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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Placing this here presented by a very well known pastor.
Let's see who will listen through and who will disregard it as false.
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.
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 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."
Jesus teaching: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.
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.
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.
Laughably false. Preterism has been thoroughly debunked on this thread at every engagement. While futurist dispensationalism has prevailed at every engagement, including this one.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
You had better get the sequence and timing right. Think Church age then 70th week.
[Rev 12:3 KJV] 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
[Rev 13:1 KJV] 1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
[Rev 17:3 KJV] 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
You are exactly right to point to the shifting of the crowns (diadems) across these three verses.
In Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s exegesis, the placement of the crowns is the crucial hermeneutical key to tracking the chronological progression of Gentile world dominion—specifically showing the prophetic gap of the Church Age and the shifting power structures within Daniel's 70th week (the Tribulation).
Fruchtenbaum teaches that as the crowns move, so does the seat of absolute authority. Here is how he exegetes the exact sequence you provided:
### 1. Revelation 12:3 — Crowns on the Seven Heads
> *"a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads."*
>
* **The Timing:** Historical timeline up to the First Century (Pre-Church Age).
* **Fruchtenbaum’s Exegesis:** The dragon is Satan. The crowns are placed on the **seven heads**, which represent the consecutive Gentile world empires (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the future One-World system). The crowns on the heads indicate that, historically, Satan exercised his authority through these successive, singular empires one at a time.
* **The Gap:** After the sixth head (Rome), there is a prophetic pause. The Roman Empire falls, and the prophetic clock stops for the **Church Age**. The seventh head (the One-World Government) does not rise until the Church Age ends at the Rapture, paving the way for the 70th week.
### 2. Revelation 13:1 — Crowns Shift to the Ten Horns
> *"a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns..."*
>
* **The Timing:** The First Half of Daniel's 70th Week.
* **Fruchtenbaum’s Exegesis:** The crowns have now shifted from the heads to the **ten horns**. According to Fruchtenbaum's timeline, following the Rapture, a One-World Government (the 7th head) is established but quickly divides into ten regional kingdoms. The horns represent these ten kings who rule concurrently. The fact that the horns now wear the crowns shows that ruling authority has shifted from a single consecutive empire into a coalition of ten co-ruling kings. This marks the beginning stages of the Tribulation period.
### 3. Revelation 17:3 — No Crowns on Heads or Horns
> *"a scarlet coloured beast... having seven heads and ten horns."* (Notice: no crowns are mentioned).
>
* **The Timing:** The Middle of Daniel's 70th Week.
* **Fruchtenbaum’s Exegesis:** The crowns are now completely absent from both the heads and the horns. Why? Because a massive power shift has occurred. Fruchtenbaum parallels this with Daniel 7, teaching that the Antichrist (the "little horn") rises up among the ten kings. He assassinates three of them, and the remaining seven submit their authority entirely to him.
* Because the Antichrist assumes absolute, dictatorial, global control at the midpoint of the Tribulation, the ten kings lose their independent sovereign power. They are no longer crowned. The Antichrist himself—who *is* the Beast—has usurped the authority, becoming the "eighth king" mentioned later in Revelation 17:11.
### Summary of the Sequence
By paying attention to exactly where John places the crowns, Fruchtenbaum demonstrates a perfect chronological progression:
1. **Consecutive historical empires** (Crowns on heads -> followed by the Church Age).
2. **A ten-king confederacy at the start of the Tribulation** (Crowns on horns).
3. **Absolute dictatorship of the Antichrist at the midpoint of the Tribulation** (No crowns on heads or horns, because the Beast himsel
f holds all the power).
Well like I stated without the correct hermeneutic scripture can be made to say anything.
Just plain eisegesis because it ignores audience relevance.
Here is what my AI states:
"Ho aiōn ho mellōn" (ὁ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων) is a Greek New Testament phrase that translates literally to "the age about to come" or "the future age." In Christian Covenant eschatology this phrase serves as a foundational linguistic and theological proof text to argue that the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant occurred entirely in the first century AD, specifically culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. [1, 2, 3, 4]
I am sure the people who received the letters fully understood it had relevance to them not millenenia into the future!!!
I realize now, how dispensationalism is about a generation of ethnic salvation lottery winners, kinda like Calvinism. Hmmm.
