I won't challenge your view but I will state - whatever your view is - that the theory of the rapture is a new one only made up in the early part of the 19th century.
As for the replacement theory - it is a western Christian concept which limits my vocabulary because eastern Christians use different language and understandings. Per Galatians 3:29: "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." So that sounds like both a continuation of the covenant through Christ. A new covenant is more like the wording I would use rather than replacement and no special place is put in there for people based on ethnicity.
And the interpretation of the nation of Israel in end times prophecy was viewed as the sum of Jews (or replaced by the church), not a literal physical nation of Israel, because it didn't exist for ~2000 years...until 1948. So, please explain, what does the recent time of understanding have to do with the value of the interpretation?
As an example, the Bible says that the WHOLE WORLD will see Jesus return. Until the advent of satellite televison and the Internet, such a thing seemed hardly plausible. Now, with technology we have a possible new understanding. Does the newness of the understanding invalidate the possible interpretation?
Sorry, I did not mean we debated each other. I meant we have both debated these issues on FreeRepublic as you now find yourself with woollyone and tang-soo. I have grown weary of this banter about God's word. But feel free to defend your position.