Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[cv5]

Yeah that pertains to the first century, lol.

Of course not.
Peter is intentionally making reference to the END of the FLOOD AGE as a parallel to the END of the PRESENT CHURCH AGE.

 

[Revelation1v8]

People do not understand: the rapture will be far more quiet and subtle than most surmise.

The rapture will probably be that way, but the Second Coming of Jesus Himself will NOT be that way.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Was not trying to prove any point just posted part of her vision as a reference, because it was the first mention of a secret Rapture and the first mention of the requirement of a special infilling of the Holy Spirit.

So, she was describing this as a rapture event and not a Second Coming event? Thanks for the clarification.

 

[cv5]

Yeah that pertains to the first century, lol.

And here you go. Its always a good idea to read a few verses ahead.

The Coming Day of the Lord

3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water.

 

[Revelation1v8]

And here you go. Its always a good idea to read a few verses ahead.

The Coming Day of the Lord

3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water.

If you're talking to HeIsHere, you probably need to highlight "the world at THAT TIME" in verse 6.

 

[cv5]

If you're talking to HeIsHere, you probably need to highlight "the world at THAT TIME" in verse 6.

And also "latter days".......

 

[Beekeeper]

If the second-temple period fulfilled that prophecy, how do you account for the fact that Israel later fell into the very unbelief that led to the rejection of her Messiah?
The restoration described by Ezekiel appears permanent: "from that day and forward."
The post-exilic revival was real, but it was not permanent.

You could have approached that question differently and asked:
If the restoration described in Ez 39:22 was NOT fulfilled, how could it be that so many Israelites did NOT reject their Messiah?
How is it possible that the house of Israel can still continue to know their God through Jesus Christ unless it was given to them by God?
Once we know that the house of Israel is a people and not a place, and we grasp that Jesus is the king, priesthood and temple of the house of Israel we also see that the restoration is permanent
for all that God permanently chooses.

The question is whether Romans 11:26 describes a future large-scale turning of Israel to Christ.
Paul distinguishes between the present remnant in verse 5 and "all Israel" in verse 26.
If "all Israel" simply means the remnant, then Paul's contrast loses much of its force because the remnant already existed when he wrote the letter.
As for defining modern Israelis as Gentiles, I don't think that's how Paul uses the terms in Romans 11.
Throughout the chapter he distinguishes Israel from the Gentiles.
The argument depends on that distinction.
Whatever "all Israel" means, it is difficult to see how it can simply be collapsed into "the last Gentile who believes."

Paul does not use any terms to describe modern Israelis in Romans 11, because he was not writing about modern Israelis.
Old covenant Jerusalem still existed when he wrote, as did his tribe Benjamin.
He defended the free offer of the gospel to his kinsmen in a time that extreme persecution also came from his kinsmen on the grounds that God has reserved a remnant of them, "even in this present time", meaning in the time that he was writing.
Paul was also knowledgeable of the fact that Jerusalem was to be destroyed, because he believed Jesus.
He had much reason to be burdened in his heart for his kinsmen, as many of them (including himself) would soon be killed.

Those of us that understand the relevance of the book of Revelation to the destruction of Jerusalem also understand that God maintained a witness to them (Rev.11) right up to the end.
In Rev. 7 God also restrains the angels from doing harm before his servants are sealed.
Here we find a description of a believing remnant of Israelites reserved by God.

Paul also gives a description of new covenant Israel to the Gentile believers in his olive tree illustration, and he explains it in a way that they might fully grasp that they are grafted into a tree that has its roots in old covenant Israel, so as to strengthen his point.
Those who would dispute that the olive tree represents Israel on the grounds that Jesus is the root should not forget that Jesus never broke the old covenant, and so the true old covenant Israel still continues in Him.

And now having described new covenant Israel by the metaphor of this olive tree which non Israelites should be most grateful to have been grafted into contrary to nature, and into which God fully intends to graft His Israelite remnant, Paul tells us that in like manner (houtows) all Israel will be saved.
Paul is not flying off on a completely new tangent there, he is bringing his illustration to it's logical spiritual conclusion in his usual intelligent way.
The obstacle for our friends here is that they are heavily conditioned to keep the concepts of "church" and "Israel" strictly separate, and this conditioning has come from outside of the Bible.
The understanding is easily available to all who can receive it.

 

[OMC]

You could have approached that question differently and asked:
If the restoration described in Ez 39:22 was NOT fulfilled, how could it be that so many Israelites did NOT reject their Messiah?
How is it possible that the house of Israel can still continue to know their God through Jesus Christ unless it was given to them by God?
Once we know that the house of Israel is a people and not a place, and we grasp that Jesus is the king, priesthood and temple of the house of Israel we also see that the restoration is permanent
for all that God permanently chooses.

I agree that many Israelites believed in Jesus. The question is whether that believing remnant exhausts Ezekiel 39's language.

My point is that a remnant already knew the Lord before the exile. Ezekiel 39 appears to describe something broader: "the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward."

If "house of Israel" is reduced to the remnant, then the prophecy doesn't seem to describe anything uniquely new. The issue is whether Ezekiel is speaking only of the elect remnant, or of a larger restoration of Israel as a people.

Paul does not use any terms to describe modern Israelis in Romans 11, because he was not writing about modern Israelis.
Old covenant Jerusalem still existed when he wrote, as did his tribe Benjamin.
He defended the free offer of the gospel to his kinsmen in a time that extreme persecution also came from his kinsmen on the grounds that God has reserved a remnant of them, "even in this present time", meaning in the time that he was writing.
Paul was also knowledgeable of the fact that Jerusalem was to be destroyed, because he believed Jesus.
He had much reason to be burdened in his heart for his kinsmen, as many of them (including himself) would soon be killed.

Those of us that understand the relevance of the book of Revelation to the destruction of Jerusalem also understand that God maintained a witness to them (Rev.11) right up to the end.
In Rev. 7 God also restrains the angels from doing harm before his servants are sealed.
Here we find a description of a believing remnant of Israelites reserved by God.

Paul also gives a description of new covenant Israel to the Gentile believers in his olive tree illustration, and he explains it in a way that they might fully grasp that they are grafted into a tree that has its roots in old covenant Israel, so as to strengthen his point.
Those who would dispute that the olive tree represents Israel on the grounds that Jesus is the root should not forget that Jesus never broke the old covenant, and so the true old covenant Israel still continues in Him.

And now having described new covenant Israel by the metaphor of this olive tree which non Israelites should be most grateful to have been grafted into contrary to nature, and into which God fully intends to graft His Israelite remnant, Paul tells us that in like manner (houtows) all Israel will be saved.
Paul is not flying off on a completely new tangent there, he is bringing his illustration to it's logical spiritual conclusion in his usual intelligent way.
The obstacle for our friends here is that they are heavily conditioned to keep the concepts of "church" and "Israel" strictly separate, and this conditioning has come from outside of the Bible.
The understanding is easily available to all who can receive it.

I agree that Romans 11 is discussing Paul's contemporaries, but that's actually why the distinction between the remnant (v. 5) and "all Israel" (v. 26) seems significant.
The remnant already existed when Paul wrote.
If "all Israel" simply means the remnant, then Paul appears to be restating a reality he had already established.

I agree that the olive tree illustrates one people of God rooted in the covenants and promises, with Gentiles grafted in and unbelieving Jews broken off.
The question is whether Paul's "and so all Israel shall be saved" refers to the completed people of God, or to a future large-scale turning of ethnic Israel to Christ.

My point is simply that Romans 11 does not make that question as obvious as you're suggesting.
Paul deliberately distinguishes Israel, the remnant, and the Gentiles throughout the chapter, which is why many readers see more than the remnant alone in verse 26.