No — because that claim isn’t grounded in Catholic teaching, solid historical scholarship, or the Church Fathers.
The idea that the Jews at the time of Christ were “really Edomites” or some kind of wholesale ethnic replacement theory is a modern polemical argument, not something taught by the Church. While there were conversions into Judaism in antiquity (as there have always been), there is no credible evidence that the Jewish population of Judea was simply a mass of Edomite converts.
More importantly, Catholic theology does not hinge on racial purity or ethnic genealogy. The New Testament treats first-century Jews as the historical descendants of Israel — even when criticizing unbelief. St. Paul calls them “Israelites” and speaks of their covenants, worship, and promises (Romans 9:4–5). The Church has always followed that framework.
Turning covenant theology into a racial or bloodline argument is a distraction from the real issue, which is Christ:
• Salvation comes through Christ
• The Old Covenant is fulfilled in Him
• Conversion is about faith, not DNA
Speculative ethnology doesn’t strengthen the faith — it muddies it.
I told you that if you don't go before the church fathers that you'll never understand the truth. Judea had Israelites as well as Edomites in it at Christ's time. This is the reason for the divide in the New Testament.
Not all Judeans were Edomites, it was a mix which occurred 130 years before Christ. This is in Josephus and other historians. You're just being intellectually dishonest. It explains why not all in Israel were of Israel.
I am going before the Fathers — that’s precisely why I’m rejecting the “Edomite replacement” thesis.
Yes, Josephus records that the Idumeans (Edomites) were incorporated into Judea under John Hyrcanus in the 2nd century BC. That’s not disputed. But incorporation through conversion does not mean wholesale ethnic replacement. Ancient Judaism accepted converts (cf. Exodus 12:48; Isaiah 56:6–7). Once incorporated, they were considered part of the Jewish people.
More importantly, neither Josephus, the New Testament, nor the Church Fathers interpret first-century Judea as “not really Israel.” The Apostles call them Israelites (Romans 9:3–5). St. Paul distinguishes between “Israel according to the flesh” and the faithful remnant (Rom 9–11), but he does not argue they were secretly Edomites. His point is theological — about faith and promise — not ethnic replacement.
When Paul says “not all who are of Israel are Israel” (Rom 9:6), he immediately explains that he means children of promise vs. children of the flesh, not Edomites vs. Israelites. The Fathers consistently read it spiritually, not racially.
If you can show a Father who teaches that the Jews of Christ’s time were predominantly Edomites and therefore not truly Israel, I’m willing to examine it. But absent that, this looks like a modern extrapolation layered onto ancient history.
Disagreement isn’t intellectual dishonesty. It’s asking for evidence beyond a leap from “some Idumeans were incorporated” to “Israel wasn’t really Israel.”
Let’s stick to what the texts actually say — Josephus, Paul, and the Fathers — not what later polemics wish they said.
https://rumble.com/v6rn1jz-christ-the-king-podcast-episode-60-evils-the-jews-committed-before-the-khaz.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a
The idea that the Jews at the time of Christ were “really Edomites” or some kind of wholesale ethnic replacement theory is a modern polemical argument, not something taught by the Church. While there were conversions into Judaism in antiquity (as there have always been), there is no credible evidence that the Jewish population of Judea was simply a mass of Edomite converts.
More importantly, Catholic theology does not hinge on racial purity or ethnic genealogy. The New Testament treats first-century Jews as the historical descendants of Israel — even when criticizing unbelief. St. Paul calls them “Israelites” and speaks of their covenants, worship, and promises (Romans 9:4–5). The Church has always followed that framework.
Turning covenant theology into a racial or bloodline argument is a distraction from the real issue, which is Christ:
• Salvation comes through Christ
• The Old Covenant is fulfilled in Him
• Conversion is about faith, not DNA
Speculative ethnology doesn’t strengthen the faith — it muddies it.
I'm taking to a wall here, I know.
Yes, Josephus records that the Idumeans (Edomites) were incorporated into Judea under John Hyrcanus in the 2nd century BC. That’s not disputed. But incorporation through conversion does not mean wholesale ethnic replacement. Ancient Judaism accepted converts (cf. Exodus 12:48; Isaiah 56:6–7). Once incorporated, they were considered part of the Jewish people.
More importantly, neither Josephus, the New Testament, nor the Church Fathers interpret first-century Judea as “not really Israel.” The Apostles call them Israelites (Romans 9:3–5). St. Paul distinguishes between “Israel according to the flesh” and the faithful remnant (Rom 9–11), but he does not argue they were secretly Edomites. His point is theological — about faith and promise — not ethnic replacement.
When Paul says “not all who are of Israel are Israel” (Rom 9:6), he immediately explains that he means children of promise vs. children of the flesh, not Edomites vs. Israelites. The Fathers consistently read it spiritually, not racially.
If you can show a Father who teaches that the Jews of Christ’s time were predominantly Edomites and therefore not truly Israel, I’m willing to examine it. But absent that, this looks like a modern extrapolation layered onto ancient history.
Disagreement isn’t intellectual dishonesty. It’s asking for evidence beyond a leap from “some Idumeans were incorporated” to “Israel wasn’t really Israel.”
Let’s stick to what the texts actually say — Josephus, Paul, and the Fathers — not what later polemics wish they said.