SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : "replacement theology"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )


Why can’t we examine what God DID – even those years following Pentecost, prior to 70 AD? Consider all those Jews who were added to the Kingdom!

I am not blind to this Diane. I can't include everything in a post, it would take up space and people may as well read a book.

I was responding to a post, it may look final, but there was a future for the Jews, as God drew them out of every country and yes, many were saved on the day of Pentecost, and many more afterwards.

It's an exhaustive work to go into such detail regarding this subject, it CAN'T be said in just a few words, precept must be upon precept, otherwise someone will come back with a question to try to trip you up if you don't have all the answers together.

It's like the world asking a baby Christian, "Ok, where did Cain get his wife"? It's not a question of interest, no one really wants to know. It's a question to trip you up, no one has an answer. We have theories, but none are present in the text.

It's like this subject, it can't be said in one breath. The reason why this is so, is because everyone is DEAD set in their belief that Israel is God's chosen people. So a lie told enough times becomes a truth. So you can't convince the hearers with just a word. Jesus had a hard time convincing His hearers in His day, why? because they had their own preconcieved ideas of how the Kingdom of God was going to come. He told them, it's not going to come by observation, your NOT going to see it, because it's within you., That was a foriegn teaching to them, they couldn't accept it.

The Church gets so caught up in teachings that it only takes a radical move of God to convince them otherwise.

Diane, can you see my heart in all this? I am not angry at you, I am angry at the devil.

 2007/3/10 15:03

Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776

 Re: when we must choose our words

It's an exhaustive work to go into such detail regarding this subject, it CAN'T be said in just a few words,

Are the blessings of God so complicated that we are left to default to the more obvious: the negative: the judgments, the condemnations, the thorns, the bad history, etc? Does doing that produce the fruit of righteousness? (That goes back to our thread “negative x3”)

We just lost Neil, and I am quite upset about that. edit:I pray God will work in our precious brother – maybe through some patient and understanding Christians in his life.

I admit that I’ve been overly harping against negativity and need to be quiet now; but I must admit, in my experience I haven't see anyone come closer to God by emphasizing the negative, or trying to convince someone how wrong they are. That seems to work in reverse.

Diane, can you see my heart in all this? I am not angry at you, I am angry at the devil.

I believe I am reading you, as you probably gather from my posts. Yet sometimes I think that doctrinal discussion, in itself, is a smoke screen for something else entirely: the wounds of the heart.
What is our role regarding that?

(See, it's not always a matter of what we say, but what we fail to say)



 2007/3/10 15:38Profile


Are the blessings of God so complicated that we are left to default to the more obvious

They are not complicated at all, however, we make them so.

I was thinking about poor Jeremiah today how he spoke positive to the people, but they looked at it as negative. He told them in essense, "Go to Babylon and all will be ok, just don't go against the word of the LORD". Yet they continued to rebel (I am not talking about the Jew here, but us in general).

Negative is good. When I got the strap, though it was negative to me, it produced positive results.

But I do understand what your saying, it's the "harping" on the negative that is disturbing. I hope I am correct in feeling that from you?

I never got to know Neil(Bartle), but I don't like to see anyone go or be banned from a site.

You know what would be nice? a voice chat room. Wishful thinking, eh? :-)

 2007/3/10 16:50

Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776



it's the "harping" on the negative that is disturbing. I hope I am correct in feeling that from you?

You are correct. Perhaps it’s an issue of apmplifying the negative at the expense of the positive (ie something that can bring about change for good). Now I’m going to eat my words and include some very negative material – mainly to add in another perspective of Jewish suffering:

I just read in Michael Crichton’s book "State of Fear" about the flourishing, unchallenged science (really a pseudoscience) of eugenics at the beginning of the 20th century. The Americans were concerned about what kind of immigrants would enter their country and wanted to develop a way of sifting out the "feeble minded", and useless breeds, yes including Jews. Blacks were also “proven” scientifically to be inferior.

According to Crichton, among those who supported eugenics where Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, the Supreme court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, Alexander Graham Bell (who invented the telephone), H G Wells, and George Bernard Shaw. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. Research work was done at Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis (of “dangerous human pests”) was passed in states from New York to California. (I know that Canada was not exempt)

The practice passed into Germany and flourished there. It ultimately led to the holocaust.

"After WW2, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been one."

Such closet "skeletons" aught to expose a wider dimension of human depravity - it's in our own civilized society - the outcome of trying to make a "pure" nation without God as our Lord.



 2007/3/10 19:47Profile

 Re: 'replacement theology'

Stever wrote

[b]When Christ ascended to Heaven, He took captivity captive with Him.[/b] He took all of the souls, that had died before the cross and had believed God, and had faith in God’s promise of the “Seed of the Woman”, who were residing in Abraham’s bosom to heaven with Him.

Dear Stever,

I have never heard this interpretation cobbled together from scripture.

What is more mystifying, or, revealing, is that you have quoted from the places where 'captivity' is mentioned in scripture - the psalm and Paul's quotation of it - and even Christ's own reading from Isaiah which He follows up with

Luke 4:21
And he began to say unto them,

"[u]This day[/u] is this scripture [u]fulfilled[/u] in your ears."

but, having presented something other right at the start of your post, any reader who knows the scripture less, might be beguiled into thinking you had just expounded a widely accepted truth.

This I contend, that you have, rather, [i]muddied[/i] the waters of understanding.

In simple English 'He took captivity captive' is a complete and finished sentence, which need have nothing added to it.

The verb is 'took captive'. The noun is 'captivity'.

What is 'captivity'. It is what you do to someone when you put them in prison, or keep them under house arrest, or what you do to an animal which is taken from its natural habitat in the wild, and made to live in a much smaller enclosure than it should have for its own health and survival. That's why you have to bring it food there... because it is not free to get its own. Same goes for prisoners.

Jesus has this to say about the behaviour of unclean spirits. Note how the person's life (body) is described as the dwelling place (house).

Matthew 12
43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth [i]it[/i] empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: [b]and the last[/b] [i]state[/i] [b]of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation[/b].
46 While he yet talked to [u]the people[/u],

I've underlined 'people' to say this was to be common knowledge amongst His followers. Luke also quotes this wisdom Jesus has imparted.

So, when Jesus said (Isaiah 61)

'to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;'

this was the ministry upon which He was about to embark amongst the lost sheep of the house of Israel - deliverance to those held captive by evil spirits, sickness, mental illness, unhealed wounds (the list could go on to cover any outworking of sin in human life (Mark 2:5 - 10), the remedy for which is to [i][b]come to Him[/b][/i].

Mark 2:9
Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, [i]Thy[/i] sins be forgiven thee; [u]or[/u] to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

There is a grand assumption in the gospel, that those who [u]believe God[/u], are healed (This is a spiritual truth - Heb 10:14) from their sin, their sicknesses and therefore, from being under His wrath when they are judged. But, how many people [u]really let go of the captivity in which they were bound[/u], despite giving mental and verbal assent to the truth of the gospel.

Is being freed an option only?

Or is it a fundamental command from God, without which one cannot really be counted as a sheep of the fold who is free to go out and in, and find pasture?

John 10:9
9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Acts 17
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; [u]but now commandeth all men every where to repent[/u]:
31 [u]Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness[/u] by [i]that[/i] man whom he hath ordained; [i]whereof[/i] he hath given assurance unto all [i]men[/i], in that he hath raised him from the dead.

The promises of Isaiah 61 which Jesus began to read, are a single sentence until the end of v 3. I admire your nerve in putting a gap there, which you say will last 2000 years, but this is not at all in the spirit of the word of God.

Today is the day of salvation and still is.

Isaiah 61:8
... and I will make an everlasting covenant with them

was still in the future to Isaiah, but, it has happened by now.

Bearing in mind the picture Jesus gave of a person as a dwelling place, could just as easily be about people's lives, as about geographical places..... :-D

Isaiah 61:4
And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.

 2007/3/12 7:58

 Re: Clarity of verse

Stever said:

When Christ ascended to Heaven, He [b]took[/b] captivity captive with Him

Linn, just as a side bar regarding Stevers statement, it would probably be best to quote the actual verse as it doesn't say, "Took", but rather "led".

Compare the Old and the New:

Psalms 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

 2007/3/12 9:03

 Re: 'replacement theology'

Compliments said

Linn, just as a side bar regarding Stevers statement, it would probably be best to quote the actual verse as it doesn't say, "Took", but rather "led".

I stand corrected and am grateful to you for it. :-)

Your point - in bringing me back to the words of scripture itself - reminds me directly of something I noticed not long ago, of the Lord's attitude to Satan, during His tempations.

Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, [u]Get thee behind me, Satan[/u]: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Mark 8:33
But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, [u]Get thee behind me, Satan[/u]: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said unto him, [u]Get thee behind me, Satan[/u]: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

What I saw is, that Jesus was well aware and never faltered from the REAL order in Creation. He was [i]entirely[/i] clear about His authority over Satan, and had absolutely no intention of moving a muscle which would indicate a split-second of weakness or doubt of the reality of His being the Word made Flesh. He [Jesus] literally NEVER gave way to him [Satan].

This ties in completely with the victory He won on the cross, by which He could command 'captivity' to follow, and it simply had to obey.

I know there is a picture of the conquering army leading vanquished hosts in chains, which is also a historical reality. But the reality that Jesus LED captivity, is in far more absolute, because it is in the spiritual dimension. Not that we are not all spiritual. But the challenge for a man and woman who believe in Jesus Christ, is to live out that same sonship -as He demonstrated - without flinching.

The weapons of our warfare are ... MIGHTY... (2 Cor 10:4 - 6).

 2007/3/12 10:22

Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 Re: "replacement theology"

I wade into this discussion carefully, as it is an extremely volatile one. Some messianic commentators have gone as far as to say that it is one of the most important, and the neglect of it, is to open oneself to deception.

As a gentile, I have trouble reconciling that God has replaced the Jewish people with the church, as His chosen people, but see that we have been grafted into the Hebrew vine. Paul seems to imply that this has occurred in order to provoke the Jews to jealousy, in order to see a remnant return. I have been accused of both over emphasis of Israel and antisemitism when sharing my views on this subject. This amount of misunderstanding around the issue makes me wonder if it is one that Satan is begging that we avoid.

I have actually written a piece on all this, along with it's end time implications, that I am awaiting some confirmation from some sources quoted before publishing. Art Katz, in his book [url=]The Holocaust: Where Was God[/url] deals with this issue in a very balanced way, making sure to not allow Israel's national sins to be ignored, while pointing to God's future restoration, and the conditions thereof.

I find it interesting that I have finally found a point of doctrine that I disagree with Mike and Ron B on. And considering that i put a lot of weigh on it, it is a little disappointing. I also find it interesting that this topic seems to have marked Neil's departure, and this seems to be the only topic that I agree with him on.

Ohh, there is a great deal of irony floating around, and my concern is that if this is as great a topic as I believe that it is, then we are in danger of becoming irrelevant as a community, if it is not reconciled. Ohh, that I am wrong in this matter, as this would truly be a tragedy.

Aaron Ireland

 2007/3/12 11:18Profile


Aaron said:

while pointing to God's future restoration,

What I would like for you to do, my brother is to pull the scriptures from the bible that are used to support a future restoration. If you don't mind. Lets examine them. :-)

This subject and all subjects relating to the last days etc.. is not my number #1 choice. I would rather study the love of God and the joys of union in Christ. I've said many times to the LORD, "Why do you show me this, give this to someone else who has a mind for it, who loves talking about eshatology" I avoided the Revelations, don't like reading it, don't like talking about it. But here I am. The more I get into this though, the more I see Jesus high and lifted up, and I guess that is a good incentive to studying this.

I am very much into "time" statements and "wording" that the holy writers of the bible are writing. I don't read the Newspapers or watch the news for signs, I leave that to Rexella and Jack.

So bring on those verses and lets get into this brother.

 2007/3/12 12:21

Joined: 2007/1/30
Posts: 1230


hi, I was wondering the signifigance between "took and or led".to me it could say either. I look at this through luke16;23 ,and the fact that Jesus told the thief "today you will be with me in paradise". Which tells me Jesus decended to that realm and got,took, retrieved, or led the patriarchs out of there. is this correct? .....David

 2007/3/12 13:45Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy