An often abused text to prove replacement theology is in the NT is Romans 2:28-29 where it says the following:
"17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”[b]
25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God."
The point Paul is making within the context is between two Jews, who is the true Jew? Is it one who is a Jew by name and physical descendant only, or one who is one inwardly as well as outward. In my previous article: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/were-there-jewish-christians-in-first.html, I already made the point that there were Jewish Christians and Gentile Christian congregations. Also in my article on Hebrews and Daniel, I have made clear the following:
"Hebrews 8 even speaks of the superiority of the New Covenant compared to the Old Covenant and that the Old Covenant points to the substance and that YHWH had promised a NEW covenant to THE JEWS. I emphasise that point because of the bogus idea of replacement theology claiming that the covenant was made with the church, which the NT doesn't suggest even implicitly. The Jews are still the chosen people, but that will not save them. Nor does it mean that the church replaces Israel as the chosen people. This a patristic invention, not apostolic teaching. The Gentiles only "replace" the unbelieving Jews, not the believing ones. Also, if the Jews can be cut off, SO CAN THE GENTILES AS WELL!! If God has rejected the Jews because of their disobedience, the church even more so would have to be rejected considering the apostasy of most churches of the USA and Europe collectively."
Also, If we read Romans 9-11, as well as the whole of Romans, no such idea of the Jews being replaced is found, even in chapter 2. Paul makes it clear that the covenants, both the Old and the New belong to the Jews and the church itself has to be GRAFTED in, it doesn't replace anyone. As said before, the Jews are God's chosen people, even in unbelief, but that doesn't mean they will be saved. They need the Gospel just as much as the Gentile.
Hope this helps.