epistles.

But you know what, Jesus also said it when he applied Jeremiah 31:31-34 (New Covenant "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah") in Luke 22:20 to the Lord's table "this cup is the new testament in my blood" and Hebrews 8:8-13, which quotes the passage in full and applies it to those under the New Covenant through Christ's priesthood — not a future ethnic-Israel-only covenant.

Sorry cv5, Jesus is Lord, not you.

And if you do try to waste our time with your response make sure you also respond to these examples:

• Genesis 12:3 / 22:18 (Abrahamic blessing to "all nations/families of the earth") → Galatians 3:8-9, 14, 29: "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul treats Gentile believers as direct recipients of the Abrahamic covenant, not adjacent beneficiaries.
• Deuteronomy 32:21 ("I will provoke you to jealousy by those which are not a nation") → Romans 10:19, quoted by Paul as already-happening in the Gentile mission.
• Isaiah 54:1 ("Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear") → Galatians 4:27, applied by Paul to "Jerusalem which is above... which is the mother of us all" (v.26) — the very verse that sits one chapter before "the Israel of God."
• Exodus 19:5-6 ("ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation") → 1 Peter 2:9: "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." Same audience as the Hosea citation two verses later.
• Psalm 118:22 / Isaiah 28:16 / Isaiah 8:14 (rejected stone/cornerstone/stone of stumbling) → Romans 9:32-33, 1 Peter 2:6-8, Acts 4:11. In 1 Peter especially, believers themselves are called "lively stones... built up a spiritual house" on that cornerstone — corporate temple imagery from Israel's own scriptures applied to the mixed church.
• Isaiah 66:20-21 (Gentiles brought as an offering, some taken "for priests and for Levites") → Romans 15:16, Paul describing his own Gentile-focused apostleship in explicitly Levitical/priestly terms — "ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable."
• Jeremiah 31:33 / Leviticus 26:12 ("I will be their God, and they shall be my people") → 2 Corinthians 6:16-18, Paul quoting covenant-formula language and applying it directly to the church as "the temple of the living God."

Your entire argument about Daniel 9:24 collapses. Poof!

So much for Hosea 1:10 and 2:23, those people who were called "not my people" becoming "sons of the living God".

That argument is yet more replacement-theology snake oil, because it ignores the most elementary fact in Hosea: the people called “not my people” are the same Israelites whom God later promises to restore....

Hosea is not speaking about the Church replacing Israel. He is speaking about Israel being disciplined and then restored.

The sequence is explicit:

“Ye are not my people.”
“Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea.”
“In the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”

Who are the people in the passage? Hosea answers the question himself: “the children of Israel.” The prophecy does not say that Israel will disappear and that an unrelated Gentile body will inherit Israel’s identity. It says that the same people placed under covenant discipline will later be restored to covenant favour.

Hosea 2:23 is equally explicit:

“I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people.”

The antecedent is Israel. God first withdraws the outward enjoyment of covenant blessing because of Israel’s unfaithfulness and then promises to reverse that judgment. “Not my people” is a judicial status imposed upon Israel; “my people” is Israel’s future restoration.

To turn that passage into “Israel ceased to exist and the Church took its place” requires the interpreter to commit wholesale violence against the context. Israel must stop meaning Israel. Her judgment must stop being Israel’s judgment. Her restoration must stop being Israel’s restoration. The land, national reunion and covenant renewal must all be dissolved into an allegory never stated by Hosea.

Paul’s quotation of Hosea in Romans 9 does not alter Hosea’s original meaning. Paul applies the principle displayed in Hosea: God sovereignly calls into mercy those who stood outside the enjoyment of covenant privilege. That principle can properly be applied to the calling of Gentiles. But an application of Hosea’s language to Gentile salvation does not cancel Hosea’s literal promise to Israel.

Paul immediately proves this by distinguishing ***the two groups***:

“Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.”

He does not say, “The Gentiles are now Israel.” He says that God has called people from both Jews and Gentiles. He then quotes Isaiah regarding the remnant of Israel. The ethnic distinction remains intact throughout the argument.

Romans 9 must also be read through Romans 11, where Paul asks whether God has rejected His people and answers:

“God forbid.”

He warns Gentile believers not to boast against Israel’s natural branches. He states that Israel’s blindness is partial and temporary. He then declares that Israel will yet be saved in accordance with covenant promise.

That is the very opposite of replacement theology.

The fraud in the replacement argument is the assumption that whenever an Old Testament passage is applied to Gentiles, its original promise to Israel has been confiscated. But application is not cancellation, and shared mercy is not transferred identity.

Hosea teaches:

• Israel was placed under covenant discipline.
• Israel was temporarily treated as “not my people.”
• Israel will again be acknowledged as God’s people.
• Israel and Judah will ultimately be reunited and restored.

Paul teaches:

• God is free to extend mercy to Gentiles.
• Jewish and Gentile believers are both called through faith.
• Israel remains a distinct people with an irrevocable future.

Nothing in either passage says that the Church replaces Israel.

The replacement-theology reading is not derived from Hosea. It is imposed upon Hosea by people who cannot tolerate the plain promise that the nation placed under judgment is the same nation God will ultimately restore.

“Not my people” describes Israel under discipline.
“My people” describes Israel restored.
Gentile inclusion does not require Jewish dispossession.

 

[cv5]

Wow, OK, so then Peter was wrong in Acts 2:16-21, that which was spoken by Joel the prophet could not have been fulfilled by the birth of the church on Pentecost. And James was wrong in Acts 15:16-18 about rebuilding the fallen tabernacle of David and all men seeking unto the Lord including Gentiles. So much for Hosea 1:10 and 2:23, those people who were called "not my people" becoming "sons of the living God". One more major mistake by Paul in applying that verse to the church in Romans 9:25-26 when he said the Gentiles will be called "my people". Peter too was wrong about this when he said "which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Not only so but this puts Pauls complete mission in question because he applied Isaiah 49:6 to his mission on Earth in Acts 13:47 "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" when he had the nerve to say "for so hath the Lord commanded us." Clearly Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James should have checked with cv5 before speaking and mailing out their epistles.

But you know what, Jesus also said it when he applied Jeremiah 31:31-34 (New Covenant "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah") in Luke 22:20 to the Lord's table "this cup is the new testament in my blood" and Hebrews 8:8-13, which quotes the passage in full and applies it to those under the New Covenant through Christ's priesthood — not a future ethnic-Israel-only covenant.

Sorry cv5, Jesus is Lord, not you.

And if you do try to waste our time with your response make sure you also respond to these examples:

• Genesis 12:3 / 22:18 (Abrahamic blessing to "all nations/families of the earth") → Galatians 3:8-9, 14, 29: "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul treats Gentile believers as direct recipients of the Abrahamic covenant, not adjacent beneficiaries.
• Deuteronomy 32:21 ("I will provoke you to jealousy by those which are not a nation") → Romans 10:19, quoted by Paul as already-happening in the Gentile mission.
• Isaiah 54:1 ("Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear") → Galatians 4:27, applied by Paul to "Jerusalem which is above... which is the mother of us all" (v.26) — the very verse that sits one chapter before "the Israel of God."
• Exodus 19:5-6 ("ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation") → 1 Peter 2:9: "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." Same audience as the Hosea citation two verses later.
• Psalm 118:22 / Isaiah 28:16 / Isaiah 8:14 (rejected stone/cornerstone/stone of stumbling) → Romans 9:32-33, 1 Peter 2:6-8, Acts 4:11. In 1 Peter especially, believers themselves are called "lively stones... built up a spiritual house" on that cornerstone — corporate temple imagery from Israel's own scriptures applied to the mixed church.
• Isaiah 66:20-21 (Gentiles brought as an offering, some taken "for priests and for Levites") → Romans 15:16, Paul describing his own Gentile-focused apostleship in explicitly Levitical/priestly terms — "ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable."
• Jeremiah 31:33 / Leviticus 26:12 ("I will be their God, and they shall be my people") → 2 Corinthians 6:16-18, Paul quoting covenant-formula language and applying it directly to the church as "the temple of the living God."

Your entire argument about Daniel 9:24 collapses. Poof!

"Peter too was wrong about this when he said "which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God."

That objection is demolished by one elementary question:

To whom was Peter writing?

Peter identifies his readers as “the elect sojourners of the dispersion” in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. His language throughout the epistle is saturated with Israel’s national vocabulary because he is addressing Jewish believers of the Diaspora—the believing remnant of Israel—not announcing that the predominantly Gentile Church has replaced Israel.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum addresses this passage directly. He explains that 1 Peter 2:10 is not contrasting “Israel” with “the Church,” nor unbelieving Jews with believing Gentiles. Peter is contrasting unbelieving Jews with believing Jews. These Jewish believers had formerly belonged spiritually to the unbelieving mass of Israel—the non-remnant—but through faith in Messiah they had become members of Israel’s believing remnant. They had not previously obtained mercy; now they had obtained mercy.

That is Peter’s point.

He is not saying:

“Gentile Christians were once not Israel, but now they have become Israel.”

He is saying, in effect:

“You Jewish believers were formerly part of Israel’s unbelieving majority, alienated from the enjoyment of God’s covenant mercy; but now, through faith in Messiah, you constitute the believing remnant—the people of God who have obtained mercy.”

The replacement-theology reading is especially absurd because the surrounding context is unmistakably Jewish. Peter calls his readers:

• a chosen generation;
• a royal priesthood;
• a holy nation;
• a people for God’s own possession.

Those expressions come from Exodus 19:5–6 and Isaiah 43:20–21—passages originally addressed to Israel. Peter applies them naturally to the faithful remnant within Israel, the portion of Israel presently fulfilling the spiritual vocation the nation as a whole has failed to fulfil.

This is the same distinction Paul makes in Romans 11:

“The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”

There is Israel as a whole, presently hardened in part, and there is the elect remnant within Israel that has believed. The remnant does not replace Israel; it is part of Israel. Its existence proves that God has not rejected His people.

Peter’s use of Hosea fits this perfectly. Hosea concerned Israelites who, because of covenant rebellion, were judicially designated “not my people,” yet were promised future mercy and restoration. Peter applies that Hoseanic pattern to Jewish believers who have passed from unbelief and estrangement into faith and covenant mercy.

Nothing in the passage says:

• the Church has become Israel;
• Gentiles have inherited Israel’s national identity;
• Israel’s covenants have been transferred;
• Israel’s future restoration has been cancelled.

Those conclusions are not in Peter’s text. They are imported into it by replacement theologians and then triumphantly “discovered” there.

Your argument therefore rests upon a blatant circular assumption:

1. Assume Peter’s readers are a replacement for Israel.
2. Interpret Israel’s titles as proof that they replaced Israel.
3. Conclude that the assumption has been demonstrated.

That is not exegesis. It is theological ventriloquism.

Peter was not “wrong.” Peter understood perfectly what the Hebrew prophets taught: within unbelieving national Israel there remains a believing Jewish remnant that has received mercy through Messiah. Fruchtenbaum correctly summarizes the contrast as Jewish believers versus Jewish unbelievers, not the Church versus Israel.

Thus, “which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God” does not mean:

“You Gentiles have replaced Israel.”

It means:

“You who formerly stood among Israel’s unbelieving non-remnant have now, through faith, entered the believing remnant and obtained mercy.”

Replacement theology survives here only by changing Peter’s audience, mangling Hosea’s context, and pretending that shared salvation creates transferred national identity.

It does not.

The believing remnant is not a replacement for Israel.
It is the faithful remnant of Israel.

 

[cv5]

And if you do try to waste our time with your response make sure you also respond to these examples:

• Genesis 12:3 / 22:18 (Abrahamic blessing to "all nations/families of the earth") → Galatians 3:8-9, 14, 29: "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul treats Gentile believers as direct recipients of the Abrahamic covenant, not adjacent beneficiaries.
• Deuteronomy 32:21 ("I will provoke you to jealousy by those which are not a nation") → Romans 10:19, quoted by Paul as already-happening in the Gentile mission.
• Isaiah 54:1 ("Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear") → Galatians 4:27, applied by Paul to "Jerusalem which is above... which is the mother of us all" (v.26) — the very verse that sits one chapter before "the Israel of God."
• Exodus 19:5-6 ("ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation") → 1 Peter 2:9: "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." Same audience as the Hosea citation two verses later.
• Psalm 118:22 / Isaiah 28:16 / Isaiah 8:14 (rejected stone/cornerstone/stone of stumbling) → Romans 9:32-33, 1 Peter 2:6-8, Acts 4:11. In 1 Peter especially, believers themselves are called "lively stones... built up a spiritual house" on that cornerstone — corporate temple imagery from Israel's own scriptures applied to the mixed church.
• Isaiah 66:20-21 (Gentiles brought as an offering, some taken "for priests and for Levites") → Romans 15:16, Paul describing his own Gentile-focused apostleship in explicitly Levitical/priestly terms — "ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable."
• Jeremiah 31:33 / Leviticus 26:12 ("I will be their God, and they shall be my people") → 2 Corinthians 6:16-18, Paul quoting covenant-formula language and applying it directly to the church as "the temple of the living God."

Your entire argument about Daniel 9:24 collapses. Poof!

"Your entire argument about Daniel 9:24 collapses. Poof!"

Frankly, I really do not think you understand Daniel 9, nor do you understand my arguments. Because if you did, you would not be selling replacement theology snake oil to begin with.

The argument is a spectacular non sequitur. Every cited passage may establish that Gentile believers receive spiritual blessings promised through Abraham and participate in salvation realities revealed in Israel’s Scriptures. Not one of them changes the grammatical subjects of Daniel 9:24 from Israel and Jerusalem to the Church.

“Poof”? The only thing that disappears here is your biblically illiterate argument itself.

You have assembled a catalogue of passages showing that Gentile believers participate in blessings mediated through Israel’s Messiah—and then leapt, without a shred of textual warrant, to the conclusion that Daniel’s “people” must therefore be the Church and Daniel’s “holy city” must somehow cease to be Jerusalem.

That conclusion does not follow.

Participation in blessing is not transfer of identity​

Yes, Gentile believers are blessed with faithful Abraham. Yes, those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s spiritual seed and heirs according to promise. But Abraham had more than one category of promise. The fact that Gentiles share in the spiritual blessing of justification by faith does not make them ethnic Israel, transfer Israel’s land title to them, or turn Jerusalem into the Church.

Galatians 3 expressly identifies the blessing reaching the Gentiles as receiving justification and the promised Spirit through faith. It does not say:

“Therefore the Church is Daniel’s people, and the Church is Daniel’s holy city.”

That sentence exists only in the replacement theologian’s imagination.

The same failure infects the rest of the list:

• Deuteronomy 32 predicts God provoking Israel through Gentile blessing. That presupposes the continuing distinction between Israel and the Gentiles provoking Israel.
• Isaiah 54 may be applied typologically or spiritually in Galatians 4 without cancelling Isaiah’s national promises to restored Israel.
• Israel’s priestly vocabulary may be applied to believers without turning the Church into geopolitical Israel.
• Temple imagery may describe the Church without making the Church the literal city of Jerusalem.
• Paul may describe his ministry in priestly terms without becoming a Levitical priest.
• The Church may enjoy the spiritual reality of God dwelling among His people without exhausting Jeremiah 31’s explicitly named covenant with “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah.”

Repeated application of Israel-derived imagery does not equal repeated cancellation of Israel.

Daniel 9 identifies its own subjects​

Daniel 9 does not leave its audience open for theological reassignment. Gabriel says:

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city.”

Daniel’s prayer has already identified both.

He confesses the sins of Israel, Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem and “all Israel.” He pleads concerning Jerusalem, God’s holy mountain and the desolate sanctuary. Gabriel then answers that prayer by speaking of Daniel’s people and Daniel’s holy city. The natural referents are therefore Israel and Jerusalem—not a previously unrevealed multinational body called the Church. Daniel 9:24–27 itself continues to concern Jerusalem, its rebuilding, Messiah’s presentation, the destruction of the city and sanctuary, and the final covenant crisis.

To make Daniel’s people the Church, you must perform four acts of exegetical vandalism:

1. Sever Gabriel’s answer from Daniel’s prayer.
2. Redefine Daniel’s people as a body Daniel never mentioned.
3. Redefine Daniel’s holy city as something other than Jerusalem.
4. Import later Church revelation into a prophecy explicitly framed around Israel’s city and sanctuary.

That is not “Paul interpreting Daniel.” Paul never applies Daniel 9:24’s seventy weeks to the Church. It is replacement theology retrofitting Daniel.

The Church Age is in the interval, not in the seventy weeks​

Daniel 9 provides evidence for an interval because two events occur after the sixty-ninth week but before the final week described in verse 27:

• Messiah is cut off.
• Jerusalem and the sanctuary are destroyed.

Then the final “one week” is introduced separately through the covenant and its midpoint violation. Thus the text places historical events after the sixty-nine weeks while reserving the seventieth week for the ruler and covenant of verse 27. Thomas Ice accordingly argues that Daniel’s seventy-week timetable belongs to Israel, while the Church Age intervenes between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks.

The Church Age is therefore not the subject of Daniel 9:24. It occupies the unrevealed interval during which Israel’s seventy-week clock is not advancing.

That distinction is elementary:

• Daniel directly prophesies Israel’s seventy-week program.
• Daniel reveals an interval between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks.
• The New Testament later reveals the Church mystery occupying that interval.
• Daniel does not thereby become a prophecy “about the Church Age.”

A railway timetable can contain a suspension between two scheduled stages without the suspension becoming the subject or beneficiary of the timetable.

The list proves too little—and assumes too much​

Every passage cited proves, at most, that the Church receives genuine spiritual blessings through Israel’s Messiah and may be described using language drawn from Israel’s Scriptures.

None proves that:

• the Church is national Israel;
• Daniel’s “thy people” means the Church;
• Daniel’s “holy city” means the Church;
• Israel’s seventieth week is being fulfilled throughout the Church Age;
• Israel’s national promises have been transferred or cancelled.

The attempted rebuttal therefore never reaches Daniel 9. It merely piles up passages about shared blessing and pretends that shared blessing equals shared identity.

It does not.

Gentiles are Abrahamically blessed without becoming national Israel.
The Church is a spiritual temple without becoming Jerusalem.
Believers are a royal priesthood without becoming Levites.
The Church occupies Daniel’s interval without becoming the subject of Daniel’s seventy weeks.

Daniel 9 remains exactly where Gabriel placed it: upon Daniel’s people—Israel—and Daniel’s holy city—Jerusalem.

 

[cv5]

Wow, OK, so then Peter was wrong in Acts 2:16-21, that which was spoken by Joel the prophet could not have been fulfilled by the birth of the church on Pentecost. And James was wrong in Acts 15:16-18 about rebuilding the fallen tabernacle of David and all men seeking unto the Lord including Gentiles. So much for Hosea 1:10 and 2:23, those people who were called "not my people" becoming "sons of the living God". One more major mistake by Paul in applying that verse to the church in Romans 9:25-26 when he said the Gentiles will be called "my people". Peter too was wrong about this when he said "which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Not only so but this puts Pauls complete mission in question because he applied Isaiah 49:6 to his mission on Earth in Acts 13:47 "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" when he had the nerve to say "for so hath the Lord commanded us." Clearly Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James should have checked with cv5 before speaking and mailing out their epistles.

But you know what, Jesus also said it when he applied Jeremiah 31:31-34 (New Covenant "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah") in Luke 22:20 to the Lord's table "this cup is the new testament in my blood" and Hebrews 8:8-13, which quotes the passage in full and applies it to those under the New Covenant through Christ's priesthood — not a future ethnic-Israel-only covenant.

Sorry cv5, Jesus is Lord, not you.

And if you do try to waste our time with your response make sure you also respond to these examples:

• Genesis 12:3 / 22:18 (Abrahamic blessing to "all nations/families of the earth") → Galatians 3:8-9, 14, 29: "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul treats Gentile believers as direct recipients of the Abrahamic covenant, not adjacent beneficiaries.
• Deuteronomy 32:21 ("I will provoke you to jealousy by those which are not a nation") → Romans 10:19, quoted by Paul as already-happening in the Gentile mission.
• Isaiah 54:1 ("Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear") → Galatians 4:27, applied by Paul to "Jerusalem which is above... which is the mother of us all" (v.26) — the very verse that sits one chapter before "the Israel of God."
• Exodus 19:5-6 ("ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation") → 1 Peter 2:9: "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." Same audience as the Hosea citation two verses later.
• Psalm 118:22 / Isaiah 28:16 / Isaiah 8:14 (rejected stone/cornerstone/stone of stumbling) → Romans 9:32-33, 1 Peter 2:6-8, Acts 4:11. In 1 Peter especially, believers themselves are called "lively stones... built up a spiritual house" on that cornerstone — corporate temple imagery from Israel's own scriptures applied to the mixed church.
• Isaiah 66:20-21 (Gentiles brought as an offering, some taken "for priests and for Levites") → Romans 15:16, Paul describing his own Gentile-focused apostleship in explicitly Levitical/priestly terms — "ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable."
• Jeremiah 31:33 / Leviticus 26:12 ("I will be their God, and they shall be my people") → 2 Corinthians 6:16-18, Paul quoting covenant-formula language and applying it directly to the church as "the temple of the living God."

Your entire argument about Daniel 9:24 collapses. Poof!

Oh, and by the way, applying all of those Old Testament passages to the predominantly Gentile Bride-Church of the present age is beyond appalling—it is sheer madness.

FYI, the New Covenant was given FIRST to Israel.
The gentiles came along for the ride later. And there had to be a major confab to determine what to do about these gentile believers!

 

[cv5]

Wow, OK, so then Peter was wrong in Acts 2:16-21, that which was spoken by Joel the prophet could not have been fulfilled by the birth of the church on Pentecost. And James was wrong in Acts 15:16-18 about rebuilding the fallen tabernacle of David and all men seeking unto the Lord including Gentiles. So much for Hosea 1:10 and 2:23, those people who were called "not my people" becoming "sons of the living God". One more major mistake by Paul in applying that verse to the church in Romans 9:25-26 when he said the Gentiles will be called "my people". Peter too was wrong about this when he said "which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Not only so but this puts Pauls complete mission in question because he applied Isaiah 49:6 to his mission on Earth in Acts 13:47 "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" when he had the nerve to say "for so hath the Lord commanded us." Clearly Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James should have checked with cv5 before speaking and mailing out their epistles.

But you know what, Jesus also said it when he applied Jeremiah 31:31-34 (New Covenant "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah") in Luke 22:20 to the Lord's table "this cup is the new testament in my blood" and Hebrews 8:8-13, which quotes the passage in full and applies it to those under the New Covenant through Christ's priesthood — not a future ethnic-Israel-only covenant.

Sorry cv5, Jesus is Lord, not you.

And if you do try to waste our time with your response make sure you also respond to these examples:

• Genesis 12:3 / 22:18 (Abrahamic blessing to "all nations/families of the earth") → Galatians 3:8-9, 14, 29: "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul treats Gentile believers as direct recipients of the Abrahamic covenant, not adjacent beneficiaries.
• Deuteronomy 32:21 ("I will provoke you to jealousy by those which are not a nation") → Romans 10:19, quoted by Paul as already-happening in the Gentile mission.
• Isaiah 54:1 ("Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear") → Galatians 4:27, applied by Paul to "Jerusalem which is above... which is the mother of us all" (v.26) — the very verse that sits one chapter before "the Israel of God."
• Exodus 19:5-6 ("ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation") → 1 Peter 2:9: "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." Same audience as the Hosea citation two verses later.
• Psalm 118:22 / Isaiah 28:16 / Isaiah 8:14 (rejected stone/cornerstone/stone of stumbling) → Romans 9:32-33, 1 Peter 2:6-8, Acts 4:11. In 1 Peter especially, believers themselves are called "lively stones... built up a spiritual house" on that cornerstone — corporate temple imagery from Israel's own scriptures applied to the mixed church.
• Isaiah 66:20-21 (Gentiles brought as an offering, some taken "for priests and for Levites") → Romans 15:16, Paul describing his own Gentile-focused apostleship in explicitly Levitical/priestly terms — "ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable."
• Jeremiah 31:33 / Leviticus 26:12 ("I will be their God, and they shall be my people") → 2 Corinthians 6:16-18, Paul quoting covenant-formula language and applying it directly to the church as "the temple of the living God."

Your entire argument about Daniel 9:24 collapses. Poof!

Yes—the duffers, the indolent, and those who despise the promises made to Israel willingly allow themselves to be deceived by the hoax of replacement theology.

**********************************************************************

Indeed, James’s wording ***preserves*** rather than destroys the distinction between the present Church Age and Israel’s future kingdom:

“Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.”

That is God’s present work: taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name.

James then quotes:

“After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down.”

The present Gentile ingathering is not called the rebuilding of David’s tabernacle. The two works are distinguished. God is presently gathering a people from among the Gentiles; ***afterward*** comes the restoration of the fallen Davidic order. The Church does not become David’s kingdom merely because both Jews and Gentiles receive salvation.

 

[ZNP]

Oh, and by the way, applying all of those Old Testament passages to the predominantly Gentile Bride-Church of the present age is beyond appalling—it is sheer madness.

FYI, the New Covenant was given FIRST to Israel.
The gentiles came along for the ride later. And there had to be a major confab to determine what to do about these gentile believers!

Daniel 9:24's six clauses aren't ethnic-national outcomes — they're outcomes of salvation.

The clauses themselves describe what the atonement accomplishes, not merely who prayed for it. "Finish transgression," "end sin," "make reconciliation for iniquity," "bring in everlasting righteousness" — these are the effects of the cross, universally applied to whosoever believes, Jew or Gentile (Ephesians 2:14-16, "one new man"). You can't cordon off Calvary's actual achievement into a national box just because Daniel's prayer was from a Jew. The mechanism Gabriel describes — Messiah cut off "not for himself" — is substitutionary atonement, and substitutionary atonement doesn't have an ethnicity.

If the Church Age quietly occupies gap-space inside a prophecy explicitly about ending sin and bringing in everlasting righteousness, the ekklesia isn't a footnote to Daniel 9 — it's living proof of what those clauses accomplish in real time. It is the fulfillment of that prophecy.

You keep saying "application isn't fulfillment." Fine — then explain how Gabriel's answer to "make reconciliation for iniquity" is anything less than the actual reconciliation Paul says the cross achieved for all men. That's not application. That's the identity of the redeemed.

 

[cv5]

Daniel 9:24's six clauses aren't ethnic-national outcomes — they're outcomes of salvation.

The clauses themselves describe what the atonement accomplishes, not merely who prayed for it. "Finish transgression," "end sin," "make reconciliation for iniquity," "bring in everlasting righteousness" — these are the effects of the cross, universally applied to whosoever believes, Jew or Gentile (Ephesians 2:14-16, "one new man"). You can't cordon off Calvary's actual achievement into a national box just because Daniel's prayer was from a Jew. The mechanism Gabriel describes — Messiah cut off "not for himself" — is substitutionary atonement, and substitutionary atonement doesn't have an ethnicity.

If the Church Age quietly occupies gap-space inside a prophecy explicitly about ending sin and bringing in everlasting righteousness, the ekklesia isn't a footnote to Daniel 9 — it's living proof of what those clauses accomplish in real time. It is the fulfillment of that prophecy.

You keep saying "application isn't fulfillment." Fine — then explain how Gabriel's answer to "make reconciliation for iniquity" is anything less than the actual reconciliation Paul says the cross achieved for all men. That's not application. That's the identity of the redeemed.

Your preposterous pretensions have been dismantled one after another through the application of legitimate hermeneutics and rigorous scholarship.

And yet, you persist in proffering shabby, biblically illiterate folderol?

I beg you to reconsider your heading and make the necessary course corrections.

 

[ZNP]

Your preposterous pretensions have been dismantled one after another through the application of legitimate hermeneutics and rigorous scholarship.

And yet, you persist in proffering shabby, biblically illiterate folderol?

I beg you to reconsider your heading and make the necessary course corrections.

Pure gibberish. I'm wondering if anyone even read your posts?