"Regarding Joel and Isaiah the first time was when god brought the Israelites out of Egypt."
An absolutely preposterous assessment by any measure.
Replacement theology? Yes or No.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
An absolutely preposterous assessment by any measure.
Sigh... The system you are using is natural‑law mysticism fused with politico‑theological determinism — a world‑system move where the interpreter treats inner moral intuition (“law written on the heart”) as a prophetic decoder, uses that intuition to assign political loyalties, and then reads Scripture through those loyalties instead of letting Scripture define its own categories.
The markers are unmistakable:
(1) natural law absolutism — treating Romans 2:14–15 as a universal moral compass that reveals political truth, even though Paul says conscience accuses or excuses (not a reliable guide);
(2) political spiritualization — claiming a person’s political allegiance reveals their spiritual condition, even though Scripture never ties salvation to geopolitics;
(3) historical analogizing — using David/Saul, Shadrach’s statue, and Pharisaic authority as templates for modern political discernment;
(4) apocalyptic politicization — treating Revelation’s “beast from the land” as a political entity in Jerusalem because “ge” means land, ignoring Revelation’s symbolic usage;
(5) doctrinal‑political causation — asserting that doctrinal error produces political tyranny (e.g., dispensationalism → political evil), a pattern Scripture never teaches;
(6) eschatological collapse — assuming prophetic beasts must have “actual historical fulfillments” in the first century because Revelation says “shortly come to pass,” ignoring the symbolic, cyclical nature of apocalyptic literature.
None of this comes from Daniel or Revelation; all of it comes from a natural‑law‑political overlay that treats conscience, intuition, and political suspicion as interpretive authorities over the text. If you wish to discuss the Scripture you are going to have to leave the system out of it.
Quite a word salad there.
I hope we are not having one of those exchanges where one of us has to be a "winner" and a "looser".
I have absolutely no problem with you viewing anything in the Bible differently to me
and was not trying to do that, as I find it boring.
So what do you think about Jesus words in Luke 17?
Luke 17:20
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
If you object to my views on the effect of a person's spiritual condition on the loyalties that they might have or the Biblical examples I provided, I am happy to leave that one alone for now.
I am not sure why you would be "triggered" by the view that prophetic beasts have relevance in history.
Very many Christians view them that way, and it does not take away from the symbolic cyclical nature of prophetic literature, because heavenly symbols can mean more than one thing at the same time.
Have you not come across old commentaries that equate the beasts of Daniel with previous empires?
Brother, the only true winner in any conversation is the Scripture. I’m not defending a personal system; I’m simply standing on the Scripture, which is fully capable of defending itself. All I can do is point out the world’s systems that others try to impose on it.
Luke 17:20–21 is Jesus telling the Pharisees that the kingdom they are demanding to see is already present in Him, standing in front of them, and therefore it does not arrive with the kind of outward, geopolitical spectacle they expect; “within you” cannot mean “inside your hearts,” because He is speaking to men who reject Him, so the phrase must mean “in your midst,” the kingdom embodied in the King Himself.
That’s why He shuts down the “Lo here! Lo there!” mentality — the kingdom is not a location to point at, but the reign of God breaking in through Christ.
That doesn’t contradict the fact that prophetic beasts have historical relevance; Daniel’s beasts do correspond to real empires (Babylon, Medo‑Persia, Greece, Rome), and old commentaries rightly note that apocalyptic symbols often have both historical anchors and ongoing patterns.
The key is keeping the categories straight: Luke 17 is about the nature of the kingdom’s arrival, not about political loyalty; Daniel’s beasts are about the rise and fall of world powers under God’s sovereignty, not about inward spiritual perception; Revelation’s symbols are heavenly images that can echo across history without being reduced to one‑to‑one political matches.
When Scripture predicts a historical event and it comes to pass, yes — you take that seriously, because fulfilled prophecy is one of the ways God authenticates His word (Isaiah 41:21–23; 44:7; 46:9–10).
Daniel’s beasts are exactly that:
God naming the rise and fall of empires long before they appeared — Babylon, Medo‑Persia, Greece, and Rome — and the text itself anchors those identifications (Dan 2:38; 8:20–21).
Revelation’s beasts also have historical relevance, but in a different way: they are not single empires but recurring world‑system structures (political beast, religious beast) that manifest across history and climax at the end.
So yes, prophecy can have both historical anchors and symbolic cycles without contradiction.
The key is letting Scripture define the anchor points instead of forcing modern events into the symbols.
1 Corinthians 15 tells us that we are given a natural body and raised a spiritual body and that flesh & blood does not inherit the Kingdom.
It also tells us we will become more like the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, and Luke 20:35-36). That's why after Jesus' resurrection, He was able to walk through walls and doors.
1 Corinthians 15:44-45 - 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Matthew 22:30 - For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Your move takes 1 Cor 15 and tries to turn “spiritual body” into “non‑material angel‑mode,” but Paul never defines “spiritual” as immaterial — he defines it as Spirit‑animated, the same way he contrasts “natural man” with “spiritual man” in 1 Cor 2:14–15, meaning the power source changes, not the substance disappears; and when Jesus says we will be “as the angels” (Matt 22:30) He is talking about marriage, not ontology, because angels don’t marry.
He never says resurrected humans become angel‑type beings, and the proof is Jesus’ own resurrection body:
He eats fish (Luke 24:42–43),
shows physical wounds (John 20:27), and says “a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see Me have” (Luke 24:39), meaning His ability to appear in locked rooms is authority, not immateriality;
so when Paul says “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom” (1 Cor 15:50) he’s talking about mortal flesh, not denying the physicality of the resurrection, because the very next line says we are changed, not discarded, and Rom 8:23 says the body is redeemed, not replaced — meaning resurrection glory is incorruptible human embodiment, not angel‑transformation, and none of it supports cv5’s “covering” theory or wilderness‑miracle typology.
The key word in Luke 24:39 is "see". Thomas could "see" that Jesus appeared as though he had flesh and bone, but that's not a permanent condition. When the Lord and two angels went to visit Abraham in Genesis 18, they all appeared as men, but that doesn't mean they were. The whole reason angels don't marry is because they are not in a physical state to reproduce and neither will we be. We will not have blood in our bodies, as blood keeps human flesh alive. We will be like the angels in the fact that we will be spiritual, but we will be able to manifest into the physical when we choose.
The angel‑ontology resurrection model is the idea that resurrected humans become angel‑type beings — immaterial, bloodless, manifesting bodies at will — but Scripture never teaches that. If you want to discuss Scripture, please leave your systems behind. Otherwise Scripture just wont agree and we will be here going round and round.
I've gathered all my thoughts based off of scripture, this isn't something I learned from a "system". However, I would say that the reason you believe that we will be living in a human resurrected body is because of your system. Paul tells you that flesh and blood do not inherit the Kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 15. Jesus tells you that the flesh profits nothing in John 6:63.
Thanks, that sounds coherent enough for me.
You would have noticed that the horns in Daniel 8 represent kings.
We are also introduced to four beasts in Daniel 7, one like a lion, another like a bear, a leopard and the most dreadful and terrible one with 10 horns.
The first beast of Revelations 13 also has 10 horns, and John saw him rise out of the sea with an appearance that combined the lion, bear and leopard of the previous empires.
The woman of revelation 17 also rode a beast with ten horns, and in a previous conversation you mentioned that this woman represents Jerusalem, the great city (v.18).
In v.12 we are told that the horns have not yet received their kingdoms, and will later destroy the woman (v.16).
The woman is also described as sitting on seven mountains, and I hope you do not mind me saying that sounds a lot like Rome.
The ten horns are characteristic of Rome, because Rome had 10 provincial rulers who became kings under the Flavian dynasty.
The seven heads of Revelation 13;1 and the 7 kings of Revelation 17:10 also tell us of Rome. "five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." Julius Cesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero and Galba who continued for only 7 months.
The 8th beast of v.11 corresponds to the Flavian dynasty that arose out of the destruction of Rome during and after Galba's reign.
From where John was Rome would have also appeared to rise out of the sea, because from Jerusalem it is North/West over the Mediterranean, and the Roman army arrives on ships.
I have also suggested that the beast that comes out of the earth is the Jerusalem religious power, but perhaps I have already given you enough to ponder.
I affirm your structure, not your Flavian labels.
The text calls the horns “ten kings” who “have received no kingdom as yet” (Dan 7:24; Rev 17:12), so the pattern you traced—sea‑beast as Gentile power, earth‑beast as Jerusalem religious power, woman as Jerusalem, kings turning on her—is biblical; but when you then name those kings as specific Roman rulers under the Flavian dynasty, that step goes beyond what Scripture itself says.
I’m with you on the world‑system categories because the verses explicitly define them; I push back only where the text stops and historical reconstruction starts, especially on making the ten kings past Roman emperors instead of the future kings Revelation describes.
He never says resurrected humans become angel‑type beings, and the proof is Jesus’ own resurrection body:
He eats fish (Luke 24:42–43),
shows physical wounds (John 20:27), and says “a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see Me have” (Luke 24:39
I think you're confusing the word "spirit". God is an invisible spirit, but Jesus is the physical manifestation of that spirit. That's what we will be like. We know Jesus, in his spirit form and before His physical incarnation, visited Abraham and broke bread with him and ate it. Being in spirit form does not keep you from being able to eat food, but your spirit body will not need food in order to nourish it and keep it alive.
You’re not wrong that “spirit” in Scripture can mean invisible (John 4:24), but the move you’re making—“Jesus in spirit form ate with Abraham, therefore spirit‑beings can eat, therefore our resurrection bodies are spirit‑bodies that only appear physical”—breaks the text’s own categories, because Jesus Himself draws a hard line between a spirit and a resurrected body: “a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see Me have” (Luke 24:39).
He doesn’t say “a spirit doesn’t need flesh and bones,” or “a spirit can manifest flesh and bones,” but “a spirit does not have flesh and bones,” and then He proves He has them by eating fish (Luke 24:42–43) and showing wounds (John 20:27). Genesis 18 never says the Lord and the angels were in “spirit form” when they ate with Abraham; it simply says “three men stood by him” (Gen 18:2), and Abraham treats them as physical men—washing feet, preparing food, watching them eat.
Nothing in the text calls their bodies illusions or manifestations.
And resurrection is never described as “spirit‑form”; Paul says the body is raised (1 Cor 15:42–44), changed (1 Cor 15:51–52), redeemed (Rom 8:23), and made immortal, not replaced with a spirit‑body.
So the biblical pattern is: spirits are immaterial; angels can take physical form when God wills; but resurrection is permanent glorified human embodiment, not spirit‑mode with optional physical manifestation.