Why Christians get a bad rap amongst the Jews...(an example)

There is a lot to WW I and WW II that we will never know, the money trail is particularly important as well.

The Balfour declaration...They could never liberate themselves from the nations they were scattered to and regain Israel unless they used the money and had the nations go to war and weaken one another,,we've been conquering each other one by one for quite a while.

My understanding is that they use the terms Israel and Churc and say the Church has replaced Israel, which include the promised blessings but conveniently leave out the curses.
Yes, Romans 11 should be fun.

Still do not see what that means

Again, Romans 11 makes it clear/ They (whoever they are, unless they are christian) are enemies concernign the gospel.

But Paul also said they are beloved according to the election (promises)

Now, saying this, we should love all people Not just jews. I believe paul was telling the church not to HATE them which goes with him telling the gentle church not to boast. I think either through revelation or what was already happening, Paul saw what would happen.

Correct.

No one ever said they were

I think this is where one group misrepresents another group. (Not you per say, But have heard this said many times)

So what promises are only for Israel that have not been fulfilled in Jesus?
This is where my mind is not quite settled yet.

How about Land promises to begin with?

Yes, I have done much reading on the Balfour Declaration, a pivotal point for sure.
Agree, nothing could have happened without the money.
Now, it is interesting how this came about after WW1 and Britain gained the land after the fall of the Ottoman empire.
I am sure that WW 1 was planned for this very thing to happen and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was just a ruse to start a dominio effect to start the war.

Yes I think is where the rubber hits the road as they say.

I am not sure on this point, now perhaps in the future God will do a restoration, however from a Geo-political historical perspective I have difficulty seeing modern day Israel as a fulfillment of this promise.

If we regard it as a counterfeit, (and I do not know your view on this) can it still be the fulfillment of the promise, or fulfillment of Bible prophesy?

They are in fact in opposition still to Jesus as Messiah, correct?
Does God fulfill promises to people who are in rebellion?

From your knowledge and having been in both camps so to speak what do you think, how do you reason this?

Thought this might help...


Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) essentially teaches that the Christian Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Thus, adherents of Replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and that God’s covenants with them have been cancelled. In other words, according to Replacement theology, the Jewish people today no longer have any unique part to play in God’s plans – they are just like any other nation on the earth (English, Spanish, Chinese, etc.). All the stuff God wanted to do with the Jews in the Old Testament, He is now doing instead with Christians.



1. Israel (the Jewish people and the land) has been replaced by the Christian Church in the purposes of God, or, more precisely, the Church is the historic continuation of Israel to the exclusion of the former.

2. The Jewish people are now no longer a "chosen people." In fact, they are no different from any other group, such as the English, Spanish, Chinese or Egyptians.

3. Since Pentecost of Acts 2, the term "Israel," as found in the Bible, now refers to the Church.

4. The promises, covenants and blessings ascribed to Israel in the Bible have been taken away from the Jews and given to the Church, which has superseded them. However, the Jews are subject to the curses found in the Bible, as a result of their rejection of Christ.

As a result of these beliefs, Replacement theology is forced to interpret the many prophecies in Scripture about Israel3 in allegorical and ‘spiritualized’ ways; they have to find ways of reading the Christian Church into all of those prophecies about the future instead of the literal nation of Israel and the Jewish people, since the Church has replaced the Jews in God’s plan for the world.

6 Reasons Why Replacement Theology is not a Biblical Doctrine

1. The Bible explicitly promises that God’s covenant with the Jews would be eternal (ie. unbreakable).

2. The New Testament explicitly states that the Old Testament promises and covenants to Israel are STILL the possession of Israel, even during this Church age and even while the nation is currently in a state of unbelief.

3. The Old Testament explicitly teaches the future, permanent restoration of the nation Israel.

4. The New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament expectation of a future salvation and restoration of Israel.

5. Nowhere in the entire New Testament is the term ‘Israel’ used for those who are not ethnic Jews. Thus, there is no biblical basis for identifying the Church as the ‘new Israel.’

6. If God could break His covenant with the Jews, then we cannot trust Him to keep His promises to us Christians!


I thought this was a pretty good explanation of replacement theology.

Why?

Why would any one think it is a counterfeit unless they were schooled outside of Scripture?

After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them. (Eze 38:8)

They were to come back in unbelief, that is why they will enter into covenant with the antichrist, will build another Temple...the one antichrist will step into and proclaim he is god.

No. But He uses their rebellion to turn them back to Himself.

Not to derail this thread but did you know that Protestant Christian's endorsed black slavery in america?
It was a common belief back in the day that the skin color of a black person represented the mark of Cain and a error in scripture reading said it was to be punished.

Okay my head hearts going back and forth between both threads...I cannot keep track, I guess I will have to revisit all your points and offer my counterpoints, however, are you also of the belief that Matthew 24 is partially fulfilled or will be fulfilled twice. Do you see any of 70 AD being fulfilled?

it always seemed a bit strange that rome would be rewarded (new capital for Christians) for killing Jesus. doesnt the bible say when you rebel against the Lords anointed you are rebelling against the Lord. they didnt just kill Jesus, they destroyed the temple and when the first church of Jerusalem was set up, lead by James, they destroyed that to.
then you have the religious leaders that had a hand in killing Jesus, they are always thought to be Jews, but were they really Jews? where they chosen by the people, no, they were appointed by Herod by permission of rome and against the will of the Jewish people. that does not sound like a group that speaks for the people at all. and what about king Herod, didnt he bribe his way to the throne, give cities new names like "Ceaseria" kill off all Jews that threatened his power and run off Jewish leaders (like zachariah) that the people loved? he sounds more roman than Jewish.
then you have the Zealots, same as Pharisees only difference is they did not support rome, how many leadership positions did they have, answer would be zero. which proves that unles you were in bed with the romans you could never get a leadership seat in Jerusalem.
so in conclusion sure there were Jews that had a hand in killing Jesus but they were Jewish in name only, all the rest of them was roman through and through.

This refers to 70AD from MT 24...
Do you believe 2Thes 2 was fulfilled in 70 AD?

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2Th 2:3-12)

I just find it hard to swallow that this all happened by 70AD.

OK, I didn't see this above. You can offer your counterpoints if you wish...which tells me you are settled in your stance, in which case I am not really interested in a debate. It appears your mind is set on Preterism and mine on a Dispensational approach. Neither of us thus far has budged and I don't expect we will on this issue. I'm more interested in helping those with sincere questions, sincerely inquiring...rather than a debate type thing. (I may be assuming again, but that's how I sense this is going).

Well, I was trying to see if my counter points could stand up to someone's else's view, I am looking to be persuaded by reason and scripture, I would think that if a doctrine is Biblically sound than it can stand up to scrutiny, so if preterism or pre-mill is biblically sound it should stand up to scrutiny, I think that is my point not really debating.

Anyway all good.

That's nice. I believe my position can stand, but I am not that good at defending, as I have little interest in that sort of thing. My heart has always been at helping, especially those who struggle over certain issues. I'm convinced, of my view, you're convinced of yours, I'm not interested in changing your mind or proving that my convictions on the matter can stand... the rest is just a game.

I'm not tying to give examples of Orthodox Judaism verses Zionist Judaism and have you believe to follow either of the two. I am Christian, you are also and I believe Jesus our Lord is that truth so I should explain that to make it clear. I see that Jesus and the apostles are all saying to love one another even our enemy's and I agree with that and believe it is the truth.

What I meant by asking if everyone knew the differences in the types of Judaism(there's more that two) is that the form of Judaism in control in Israel is Zionist. The earth,united nations set this form of Judaism into Palestine as we know in 1948. We(multiple Christian nations) support and uphold them on the belief that they are the Israel of God,the apple of Gods eye. If they are not and we being the Christians we imagined our selves to be put our fingers into settling up an Israel but should have waited for God to do so we may have set up the nation the man of lawlessness rises up in and have become his allies.

Now I'm saying this because the Scriptures do say that a beast would rise up out of the earth and say "let us make an image of the beast that received a deadly wound...ect." and Israel did have it's kingdom and temple removed and they were scattered among the nations that came out of Rome and this is exactly where they migrated from when they returned to Palestine(with the earths help).

Now when Revelation was written that beast that was to ascend up out of the pit was in the pit. That is Egypt was still present and a nation,Rome was still there,Greece,Babylon,Persia,Assyria ect. were all present as nations,,,all but Israel,it had received a wound and it's capital,Jerusalem destroyed and it's people removed. Let us not forget that in Solomon's days the whole then known world was under the shade of it's tree branches.

I have no intention in mind of saying filthy things of Gods beloved Israel. If an kingdom is set up in the earth and calls itself Israel it should be examined as to if it is the true Israel of our Lord and if not exposed as an imposter because the Scriptures of the Christians do say that an nation will rise and rule the whole earth and many will be deceived,even the elect if possible.

I see it not a shameful thing to examine an nation as to if God has set it up or man. I could not say yes follow it or no don't without examining it in fear of leading some of you astray blindly. It will not offend God to examine it I believe with my whole heart. I wish I knew better words to speak of this with. I am sad I have offended some. I treasure PennEd"s and Kaylagils opinion's and am sad we could not discuss this because maybe of mine own err in wording. I apologize and hope to one day continue that dialog because I respect those oppinions..