Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Churchgoer]

What you're really saying is that every believer should just surrender and die by the hand of the Muslim sword and no one should defend themselves from them.

Sorry to say you are very biased. You only see the Muslims kill, but not the israel killing.
For Gaza alone, look into the data, one side died 2 thousand or less, the other side died 70 thousand or more. Please look into which side is which.

 

[OMC]

What you're really saying is that every believer (and non-believer) should just surrender and die by the hand of the Muslim sword and no one should defend themselves from them.

The Bible never commands believers to passively surrender their lives to any persecutor, Muslim or otherwise. What Scripture does command is that we never deny Christ, never repay evil with evil, and never confuse vengeance with faithfulness.
Revelation 21:8 condemns cowardice that rejects Christ, not self‑defense. The Bible repeatedly affirms lawful defense (Exodus 22:2), the legitimacy of resisting murderers (Psalm 82:4), and the reality that governments bear the sword to restrain evil (Romans 13:4).
At the same time, Jesus forbids retaliatory violence done in His name (Matthew 26:52) and forbids denying Him under pressure (Matthew 10:33).
So if a believer lies to persecutors to protect family, that is not “cowardice” in the biblical sense; cowardice is the willful renunciation of Christ to avoid suffering.
Self‑defense is not renunciation.
Protecting your family is not renunciation.
What Scripture forbids is betraying Christ — not defending life from violent extremists.
And yes, violent extremist groups like ISIS, Al‑Qaeda, Boko Haram, and others have murdered Christians worldwide; these groups are responsible for severe harm and human rights violations.
But Scripture never tells believers to simply surrender to such evil; it tells them to remain faithful to Christ while acting righteously, wisely, and without denying Him.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Sorry to say you are very biased. You only see the Muslims kill, but not the israel killing.
For Gaza alone, look into the data, one side died 2 thousand or less, the other side died 70 thousand or more. Please look into which side is which.

What I see is the tiny nation of Israel trying to protect their Jewish identity in the land Jesus promised them. I don't see them stating that they plan on taking over the whole world or the earth like the Muslims do.

When you look at Gaza, who started the fight on October 7th, 2023? Should all of those youths at the music festival just be considered collateral damage? If you did your homework on Gaza, you would see that Hamas was voted into part of the Gaza government before they just came in and took over the whole government and held every Gazan hostage afterwards. They were killing everyone that tried to leave and they haven't allowed any other elections for their government since 2007 because they know they would be voted out.

 

[God-fearing]

When you put a label on a group of people it tends to become a disregard to what is posted.
Placing this here presented by a very well known pastor.
Let's see who will listen through and who will disregard it as false.

 

[Beekeeper]

Revelation 17:16 says the ten kings “shall hate the whore… make her desolate… burn her with fire,” but Revelation 17:12 explicitly defines these kings as those who “have received no kingdom as yet,” meaning John places their authority future to his own time, whereas Titus and the Flavian provincial governors already held authority, as Josephus records Titus commanding the siege and burning of the temple (War 6.4.5) and notes the participation of Roman client rulers like Agrippa II, Antiochus of Commagene, Sohaemus of Emesa, and Malchus of Arabia (War 3.4.2–3), showing real historical cooperation but not matching Revelation’s “no kingdom as yet” requirement; Augustus’ administrative structure did divide Rome into roughly ten major provinces (Res Gestae 2; Tacitus Annals 1.11; Suetonius Augustus 47), but these governors were never called “kings,” and Scripture never identifies them as such; Revelation 12’s dragon with ten horns is directly identified by John as “the Devil, and Satan” (Rev 12:9), not Herod, even though Herod’s slaughter of infants is historically attested (Josephus Ant. 17.2; Matt 2:16), meaning the horns in Rev 12 are symbolic continuity, not Roman administrators; and while Titus historically burned Jerusalem, Revelation 17:17 says God gives the ten kings this purpose at the time of the beast’s rise, not during the sixth king of Rev 17:10, so the text keeps the horns future, the dragon Satanic, and the destruction of Jerusalem typological, even though the Roman parallels you cite are historically accurate.

I am only familiar with the Revelation 17 prediction that the horns will receive authority as kings.
If a historical account of this happening exists, I do not know it yet.
I could speculate that they may have received authority to assist with the destruction of Jerusalem because Rev. 17:12 says that they only "receive power as kings one hour with the beast."
I am familiar with Josephus' account of Titus completely losing control of his enraged army.

John saw the woman still riding the beast before the horns received authority, so I put this down on my list of evidence that Jerusalem was in tact at the time of writing.
There is a continuity of 10 provincial rulers none the less throughout the story of Rome, and I think that corresponds with the ten horns on the sea beast, the 8th beast and the dragon, and I assume that the horns were not without power.
It is possible that Rev. 17:12 is just referring to a temporary increase of their power.
Yes the dragon is Satan not Herod, but Satan operated through Rome under which Herod served, hence the ten horns.

We may not be exactly in the same place in understanding all of this, but I think you are closer in understanding to me than many others I might meet here.

 

[OMC]

There is a continuity of 10 provincial rulers none the less throughout the story of Rome, and I think that corresponds with the ten horns on the sea beast, the 8th beast and the dragon, and I assume that the horns were not without power.
It is possible that Rev. 17:12 is just referring to a temporary increase of their power.
Yes the dragon is Satan not Herod, but Satan operated through Rome under which Herod served, hence the ten horns

The ten horns absolutely can correspond typologically to Rome’s long continuity of provincial power—Augustus’ division of the empire into senatorial and imperial provinces (Suetonius Augustus 47; Tacitus Annals 1.11) gives you a stable administrative backbone, and Satan’s operation “through” Rome is exactly how Revelation frames the dragon’s empowerment of the beast (Rev 13:2).
So your Herod‑through‑Rome‑through‑dragon chain is textually defensible as symbolic continuity.

But Revelation 17:12 still says the ten horns “have received no kingdom as yet,” meaning John is looking at rulers who do not yet possess authority at the moment of writing; that blocks any identification with Roman provincial governors, because those men already exercised authority under Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, and Titus. This seems to be where we differ in understanding.

 

[cv5]

One thing for sure it is not some fabricated "church" age.

I am issuing a warning to all those reading this thread. Do not be seduced by the RT false dogmatists. The implications of these passages are perfect clear to those willing to RECEIVE them.

As for you @HeIsHere , these passages have been brought to your attention many times now. Let the record show that you have refused service of same.

[Eph 1:21 NKJV] 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

[1Co 2:6 NKJV] 6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

[1Ti 6:17 NKJV] 17 Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.

[Heb 6:5 NKJV] 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

[Luk 18:30 NKJV] 30 "who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life."

 

[HeIsHere]

I am issuing a warning to all those reading this thread. Do not be seduced by the RT false dogmatists. The implications of these passages are perfect clear to those willing to RECEIVE them.

As for you @HeIsHere , these passages have been brought to your attention many times now. Let the record show that you have refused service of same.

[Eph 1:21 NKJV] 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

[1Co 2:6 NKJV] 6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

[1Ti 6:17 NKJV] 17 Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.

[Heb 6:5 NKJV] 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

[Luk 18:30 NKJV] 30 "who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life."

Nothing in these verses refute that the "age to come" was the age after the temple was destroyed which had not happened yet.
Service with a smile.

 

[Churchgoer]

Nothing in these verses refute that the "age to come" was the age after the temple was destroyed which had not happened yet.
Service with a smile.

Jesus teaching:
John 3
16;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17;For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18;Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19;This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20;Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21;But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Praise God.

 

[Churchgoer]

What I see is the tiny nation of Israel trying to protect their Jewish identity in the land Jesus promised them. I don't see them stating that they plan on taking over the whole world or the earth like the Muslims do.

When you look at Gaza, who started the fight on October 7th, 2023? Should all of those youths at the music festival just be considered collateral damage? If you did your homework on Gaza, you would see that Hamas was voted into part of the Gaza government before they just came in and took over the whole government and held every Gazan hostage afterwards. They were killing everyone that tried to leave and they haven't allowed any other elections for their government since 2007 because they know they would be voted out.

You need to dig deeper in how hamas was established, who supported them, Israel was warned and the top guys knew before hand.... politics is dirty, you only know the surface, whatever the media feeds you, but the real story is way more complicated.

That's the reason Christians should stay away from secular wars, no need to pick either Baal nor ashrah pole, all pagan, all dirty.

If Christians stop supplying weapons, the poor civilians would at least have more chance to live, to hear the gospel.

 

[cv5]

Nothing in these verses refute that the "age to come" was the age after the temple was destroyed which had not happened yet.
Service with a smile.

Laughably false. Preterism has been thoroughly debunked on this thread at every engagement. While futurist dispensationalism has prevailed at every engagement, including this one.

To evaluate whether the phrase "the age to come" (ho\ aiōn\ ho\ mellōn) refers to the post-AD 70 era (the Full Preterist view) or a future Millennial/Eternal Age, it helps to examine how the New Testament uses the two-age motif ("this age" vs. "the age to come") throughout Scripture.
The Two-Age Framework in Scripture
In New Testament theology, time is primarily divided into two overarching eras:

* "This Age" (ho aiōn houtos): The present temporal world characterized by mortality, sin, earthly rulers, physical riches, and spiritual warfare.

* "The Age to Come" (ho aiōn ho mellōn): The future eternal order inaugurated fully at the bodily resurrection, final judgment, and visible return of Christ.

Applying a strict AD 70 boundary to this framework creates significant theological and biblical contradictions:
1. The Nature of the "Rulers of This Age" (1 Corinthians 2:6)
> "However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing."
>
* The Argument: If "this age" ended in AD 70, then the "wisdom of this age" and the "rulers of this age" would have lost their spiritual influence and ceased after the destruction of the Temple.

* Biblical Reality: Worldly rulers, human philosophy, and demonic principalities continue to oppose Christian truth long after AD 70. Paul notes in 2 Corinthians 4:4 that Satan is "the god of this age." If the "age to come" fully arrived in AD 70, Satan would no longer be active as the ruler of "this age," which contradicts the rest of the New Testament instruction to resist the devil (e.g., 1 Peter 5:8).

2. Eternal Life and the Resurrection (Luke 18:30 & Luke 20:34–36)
> "...who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life." — Luke 18:30
>
In the parallel passage in Luke 20:34–36, Jesus explicitly defines what characterizes "that age" versus "this age":
> "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
>
* The Distinction:
* In "this age," people marry, procreate, and die physically.
* In "that age" (the age to come), people do not marry, nor do they die anymore, because they have attained the bodily resurrection from the dead.
* The Refutation: Since AD 70, human beings continue to marry, give in marriage, and undergo physical death. If the "age to come" arrived fully at the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus's own criteria for "that age"—the cessation of death and marriage through physical resurrection—remain unfulfilled.
3. Tasting the "Powers of the Age to Come" (Hebrews 6:5)
> "...and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come..." — Hebrews 6:5
>
* The Context: The author of Hebrews describes believers as having a foretaste (tasted) of the future age through the present indwelling and gifts of the Holy Spirit.
* The Refutation: If "the age to come" was merely the post-AD 70 Church era, then believers living before AD 70 were only tasting what would become normal life after AD 70. However, biblical eschatological passages (such as Revelation 20–22 and Isaiah 65) describe the "age to come" as a state where sin, sorrow, sickness, and death are totally eradicated—realities that belong to Christ's future kingdom and ultimate renewal of creation, not simply the post-temple historical era.
4. Christ's Authority Above Every Name (Ephesians 1:21)
> "...far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come." — Ephesians 1:21
>
* The Meaning: Paul establishes the absolute, infinite supremacy of Jesus Christ across all temporal and eternal realities.
* The Refutation: Restricting "the age to come" to the period immediately following the fall of Jerusalem reduces an cosmic, eternal declaration of Christ's supreme reign into a localized 1st-century transition.

 

[Revelation1v8]

You need to dig deeper in how hamas was established, who supported them, Israel was warned and the top guys knew before hand.... politics is dirty, you only know the surface, whatever the media feeds you, but the real story is way more complicated.

That's the reason Christians should stay away from secular wars, no need to pick either Baal nor ashrah pole, all pagan, all dirty.

If Christians stop supplying weapons, the poor civilians would at least have more chance to live, to hear the gospel.

Hamas is a Muslim terrorist organization financially supported by Iran along with Hezbollah. Propaganda is high among the Palestinian supporting countries. The money that Israel had Qatar send to Hamas was for food for the Gazans, as all food and all shipments into Gaza have to go through them before anyone else in Gaza is allowed to touch it. Yes, Israel, out of a sense of goodwill for the Gazans being held hostage by Hamas, is trying to show the rest of the world that they are not at war with them. Israel is at war with Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

[Beekeeper]

The ten horns absolutely can correspond typologically to Rome’s long continuity of provincial power—Augustus’ division of the empire into senatorial and imperial provinces (Suetonius Augustus 47; Tacitus Annals 1.11) gives you a stable administrative backbone, and Satan’s operation “through” Rome is exactly how Revelation frames the dragon’s empowerment of the beast (Rev 13:2).
So your Herod‑through‑Rome‑through‑dragon chain is textually defensible as symbolic continuity.

But Revelation 17:12 still says the ten horns “have received no kingdom as yet,” meaning John is looking at rulers who do not yet possess authority at the moment of writing; that blocks any identification with Roman provincial governors, because those men already exercised authority under Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, and Titus. This seems to be where we differ in understanding.

I do not think we differ in understanding on that one so much as I lack understanding on it.
I have speculated on possible meanings of this short authority given to the horns might refer to, but have found nothing solid on the history side to back it up.
I do have confidence however that it will fall in place as I learn more, because of all the points that we already have nailed.

 

[God-fearing]

You need to dig deeper in how hamas was established, who supported them, Israel was warned and the top guys knew before hand.... politics is dirty, you only know the surface, whatever the media feeds you, but the real story is way more complicated.

That's the reason Christians should stay away from secular wars, no need to pick either Baal nor ashrah pole, all pagan, all dirty.

If Christians stop supplying weapons, the poor civilians would at least have more chance to live, to hear the gospel.

So Christians are supplying weapons?? Is this really your view?

 

[cv5]

Nothing in these verses refute that the "age to come" was the age after the temple was destroyed which had not happened yet.
Service with a smile.

Sadly, as far as I can tell, NO preterist on CC has EVER repented and recanted the false dogma of preterism. Despite it being so effortlessly debunked that no honest hearted person could deny that it has been. Many times by many ways and means.

Truly, preterism belongs in the doctrinal dumpster along with supercessionism.

2Co 4:4 - whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.