Has the Church Replaced Israel? Replacement Theology Debate

It is not new on this site that debates get strayed by semantic confusion and equivocation; this was no exception, however I cannot let the debate averted by that tactic. My opponent believes that Church has replaced or superseded Israel. He defends and bases that by simply obfuscating the meaning of “Israel” by semantic play and association fallacy. We agreed earlier that Israel is not necessarily Jewish state, but Jewish “people” as whole, a corporate people are also recognized as Israel. This does not negate national state of Israel, for the promises of restoration of the kingdom stands that Jesus will fulfill in his second coming. Certainly none of his semantic shifts and confusion helps in supporting his position that Church is the new Israel. For neither the “people” not the “state” has been made obsolete through the New Covenant. Throughout the debate he has not even responded to the key arguments I made especially Romans 11, and I am sure he will again avoid touching those evidence. Because supercessionists cannot explain them.An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. It conflates between two different meaning and connotation. His main argument was the conflation of “holy nation” 1 Pet 2:9 referred to Christians with the “nation” of Israel. To elaborate and refute the argument let me share some interesting examples of equivocation fallacy: A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark. In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright." All jackasses have long ears Carl is a jackass Therefore, Carl has long ears. Here the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a stupid or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey.Similarly: Israel is the “nation” of God Some Christians are referred as holy “nation”; Therefore Christians replaced Israel or that Church is the new Israel? There is no valid connection in such reasoning but pure fallacy. I have explained earlier that Israel was not just an ethnic group from the linage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but God also included a real estate piece of land for Israel. Still he persists that Israel is ONLY the “people” apart from the homeland who are heterogamous and temporary. Here are some Land promises Gen 13:14-15; Gen 15:18-21;Neh 9:8; Num 34; Levi 25:23 Exod 3:8; Exod 3:17; Eze 47:13-23 along with restoration Zec 12, 14; Eze 36, 37 Isa 49. Scattered Israel does not nullify the national corporate Israel to whom belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.Another: Zion signifies as a name for Israel Heavenly Church is referred to as Zion and New Jerusalem Therefore Israel is the Church Here the equivocation is the use of metaphorical usage of “Zion” is misapplied and conflated with the original meaning of Israel.Then he argues that Israel was never a homogenous nation but a mixed race of many ethnicities by giving few examples of how sometimes diverse groups assimilated and intermixed in Israel. But no one argued that Israel is or has to be so “pure race” that not a single outside can intermixed. Notice that those examples were others intermixing into Israel by proselyte converts. They intermixed in Israel becoming parts of Israel. That does not mean Israel lost its racial & corporate identity. Jews are still unique race on the planet by maintaining a distinctive genetic signature relatively closer than others. They were strictly forbidden to intermarry and leave the tribes; they have been maintaining high endogamy (Gen 24:3; Gen 28:1; Gen 28:2 Deut 7:3; Deut 7:4; Josh 23:12; Ezra 9:11; Ezra 9:12) Converts were always welcome though they form a small percentage, they intermixed in the tribes. For scientific DNA evidences see Harry Ostrer’s book “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People.”Another striking argument in his case is concerning God’s plan for mankind. We can notice he assumes the plan of God for mankind was to make them get along with each other with harmony without any conflicts. He assumes that God created Israel for being a “vanguard of international harmony” so that the world nations can look upon Israel as an ideal example of harmony and peace and can imitate her. God wants international liberal unity among each other which is to be seen as a contrast with the incident of the Tower of Babel. Bible is a parable of contrast and conflict between “Division Vs Harmony.” On the contrary however Israel is used as God’s means for delivering the salvation through the Messiah through whom the world can be saved (Rom 9:4-5). Israel is meant to be light to the nations to deliver the salvation (John 4:22; Luke 2:32) But there is no single reference for the alleged purpose and plan that my opponent asserts.I don’t see any economy of salvation and redemption aspects in his supposed plan of God for mankind in the Bible. If he really holds that God wanted with for mankind was to get along in peace with each other and make the world more agreeable and pleasurable eliminating any division. I am curious to know what would he respond to these radical, decisive and divisive words of Jesus:“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34-39)Let me uncover the real plan of God as revealed clearly in the Bible for him, which can be summed up in following segregated purposes in the books: Creation – Genesis 1-2 Fall – Genesis 3 Covenant (Promises of laws, salvation, national restoration) Redemption – Gospels and Epistles Consummation – Revelation Inclusion of Gentiles in the salvation promises does not mean exclusion of original Israelites from hope of renewal. Romans 9-11 is discussing unbelieving Israel (Jews) and that hope. Paul weeps for them in Romans 1 and sees them being grafted back in with their national acceptance of the Messiah eventually (Romans 11). Acts 1:5-6; 3:18-22 tell me if I read my OT there is a role for her in the future (as does Romans 9-11). Nothing tells us to reread the Covenant portion of the Bible in a new way.If God’s main purpose for mankind was to inspire them to live in harmony and smooth relations then why didn’t God send the Messiah directly at the time of Abraham or Moses? Why so much promises and plans of struggle, perseverance, and challenges for Israel even till the end? Why didn’t God explain the whole gist of the 66 books in one single parable by one prophet that he just wants mankind to get along with each other? God's purpose and plan was not that shallow and simple. God has not done anything without a purpose.If supersessionism is true, then the “Christian” covenants fail before we can even profess faith in them. If God could swear to Israel to love them and take them as his chosen forever, and then break that promise and replace them with a different people or entity, then how could we ever trust the promises he made to “Christians”?If Jesus the promised Messiah was literally born according to the prophesy (Isa 9) in Israel, he will literally restore his Kingdom in Israel according to prophesy and promises (Isa 11, 49; Acts 1:6-11; 3:18-22; Eze 36 Zec14:4-5). It is strange to see that he added a point namely “The Promises Remembered.” God indeed remembers his promises. Psalm 105:6-11; Psalm 89:30-37; Rom 15:8; Jer 31:33-35; 33:23-26.(Romans 11:25-29)I hope readers take these arguments with interest and seriousness; and for Bible students please check these recommended sources for further study. Soulen’s “The God of Israel and Christian Theology” Michal Vlach’s “Has the Church Replaced Israel?” Read a free blog book http://tinyurl.com... Listen to the “Israel Debate” www.lineoffireradio.com/2012/11/29/the-israel-debate