JEWISH ERROR AND REPLACEMENT ERROR

BradW wrote:
Could someone in the know here, explain a little bit about this? I know the general idea that the NT Church "replaces" the OT Israel, but I don't know where either side draws their proofs.

I'm still learning and praying about this but haven't come to a conclusion yet. I just want to open this up to both sides of the debate.

Also, if anyone knows of some trustworthy sites that explain this, that would be great.

Brad

Here is Dr. Michael Brown's website ministry:
http://icnministries.org/israel/forsaken.htm

That was absolutely wonderful, thank you for explaining it that way.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this [b]present[/b] time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

When you consider Israels history, I am sure you have. When Nehemiah and Ezra went back to Jerusalem to begin it's restoration, I believe only 1-2% of the Jewish nation returned, the rest stayed in Babylon. When you consider that many in Babylon had foreign wives. When you consider that when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. Again, they were scattered to the four winds not by choice, and not in one group. Some were sold for wives, slaves. Over time there would be such a level of cross breeding that there would be no such a thing as a true bredded Jew, it would be name only not by blood.

And I believe that the Jewish Encyclopedia makes that fact known, that the Jew of the bible is not the same Jew of today. Though many Christians would argue with that.

Hi Ian,

Unless you listen to Dr Brown's exposition at the beginning of the recent thread titled 'replacement theology', you will miss that [u]he is defining 'replacement theology' differently from the majority[/u] of posters on SI.

I'm not sure if he is definining accurately, what Jews object to, or has misunderstood what many Christians believe, thus creating a false dichotomy which is only doing harm to the relationship between unsaved (and saved) Jews and the Church.

EDIT: I didn't mean this to sound like saved Jews are not in the Church. :-( Of course they are! 8-) I do apologise for the way I left that overnight and trust my meaning is now clear.

Jay asked

Dr. Brown seems to reject a form of 'Replacement Theology' that is not very common. [b]I don't know of anyone who believes that Jews cannot come into the church.[/b]

Dorcas is that your understanding of his objection?

I didn't notice Dr Brown alluding to what I had understood 'replacement theology' to be. That's what's a bit of a surprise to me.

The 'replacement theology' he defines, is one in which says the Jews have an important part to play in the Second Coming of Christ, when they will say 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' (Matt 23:39).

My understanding of that verse is that it has been fulfilled. That 'we see Jesus' now, and this [i]seeing[/i] which is spiritual, is what Jesus was referring to in Matt 23:39 - that the day will come, when Jews in large numbers will recognise the call of the gospel, and will believe.... then they also will 'see' Him as we do. Their blindness will have been removed, as is the blindness of any converted Jew already.

2 Corinthians 3:12 - 16 (Young)
Having, then, such hope, we use much freedom of speech, and [are] not as Moses, who was putting a vail upon his own face, for the sons of Israel not stedfastly to look to the end of that which is being made useless, but their minds were hardened, for unto this day the same vail at the reading of the Old Covenant doth remain unwithdrawn--which in Christ is being made useless-- but till to-day, when Moses is read, a vail upon their heart doth lie, and [u][i][b]whenever[/b][/i] they may turn unto the Lord, the vail is taken away[/u].

Dr Brown seems to neglect that Jews always have come to the Lord ever since He came, and that Jews will continue to come - which is your point, Jay, that it is as if he forgets this and refers to a time in the future only (and far too much about the past).

I think we are on the same page on this.

I hate this subject, it so degenerates the Church, it shows partiality towards the Jews, and it shows Christ as a divided body.

In a time where we so need to come together as a body and stop uplifting a race that denies the LORDship of Jesus Christ and begin to uplift one another.

My heart is set on the Church of the LORD Jesus Christ. I don't pray for the Jews, I pray for the Church that we come together, fitly joined together in the unity of the faith until we are brought together in the unity of the Spirit.

Christ has only one special people, and it is His body. Period!!

Sister Dorcas, What I understood Michael Brown to be saying was that replacement theology makes null and void Covenant promises that God made with His people, and then later promised in the New Covenant as outlined in Jeremiah 31, that all nations will be blessed, hence the Ingrafted Vine that is made possible thru the Atoning Blood of Messiah Jesus, bringing all the nations (Gentiles) into a Covenant Relationship with Yahweh, and His Son Jesus Messiah (Christ in the greek)

On this forum, I think I'm the only (rabbinical)Jew, who was bar-mitzvahed, and then later in life accepted Messiah as Saviour, as the final Yom Kippur, the only others I know of are Art Katz and Michael Brown, and I dont see them posting on this forum.

and frankly I'm not as smart as they are, or able to explain this Economy of God as ably as they do, but I can tell you this: since 345 AD, when satan played games with Constantine and he made "christianity" the official Roman Imperial religion, the church, the roman church has done nothing but drive the Jewish people away, and Martin Luther certainly sped this process along with his later venomous screeds, at the foundational beginnings of Protestantism.

what Michael Brown kept coming back to was "so close, yet so far" in his assessment of God fearing observant Jews. Yes, there are secular Jews, just as there are secular Gentiles, and secular Catholics, who say "I was born Catholic", or secular Christians, who say "I was born Christian, "born Baptist", etc etc.

But he refers to observant Jews, who to their dying breath say the Schma everyday, that was the first greatest Commandent that Jesus spoke of, and in reality for 1,662 years the "church" has done nothing to make the observant Jew ENVIOUS of so great a salvation, quite the opposite. Which is his thesis in his book, "Our Hands are Stained with Blood", that one should have to ask yourself this question, why do you think satan uses the church to kill and persecute Jews to such an extent, that mere mention of the Name of Jesus will send shudders down an observant Jews spine, and its not out of Holy Ghost conviction, its tales of forced conversions, pogroms, crusaders and nazis murdering Jews in the "name" of "jesus". Why do you think it is that the biggest opponents TODAY of the modern State of Israel are the most liberal backslidden denominations, ie, the PCUSA, ECUSA, and the United Methodist church in America, the same ones who dont hestitate to ordain gay people as "pastors"?

I was just remembering my grandmother today, thinking about her, she was an unobservant Jew, she definitely believed in God, but both her and my mother would drop me OFF at synagogue for my Hebrew and theologial instruction, and then they'd pick me up. My grandmother loathed and feared Russians, and she was born in the United States as a first generation immigrant....so how do you figure that?.....well, you see, it was her grandmother that sent over her 4 children, one at at time, as her meager wages as a baker in the Pale of Settlement allowed (an area of Poland and Russia) in the 1880's to 1890 period to Orange New Jersey, coz it was BAD over there, the Cossacks were a nightmare, they enjoyed the frequent pogroms, raiding, raping and murdering Jewish villages in this hellish region.

Although there was a small minority of Muslim, Buddhist (Kalmyk Cossacks) and Old Believer Cossacks in Russia, the majority of Cossacks are of the Russian Orthodox faith. The relationship between Cossacks and the Orthodox Church runs very deep, and has had strong influences on both the history of the Cossacks and that of the Orthodox Church. Traditionally, Cossacks are considered the protectors of the Church and Orthodox Christians

at one time, in the early part of the second millenium Poland was vibrant center of Jewish community, worship and freedom of religion, and over time that changed into quite the opposite, Poland at one time had 3 million Jews living in it, today there are maybe 5,000.

At one time from the 1700's and thru the 1800's Germany was a richly vibrant center of Jewish community and worship, and we know what happened there.

Now today in America, we have a vibrant Jewish community of maybe 6 million Jews, ask yourself this, why is satan so intent on wiping out the Jewish peoples? AND using the "church", or giving Jew haters and murders a theological "underpining" to buttress their muderous fervor? why is that?

Could it be that the Jewish people figure so prominently into God's end time plans?

"Until the full number of Gentiles are brought in"........

For 1.662 years, the "church" in its various 400 some odd denominations and configurations that just divide the Body of Christ, the True Church, has had a muderous miserable testimony in making the Jewish people ENVIOUS of so great a salvation, AND if there are those who believe that God can rip away Covenant Promises made to the Jews, what makes Christians so confident that the same wont be done to them, IF that is the case? which it isnt, because we do not worship a fork tongued "god", Heaven forbid, Yahweh, God is True, the same yesterday, today and tommorrow, till the end of the age. He has been the same from "bereshith" (the Book of Genesis) right thru Revelations of John till this very second.

In closing, let me ask you this, those who professed Jesus as Lord and then murdered Jews in "his name", will they be the ones who say "Lord Lord"? and what will He say to them?

maybe......."Get away from me, I never knew you"?......and maybe, Juuuuust maybe those who were impaled ON STAKES because they refused to "convert" to an apostate "christianity", with their last breath's said "Schma Yis'orael, Adonai Eloheynu, Adonai Echad", where might they be going in eternity?

You dont have to answer, its a rhetorical question.

by the by, I've met the most marvelous group of black women prayer warriors who have a Bible study and prayer meeting on Wednesday nights, they recieved me with joy, and we have a most wonderful time in the Lord, studying the Word, and praying and calling out to Jesus. Crossing that "color line", as led by Him.

We are called to bind the wounds and tend to the ministry of reconciliation, us to each other and us to God, that is the Gospel Jesus revealed to me and in me.

Much love and blessings, see you soon, God willing, neil

I hate this subject, it so degenerates the Church, it shows partiality towards the Jews, and it shows Christ as a divided body.

partiality? I dont think so, a lot of Jewish blood has been shed "in the name of christ".

and the "church" is hopelessly divided, how many different denominations do we have now?

stop uplifting a race

I don't pray for the Jews

my my my.

course you don't.

bartle said, (and I receive it in the respectful and gentle spirit offered)

What I understood Michael Brown to be saying was that replacement theology makes null and void Covenant promises that God made with His people

This is not quite what I heard him saying, as you will gather from several of my (recent) posts.

Is there a difficulty in some Jewish minds with the concept of the New Covenant [i]completely[/i] taking the place of the Old Covenant?

This is not a rhetorical question.

Having asked, I don't for a minute believe God doesn't want Jews in right relationship with Him, or, that Jews who are not yet, are not loved and blessed by Him as Abraham's natural descendents. But, there is a big difference between what He expects from Jews, under the New Covenant, compared with then, under the Old.

I recently had a conversation with a brother about the meaning of being Jewish, and have been thinking more deeply about something he said, namely, that the creation of Jewishness is primarily spiritual. I had never thought of it that way, but can see that circumcision was an outward sign of Abraham's inward attitude towards God and His word to him.

God continued to seek for this attitude from [i]all[/i] Abraham's descendents, to whom He had made the promises with every intention of fulfilling them, and longed to fulfil them, but, He found very few with Abraham's heartstate.

Moses later defined this as 'stiffnecked' and 'uncircumcised in heart', which latter comment Paul uses as his basis for defining New Covenant Jewishness:

Romans 2:29
but [he is] a Jew who [is one] inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise [is] not from men but from God.

It seems to me that the necessity of ending the Old Covenant, which was a temporary legal system to help not only His people but gentiles too, to understand the gulf between God's heart and man's, was inevitable. Jews had the prophets - the word of God in their own language, and the biggest picture of all, of being [i]family[/i].

Included in this, was the injunction to take in and care for strangers, and to allow those who would, like Ruth and Rahab, make God's people their people, and worship God as their God.

Under the New Covenant, this is just the same, in that the New Covenant was to the Jew first, but also to the gentile, as Peter soon found out.

[This post was too long, so I've divided it after writing.]

One thing which seems to come through Dr Brown's talking (though maybe not his thinking), is a kind of denial of the end of that Old Covenant relationship between the Jews and God. It is as if he doesn't acknowledge (in what he says) that [b]God[/b] [u]ended[/u] the Old Covenant, and God's 'chosen' people, are now the Church, which both Jews and gentiles continue to join through faith, thus becoming Abraham's children together. I know you know this.

What seems hard to acknowledge, by those who know they are Jewish, is that their first birth is as [i]useless[/i] to them as a gentile's first birth is to him. This is not to trivialise Jewishness or the Jewishness of Christ. But, Jesus said 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were...' and 'The kingdom of God is within you.' The territory God wants us to possess, is the interior land of our own life. He wants us to make it His own in a very real way, with our heart's affection set on things above, as that is where we are now [i]from[/i]. Our real heart-values undergo a radical rethink, as our minds are renewed through the Spirit's work in us.

On a related point, I've been thinking a lot about the olive tree in Romans 11, and other trees in scripture - or wood - like the ark, the rod that budded, the branch that was thrown into the bitter water to make it sweet, the cross, the tree of life in Rev 22 of which the leaves are for the healing of the nations - and, I've been thinking about seeds - the mustard seed and the corn of wheat that falls into the ground and dies that it might bring forth much fruit.

Christ was that corn of wheat. We cannot 'see Jesus' (Heb 2), unless we understand what He answered there in John 12 to the Greeks' request.

In the same way, is not He the Branch (Zech 3 and 6), separated from the natural tree through His death, now bearing branches which have been grafted in through the adoption (Rom 9:4) of both Jew and gentile, (for [i]all[/i] Jews are as 'cut off' by unbelief, as gentiles also)?

This thought is consistent with the prophecy in Isaiah 56, where a clear separation is made between those who were charged with watching over Israel who failed, and those eunuchs who choose the things that please Him, 'taking hold of His covenant' which was, clearly, still to come, and which offered 'sons and daughters' a 'better name'.

Could it be that the Jewish people figure so prominently into God's end time plans?

However, Dr Brown's connection of the Second Coming with Matt 23:39 took my breath away, in that I don't know [i]any[/i] Christians who believe that verse is a reference to the Second Coming, or, that some Jews born a long time after Christ will still have the opportunity to 'see' Him in His resurrection body, [i]before[/i] deciding whether to accept Him as Messiah (or not). Generally, Christians believe the Second Coming marks the [u]end of all opportunity[/u] to turn to the Lord forever, for any people. This word from Dr Brown seemed to me to be a mixture of carnal and spiritual thinking, from which Jewish listeners might infer a hope for possibly distant future salvation (of Jews), which does not exist. Jews should believe on Him [u]now[/u]. Today is the day of salvation.

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed they that have not seen, and have believed.

bartle said

by the by, I've met the most marvelous group of black women prayer warriors who have a Bible study and prayer meeting on Wednesday nights, they recieved me with joy, and we have a most wonderful time in the Lord, studying the Word, and praying and calling out to Jesus. Crossing that "color line", as led by Him.

We are called to bind the wounds and tend to the ministry of reconciliation, us to each other and us to God, that is the Gospel Jesus revealed to me and in me.

Yet while Dr Brown may well be doing the Church a kind of service by describing all the wounds made by bloodthirsty men (Pro 1:10 - 19) in the name of Christ, the true Church is also wounded by these accusations against a new generation of believers, who cannot be held responsible for these sins, any more than they can be held responsible for their own - in that Christ took responsibility for them all.

The fact that God has concluded [u]all[/u] under sin (Rom 3) should be our common [i]rejoicing[/i], in that His love also extends His grace to [b]all[/b] who will receive it through faith in the Messiah, our Saviour.

Much love and blessings, see you soon, God willing

Compliments said

... I pray for the Church that we come together, fitly joined together in the unity of the faith until we are brought together in the unity of the Spirit.

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [i]and[/i] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [b]but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ[/b]: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplies, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, makes increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
(Ephesians 4:13 - 16)

Please let's try to hear the best in what each other is saying.

i have been looking at this for some time.i wish i was as articulate as you in voicing some concerns over the church's stand.i know we all want to reach people with the good news,Jesus.i believe the Holy Spirit will show us how. i think part of the key in looking at the big picture liees in the priesthood. Jesus being our high priest. ciaphus was a roman appointee and zacharias was the disenfranchised priest makihg john the baptist the levite who baptised jesus into the priesthood. .....[b]the priesthood changed at that point[/b]!

But, I'd like to speak up for God with regard to Caiaphas. The whole country was under Roman domination. This was not the first time God's people had been 'under' another rulership, often in a foreign land. But God is not bound by that constraint. In fact, it was always God's idea when this had happened. So, when Caiaphas prophesied before Jesus was crucified, John rightly reports

John 11:51
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

... who baptised jesus into the priesthood...

We are also anointed into priesthood to God, by the Holy Spirit, not by our water baptism.

(John's was the baptism of repentance, but Jesus was still talking about another baptism He waited to undergo, here: Mark 10:38, 39.)

... john the baptist the levite

Hi psalm1

that does not mean they were nt baptised.

do you remember ciaphus tore his robe? that act prohibited him from temple duty.also... remember Jesus' robe was not torn. this is significant

Would you care to explain further for me?

psalm1 said

in fact i think you far surpass me in the articulation depatment

when i think of what he did for us it blows me away!

i find the whole pristhood thing so interesting.it appears to me that Jesus officiated his own sacrifice,in that it was he himself who presented his own blood to the Father.this is truly awesome!Jessus was crucified on the passover. on passover,there were 3 sacrifices the morning,the midday, and the 3 pm sacrifices.isnt it interesting that there were three crucified on golgotha? .....

Btw, do you know that philologos has a series of talks about the priesthood available from his website? Maybe you could take a look....

[url=http://mp3.biblebase.com/cat_4.html]http://mp3.biblebase.com/cat_4.html[/url]

says it much better than I ever could....this runs about 37 minutes and thens cuts off mid sentence, when he was reading the prayer a Jew made whilst in the midst of the hitlerite death camps:

[url=http://www.icnministries.org/audio/03ABaptismofTearsforIsrael.mp3]A Baptism of Tears for Israel[/url]

Hi Preach,

I looked for Ron Bailey here as a listed speaker under 'B' and couldn't find him. :-o So how did you do that?

Re: Michael Brown

bartle,

I want to listen to 'A Baptism of Tears for Israel' but don't have time tonight. If I don't post a comment soon, please ask me about it. Thanks.

Hi Preach, thanks.

When you are looking for an "other speaker" it is alphabetized according to last name, but when you look for his name in the list of speakers it is alphabetized by first name. That may have caused some confusion.

One doesn't always remember a person's first name or initials, or know which of their initials one might be supposed to search under. (G W North is a good example of this, in that people who really [i]knew[/i] him called him Wally, not George.)

EDIT:

They are also on this site.

Re: I disagree. (respectfully and gently)

After I'd replied to this post, with thoughts which were on the top of my mind, I realised slightly sorrowfully, that I had not acknowledged the personal history you'd shared here, and how illuminating it was.

There is one question which keeps coming into my mind, which is hard to articulate because I don't want to phrase it badly.... but it is around the matter of Jews having a role in the end times. My query is this: in referring to 'the Jews', are you, (possibly because - possibly [i]only[/i] because - of the way Dr Brown interprets scripture) referring to [i]regenerate[/i] Jews, or [u]un[/u]regenerate Jews?

I ask, because it causes me consternation to 'hear' what it sounds like.... that Jews who have not received Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, are somehow going to climb up into the sheepfold some other way. This is what it sounds like.

This is where the genuine suspicion that there are some Jews, like Dr Brown, who think 'Jews', because of their ethnicity or religion, are indispensible to God, and somehow will be saved supernaturally, not having had to apprehend the cross like the rest of us.

It sounds just like he is saying Jews are exempt from acknowledging the historical mess for which they were responsible, partly [i]because[/i] they were God's chosen people through whom He planned to bring salvation to the world.

I know that it says in Daniel that a third of Jews will be saved. This may well be the largest proportion of an identifyable group, in the whole of human history. Amen. I have no problem with this [i]per se[/i]. God's word is God's word. If there is a problem it, it is because this doesn't seem to be enough. Where is the collective sorrow for Jewish sins, for which Messiah died? Isn't this what the world is still waiting for? Isn't this the pivot on which Rom 11:25 turns?

'For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.'

I also suggest that it is incorrect that Jewish people as a whole, are now, in the Church era, the olive tree.

11:15 For if [u]their being [b]cast away[/b][/u] [is] the reconciling of the world, what [will] their acceptance [be] but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit [is] holy, the lump [is] also [holy;]

Christ is the firstfruit from the dead.

I have other verses to share from 2 Corinthians 5, but they read more clearly in Tyndale, whom I will quote in my next session online.

Please be gentle with me in response to these comments. Really I'm just trying to share with you what my gentile ears hear. I may not be missing something in the airspace, but so, what is missing from what Jews are saying, for this misunderstanding (I may have) to be corrected?

there are several things you wrote that I don't understand:

but it is around the matter of Jews having a role in the end times

My query is this: in referring to 'the Jews', are you, (possibly because - possibly only because - of the way Dr Brown interprets scripture) referring to regenerate Jews, or unregenerate Jews?

are you refering to secular or observant Jews?

I ask, because it causes me consternation to 'hear' what it sounds like.... that Jews who have not received Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, are somehow going to climb up into the sheepfold some other way. This is what it sounds like

Sister, I cant hear thru your ears, so...?

This is where the genuine suspicion that there are some Jews, like Dr Brown, who think 'Jews', because of their ethnicity or religion, are indispensible to God, and somehow will be saved supernaturally, not having had to apprehend the cross like the rest of us.

two things, if you want to speak of "genuine suspicion". let me tell you that Jews, observant Jews and even secular, have intense suspicion of the lower c church, and its sordid history over 1600 plus years towards the Jewish people, and secondly, how is anyone saved but SUPERNATURALLY?

Is it that when a pastor makes an impassioned altar call and one gives their intellectual nod and says, "yeh, I think following Jesus might be a good idea"......???

now here's where you lose me, and I have no idea what you are referencing:

It sounds just like he is saying Jews are exempt from acknowledging the historical mess for which they were responsible, partly because they were God's chosen people through whom He planned to bring salvation to the world.

what "historical mess" are you talking about?

Im trying to very gentle about the words I use, you're asking me to explain the words and ministry of a man who holds a PhD, ask him. I don't mean that churlishly, ask Dr. Brown.

and I have to be very frank and clear, I find replacement theology in error, and I am getting so weary of having to debate other saints on this forum about it, I'm not as theologically smart as all of you, nor do I care to be, nor do I care to rehash and argue and to defend the place of the Jewish people in God's Economy. My theology is very simple. I believe God. I believe the Bible is the inerrant infallible Word of God, and that Jesus is Messiah, and that prayer works.

Thats it.

as far as any "correction" is concerned, thats between you and the LORD., not me.

My experience of late, re: the proponents of "replacement theology" has been a REAL eye opener, and thats ALL I'm say about that.

and I close with : May God bless you today, neil

Re: Linn

bartle said

Im trying to very gentle about the words I use, you're asking me to explain the words and ministry of a man who holds a PhD, ask him. I don't mean that churlishly, ask Dr. Brown.

The bad news is that it will be nearly 24 hours before I can respond properly. I want to listen to Dr Brown first. I think I should.

If I were you, I wouldn't be overfaced by his academic qualifications. The whole point of Tyndale's work, was to put the word of God into the hands of simple ploughmen... so convinced he was they would understand it. This means you don't have an excuse to take Dr Brown's word for anything, especially if his thesis doesn't make sense to your spiritually enlightened understanding.

Here is Tyndale's 2 Corinthians 5, last paragraph.

'Wherefore henceforth know we no man after theflesh. Insomuch though we have known Christ after the flesh, now henceforth know we him so no more. Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away; behold all things are become new. Nevertheless all things are of God, which hath reconciled us unto hmself by Jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the office to preach the atonement. For God was in Christ, and made agreement between the world and himself, and imputed not their sins unto them: and hath committed to us the preaching of the atonement. Now then are we messengers in the room of Christ: even as though God did beseech you through us: So pray we you in Christ's stead, that ye be at one with God; for he hath made him to be sin for us, which knew no sin, that we by his means should be that righteousness which before God is a-loved.'

If I were you, I wouldn't be overfaced by his academic qualifications.

Hardly, the Holy Spirit testifies with my spirit that what he says is true, I am not one to be overly impressed by a man's adademic credentials, just his word and his testimony as led by the Holy spirit

This means you don't have an excuse to take Dr Brown's word for anything, especially if his thesis doesn't make sense to your spiritually enlightened understanding.

His thesis does make sense, perfect sense, in his refutation of "replacement theology", which to me is a new rub on the old british-Israelism, and any one proponent of "replacement theology", their witness, their word their heartspace, and their twisted "theology" lend me to the fact that I bear nothing in common with them in Jesus, in fact i regard them as hostile to Gospel, hostile to the Economy of God and ultimately hostile to the Jewish people and their place in the end time prophecies, and wish no fellowship with them at all.

It is a dark theology, its bears no resemblance to ministry of reconciliation that God and His son Jesus suffered so much for, it is a theology of superiority before God, and my eyes and my ears have been opened to the true heartspace of those who propose and expound on such error, selectifly flinging Scripture around like stones.

These people who forward this foul theo-brew should repent for they have misaapropriated the Word of God and His work with the Jewish people, now and in the future.

neil

later edit- and you never answered what "historical mess" the jewish people are responsible for?

I find both both the header and one of your utterances offensefulo and a stench:

"JEW ERROR"

and at least you could have had the grace to term it "Jewish Error", "JEW ERROR" has the sound of hatred to it, and I find it offenseful.

You might not care, but that speak volumnes, and just validates what a I feel is the heartspace of some elements of the lower case c "church"

and secondly "pro-jew" crowd?

where are you from?

I read such a seemingly innonocous "pro-jew crowd" and I smell something foul and full of hatred.

I am a Jew, saved by Grace , and I've heard this stuff plenty of times before, and you can call it "paranoia", but it is real, history bears witness to just such hatred and murder.

done.

bartle said

later edit- and you never answered what "historical mess" the jewish people are responsible for?

On the previous screen page, I was still catching up with my own earlier promise to quote from 2 Cor 5, and so I said this, as I was short of time.

The bad news is that it will be nearly 24 hours before I can respond properly. I want to listen to Dr Brown first. I think I should.

Today is not going to be one long session online in which I can address the points you didn't understand from my post to which you replied, but I can tell you I'm a lot clearer about what is going on in these threads about 'replacement theology'. It is, actually, beginning to look like a misunderstanding - perhaps on both sides - to me; but I need to hear more and maybe ask some questions, which I hope you will answer, to clarify this assessment further.

It is helpful that you separate church and Church, because this may be one of the keys to unravelling assumptions on both sides of the discussion. Thank you for holding on to hope that we can unpick all this not merely adequately, but amicably, in the unity of the Spirit and amongst brethren in Christ.