I will expound on the following points later.
Eventually I Will Expound On All The Points Below With Links To Each Message So That
The Reader Need Not Read The Whole to Get To Something Particular.
Please Be Patient.
You're a Hopeless Replacement Theologian if you:
1) Really think that God was taken by surprise when the Jews didn't keep their part of the agreement. (Romans 11:32)
2) Think that words like: 'Partial blindness' and 'until' are translation errors that we shouldn't concern ourselves with. (Romans 11:24-27; Luke 21:20-24)
Believe the millions that are flocking to Israel are just there for the cool Holy Land Tours.
4) Are a five point calvinist except in regards to Israel. (Ezekiel 36)
5) Cannot quite figure how a completely forsaken people are still making headlines.
6) Think that those pesky people over in Israel are really the terrorists.
7) Believe Hitler really just didn't like Jewish Wannabes.
8) Are still trying to apply every OT scripture regarding Israel to the church.
9) Think that if the plain sense makes sense, you should seek another sense that dispenses
with the literal future tense.
10) Truly believe that the term 'lost tribes' refers to their geographic situation. (Matthew
11) Think that 'All Israel will be saved' makes sense as referring to the church, similar
to 'all men will be male', but think that 'Israel' in the previous verse really means Israel. (Romans 11:24-32)
12) Are finding it difficult but are working on how the tribes in Revelation are really
referring to particular denominations in the church. (Revelation 7 and 14)
13) Think you are only a Placement (not Replacement)Theologian because you don't really
want to live in Israel, though visiting or having a time share there would be nice.
14) Think that Armstrong made an irrefutable point when he pointed out that Jerusalem
is spelled Jer-USA-lem.
15) Think your physical circumcision as an infant was a sign of good things to come.
16) Became a Catholic because it was the closest thing to the Jewish Way that you could
find. (Matthew 23)
17) Think that Christ's condemnation of 'calling men Father', putting tradition
on a level equal to scripture, 'straining at gnats, swallowing camels' and not practicing what one preaches is something only
applicable to the Jews of Old but not their replacements. (Matthew 23)
18) Are hoping that being of the 'seed of Abraham' not Jacob is a detail that no
one will pay much attention to.
19) Think the end of the age Christ was talking about was only the end of the Jewish
age in 70 AD and the beginning of their replacements. Had Christ meant the end of all things, He would have said 'End of all
ends, so help me God' and thrown in a few verilys.
20) Don't think it odd that your whole view of the church is based completely on the
Jewish Model. (Matthew 16:15; Acts 2)
21) Think that 'the two becoming one new man' really means the two becoming one Jew,
man. (Ephesians 2:14-17)
22) Have an intense desire to major on the minors and embrace the shadow. (Romans
14; Colossians 2)
23) Think that God turned forever away from the Jew to the Gentile rather than from Group
think (Jew only or first) to whosoever will. (John 8:39ff; Acts 13:46ff; Compare Romans 1:16 to Romans 3:23ff)
6) Think that those pesky people over in Israel are really the terrorists.
Don Preston A Preterist says: "Terrorism is a direct outcome of Israel's
belief that they exclusively own the land. Palestinians believe that Allah gave the same land to Mohammed. Let me emphasize
that the terrorists are the extremists on both sides. Sharon used to blow up hotels full of innocent palestinians, and justified
it as fighting terrorism. The evangelicals say the land belongs to Israel, so they justify Israel as having the right to defend
that land at any cost. Clearly, the huge majority of American evangelicals do not believe in terrorism. Nonetheless, the fundamental
belief that the respective sides,whether Islamic or Jewish, own the land, no matter what, serves as a philosophical justification
for their violent activities."
Though one can agree that all innocent life ought to be preserved, Prestons' view that
Israel is wrong in believing that God Has Given Them The Land Of Israel, Is Clearly Wrong. (Ezekiel 36)
Your view on this will affect your side on the fight against Terrorism.
I have heard that Sharon used to do these kind of things but that just may be propaganda
from Preterists and Palestinians.
Collateral damage is very unfortunate, but we (The U.S.) are learning how hard it is
to get to cowardly Terrorists that hide behind women and children.
Since Our Fight In Iraq We May Be More Understanding Of Israels Dilemma.
A Recent Poll Found That Germans Are More Afraid Of The U.S. than They Are Of Iran.
How Can People Get To The Point Of Such Delusions?
Once One Rejects The Place God Has Given Israel In The End, then All Kinds Of Problems
The View that Israel is as guilty as the Palestinians Of Terrorism Because They Believe
that God has promised them the land, comes from a Preterist Replacement Theology standpoint that God is finished with Israel
as a nation.
This is also why I hope we never get a Preterist President.
Which also means that rather than postponing the program for Israel, Preston,Preterism
And Islam have to do away with national Israel altogether.
Many Religious Groups Have Permanently Tossed Israel Aside.
It logically follows that Preterism must find Israels' replacement.
Preston also believes that the answer to terrorism is to show that both Arabs and Jews
have already had God's promises fulfilled for them.
"Many of our presidents publicly stated that Israel is the chosen people
of God. Ronald Reagan made a big case of this. Jerry Fallwell and
Pat Robertson raise millions of dollars to influence american politics in favor of Israel, regardless of how Israel treats
Palestinians or Israel being right or wrong. Both arabs and jews believe the land belongs to them. Both arabs and jews
believe the land belongs to them. If we can prove to both groups that biblical promises concerning the land were
fulfilled, we could negotiate a peace that is based on compassion and understanding." (Ibid)
This is ludicrous in light of what God promised to The Jews in Ezekiel 36.
Thinking that the church Or Something Else replaces Or Shares What Was Promised To
Physical Israel requires Some Real Replacing Of The Plain Sense Of Scripture.
Preterists Must Be From the 'tribe of Joseph-Us'?
Christians being from the tribes is not a dispie concept. We rightly know the tribes
are the literal and physical tribes of Israel not Gentile Christians.
I will show that anyone who believes in the delay of Romans 11:24-27 shouldn't believe
that we have replaced the Jews Or Are Even An Upgrade Of Israel Because The Church Is Clearly Contrasted To Israel In the
Preston the Preterist also believes there was no delay, 'Jesus kept his word, and there
was no delay!'
If you look at the free chart at the following link you will see that the Body of Christ
where 'There is neither Jew, nor Greek...', spiritually speaking, is in the right column while Israel is in the left. We don't
confuse the two and the wild olive tree is something bigger than both of them.
Even our union with them in the Wild Olive Tree is not a pantheistic Oneness.
In the body of Christ and spiritually we are the same in Christ, but this doesn't diminish
the physical, eschatological and geographical details that make us different.
There is still a True Israel in the Middle East that will see the fulfillment of all
prophecies related to it, because God is faithful not them. (Ezekiel 36:22ff; Romans 11:25-27)
In the end they will be Jewish through and through, Top To Bottom.
But Notice The Method Of Interpretation That Preterists Use To Dimiss A Literal And
Physical Coming And A Literal And Physical Future For Israel:
Preterists Say, It Doesn't Make Sense That Christ Should Make Literal Promises And
Not Fulfill Them In The Time Period That He Said He Would.
So Therefore, "... This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come
back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11), Must Mean Something Else.
Fatal Mistakes Of Preterism:
"Noe confesses 'we are embarrassed" that the Lord did not return when He was supposed
to. Noe then adds, "Do you hear what these critics and even C.S. Lewis are saying? They are saying Jesus was literally
wrong when he made numerous time-restrictive predictions and statements regarding his coming, his return."
In other words, according to Noe and Sproul, we now must do Systematic Theology,
and adjust our hermeneutics away from the historical and biblical teaching of the Scriptures of a literal return of Christ,
to shut the mouths of the critics. We must adopt an allegorical approach to future issues so that the critical liberals will
not attack us. Pagans are driving the hermeneutic motivation and methodology.
Those who know the Bible teaches a literal, historic, and earthly return of Christ
do not have to adjust their theology to prove anything to the critics. Those who understand that the basic hermeneutic of
the Bible is in normal interpretation can steer the ship straight and do not have to go off course to please the world, as
Noe and Sproul do."
Do They Mean It Doesn't Make Sense, Or It Doesn't Make Sense, Given My Preconceived
Now, Using Allegorical Interpretation To Fit Ones Preconceived Theology Regarding The
Future Coming Of Christ And The Future Of Israel Is A Dangerous Practice.
"While many Preterists are not liberal in their overall theology, this movement leads
to liberalism. If all the language of Scripture pertaining to the Second Coming of Christ is not to be taken historically
and in a normal sense, then why not take the virgin birth of Christ, for example, or other miracles in a "spiritualized" way,
as the Preterists do in reference to prophecy? Preterism opens the door for similar liberal departure.
This is not true of classical premillennialism that argues, from Genesis to Revelation,
the Bible must be understood in its normal meaning and in its plain sense. Premillennialists are thus consistent. But Preterists
must sweep all of the Second Coming passages with a broad broom that forever gets rid of any future, historic, and objective
return of Christ. Once common sense interpretation has been abandoned, there is rarely a turning back."
Now There Are Those That Condemn Preterists For Believing There Is No Future Divine
Purpose For Literal Israel But Then Deny A Literal And Physical Temple.
"It Is Very Inconsistent At Best To Condemn Preterists For Not Believing In a Literal
And Physical Second Coming of Christ, A Literal and Physical River Resulting From It, But Then Reject A Literal And Physical
Temple That The River Flows From.
Am I Missing Something Here.
This Inconsistency Reminds Me Of Preterists That Will Believe That Christ is God Almighty,
but Not That 'Every Eye Shall See Him.', Though Both Statements Are Right After The Other.
"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even
those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to
come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1)
The Same Chapter That Speaks Of A Literal and Physical Second Coming, Literal And Physical
River Also Give Us An Intro To The Literal And Physical Temple.
"Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go
up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord
Almighty, they will have no rain. 18 If the Egyptian people
do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The Lord will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that
do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 19
This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.
20 On that day ~holy to the Lord will be inscribed on
the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the Lord's house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. 21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice
will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord
Almighty." (Zechariah 14)
Other References To the Literal And Physical Temple And River Are:
Ezekiel 47:1-12; Ezekiel 40:-48
"Yet we cannot ignore very clear passages which speak about future animal sacrifices
in the context of a future millennial temple. See Ezekiel 40-48 (especially 43:19-27); Isaiah 56:6-7; Isaiah 60:7; Zechariah
14:16-21. To spiritualize these prophecies is to empty them of their literal content. To pretend that they somehow apply
to the church of this present age is an insult to the God who expects us to take Him at His Word. Actually many non-dispensationalists
simply ignore these prophecies which is easier than trying to explain them away." (Ibid)
How Can One Get Away With Using The Eeny Meeny Miny Mo Method of Spiritualization?
Inconsistent Theologians Do More To Encourage Liberalism Than Anyone Else.
In the Description of The Future Temple, We Have So Many Physical Details and Measurements
That It Is Impossible For Me To Believe That It Is Just A Matter Of What Method Of Interpretation One Has Chosen Rather Than
'The same non-literal approach is often taken with respect to the millennial temple
with its detailed description given to us in Ezekiel chapters 40-48. And yet these same men would tell us that the detailed
description of the tabernacle and its furniture as found in the book of Exodus or the detailed description of Solomon's temple
in 1 Kings 6 should be taken very literally. Why do we understand the detailed descriptions of the tabernacle and temple
to be descriptive of literal structures, but when it comes to a future temple, also described in great detail, we abandon
a literal understanding of the Word of God? Could it be that our hermeneutics is governed by our theology? If a person does
not believe in a future, earthly kingdom centered in Jerusalem, then it is easy to understand why he would not believe that
there would be a temple there either, much less animal sacrifices!'"
Notice The Methods These Use To Dismiss A Literal Temple:
"It Doesn't Make Sense That In This One Covenant Of Grace That We Should Then Go Back
To A Literal Temple Where Sacrifices Are Being Carried Out."
Unless the Church Isn't There.
All These Errant Beliefs Claim To Read The Context To Come To Their Conclusions.
All These Errant Beliefs Claim To Use the Same Methods Of Interpretation.
Then It Is Very Inconsistent To Condemn Those The Don't Believe In a Literal And Physical
Temple In the End But Then Believe That Christ Didn't Die, Draw And Command All To Come To Him, As The Scriptures Plainly
"14 For Christ's
love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for
him who died for them and was raised again." (2 Cor. 5)
Here More Than Once It Declares That Christ Died For ALL, All died, And That Because
Of This We Should No Longer Live For Ourselves.
This Is Plain As Plain Can Be, But A Replacement Theologian Of the Calvinist Type Will
Search The Chapter For Less Than All Being Saved And Declare that Scripture Must Mean All Kinds.
"32 But I,
when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going
to die." (Jn. 12)
Which Reminds Me Of An Unbelieving Jew Who Refused To Believe Isaiah 53 Was Speaking
She Kept Harping On Me To Read The Context. But Context To Her Meant Going To Previous
Chapters As Well.
So She Would Go Back Until She Saw A Reference To Israel, Then She Would Say, 'See,
Isaiah 53 Is Talking About Israel Not Messiah.
All In The Name Of Context.
Was She Really Going To Context Of Looking For Something That Would Support Her Preconceived
Notions/Unbelief And Justify Her Inability To See The Sense Of The Passage In Question?
It Is Really True, 'Who Hath Believed Our Report' (Isaiah 53)
Many Folks Are Better And Denying And Watering Down The Word Than Believing Or Using
They Quarrel About Words To Their Own Detriment.
A Dispensationalist Himself, Ironside Speaks Of Ultra Dispensationalism In The Quote
Below, But Its Application Elsewhere Is Evident.
"The word-sick man over-estimates altogether the importance of terms. He babbles continually
about _expressions which many of his brethren scarcely understand. He is given to misplaced emphasis, making far more of fine
doctrinal distinctions than of practical godly living. As a result, his influence is generally baneful instead of helpful,
leading to strife and disputation instead of binding the hearts of the people of God together in the unity of the Spirit."
Anyone Can Go To A Lexicon And/Or And Find The Meaning Of A Word That fits Their Unbelief.
The Liberal Theologians Do It All The Time.
What They Really Believe Is, 'If The Plain Sense, Makes Sense, Seek No Other Sense,
Unless It Is What I Have Already Determined To Be Nonsense.
In Fact The One That Rejects The Literalness of Physical Israel's Future, The Second
Coming, The Temple Is More Consistent, Though Consistently Wrong Than One That Believes The Literalness Of All This (And By
All This I Mean All This), But Then Reject The Scripture That Says, Christ Died For All. All To Fit The Calvinist Belief.
Notice How Calvinists Reject All Meaning All:
"It Doesn't Make Sense, That Christ Died For All But That All Are Not Saved."
"It Doesn't Make Sense, That Christ Would Die For All When The Father Chose Us Before
The Foundation Of The World."
So They Are Making Scripture Subservient To Their Own Unbelief.
Gods Choosing Is Outside Of Time, Our Choosing Is Not.
This Is How Both Are Relevant Aspects Of Our Salvation. It Is Not Either/Or.
This Is The Nature of The NT Mysteries.
The Burden Is On the Calvinist To Prove Either/Or.
Well It Makes Sense, It Just Doesn't Make Sense To One Who Has Already Determined What
Of Course It Wouldn't Make Sense To One That Already Believes Christ Saves Some, Damns
The Helpless Rest,
These Inconsistent Theologians Are Really Saying: If I Can Believe The Plain Sense,
Seek No Other Sense...
One Cannot Condemn Any Of These Groups For 'Replacing' The Plain Sense With Their Sense,
But Then Excuse Their Own Replacing Of The Plain Sense.
How Can We Then Condemn Muslims Or Liberals For Replacing The Plain Sense With Their
Sense And Replacing Israel.
How Can We Condemn Those That Have Replaced Israel With The Church Or Islam.
If One Can Permanently Replace Israel With The Church, Because Israel Was Unfaithful,
How Then Can They Believe God Will Be Faithful In Our Case.
One Cannot Permanently Replace Unfaithful Israel With The Church But Then Reject The
Replacement Of The Corrupt Church With Mormonism Or Islam.
Both Point to The Corruption Of the Church (Really Catholicism), As a Basis For Their
This Is Why The Majority Of Theologians Have Little Or No Effect In the Fight Against
Liberalism And Terrorism.
A Simpleton That Simply Believes God Will Have A Much Greater Impact.
The Theologians Are Inconsistent And Hypocritical, And Therefore Their Salt Has Lost
At Easter, I Couldn't And Still Cannot Find A Decent Show Or Movie About The Passion
The Closest I Found Was, 'Jesus Of Nazareth' Hosted By The History Channel That Promoted
Liberalism And Unbelief During The Commercials And The End Of the Show And Enlisted The Support Of Liberal Theologians To
Tell Us That We Shouldn't Believe What We Just Saw.
Is It Any Wonder How This Came About?
1) Really think that God was taken by surprise when the Jews didn't keep their part of the agreement.
"Replacement theology is the view that Israel, having failed God, has been replaced by
the Church around 70 AD. The Church is now seen as spiritual Israel and spiritual Jerusalem. This teaching claims that all
the promises and blessings, in fact Israel's entire inheritance, now belongs to the Church. However, all is not lost for Israel;
it gets to keep all the curses."
I would like to add that what should be included in Replacement Theology is the ramifications
of this teaching and all the many ways one can come to the conclusion that Israel has been permanently replaced, whether it
be by the church, the United States (Anglo Israelism) or any other entity.
The Keyword is 'replacement' here and there numerous ways groups seek to replace Israel.
The church doesn't replace Israel and Israel doesn't replace the church.
When one replaces one with the other or mixes one with the other then all kinds of peculiar
tasting concoctions result.
So I question the typical arguments and every possible variation as well.
Some act as if God was surprised and without a plan when Israel failed to be a light
to the nations and in fact crucified the Saviour. (Acts 2:36; 2 Thessalonians 2: ; 1 Corinthians 2:8)
Some think God is forced discard all his promises to Israel because they didn't fulfill
their side of the agreement. What a waste of space, energy and time that would have been.
But was this really a suprise to him and if not, then why make all these promises to
Israel that He knew would never be fulfilled, at least according to Replacement Theology.
"The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know,
my people do not understand." 4 Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded
with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the Lord; they have spurned the Holy One
of Israel and turned their backs on him...1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
... 6 We all, like sheep,
have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. " (Isaiah 1:
3,4 and 53:1,6)
Well, it looks like the sinfulness and unbelief of all, including Israel was not a surprise
"10 You are my witnesses,"
declares the Lord, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before
me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." (Isaiah 43:10)
Israel didn't believe and understand who Christ was. (John 8:24,58)
But the apostle Paul was well aware of God's secret plan.
"45 When the Jews saw the
crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered
them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal
life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 47 For this is what the Lord
has commanded us: "'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" 48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were
appointed for eternal life believed. ..." (Acts 13:46ff)
Turning to the Gentiles was also meant to make Jews Jealous. (Romans 11:11)
"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not
be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant
(agreement) with them when I take away their sins." (Romans 11:25ff)
So there was no need to replace one with the other because one was only delayed while
the other came into play, to be resumed in the end.
This second plan was 'hidden' not nonexistent since the world began.
It was prophesied that one day ten Gentiles would say to the Jew:
"23 This is what the Lord
Almighty says: "In those days ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe
and say, 'Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you." (Zechariah 8)
Obviously, this isn't a present reality because of their unbelief.
This was delayed while individual Jew and Gentile are on the same level in guilt and
salvation before God. (Romans 11:32; Acts 15:9)
I thank God, that I'm not a skirt chaser, and that presently the two have become
one new (not Jew) man.
One is about Israel as a nation, the other the individual.
So Group think is a thing of the past, and possibly the future, but presently it is the
individual under God.
So the promises to Israel haven't been replaced only delayed.
His foreknowledge of the future, is what became part of plan B, which involved a 'delay'
not a scrapping of the first plan.
This delay of plan A for plan B, was hidden since the world began.
7 No, we speak of God's secret
wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory. (1 Cor. 2)
God always knew that the promises to Israel would be delayed
not eliminated until the fulness of the Gentiles are come in.
The unbelief of Israel played into Gods plan to have mercy on all, including the individual
Jew. (Romans 11:32)
However, God will fulfill his promises to Israel as a nation because of His faithfulness
"Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It
is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have
profaned among the nations where you have gone. 23 I will show
the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the
nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.
24 "'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from
all the countries and bring you back into your own land.
"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you
from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give
you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep
my laws. 28 You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you
will be my people, and I will be your God." (Ezekiel 36)
2) Think that words like: 'Partial blindness' and 'until' are translation errors that we shouldn't concern ourselves with (Romans 11:24-27; Luke 21:20-24)
What is really interesting is that I have met those that are five point calvinists but
believe God is finished with Physical Israel.
To believe that Israel blew it but that Christians are irresistably saved is ludicrous.
In fact a Calvinist Preterist that I had a debate with believed God was finished with
Israel, culminating in the destruction of the temple in 70 AD but that we are irresistably saved.
For those that don't know, a five point calvinist believes in:
1) Total Depravity
3) Limited Atonement-Christ
only died for some
4) Irresistable Grace-You
cannot resist Christ's calling. He is dragging not drawing you.
9) Perseverance of
the Saints (really God's perseverance)-cannot lose ones salvation.
The First Letter of each point forms an acrostic spelling TULIP.
In regards to Salvation I believe at least the first point of this acrostic.
In regards to Sanctification I believe, T,I,P,
However, the reason we Christians don't ultimately and finally resist His grace, is because
we don't want to.
Now this same Calvinist Preterist would use passages from Ezekiel 36 to prove his calvinism.
"Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy
name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither
ye went. 23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was
profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith
the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your
25 Then will I sprinkle clean
water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you
an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within
you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." (Ezekiel 36)
What is interesting however, is that this scripture applies to Israel.
There is no historic evidence of this happening yet.
There are physical promises here that cannot be made spiritual or figurative.
One that makes the physical promises here figurative or spiritual supplies the arguments
that Liberals use to make the resurrection of Christ and other essential doctrines figurative.
Notice that part of this faithful promise is a physical regathering, and no one in their
right mind could possibly think that this regathering is to the church in the future.
So, if God originally said this to Israel concerning His faithfulness to them, how can
we conclude that He is permanently done with Israel but will be faithful and trustworthy in saving the Church?
But some of the scriptures used to prove Calvinism are really meant to show the transition
from Group Think to 'whosoever will.'
"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great
patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance
for glory-- 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from
the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
25 As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and
I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26
and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons
of the living God" (Romans 9)
Here God is not irresistably forsaking one group and irresistably saving another. He
is going from one group to whosoever will, which includes some Jews and some Gentiles.
God's irresistable Grace toward Israel as a nation/group will resume in the end.
In other words Calvinistic thought in essence is first and foremost referring to Israel
in the future and to us individually in this present age.
You cannot justifiably claim to be a five point Calvinist but then think God is finished
with Physical Israel.
In this present age, his faithfulness is to whoever believes.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes
in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did
not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:16)
His grace never negates the need for us to believe.
'Our responsibility is to respond to his ability.'
However, going from the 'Jew only' (Matthew 10:5-7) and/or the 'Jew First' (Romans 1:18),
to all, was a process. (Ephesians 2:14-17; Acts 13:46ff; Romans 3:23ff), that began at the cross but really was in the mind
of God from all eternity.
The sovereignty of God never negates mans responsibility but we do love because He first
My wife gets her way when she instills in me the desire to do what she wants.
When she does it this way, I think it is my idea.
This is how it can be said '....work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For (because) it is God who worketh in you to will and to do of His good pleasure.' (Philippians 2:12,13)
Every mystery in scripture has two sides.
The ultimate example is Christ himself.
He was God in the flesh, the ultimate mystery.
"16 And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1 Timothy 3:16)
When Christ does or says something we don't negate one side for the other.
He is God the word made flesh who is a complete unit.
When Jesus weeps we don't ask, was this only his human or divine side that did it?
In the past and in the future, his unswerving promises are to a nation.
Notice that in First Timothy that part of the mystery is: 'preached
unto the Gentiles '
"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." 28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election
is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29
for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." (Romans 11)
This makes it clear as one can make it.
God is not finshed with Israel.
There has been a delay in the program with Israel.
Obviously, Israel here is Physical Israel.
Israel here cannot be the church, because they have 'experienced a hardening in part'
and every reasonable person will admit that this is Israel.
If it is literal Israel that will be hardened, then it is literal Israel who will be
saved in the future, in the following verse.
One cannot alternate meanings for Israel in order for it to suit their theology.
As God will be faithful to literal Israel, so will he be faithful to us.
The Keywords here are: 'Partial blindness' and 'Until' the fulness of the Gentiles are
Just as individual Christians have sometimes strayed to be brought back to repentance,
so Israel will be restored, spiritually and physically in the future.
I have quoted this verse (Romans 11:24ff) over and over in debates and Replacement Theologians
ignore this as if they don't even believe it to be part of the bible.
It's as if they must believe 'partial blindness' and 'until' are incorrect translations.
Or as the cults do they instantly redefine words.
To them 'partial' means permanently and completely and 'until' means until and then more
of the same.
It's like saying I'm going to eat until I get full and then I'm going to eat some more
until I get fuller.
Worse yet, they sometimes say: 'Israel' doesn't mean Israel and now Israel means the
This is replacement theology.
Had Israel accepted Christ's offer, all mankind would be now going to Israel and its
But the mysteries came into effect when Israel rejected Messiah.
If God is finished with Israel or just completely setting them aside at this time we
should feel obligated to explain how they are still making headlines, are a thorn in most nations side and have a booming
business with the Holy Land Tours and such.
Now if their land is only of historic significance and the literal mount of Olives
is only a place where Jesus preached and ascended (past tense) then this location has some value but no future significance.
It was said that Jesus would come as he left and he left the literal mount of Olives,
then I expect 'this same Jesus' to go back there as well. (Acts 1:11; Zechariah)
If his return is to a figurative mountain, then I can just create a virtual reality
of the Mount of Olives in my home and just like the Capital One guys who cannot afford a real trip, explore the world from
the comfort of my living room.
I lower the risk of being bombed that way.
This literal future event would make it worth literally visiting to me.
But if only a thing of the past, visiting the Holy Land would hold only slightly more
value to me than visiting the ruins of Athens or Iraq, or visiting the New Israel in Italy.
Now if God is only completely finished with Israel as a nation, then we must explain
events like the Holocaust, Israel becoming a nation, so many nations still hating them.
They essentially are still and presently, 'a cup of trembling.'
If prophecy fulfilled for them is only to be in a negative sense, then I would like
to hear a good counter argument against the growing messianic movement of today.
No other group or nation has held the center stage for so long, and not just in past
Now this poses a problem for Replacement Theologians and for Dispensationalists as
If this dispensation of the mysteries is so separate from the others, then why is anything
happening that is related to the nation of Israel today?
When we read scripture, we see the scattering and regathering of Israel was God's doing.
That is happening today.
And Predestination was what God did in the OT as well.
If the popularity of the tours of the Holy Land is only because the majority of Christians
are living in the past or are deluded into thinking that God isn't quite finished with Israel, then we would still have to
explain the millions of Jews moving to Israel.
Whats the attraction to Israel if it is more than just checking out past occurences?
Could it be that millions of Jews are actually moving to Israel for more than watching
all those gullible Christians come in droves.
Could it be.......God?
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your
filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your
flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I
will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I
will be your God. " (Ezekiel 36)
Well, doesn't God know that He is permanently or temporarily finished with Israel as
Oh wait a minute, the scripture says that one of the mysteries that 'conceited' ones
ignore is that Israel is 'partially' not completely blinded or even temporarily completely blinded, until the fulness of the
Gentiles are come in. (Romans 11; 2 Peter 3)
Well, doesn't God know that it is time to count His losses and irresistably save some
other more responsive group of people? (Ezekiel 36)
Could it be that God has only partially postponed his program for Israel, and the alliance
the Church and Believing Israel presently seem to have is not because they are each other but because they are one?
One doesn't mean I am you and you are me,
One New Man, doesn't mean One Jew Man.
It means United.
'Here we see that neither Jew nor Gentile can fulfill their ultimate purpose without
each other. We also see that neither will fulfill their destinies unless they remain distinct. As stated, the way that we
become one in marriage is not by trying to make the woman into a man, or the man into a woman, but by the two distinctly different
genders uniting in a common purpose. Because of this, it is essential for the church to
recognize, honor, and help preserve
the unique identity of the
Messianic Movement, and vice versa. Both need to be influenced by
the other, but neither
should try to absorb the other.' -Rick Joyner
Here we can see the Church/Body of Christ and Israel working side by side, hand in
hand nat as each other.
Becoming each other is a pantheistic concept.
One flesh with my wife doesn't mean I am my wife.
I am not a continuation of my wife either.
My wife wouldn't want me to continue what she started anyhow.
The Church doesn't replace Israel and Israel doesn't replace the Church.
I have written a number of articles on Jewish Wannabes, who are not Jews but wannabe.
(Revelation 2:10; 3:10)
This is not exactly what I'm talking about here.
If you want to read those messages go to google and type in 'Jewish Wannabes' and google
treats it as if I'm the one that invented the words.
The Messianic Movement I see as real Jews who are not just an ekklesia but an assembly
My wife pointed out this verse to me today.
"To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven,
and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things
than that of Abel." (Hebrews 12:23;KJV)
Now I'm not a Greek Scholar, but I can see in my Greek Interlinear that the 'assembly'
and 'church' here are speaking of the same entity, though the book and the context is written primarily to the Hebrews, and
the greek word for each is different.
Now this can be one of emphasis rather than distinction but until shown otherwise,
I believe it to be both.
I believe in this we see the similarities and differences.
This same group of Hebrew Believers that this author is primarily speaking to is identified
as both 'an assembly' and 'church', but with two different greek words.
Some translations don't make that distinction.
Now, if we must use labels, I would say that I am a partial dispie, which to me means
that I am only partially ignorant and inhibited and though I can see less out of my right eye, my left eye is working
And I look forward to the day when 'in the dispensation of the fulness of time' both
of my eyes are restored to 20/20 or better and I can see as I am seen. (Ephesians 1:10,11)
"10 to be put
into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together
under one head, even Christ." (Ephesians 1; NIV)
And I will be able to appreciate the unique role Israel and also the church have in
9) Think that if the plain sense makes sense, you should seek another sense that
dispenses with the literal future tense.
It seems that I can never say enough about hermeneutics/methods of interpretation not
being something hard to understand but hard For Some To believe.
It seems that besides REPLACING Israel with the Church, the REPLACEMENT Theologian
REPLACES the plain sense meaning of scripture for a spiritual or allegorical one, All to Fit His Preconceived Cookie Cutter
Theology (Study of God) and Eschatology (Study of Last Things).
A formula Which I First Heard From David Reagan Is:
"If The Plain Sense Makes Sense, Seek No Other Sense, Lest You End Up With Nonsense."
This basically Means To Believe God Means What He Says, Which Is Faith.
Note: It doesn't Say If You Can Believe It, it says 'If It Makes Sense.'
Sometimes the Plain Sense is the Spiritual Sense but the plain sense meaning should
not be REPLACED because it doesn't fit ones Theology.
So Over Time I Modified This Formula To: If The Plain Sense Makes Sense, Seek
No Other Sense, To Replace it, Lest You End Up With Nonsense.'
See The Addition?
One can believe that there is more than One Meaning to a Text, but one cannot justifiably
'Replace' the plain sense with another Meaning.
One That 'Replaces It' with another Meaning Has the Burden of Proof to show why the
Plain Sense Meaning Doesn't First Apply.
A Replacement Theologian Is Obligated to REPLACE The Plain Sense Meaning of Scripture
To Make His or Her REPLACEMENT of Israel With The Church Palatable.
The Coming of Christ to the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 12-14) and the Building of the
Temple in the Future (Ezekiel 41) Have Way Too Many Physical and Geographical Details To Not Be Literal and Physical.
Its All Right to Also See An additional Meaning But One Cannot REPLACE the Regular
Meaning For That Other Meaning.
The Jews Have a Rule That Basically Says This.
It is Called the P'shat Meaning.
It Is Defined This Way:
"The p'shat is the plain, simple meaning of the text. The understanding of scripture
in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural
setting, and context. The p'shat is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the p'shat we lose any real chance
of an accurate understanding and we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively
reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis)."
"This is where another (implied) meaning is alluded to in the text, usually revealling
a deeper meaning. There may still be a p'shat meaning as well as another meaning as any verse can have multiple levels of
Its too bad that we need to create a hermeneutic which essentially means, believe God.
It Essentially Says To Not Replace The Plain Sense For Some Other Sense but multiple
meanings are possible.
Do I need Colored Glasses To See It Differently?
Of Course Not, or in the Style of the Apostle Paul, God Forbid!
Seeing Comes Clearly After Believing. (John 20:27-31)
All I Need To Do Is 'Believe God Means What He Says And Means What He Says, Unless
He Says That He Doesn't Mean What He Said.
AND If He Doesn't Mean What He Said Then Why Didn't He Say What He Meant?'
The Faith Of a Child Doesn't Mean Breaking A Code To Understand God.
When I stand Before My God, I Highly Doubt That He Is Going to Chide Me For Taking
Him Too Literally.
Is God Done With Israel And Is His Promises To Them Dependent On Them?
"What advantage, then,
is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2
Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. 3 What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved
right when you speak and prevail when you judge." (Romans 2)
Jesus Gives Quite A Rebuke To The Church In Revelation Where There Are Those That REPLACE
"To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 9 I know your afflictions and your poverty--yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are
Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9)
"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 8 I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know
that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I
will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9)
Think that if the plain sense makes sense, you should seek another sense that dispenses
with the literal future tense.
The Literal Future Tense and Sense For Israel Is Going To Be A Blessed Event.
Of Course, They Will First Mourn But Then God Himself Will 'give you (Israel) a new
heart (Replace) and put (Replace) a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you (Replace) a
heart of flesh. (Ezekiel 36)
3) You Think the omniscient Christ just forgot to tell us the past and present role
of Mary. (Matthew 12:46ff)
16) Became a Catholic because it was the closest
thing to the Jewish Way that you could find. (Matthew 23)
You Know You're a Catholic If You.
17) Think that Christ's condemnation of 'calling men Father', putting tradition
on a level equal to scripture, 'straining at gnats, swallowing camels' and not practicing what one preaches is something only
applicable to the Jews of Old but not their replacements. (Matthew 23)
You're a Hopeless Replacement Theologian:
Catholics Are Replacement Theologians Who Have Replaced A Jewish Church and Israel
With the Catholic Model AND Jesus With Mary.
Do You Find It Odd That The Catholic Jesus is Almost Always Portrayed As Limp In Mary's
Arms After the Crucifixion, a Helpless Baby in Mary's Arms or Still Affixed To The Cross.
Though Catholicism's Early Creeds Believe Him to Be God In The Flesh, That Seems
to Be Only A Superficial Acknowledgement That Doesn't Hold Up In Light Of Their Other Literature.
The Omipotently Impotent Savior of the Catholics Is Only A Partner With Mary In The
Past, Present and Future Salvation of Souls.
969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the
consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal
fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession
continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the
titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Do You See What Is Going On Here?
The Catholic Church is applying Double Talk By Assenting to the Deity of Christ While
Taking His Power Away And Giving It To Mary, Without Any Scriptural Support Whatsoever.
She Is Given the Title of 'Advocate' here.
What Does The Scripture Say About an Advocate?
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any
man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John
It Doesn't Say Anything About Mary.
What About Mediator?
"5 For there is one God
and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Timothy 2:5)
Notice That It Says 'One' Mediator between God And Men AND Christ Jesus is His Name.
The Catholics Believe That They Have Dodged Scripture By Declaring Mary a 'Mediatrix'
Rather Than a Mediator, but The Meaning Is the Same, Only One is Female.
Scripture Wasn't Emphasizing His Sex But His Nature And office.
Jesus Was God In The Flesh, So Therefore His Office Was an Extension Of His Nature.
Mary Was Not God In The Flesh.
If We Can Come Up With New Words to Create Different Kinds of Mediators, Why Don't
We also Distinguish Between Their Physiques.
There Is Only One Fit Mediator Between God and men....
That Would Allow The Fat Mediators To Play A Part As Well.
Buddha, Would Be Happy About That.
This Passage in the Catechism Says That Mary's 'Saving Office' Started With The Agreement
To Have Jesus And Is Still In Effect, And Includes Bringing 'Gifts of Salvation' Through Her 'Intercession'.
If This Doesn't Scare A Bible Believer, I dunno What Will.
Where In Scripture Does It Even Allude To This Office Ever Being Mary's?
Jesus Never Once Calls Mary His Mother, and in fact Says His family are Those That
Do God's Will, Which Would Include Mary But Not Exalt or Isolate Her. (Matthew 12:46ff)
This Is The Foundation Of The Problem.
The Catholic Church Has Derived Its Heresies Elsewhere.
They Have Elevated the 'Traditions of Men' To The Level of Scripture.
"80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate
one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form
one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ,
who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of
Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.44"
The Bolding Is Mine.
This Is What The Cults Do, To Create Their Heresies.
They Either Declare Other Works Authoritative And/Or The Scriptures Not Literal or
This Kind of Replacement Theologian Must Seek Another Sense To The Plain Sense
of Scripture In order To Defend His Views Of Christ, Mary, The Church and Israel.
Catholics Have Put 'Tradition On and Equal Level With Scripture Itself.
"Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of
devotion and reverence"
Read Matthew 23 and Count How Many Parallels There Are Between the Catholic Leadership
and the Jewish Pharisees of Old.
The Catholic Church May Indeed Replace Israel, But Only In the Negative Sense.
How Do They Get Away With Such Stuff?
One Reason Is Because The Majority of Christians Are Giving Them A Free Pass, Declaring
The Catholic Argument Is That Scripture Itself Teaches That Oral Tradition Was Used
The Problem With That Argument Is That Many of Those That Spoke of Tradition Were The
Apostles of a Jewish Church. (Matthew 16:15)
The Scriptures Hadn't Been Compiled Yet.
"9 For we know in
part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the
imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child,
I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
...12 Now we see
but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as
I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love.
But the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13)
To Teach That The Present Day False Apostles of the Catholic Church Have The Authority
to Create Words Equal to Scripture is Akin To Declaring That The Ancient Egyptians Have The Authority To Work On our Modern
"What Do You Call An Expert Egyptian Plumber?
A Pharoah Faucet Major."
To Claim That Tradition Still Equals Scripture and Can Speak Of New Doctrines Is Loosely
Akin to Saying That We Are Still Required To Go To The Horse Trough Out Back To Wash Our Faces.
We Have Indoor Plumbing Now, And We Can Use Our Modern Bathrooms.
No Use For The Horse Trough Today, except to Water Our Horses.
The Same Goes For the Tradition of the Catholic Church. It Is Not Necessary And Really
Is Just Dirty Water, Because Firstly, They Never Had Authority In the First Place.
"Honey, Will You Call Our Neighbors And Tell Them To Stop Playing Their Music So Loud?'
'All Right My Wife Says', Then She Goes To The Backyard and Yells, 'Stop Playing Your
Music So Loud.!!'
Today When We Say We Are Going To Call Our Neighbor, we mean on the Telephone.
We Have Scripture Today And No Longer Have To Rely On Oral Tradition.
In Addition To This 'Oral Tradition' Written Down Then Was Probably Called Scripture.
Catholic Oral Tradition Written Down Today Should Be Called Toilet Paper.
3) Their (the twelves) Tradition Didn't Conflict With Established Scripture.
Paul Even Says That If It Does it Should Be Condemned. (Galatians 1:8,9)
When the Apostle Paul Came Along He Preached The Mysteries and To All, Not Just Jews.
(Galatians 2:8,9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Ephesians 5:32; Romans 11:24-32)
One Of The Mysteries He Taught Was 'The Body of Christ'. This Was Not Preached In The
Past And It Was An Organism With Christ As The Head of The Body.
This Organism Was Only Possible Through Universal Guilt being Established, And One
Head Of That Body, and It Is Not Mary Or Catholic Priests.
This Means That The Scriptural Authority Which The Catholic Church Has Given Itself
To Create New Doctrines Was Really Addressed To A Jewish Church Prior To the Apostle Paul.
Well Anyhow, Back To The Catholic Mary.
411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the "New Adam"
who, because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross", makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of
Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as
Mary, the mother of Christ, the "new Eve". Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was
preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Notice That They Call Mary 'The New Eve'
The Old Eve Was Married to the Old Adam, But They Want The New Adam (Christ) To Be
Joined To His Mother Now.
How Distorted Is That?
"966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin,
when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord
as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin
and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation
of the resurrection of other Christians:" (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
My Wife Brought Up That In The Old Testament The Term 'Queen of Heaven' Was Used But
In A Very Idolotrous Way.
"Queen of Heaven is a Roman title of the Ancient Egyptian Goddess Isis in antiquity
and Blessed Virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism . It may also refer to a Christian hymn ...
'I am Inanna, Queen of Heaven, On my way to the East.' Her cult was deeply embedded
in Mesopotamia and among the Canaanites to the west. In the early 6th Century BCE, the neighbors of the Israelites still worshipped
the Queen of Heaven, and the temptation for the Hebrews to follow her cult was apparently hard to resist. Jeremiah, writing
"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their
dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to
anger." (Jeremiah 7:18) To this, the Israelite women replied :
44:16 [As for] the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD,...
The Bible Teaches That All But Jesus Have Sinned And Fall Short of the Glory of God.
The Only Exception to that Fact is in the very next verse After All Men Being Declared
"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short
of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a
sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to
demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--" (Romans 3; NIV)
The Bible States Fact And Only The Bible Can Make Exceptions To Those Facts
Jesus Didn't Forget To Say What The Catholics Say About Mary And The Church Because
It Isn't True.
The Church or Mary Didn't Replace Israel and Mary Didn't Replace Jesus.
"A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun,
with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth...6 The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for
1,260 days. ...11 They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death. ...13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had
given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two
wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of
for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach. ...17
Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's
commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. .." (Revelation 12)
Unless, The Catholics and Replacement Theologians Want To Read Into This Highly Symbolic
Passage And Replace the Church with 'Mary and the Catholic Church We Must Conclude That This Is The Messianic Movement of
'The Moon Under Her feet and a crown of twelve Stars on her head.
Israel/Jacob= 'a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown
of twelve stars on her head' AND Genesis 37:9
Tribulation/Jacob's Trouble (Jer. 30:7; Daniel 9:24-27) = '1,260 Days' AND 'a time,
times and half a time'
Jewish Believers= 'They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their
testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.' AND (Matthew 24:15-20)