[CynicalBear]

Eph 2:12-13 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

If that is the verse you think shows that the “church” has replaced Israel better try again. The “church” is “made nigh” to God through the blood of Christ but in no way does that verse show that it has replaced Israel in the “covenant of promise” made to Israel.

The “church” has not replace Israel and never will.

[wmfights]

The “church” is “made nigh” to God through the blood of Christ but in no way does that verse show that it has replaced Israel in the “covenant of promise” made to Israel.

If the "church" is replacing Israel, not just being drawn close to God, why even talk about Israel being blinded for a time (Rom. 11:25)?

Justin Martyr is noteworthy in this discussion because he was the first Christian writer to explicitly identify the church as “Israel.”. The movement popularizing this view grew with Origen and his allegorizing of Scripture and then became dominant with the emergence of the State sponsored church. In posting these threads I hope my Reformed FRiends come to understand the history behind the emergence of Supersessionism. It is not supported by a literal understanding of Scripture.

[HarleyD]

The “church” has not replace Israel and never will.

The "church" has NOT replaced Israel. Gentiles are GRAFFED into the "church". Jews, who are not believers, have been cut off from the church.

I honestly don't understand how this is difficult to understand.