Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Pilgrimshope]

If the 1st resurrection was in the 1st century the question is who was the beast, what was the mark?

It’s only my opinion I’m not claiming to have some authority or office or anything but that’s my position .


which beast ? I know that a lot of people have ideas of the mark I’ve heard lots of theories some think it’s Nero’s name in the numerical alphabet that was commonly known in the times others think it’s mocking of the mark god speaks of his people having as a sign upon thier forehaeds and hands through faithfulness to him . Sort of evil works and tboughts v godly works and thoughts

But I personally have never really looked into what it could have been there are some good plausible theories other than the two I suggested I’m not sure bout the mark brother. Never have studied or prayed about it

The seven headed beast is a co tibia toon of daniels four beasts with seven heads and ten horns ( Daniel 7) johns writing as the sixth head rules and 7 was going to rise up shortly.

But then there’s “ the beast that was , and is not , goeth to perdition but shall come later out of the abyss and rule with the ten kings …..this is the one concerning the mark the 8th king is the beast often times in the context other times it’s the seven headed beast but the head that was wounded yet lives he’s the 8th king


It’s a possibility that the seven kings were all in that generation

and that also the 8th king who returns with the ten kings serving him for a short is for a latter days

Bit anything I say is just what I think after reading scripture over the years and thinking and considering ect

 

[cv5]

Pre-trib can only be proven when it ACTUALLY happens. You haven't proven anything.

Only a fool or the damned take a "wait and see" attitude as regards eschatology. Jesus Himself warns accordingly and profusely.

Therefore, since you reject the biblical doctrine of the pre-trib rapture, enjoy the horrors of the tribulation friend. And just remember this: you condemned you own self. With no help from me whatsoever.

Oh and BTW, @OMC got all weepy and self righteous last time I said this. He declared that I was condemning believers to the tribulation.

Which is patently absurd on its face, because you see he is in fact ALSO a post-tribber! Consequently he ALSO condemns HIMSELF, yet cast the blame for his condemnation upon me, the one who believes in the pre-trib rapture and preaches it continuously!

Truly I pity those who are brainwashed into denying their blessed hope and are deceived into self-condemnation.

 

[Delvianna]

Consider before you respond …but then tell me what you think about this way of looking at the old and new testaments

The last two verses of the ot prophets

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”
‭‭Malachi‬ ‭4:5-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Now let’s investigate some things Jesus Christ our lord was teaching in the gospel when he came into isreal preaching the gospel of the kingdom to them.

“But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. ( john was beheaded )

Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. ( crucified Jesus )

Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭17:12-13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭11:13-15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Here’s another short example

second to last chapter of the prophets

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.”
‭‭Malachi‬ ‭3:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The beginning of the gospel

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Which shall prepare thy way before thee.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭1:1-2‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭1:4-5‬ ‭KJV‬‬


even though many people are waiting for Elijah to come and restore the order of earthly Jerusalem …….it’s only because they aren’t hearing what Jesus is saying or they explain why what Jesus said is not the thing to believe …..

Not all prophecies are 1 and done.

Example:
In Matthew, Jesus is referencing Daniel about the abomination that causes desolation. Daniel is referring to the invasion and the fall of the 2nd temple which happens in 68-70AD. But notice what Jesus says:

"And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be." - Matthew 24:20-21

Duplicated prophecy that repeats. First in 68-70AD because he's telling that generation to flee to the mountains, and then again at the time of the end for "great tribulation". That's twice.

So when Malachi is talking about the "Great and Dreadful Day of the Lord", that's a tribulation reference. But when Jesus says Elijah already came and links him to John the Baptist, it's pointing to another instance.
So to simplify:
Malachi is in reference to the tribulation period.
Christs reference to John the Baptist is a duel prophecy but not the exact one in Malachi for a Malachi fulfillment due to the "Day of the Lord" reference.

Otherwise you're saying Elijah's job had to fix 2 thousand years of returning back to God or he would "strike the earth with a curse". Kind of hard to do when you're dead.

 

[cv5]

Dispensationalism insists on a hard Israel–Church distinction and a literalized prophetic timeline, so it tries to make “bride” refer to one group (the Church) and “guests” refer to another (OT saints, tribulation saints, Israel, etc.).
But Revelation 19 never says that.
The text simply uses two metaphors in the same scene.
The contradiction is not in Revelation.
It’s in the system being imposed on Revelation.

"But Revelation 19 never says that."

But you don't know that there is an entire Bible that needs to be consulted to obtain the correct solution.

BTW the last few pages of posts prove that the Churches today are doctrinally kaput. And to say that I am glad it's not me is an understatement.

And you need to be aware that there is only ONE CHURCH out of seven that is guaranteed to NOT suffer thru the 70th week tribulation.

And thank God that I'm in it. The Church of wisdom, knowledge and fidelity to sound doctrine.....and certain deliverance from the wrath to come.

1Th 1:10 - And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Oh and BTW, you would do well to comprehend what these passages allude to friend. A warning that there are indeed Churches that WILL suffer the horrors of the tribulation.

Rev 3:3 - Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

 

[OMC]

Only a fool or the damned take a "wait and see" attitude as regards eschatology. Jesus Himself warns accordingly and profusely.

Therefore, since you reject the biblical doctrine of the pre-trib rapture, enjoy the horrors of the tribulation friend. And just remember this: you condemned you own self. With no help from me whatsoever.

Oh and BTW, @OMC got all weepy and self righteous last time I said this. He declared that I was condemning believers to the tribulation.

Which is patently absurd on its face, because you see he is in fact ALSO a post-tribber! Consequently he ALSO condemns HIMSELF, yet cast the blame for his condemnation upon me, the one who believes in the pre-trib rapture and preaches it continuously!

Truly I pity those who are brainwashed into denying their blessed hope and are deceived into self-condemnation.

I could not find any mainstream journals but what does exist are historical analyses showing dispensationalism is a 19th‑century movement (Darby, 1830s; Scofield, 1909) rather than an apostolic or patristic doctrine, and academic critiques arguing its core claims (a strict Israel–Church separation, a future rebuilt temple with sacrifices, multiple resurrections, a millennial era with sin and death) are not found in the early church or the text itself.
I also found some religious journals describing how it shaped American evangelical culture — but none of these claim theological authority; they simply show the movement is historically recent, interpretively novel, and not rooted in the early church’s reading of Scripture. Can anyone over there care to explain this?

 

[OMC]

"But Revelation 19 never says that."

But you don't know that there is an entire Bible that needs to be consulted to obtain the correct solution.

BTW the last few pages of posts prove that the Churches today are doctrinally kaput. And to say that I am glad it's not me is an understatement.

And you need to be aware that there is only ONE CHURCH out of seven that is guaranteed to NOT suffer thru the 70th week tribulation.

And thank God that I'm in it. The Church of wisdom, knowledge and fidelity to sound doctrine.....and certain deliverance from the wrath to come.

1Th 1:10 - And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Oh and BTW, you would do well to comprehend what these passages allude to friend. A warning that there are indeed Churches that WILL suffer the horrors of the tribulation.

Rev 3:3 - Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

I could not find any mainstream journals but what does exist are historical analyses showing dispensationalism is a 19th‑century movement (Darby, 1830s; Scofield, 1909) rather than an apostolic or patristic doctrine, and academic critiques arguing its core claims (a strict Israel–Church separation, a future rebuilt temple with sacrifices, multiple resurrections, a millennial era with sin and death) are not found in the early church or the text itself.
I also found some religious journals describing how it shaped American evangelical culture — but none of these claim theological authority; they simply show the movement is historically recent, interpretively novel, and not rooted in the early church’s reading of Scripture. Can anyone over there care to explain this?

 

[Komentaja]

I could not find any mainstream journals but what does exist are historical analyses showing dispensationalism is a 19th‑century movement (Darby, 1830s; Scofield, 1909) rather than an apostolic or patristic doctrine, and academic critiques arguing its core claims (a strict Israel–Church separation, a future rebuilt temple with sacrifices, multiple resurrections, a millennial era with sin and death) are not found in the early church or the text itself.
I also found some religious journals describing how it shaped American evangelical culture — but none of these claim theological authority; they simply show the movement is historically recent, interpretively novel, and not rooted in the early church’s reading of Scripture. Can anyone over there care to explain this?

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both believed in a rebuilt temple, personal antichrist and a millennium, so what garbage sources were you using? They all believed it, so yeah, Read a book called dispensationalism before Darby and also truly who cares what they believed? We go with the Bible. I can show you the quotes right here:

Justin Martyr:
“I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged...”
“And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied... that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general... resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.”

Irenaeus:
"“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven..
"
“the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord.”


Hippolytus:
"
“Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot... who... shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God...”

One last for good measure:


Cyril of Jerusalem

In Catechetical Lecture 15, §15, he asks:

“What temple then?”

And answers:

“He means, the Temple of the Jews which has been destroyed.”

 

[OMC]

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both believed in a rebuilt temple, personal antichrist and a millennium, so what garbage sources were you using? They all believed it, so yeah, Read a book called dispensationalism before Darby and also truly who cares what they believed? We go with the Bible. I can show you the quotes right here:

Justin Martyr:
“I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged...”
“And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied... that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general... resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.”

Irenaeus:
"“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven..
"
“the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord.”


Hippolytus:
"
“Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot... who... shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God...”

None of the quotes you listed contradict anything I said, because the issue was never whether early fathers believed in a rebuilt Jerusalem, a personal Antichrist, or a millennial reign — many did; the issue was your earlier claim that identifying Antiochus in Daniel was a “Jesuit invention,” which is historically false, because the same fathers you’re citing (Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus) explicitly identify Antiochus in Daniel 8 and 11 while also affirming a future Antichrist, meaning they held a both‑and typology, not the either‑or system you’re assuming.
Justin says Daniel’s “little horn” in chapter 7 is the future Antichrist, but he also affirms Antiochus as the desecrator in Daniel’s historical sections; Irenaeus says Antiochus fulfilled the abomination in Daniel 8/11 and that Antichrist will fulfill the final one; Hippolytus devotes entire chapters to Antiochus as the prototype of the final enemy.
Your citations about a rebuilt Jerusalem and a future Antichrist do not erase their equally clear statements that Antiochus_in_Daniel is the historical fulfillment of Daniel’s Greek‑era visions.
In other words, the fathers you’re invoking actually support the pattern I laid out: Daniel 8 and 11 are Greek‑period prophecy fulfilled in Antiochus, Daniel 7 and 9 point forward to the final enemy, and Jesus in Matthew 24 treats Antiochus as the type of the future abomination.
So the “garbage sources” aren’t mine — the fathers themselves contradict the system you’re defending, because they read Daniel the way Daniel presents itself: historical fulfillment first, eschatological escalation second.

 

[cv5]

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both believed in a rebuilt temple, personal antichrist and a millennium, so what garbage sources were you using? They all believed it, so yeah, Read a book called dispensationalism before Darby and also truly who cares what they believed? We go with the Bible. I can show you the quotes right here:

Justin Martyr:
“I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged...”
“And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied... that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general... resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.”

Irenaeus:
"“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven..
"
“the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord.”


Hippolytus:
"
“Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot... who... shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God...”

One last for good measure:


Cyril of Jerusalem

In Catechetical Lecture 15, §15, he asks:


And answers:

“And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied... that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general... resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.”

And all of the Apostles believed likewise.

As you can see, tragically few today believe this essential doctrine. Despite the overwhelming conclusive biblical evidence.

 

[cv5]

I could not find any mainstream journals but what does exist are historical analyses showing dispensationalism is a 19th‑century movement (Darby, 1830s; Scofield, 1909) rather than an apostolic or patristic doctrine, and academic critiques arguing its core claims (a strict Israel–Church separation, a future rebuilt temple with sacrifices, multiple resurrections, a millennial era with sin and death) are not found in the early church or the text itself.
I also found some religious journals describing how it shaped American evangelical culture — but none of these claim theological authority; they simply show the movement is historically recent, interpretively novel, and not rooted in the early church’s reading of Scripture. Can anyone over there care to explain this?

Sure I can explain this.
-you don't know what you are talking about
-your assertions are specious and contrary to fact
-you cannot offer substantial evidence, only rubbish conspiracy theories
-you suffer from vast biblically illiteratcy

And the list goes on.....

 

[Churchgoer]

In OT, many times God describes Israel as His wife, then God also use adultery as symbolizing Israel s unfaithfulness, embracing idols.

This is the reason Jesus come to lay down His life for many, whoever accept Him is His bride, receiving life from Jesus.

As far as wedding guests, it symbolize whoever accepting Jesus invitation. It is another parable, not to have 2 groups, bride and guests. Jesus also taught other parables, such as faithful servant. Why not have a 3rd group, servants?

Simple Bible message, Jesus and us. No separation of us.

Add 4th group, the lamb .

How can Jesus be the shepherd and lamb at the same time?

Confusing

 

[OMC]

Sure I can explain this.
-you don't know what you are talking about
-your assertions are specious and contrary to fact
-you cannot offer substantial evidence, only rubbish conspiracy theories
-you suffer from vast biblically illiteratcy

And the list goes on.....

None of that “explanation” touches the actual point: calling my summary “specious,” “rubbish,” or “biblically illiterate” doesn’t change the historical fact that dispensationalism as a system which did not exist in the early church, and you can verify that in any patristic_scholarship or historical_theology survey. So its you that we need to ignore and the "rubbish" you are peddling.

 

[Churchgoer]

I could not find any mainstream journals but what does exist are historical analyses showing dispensationalism is a 19th‑century movement (Darby, 1830s; Scofield, 1909) rather than an apostolic or patristic doctrine, and academic critiques arguing its core claims (a strict Israel–Church separation, a future rebuilt temple with sacrifices, multiple resurrections, a millennial era with sin and death) are not found in the early church or the text itself.
I also found some religious journals describing how it shaped American evangelical culture — but none of these claim theological authority; they simply show the movement is historically recent, interpretively novel, and not rooted in the early church’s reading of Scripture. Can anyone over there care to explain this?

And guess what, it just so happened coincidentally with political zionism movement. Note that z is a political movement.

 

[OMC]

And guess what, it just so happened coincidentally with political zionism movement. Note that z is a political movement.

Isn't that what Russia is painting on their tanks?

 

[Churchgoer]

Isn't that what Russia is painting on their tanks?

That i know nothing about.

But look into king David hotel bombing 1946.

 

[OMC]

That i know nothing about.

But look into king David hotel bombing 1946.

Irgun, the group responsible for the bombing, was not the mainstream Jewish military. The Haganah (the official defense force of the Yishuv) often condemned Irgun’s actions as reckless and harmful to Jewish diplomacy. There were even moments of armed confrontation between Jewish groups — most famously the Altalena Affair, where the new Israeli government ordered the shelling of an Irgun weapons ship.

This created a long‑lasting divide in Israeli political culture between:
Revisionist Zionism (Irgun’s ideological home)
Labor Zionism (Haganah’s ideological home)

That divide still shapes Israeli politics today.
When Israel was founded in 1948, Irgun was dissolved. Its fighters were absorbed into the Israel Defense Forces, under strict state command. This was a deliberate move to prevent factional militias and ensure a single national army.
Menachem Begin — Irgun’s leader — later became Prime Minister of Israel, which adds another layer of complexity to its legacy.

 

[cv5]

None of that “explanation” touches the actual point: calling my summary “specious,” “rubbish,” or “biblically illiterate” doesn’t change the historical fact that dispensationalism as a system which did not exist in the early church, and you can verify that in any patristic_scholarship or historical_theology survey. So its you that we need to ignore and the "rubbish" you are peddling.

Demonstrably false.
The entire Bible is so chock full of "dispensationalism" that you would have to be spiritually blind or worse, "psychikos" to miss it. It's there literally cover to cover. The various covenants and how they progress thru the ages are, in and of themselves, PROOF POSITIVE of God's dispensationalist agenda.

Furthermore, the mysteries revealed ALSO prove dispensationalism, Paul being the key preacher of it. And yes, this includes the doctrine of the harpazo.

Choose your poison friend. And enjoy the horrors of the tribulation into which you have CHOSEN to condemn yourself.
As your faith is so be it unto you.

Mat 13:16 - But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

1Co 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Churchgoer]

Irgun, the group responsible for the bombing, was not the mainstream Jewish military. The Haganah (the official defense force of the Yishuv) often condemned Irgun’s actions as reckless and harmful to Jewish diplomacy. There were even moments of armed confrontation between Jewish groups — most famously the Altalena Affair, where the new Israeli government ordered the shelling of an Irgun weapons ship.

This created a long‑lasting divide in Israeli political culture between:
Revisionist Zionism (Irgun’s ideological home)
Labor Zionism (Haganah’s ideological home)

That divide still shapes Israeli politics today.
When Israel was founded in 1948, Irgun was dissolved. Its fighters were absorbed into the Israel Defense Forces, under strict state command. This was a deliberate move to prevent factional militias and ensure a single national army.
Menachem Begin — Irgun’s leader — later became Prime Minister of Israel, which adds another layer of complexity to its legacy.

Correct. IDF is related to that history.

 

[OMC]

Demonstrably false.
The entire Bible is so chock full of "dispensationalism" that you would have to be spiritually blind or worse, "psychikos" to miss it. It's there literally cover to cover. The various covenants and how they progress thru the ages are, in and of themselves, PROOF POSITIVE of God's dispensationalist agenda.

Furthermore, the mysteries revealed ALSO prove dispensationalism, Paul being the key preacher of it. And yes, this includes the doctrine of the harpazo.

Choose your poison friend. And enjoy the horrors of the tribulation into which you have CHOSEN to condemn yourself.
As your faith is so be it unto you.

Mat 13:16 - But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

1Co 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[OMC]

Demonstrably false.
The entire Bible is so chock full of "dispensationalism" that you would have to be spiritually blind or worse, "psychikos" to miss it. It's there literally cover to cover. The various covenants and how they progress thru the ages are, in and of themselves, PROOF POSITIVE of God's dispensationalist agenda.

Furthermore, the mysteries revealed ALSO prove dispensationalism, Paul being the key preacher of it. And yes, this includes the doctrine of the harpazo.

Choose your poison friend. And enjoy the horrors of the tribulation into which you have CHOSEN to condemn yourself.
As your faith is so be it unto you.

Mat 13:16 - But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

1Co 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

None of that actually answers the exegetical question; it just asserts dispensationalism by calling dissent “psychikos,” which is not an argument but a category mistake — Paul uses psychikos in 1 Cor 2:14 to describe the unregenerate man who rejects the gospel, not Christians who disagree with a 19th‑century interpretive system.