Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[ThereRoseaLamb]

The reason I say the modern land restoration is not prophetic fulfillment is because the Bible never treats twentieth‑century geopolitics as the mechanism by which God fulfills His covenant promises — the NT says the promises are fulfilled in Christ, not in a modern nation‑state with an air force, a parliament, and a GDP;

John describes locusts that look like horses prepared for battle, wearing golden crowns, with human faces, women's hair, lion's teeth, and iron-like breastplates. The noise of their wings sounds like the roaring rush of many horse-drawn chariots into battle. They have stings in their tails like scorpions and are given the power to torment those without the seal of God for five months.
Almost anyone who reads this believes John is talking about modern day military equipment and John was using things he knew and saw to describe what he had never seen.

Hebrews calls the old covenant obsolete (Heb 8:13), Paul says the true children of Abraham are those who are in Christ (Gal 3:7), and Jesus says the kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), which means your attempt to turn the 1948 UN partition into Ezekiel’s eschatology is the theological equivalent of confusing a weather report with the book of Revelation.

Amos 9:14-15
I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,” says the Lord your God.
Ezekiel 37:10-14
So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet--a vast army. Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”
Ezekiel 37:21-22
and say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.
“Hear the word of the Lord, O nations; proclaim it in distant coastlands: ‘He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’
then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers.

 

[OMC]

O.m.gosh.......you seem to have a answer for everything but refuse to accept what is happening before your very eyes.
And that's what prophecy is all about....seeing...watch.... are key words which points to a physical manifestation to happen.
The first war of modern Israel is for the land....is that happening???
The second is for its wealth....yet to come.
Israel is partially blinded to the truth the climax of what is to come.
Don't know about you but if I see a person who's vision is impaired I'd offer assistance not criticism.

You keep treating “seeing” and “watching” as if prophecy is a scavenger hunt for modern headlines, but the NT never tells the church to authenticate fulfillment by matching current events to Ezekiel; it tells us the promises are fulfilled in Christ’s ingathering, not in a modern state’s wars.
Saying “you refuse what’s before your eyes” is just newspaper hermeneutics with emotional pressure added — geography and conflict prove politics, not prophecy.
Your “first war for land, second for wealth” is a system imposed on the text, not drawn from it, and “partial blindness” (Rom 11) refers to Israel’s present unbelief, not a geopolitical countdown.
Offering “assistance to the vision‑impaired” sounds compassionate, but it’s irrelevant: Paul says the veil is lifted in Christ, not in a modern nation’s military survival.
You’re not defending biblical watchfulness; you’re defending a framework where prophecy = whatever is happening on the news.

 

[OMC]

John describes locusts that look like horses prepared for battle, wearing golden crowns, with human faces, women's hair, lion's teeth, and iron-like breastplates. The noise of their wings sounds like the roaring rush of many horse-drawn chariots into battle. They have stings in their tails like scorpions and are given the power to torment those without the seal of God for five months.
Almost anyone who reads this believes John is talking about modern day military equipment and John was using things he knew and saw to describe what he had never seen.

The reason almost everyone thinks Revelation’s locusts are modern military hardware is because they start with current technology and then retrofit John’s imagery onto it, but that’s not exegesis — that’s newspaper hermeneutics.

John describes locusts that look like horses prepared for battle, wearing golden crowns, with human faces, women's hair, lion's teeth, and iron-like breastplates. The noise of their wings sounds like the roaring rush of many horse-drawn chariots into battle. They have stings in their tails like scorpions and are given the power to torment those without the seal of God for five months.
Almost anyone who reads this believes John is talking about modern day military equipment and John was using things he knew and saw to describe what he had never seen.



Amos 9:14-15
I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,” says the Lord your God.
Ezekiel 37:10-14
So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet--a vast army. Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”
Ezekiel 37:21-22
and say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.
“Hear the word of the Lord, O nations; proclaim it in distant coastlands: ‘He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’
then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers.

Quoting Amos 9 and Ezekiel 37 doesn’t solve the hermeneutical problem — you’re assuming that because the text mentions land, any later land‑event involving ethnic Jews must be the fulfillment, but the NT explicitly redirects these restoration promises to Christ’s people, not to a modern nation‑state.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

The reason almost everyone thinks Revelation’s locusts are modern military hardware is because they start with current technology and then retrofit John’s imagery onto it, but that’s not exegesis — that’s newspaper hermeneutics.

So you believe that what John spoke was reality, not him describing or putting his vision in understandable terms?

Quoting Amos 9 and Ezekiel 37 doesn’t solve the hermeneutical problem — you’re assuming that because the text mentions land, any later land‑event involving ethnic Jews must be the fulfillment, but the NT explicitly redirects these restoration promises to Christ’s people, not to a modern nation‑state.

No it doesn't say land, " I will plant Israel in their own land".
This is what the Sovereign Lord says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel.
I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it
He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers.

 

[Beekeeper]

Because dear sir they will not be uprooted again

You don't believe that the earth will be destroyed as in 2Peter 3?

 

[Revelation1v8]

You keep treating “seeing” and “watching” as if prophecy is a scavenger hunt for modern headlines, but the NT never tells the church to authenticate fulfillment by matching current events to Ezekiel; it tells us the promises are fulfilled in Christ’s ingathering, not in a modern state’s wars.
Saying “you refuse what’s before your eyes” is just newspaper hermeneutics with emotional pressure added — geography and conflict prove politics, not prophecy.
Your “first war for land, second for wealth” is a system imposed on the text, not drawn from it, and “partial blindness” (Rom 11) refers to Israel’s present unbelief, not a geopolitical countdown.
Offering “assistance to the vision‑impaired” sounds compassionate, but it’s irrelevant: Paul says the veil is lifted in Christ, not in a modern nation’s military survival.
You’re not defending biblical watchfulness; you’re defending a framework where prophecy = whatever is happening on the news.

Luke 21:20-22

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Zechariah 12:2-3, 7-9

2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

7 The Lord also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.

8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

 

[OMC]

So you believe that what John spoke was reality, not him describing or putting his vision in understandable terms?

No, I’m not saying John’s vision was “raw heavenly reality” with no human mediation; I’m saying the referent of the vision is real, while the form of the vision is symbolic, which is exactly how Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah function — God shows true events through symbolic, often hybrid imagery, and the prophet reports what he saw, not what the event “looked like” in literal history.
The mistake newspaper‑hermeneutics makes is assuming John was trying to give a technical description of future machinery, when apocalyptic literature never works that way; John isn’t “describing tanks in first‑century vocabulary,” he’s reporting visionary symbols that communicate theological realities (judgment, demonic torment, divine sovereignty) rather than mechanical specifications.
In other words: the vision is real, the imagery is symbolic, and the referent is historical — but you only get the referent by letting Scripture interpret Scripture, not by retrofitting modern hardware into apocalyptic symbolism or forcing John to be a frustrated military journalist.

No it doesn't say land, " I will plant Israel in their own land".
This is what the Sovereign Lord says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel.
I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it
He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers.

You’re making the classic mistake of treating the OT promise‑form as if the NT leaves it untouched, but the apostles repeatedly tell you the opposite: the land language is real in the vision, but its referent is reinterpreted in Christ, not re‑literalized in a modern nation‑state. When God says “I will plant Israel in their own land” or “I will settle you in your own land,” He’s speaking covenantally to a people whose identity and inheritance the NT explicitly redefines — Paul says the true heirs are those in Christ (Gal 3:29), Hebrews says the patriarchs were looking for a better country (Heb 11:16), and Peter says the restored people are the holy nation formed by Christ, not an ethnic census.
Ezekiel’s “open your graves” and “bring you back to the land” is resurrection‑imagery pointing to new‑creation restoration, not a 20th‑century geopolitical state with contested borders and UN recognition.
The prophets use land as the covenant symbol of God’s presence, blessing, and inheritance — the NT says that inheritance is now Christ Himself (Eph 1:11), which is why the apostles never point to a future ethnic land‑return as the fulfillment.
So yes, the land language is real, but its fulfillment is Christological, not cartographical — and forcing it onto modern Israel is exactly the hermeneutical error the NT corrects.

 

[Bible_Locket]

Suppressionism,the other name for replacement theology,started with the antisemite,Justin Martyr,in about 150 c. e.

 

[OMC]

Luke 21:20-22

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Zechariah 12:2-3, 7-9

2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

7 The Lord also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.

8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Luke 21 is 70 AD, not a modern war — Jesus says those siege‑conditions fulfilled “all things written,” which means He Himself locates OT judgment‑prophecies in the first‑century fall of Jerusalem, not in a future geopolitical crisis.
Zechariah 12 is messianic conflict, not CNN prophecy: John applies it directly to Christ’s piercing, and the NT redefines Jerusalem, Judah, and David’s house around Christ’s kingdom, not ethnic geography.
Your move assumes the OT’s land‑language stays literal, but the apostles say the inheritance is Christ and the “Jerusalem above,” not a modern nation‑state. Until you let the NT set the frame, you’ll keep treating apocalyptic universals like a geopolitical map instead of Christological fulfillment.

 

[OMC]

Suppressionism,the other name for replacement theology,started with the antisemite,Justin Martyr,in about 150 c. e.

The claim that “suppressionism began with Justin Martyr because he was an antisemite” is historically sloppy — Justin did articulate early supersessionist logic, but calling him an “antisemite” in the modern sense is anachronistic.
What’s actually true is this: Justin is the first major Christian writer to argue that the Church is the “true Israel,” and that ethnic Israel’s covenantal role has been superseded — that’s the seed of later supersessionism.
But he wasn’t writing out of racial hatred; he was arguing from his philosophical conversion framework, trying to show Christianity as the fulfillment of Israel’s Scriptures.
The real problem isn’t his motives — it’s his hermeneutic, because he collapses Israel’s future into the Church and sets the trajectory for later theologians who do weaponize it.
So yes, Justin is the historical fountainhead of supersessionist theology, but the charge of “antisemite” belongs to later interpreters who took his framework and turned it into anti‑Jewish ideology, not to Justin himself.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

No, I’m not saying John’s vision was “raw heavenly reality” with no human mediation; I’m saying the referent of the vision is real, while the form of the vision is symbolic, which is exactly how Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah function — God shows true events through symbolic, often hybrid imagery, and the prophet reports what he saw, not what the event “looked like” in literal history.
The mistake newspaper‑hermeneutics makes is assuming John was trying to give a technical description of future machinery, when apocalyptic literature never works that way; John isn’t “describing tanks in first‑century vocabulary,” he’s reporting visionary symbols that communicate theological realities (judgment, demonic torment, divine sovereignty) rather than mechanical specifications.
In other words: the vision is real, the imagery is symbolic, and the referent is historical — but you only get the referent by letting Scripture interpret Scripture, not by retrofitting modern hardware into apocalyptic symbolism or forcing John to be a frustrated military journalist.

You’re making the classic mistake of treating the OT promise‑form as if the NT leaves it untouched, but the apostles repeatedly tell you the opposite: the land language is real in the vision, but its referent is reinterpreted in Christ, not re‑literalized in a modern nation‑state. When God says “I will plant Israel in their own land” or “I will settle you in your own land,” He’s speaking covenantally to a people whose identity and inheritance the NT explicitly redefines — Paul says the true heirs are those in Christ (Gal 3:29), Hebrews says the patriarchs were looking for a better country (Heb 11:16), and Peter says the restored people are the holy nation formed by Christ, not an ethnic census.
Ezekiel’s “open your graves” and “bring you back to the land” is resurrection‑imagery pointing to new‑creation restoration, not a 20th‑century geopolitical state with contested borders and UN recognition.
The prophets use land as the covenant symbol of God’s presence, blessing, and inheritance — the NT says that inheritance is now Christ Himself (Eph 1:11), which is why the apostles never point to a future ethnic land‑return as the fulfillment.
So yes, the land language is real, but its fulfillment is Christological, not cartographical — and forcing it onto modern Israel is exactly the hermeneutical error the NT corrects.

First part I could give you as a possibility of being right. The second is different because we know that God made an actual land promise to Israel. He gave it borders. We can looks at maps today and map out the land that God promised Israel, exactly. And God says first "I will regather" then " I will settle you in your land". And that land can be none other than Israel.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Suppressionism,the other name for replacement theology,started with the antisemite,Justin Martyr,in about 150 c. e.

And Martin Luther went along for the ride!

 

[Revelation1v8]

Luke 21 is 70 AD, not a modern war — Jesus says those siege‑conditions fulfilled “all things written,” which means He Himself locates OT judgment‑prophecies in the first‑century fall of Jerusalem, not in a future geopolitical crisis.
Zechariah 12 is messianic conflict, not CNN prophecy: John applies it directly to Christ’s piercing, and the NT redefines Jerusalem, Judah, and David’s house around Christ’s kingdom, not ethnic geography.
Your move assumes the OT’s land‑language stays literal, but the apostles say the inheritance is Christ and the “Jerusalem above,” not a modern nation‑state. Until you let the NT set the frame, you’ll keep treating apocalyptic universals like a geopolitical map instead of Christological fulfillment.

You're missing the "prophetic telescoping" being used in Luke 21. While the original war happened in 70 AD, a much larger war is coming and verse 22 shows you that it is for a purpose of "vengeance" to complete what has been written. The "vengeance" that God/Jesus takes out against those who hurt his people is pictured as a future event that is described again in Revelation.

Revelation 6:9-10 is the primary passage where the time of vengeance is explicitly questioned, with martyrs crying out, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

The text indicates that this vengeance is tied to a specific, fixed time known only to God, occurring when the full number of believers are killed. Additional references to this divine judgment include Revelation 11:17-18, which thanks God for taking His great power and reigning, and Revelation 19:1-2, which celebrates the execution of vengeance on Babylon the Great and the destruction of those who destroyed the earth.

 

[OMC]

Literal Israel can exist today because ethnic Israel never ceased to exist; what ceased was the old‑covenant nation defined by Torah, temple, priesthood, and the land‑grant structure.
The NT makes that distinction explicit: ethnic Israel continues (Rom 11:1), but covenant Israel — the nation defined by Sinai — is “obsolete and vanishing” (Heb 8:13).
That means modern Israel can exist as a real ethnic people and a real political state without being the theological Israel of the prophets.
In other words: the people persist, the covenant does not.
So yes, literal Israel exists today, but its existence doesn’t automatically carry the covenantal meaning of biblical Israel, nor does a modern state revive the land‑promise structure the NT says is fulfilled in Christ.

 

[OMC]

You're missing the "prophetic telescoping" being used in Luke 21. While the original war happened in 70 AD, a much larger war is coming and verse 22 shows you that it is for a purpose of "vengeance" to complete what has been written. The "vengeance" that God/Jesus takes out against those who hurt his people in pictured as a future event that is described again in Revelation.

Revelation 6:9-10 is the primary passage where the time of vengeance is explicitly questioned, with martyrs crying out, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

The text indicates that this vengeance is tied to a specific, fixed time known only to God, occurring when the full number of believers are killed. Additional references to this divine judgment include Revelation 11:17-18, which thanks God for taking His great power and reigning, and Revelation 19:1-2, which celebrates the execution of vengeance on Babylon the Great and the destruction of those who destroyed the earth.

“prophetic telescoping” doesn’t rescue your reading of Luke 21 because Jesus doesn’t leave the fulfillment open‑ended — He says the 70 AD siege itself was the moment when “all things written” reached their judgment‑fulfillment, which means He’s closing the OT‑judgment cycle, not projecting it forward.
The vengeance in Revelation isn’t a second fulfillment of Luke 21; it’s the heavenly perspective on the same covenant‑judgment pattern — martyrs cry out for vengeance because God’s justice unfolds across history, but John never ties their cry to a future ethnic‑Israel war. Revelation’s vengeance scenes (Rev 6; Rev 11; Rev 19) are apocalyptic universals, not geopolitical sequels: they depict God judging the persecuting world‑order, not “round two of Jerusalem’s siege.”
Your move assumes Luke 21 is a double‑prophecy, but Jesus explicitly timestamps it, and Revelation never reopens that timestamp. Until you let the NT’s own structure of vengeance‑motifs govern the reading, you’ll keep treating Revelation’s cosmic judgment as a newspaper‑ready replay of 70 AD instead of the theological frame the apostles actually give.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Literal Israel can exist today because ethnic Israel never ceased to exist; what ceased was the old‑covenant nation defined by Torah, temple, priesthood, and the land‑grant structure.
The NT makes that distinction explicit: ethnic Israel continues (Rom 11:1), but covenant Israel — the nation defined by Sinai — is “obsolete and vanishing” (Heb 8:13).
That means modern Israel can exist as a real ethnic people and a real political state without being the theological Israel of the prophets.
In other words: the people persist, the covenant does not.
So yes, literal Israel exists today, but its existence doesn’t automatically carry the covenantal meaning of biblical Israel, nor does a modern state revive the land‑promise structure the NT says is fulfilled in Christ.

No, you need to revisit the covenants again.

The Four Covenants with Israel​

• Abrahamic Covenant: An unconditional covenant where God promised Abraham descendants, land (Canaan), and that all nations would be blessed through his lineage (Genesis 12, 15, 17).
• Mosaic Covenant: A conditional covenant given at Mount Sinai, establishing the Law (including the Ten Commandments) and promising blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (Exodus 19–24).
• Palestinian (Land) Covenant: An unconditional covenant detailing Israel’s future restoration to the land of Canaan after periods of exile and disobedience (Deuteronomy 29–30).
• Davidic Covenant: An unconditional covenant promising David an eternal dynasty and a kingdom that would endure forever through his offspring (2 Samuel 7).

 

[Revelation1v8]

“prophetic telescoping” doesn’t rescue your reading of Luke 21 because Jesus doesn’t leave the fulfillment open‑ended — He says the 70 AD siege itself was the moment when “all things written” reached their judgment‑fulfillment, which means He’s closing the OT‑judgment cycle, not projecting it forward.
The vengeance in Revelation isn’t a second fulfillment of Luke 21; it’s the heavenly perspective on the same covenant‑judgment pattern — martyrs cry out for vengeance because God’s justice unfolds across history, but John never ties their cry to a future ethnic‑Israel war. Revelation’s vengeance scenes (Rev 6; Rev 11; Rev 19) are apocalyptic universals, not geopolitical sequels: they depict God judging the persecuting world‑order, not “round two of Jerusalem’s siege.”
Your move assumes Luke 21 is a double‑prophecy, but Jesus explicitly timestamps it, and Revelation never reopens that timestamp. Until you let the NT’s own structure of vengeance‑motifs govern the reading, you’ll keep treating Revelation’s cosmic judgment as a newspaper‑ready replay of 70 AD instead of the theological frame the apostles actually give.

Those verses I used in Luke were backed up by the verses I showed you in Zechariah 12. When you see armies surrounding Israel, be watching because that's when Jesus chooses to return for battle to save the land from the rest of the world, specifically the Islamic nations.

 

[OMC]

No, you need to revisit the covenants again.

The Four Covenants with Israel​

• Abrahamic Covenant: An unconditional covenant where God promised Abraham descendants, land (Canaan), and that all nations would be blessed through his lineage (Genesis 12, 15, 17).
• Mosaic Covenant: A conditional covenant given at Mount Sinai, establishing the Law (including the Ten Commandments) and promising blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (Exodus 19–24).
• Palestinian (Land) Covenant: An unconditional covenant detailing Israel’s future restoration to the land of Canaan after periods of exile and disobedience (Deuteronomy 29–30).
• Davidic Covenant: An unconditional covenant promising David an eternal dynasty and a kingdom that would endure forever through his offspring (2 Samuel 7).

You’re listing the four classic covenants as if their mere existence guarantees their literal‑land, literal‑nation fulfillment today, but that’s exactly where your system breaks: the Abrahamic, Land, and Davidic covenants are unconditional, yes — but the NT tells you how God fulfills unconditional covenants, and it is never by resurrecting the Mosaic land‑grant structure.
Paul says the Abrahamic promise was never ultimately about Canaan but about Christ (Gal 3:16),
Hebrews says the patriarchs understood the land typologically and were aiming at a better country (Heb 11:16), and
Peter says the Davidic kingdom is fulfilled in Christ’s enthronement, not a restored ethnic monarchy (Acts 2:30–36).
The so‑called “Palestinian covenant” (a later theological label, not a biblical one) is simply the exile‑return pattern embedded in Deuteronomy — and the NT says the final return is resurrection, not geography.
In other words: unconditional covenants guarantee fulfillment, not form; God keeps the promises, but the NT tells you the fulfillment is Christological, not cartographical.
Modern Israel can exist politically, but none of these covenants require a modern state to carry their eschatological weight — because the apostles relocate the inheritance into Christ and new creation, not back into ancient borders.

 

[Bible_Locket]

And Martin Luther went along for the ride!

I figure they were both atheists bent on the malignant narcissistic goals of being remembered as "church fathers".

No way they could consider themselves Christian. When God tells us,those who minister his words will be held to a stricter standard than believers in the word.

Justin and Martin could not possibly believe that to be true. Not when their zeal for bigotry led them to make that deplorable history in their own names.

Who could even come up with such trash? Seriously!

Jesus was a Jew. The first converts to The Way were Jews.

It's pathetic there are still suppressionists alive today.
The devil's church.

 

[OMC]

Those verses I used in Luke were backed up by the verses I showed you in Zechariah 12. When you see armies surrounding Israel, be watching because that's when Jesus chooses to return for battle to save the land from the rest of the world, specifically the Islamic nations.

You’re still merging Luke 21 with Zechariah 12 as if Jesus left the door open for a second siege, but He didn’t — He said the 70 AD encirclement itself fulfilled “all things written,” which shuts down any future‑war extension.
Zechariah 12 isn’t a timestamp for a modern invasion; the NT applies it to Christ’s piercing and the global conflict of His kingdom, not to a future military rescue of ethnic land.
Revelation’s vengeance scenes are cosmic judgment, not “Jesus returns when Israel is surrounded again.”
You’re taking apocalyptic universals and mapping them onto modern geopolitics, but the NT redefines the battleground around Christ’s kingdom, not today’s borders.