Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Revelation1v8]

My only caution would be with the word "always."
In Zechariah 4, the two olive trees are specifically connected with the anointed servants standing before the Lord, not simply "Israel" as a nation.
Revelation 11 is deliberately drawing from that imagery.
I would say:
The olive-tree symbolism strongly supports an Israel connection.
What remains debated is whether the two witnesses represent two individuals, two groups of people, Israel and the Church, or some combination of those ideas.
You're building your interpretation from biblical symbolism, not pulling it out of thin air.
The question is whether the symbolism narrows the meaning to only one possible interpretation or leaves room for more than one.

You're right about using the word "always". This is why I've mentioned in the past that many verses can mean more than one thing.

Based on my research on the Olive Tree, it can represent:

• Peace and Reconciliation: The olive branch first appears in Genesis 8:11 as a sign that God’s judgment had ceased and life was returning to earth, establishing it as a universal symbol of peace.
• Spiritual Anointing: Olive oil, derived from the tree, represents the anointing of the Holy Spirit, used to consecrate kings, priests, and prophets, and symbolizing God’s presence and empowerment.
• Righteousness and Fruitfulness: The tree’s longevity and vitality depict the steadfast faith of the righteous, who are described as "green olive trees" (e.g., Psalm 52:8) flourishing in God’s house.
• Covenant Identity: In Romans 11, the olive tree symbolizes the people of God, where natural branches (Israel) and wild branches (Gentiles) are united, emphasizing that believers share in the spiritual riches of the covenant root.

 

[God-fearing]

Apple of God's eyes are the believers, not the ones rejecting God, and bow to baal.
Stop putting ethnics on pedestal and worship the golden calf.
You are suggesting people not to criticize sin. Is this what they did to Jesus, crucify Jesus for criticizing and telling the truth?

Answer me this ...do you criticize people you know who have not come to know the Lord in the same way? Or are you using the crucifixion and past history of Israel for your rant following the steps of Hitler and others?
Your definitely not jesus my friend .....judge not least you be judged. When did Israel become your enemy? Or is it the hot topic of todays focus?
Does God need to bring a donkey in your life to correct you for speaking evil against his chosen?
As I said look at the people, nations that hold to speaking evil against Israel. Its burka time. Do you embrace that?
Without the cruel punishment of that crucifixion where would you be right now? Jesus even asked if there was any other way.
Guess Gods answer was no. So for the glory that was set before him he endured the cross.
Are you bringing glory to your savior by speaking evil against his friends. His people,his nation? Or are you the appointed sin police
Which jesus called Pharisee.

 

[Churchgoer]

My only caution would be with the word "always."
In Zechariah 4, the two olive trees are specifically connected with the anointed servants standing before the Lord, not simply "Israel" as a nation.
Revelation 11 is deliberately drawing from that imagery.
I would say:
The olive-tree symbolism strongly supports an Israel connection.
What remains debated is whether the two witnesses represent two individuals, two groups of people, Israel and the Church, or some combination of those ideas.
You're building your interpretation from biblical symbolism, not pulling it out of thin air.
The question is whether the symbolism narrows the meaning to only one possible interpretation or leaves room for more than one.

2 Olive tree ,
Zechariah 4:14
"Anointed" "serve"...YHVH
Key words.

That's God's people, no matter ethnicity, only Jesus blood.

 

[Psalm1]

I agree with part of that and disagree with part of it.

I agree the 144,000 are not the Church. Revelation 7 explicitly identifies them as Israelites from the tribes listed.

I also agree that "firstfruits" implies a larger harvest follows.

Where I disagree is the word "has to."
The text says the 144,000 are firstfruits.
The text says they are Israelites.
What the text does not explicitly say is that the larger harvest must therefore be exclusively Jewish.

In fact, immediately after the sealing of the 144,000, John sees "a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues" (Rev. 7:9).
So the nearest harvest imagery in the context is international, not merely ethnic Jewish.

Therefore, the existence of a Jewish firstfruits company is explicit.
The conclusion that the harvest which follows is exclusively Jewish is the point that still requires proof from the text rather than assumption.

You are pointing to their "sealing".
They are sealed against the sting of the flying scorpions.
It is not until months or years later they are gathered to heaven in Rev 14.

So there is no blending of those verses you are trying to make.

BTW that innumerable number is the 5 foolish virgins left behind.
Note they had dirty robes.
The carnal secular church goers. Saved but not intimate with Jesus.
The intimate ones went straight to the marriage chamber.
Mat 25 the first 10 or so verses.

 

[OMC]

You are pointing to their "sealing".
They are sealed against the sting of the flying scorpions.
It is not until months or years later they are gathered to heaven in Rev 14.

So there is no blending of those verses you are trying to make.

BTW that innumerable number is the 5 foolish virgins left behind.
Note they had dirty robes.
The carnal secular church goers. Saved but not intimate with Jesus.
The intimate ones went straight to the marriage chamber.
Mat 25 the first 10 or so verses.

That's a lot of assumptions stacked on top of each other.

Revelation 7 never says the great multitude are the five foolish virgins.
Revelation 7 never says they are carnal Christians.
Revelation 7 never says they missed a pretrib rapture.

In fact, when John asks who they are, he is told: "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7:14)
Their robes are not dirty in the vision.
They are explicitly washed white in the blood of the Lamb.

Likewise, Matthew 25 does not identify the foolish virgins as saved believers who missed a rapture.
The bridegroom says, "I know you not" (Matt. 25:12), which creates significant problems for that interpretation.

So you're connecting Revelation 7, Revelation 14, and Matthew 25 into a prophetic model. That's your right.
My point is simply that those connections are not explicitly made by the passages themselves.
They are inferences that need to be defended rather than assumed.

 

[Churchgoer]

Answer me this ...do you criticize people you know who have not come to know the Lord in the same way?

Of course, no golden calf. All the same.
Not like u, putting ethnic on pedestal and worshipping baal.

Or are you using the crucifixion and past history of Israel

Past history? All listed is current day facts.

for your rant following the steps of Hitler and others?

Wrongly accusations!!!!!
Stop slandering!!!!

Your definitely not jesus my friend .....judge not least you be judged.

Another slandering!!!!

When did Israel become your enemy?

I listed all the sins. When did Arabs become your enemy? According to your analogy.

Or is it the hot topic of todays focus?
Does God need to bring a donkey in your life to correct you for speaking evil against his chosen?

List out facts!!! As Jesus do and Daniel, and all the ot prophets!!!! Are you slandering them too?

As I said look at the people, nations that hold to speaking evil against Israel. Its burka time. Do you embrace that?

Stop slandering Jesus and all the prophets!!!!

Without the cruel punishment of that crucifixion where would you be right now? Jesus even asked if there was any other way.
Guess Gods answer was no. So for the glory that was set before him he endured the cross.
Are you bringing glory to your savior by speaking evil against his friends. His people,his nation? Or are you the appointed sin police
Which jesus called Pharisee.

You are showing your true color. You are advocating Judas and pharasees and the crowd!!!! You are advocating continuing sin!!!! you are advocating to crucify almighty God!
They meant it evil, God meant it good. You are blinded!!!!!!

 

[Psalm1]

you are still moving from symbolism to identification.

Revelation 11 says the witnesses are "the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth."
The text itself does not say the olive trees are Israel and the lampstands are Christians.

In fact, elsewhere in Revelation, lampstands represent churches (Rev. 1:20), while the olive-tree imagery comes from Zechariah 4.
So I can see why you make the connection, but the connection itself still has to be argued rather than assumed.

My point is not that your view is impossible.
My point is that Revelation never explicitly says, "The two witnesses represent Israel and the Church."
That is an interpretation of the symbols, not the explicit meaning given by the text.

As with the 144,000 discussion, the issue is not whether the interpretation is plausible.
The issue is whether the text itself requires it.

Jewish firstfruits demands a jewish harvest.
IOW, firstfruits of wheat would GUARANTEE MAIN HARVEST WHEAT will follow.
The barley would not be the main harvest of the wheat firstfruits.

The wheat would not be main harvest of grapes firstfruits.

The church is the grain harvest.
The Jews are the fruit harvest.

All showcased and vivid in Rev 14

When God put in that firstfruits ingredient, it changed all debate.

That one item is a massive obstacle to any starting place other than the 2 wives.

Starting from a position of "i will prove pretribbers wrong " is a terrible starting place.

"Firstfruits"
The nuke against every position, except pretrib rapture.

 

[OMC]

Jewish firstfruits demands a jewish harvest.
IOW, firstfruits of wheat would GUARANTEE MAIN HARVEST WHEAT will follow.
The barley would not be the main harvest of the wheat firstfruits.

The wheat would not be main harvest of grapes firstfruits.

The church is the grain harvest.
The Jews are the fruit harvest.

All showcased and vivid in Rev 14

When God put in that firstfruits ingredient, it changed all debate.

That one item is a massive obstacle to any starting place other than the 2 wives.

Starting from a position of "i will prove pretribbers wrong " is a terrible starting place.

"Firstfruits"
The nuke against every position, except pretrib rapture.

You're making a stronger argument now, but I still don't think it gets you all the way to pretrib.

I agree that firstfruits guarantees a corresponding harvest.
If the 144,000 are Jewish firstfruits, then a related Jewish harvest is a reasonable inference.

Where I differ is when you say that settles the timing of the Church's gathering or proves a pretrib rapture.
Revelation 14 identifies the 144,000 as firstfruits, but it does not explicitly say, "Therefore the Church was removed earlier."

You're also introducing additional interpretations, such as the Church being the grain harvest and Israel being the fruit harvest. Those may fit your model, but the text does not directly define those categories.

So I'd say this: "firstfruits" is certainly important and must be accounted for.
But it is not a knockout argument unless you can demonstrate that the harvest it implies is both exclusively Jewish and distinct from the gathering of all other believers.
That's the step I still don't see explicitly stated in the text.

In other words, firstfruits is evidence for your model.
I just don't think it is proof of your model.

 

[Psalm1]

That's a lot of assumptions stacked on top of each other.

Revelation 7 never says the great multitude are the five foolish virgins.
Revelation 7 never says they are carnal Christians.
Revelation 7 never says they missed a pretrib rapture.

In fact, when John asks who they are, he is told: "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7:14)
Their robes are not dirty in the vision.
They are explicitly washed white in the blood of the Lamb.

Likewise, Matthew 25 does not identify the foolish virgins as saved believers who missed a rapture.
The bridegroom says, "I know you not" (Matt. 25:12), which creates significant problems for that interpretation.

So you're connecting Revelation 7, Revelation 14, and Matthew 25 into a prophetic model. That's your right.
My point is simply that those connections are not explicitly made by the passages themselves.
They are inferences that need to be defended rather than assumed.

Millions or maybe billions in heaven DURING THE TRIB.
We KNOW they are martyred DURING THE TRIB.
Rev 13 says the AC is given power to overcome the saints.( the innumerable number)
7;And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

There is nobody to rapture postrib.

 

[Gideon300]

Great question.

American can be criticized, while Israel can't be criticized.

American did not bomb civilians, and chase them out of their home, their land, their country.

Military to military, not military to civilian.

American did not get young boys and girls and make them prostitutes to bribe world elites.

American did not buy both left and right politicians to fund their war against humanity.

But most importantly, American can be criticized!!!!! There is no such term as anti American throwing at people when people criticize Americans. Because Americans are human!!!!

You have a seriously deficient knowledge of history. One reason is that you have an anti Israel bias that blinds you to reality and truth. How many American Indians did your supposedly innocent colonials kill? Were they not there first?

God has a plan and purpose for Israel that is not yet complete. Your Bible makes that clear.

 

[OMC]

Millions or maybe billions in heaven DURING THE TRIB.
We KNOW they are martyred DURING THE TRIB.
Rev 13 says the AC is given power to overcome the saints.( the innumerable number)
7;And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

There is nobody to rapture postrib.

Revelation 13 doesn't say every believer on earth is killed before Christ returns.
It says the beast is given authority to make war with the saints and overcome them.
That describes severe persecution, not necessarily the extinction of all believers.

In fact, if nobody remains, who are the people Jesus gathers when He comes "immediately after the tribulation of those days" (Matt. 24:29-31)? Who are the believers still alive when He returns?

You're assuming the innumerable multitude of Revelation 7 accounts for all tribulation saints.
The text never says that.
It identifies a great multitude coming out of the tribulation, but it does not state they exhaust the entire number of believers alive during that period.

More importantly, Revelation 13 and Revelation 7 must be read alongside Revelation 20, where tribulation martyrs participate in the first resurrection.
That doesn't eliminate the possibility of living believers at Christ's return.

So I agree there will be massive martyrdom during the tribulation.
What I don't see is the step where the text explicitly says, "Therefore there are no believers left on earth for Christ to gather at His coming." That's the conclusion that still needs to be demonstrated.

 

[Psalm1]

You're making a stronger argument now, but I still don't think it gets you all the way to pretrib.

I agree that firstfruits guarantees a corresponding harvest.
If the 144,000 are Jewish firstfruits, then a related Jewish harvest is a reasonable inference.

Where I differ is when you say that settles the timing of the Church's gathering or proves a pretrib rapture.
Revelation 14 identifies the 144,000 as firstfruits, but it does not explicitly say, "Therefore the Church was removed earlier."

You're also introducing additional interpretations, such as the Church being the grain harvest and Israel being the fruit harvest. Those may fit your model, but the text does not directly define those categories.

So I'd say this: "firstfruits" is certainly important and must be accounted for.
But it is not a knockout argument unless you can demonstrate that the harvest it implies is both exclusively Jewish and distinct from the gathering of all other believers.
That's the step I still don't see explicitly stated in the text.

In other words, firstfruits is evidence for your model.
I just don't think it is proof of your model.

I am only a reporter of what is there.

I am Putting postribbers at a crossroad.
Ignoring the crossroad , I suppose , is one-way to deal with it.

Rev 14.
It will not go away

 

[Psalm1]

Revelation 13 doesn't say every believer on earth is killed before Christ returns.
It says the beast is given authority to make war with the saints and overcome them.
That describes severe persecution, not necessarily the extinction of all believers.

In fact, if nobody remains, who are the people Jesus gathers when He comes "immediately after the tribulation of those days" (Matt. 24:29-31)? Who are the believers still alive when He returns?

You're assuming the innumerable multitude of Revelation 7 accounts for all tribulation saints.
The text never says that.
It identifies a great multitude coming out of the tribulation, but it does not state they exhaust the entire number of believers alive during that period.

More importantly, Revelation 13 and Revelation 7 must be read alongside Revelation 20, where tribulation martyrs participate in the first resurrection.
That doesn't eliminate the possibility of living believers at Christ's return.

So I agree there will be massive martyrdom during the tribulation.
What I don't see is the step where the text explicitly says, "Therefore there are no believers left on earth for Christ to gather at His coming." That's the conclusion that still needs to be demonstrated.

It says " every person on earth takes the mark"

What happens to those refusing?

Again, there are no Christians left to rapture during the trib.

.....according to the bible.

 

[OMC]

I am only a reporter of what is there.

I am Putting postribbers at a crossroad.
Ignoring the crossroad , I suppose , is one-way to deal with it.

Rev 14.
It will not go away

I'm not ignoring Revelation 14.
I'm saying it has to be interpreted in harmony with the rest of Scripture.
I agree that the 144,000 are called firstfruits.
I agree that firstfruits implies a related harvest.
I agree that this is a significant detail and cannot be brushed aside.

Where we differ is that you treat your interpretation of that detail as the only possible conclusion.
But Revelation 14 itself never says:
"The Church was removed earlier."
"This is a separate Jewish resurrection."
"Therefore a pretrib rapture has occurred."
Those are conclusions drawn from the text, not statements made by the text.
So yes, Revelation 14 creates a crossroads.
The question is whether the crossroads leads uniquely to pretribulationism or whether multiple interpretations remain possible.
I think the latter.
The strength of your argument is that it forces people to account for the 144,000 as firstfruits.
The weakness is that it assumes the existence of a Jewish harvest automatically establishes the timing of the Church's gathering.

Revelation 14 is important.
It won't go away.
But neither will Matthew 24:29-31, where Jesus places the gathering of His elect "immediately after the tribulation of those days." That's why the debate continues.

 

[Psalm1]

I will be in and out of doctors offices today so it will take longer for me to respond. Please be patient and I will respond when I can.

I hope all is well with you.
Bring us a good report.

 

[OMC]

It says " every person on earth takes the mark"

What happens to those refusing?

Again, there are no Christians left to rapture during the trib.

.....according to the bible.

Revelation 13 does not say every person on earth takes the mark.
It says the beast causes all to receive the mark, but the chapter itself distinguishes between those who worship the beast and those whose names are written in the Book of Life.

More importantly, if every believer is either martyred or takes the mark before Christ returns, then you still have to explain passages that describe living believers at His coming.
The problem is that you're taking:

The beast overcomes the saints.
Many saints are martyred.
A great multitude appears in heaven.
and then adding:
Therefore every believer is dead before Christ returns.
That last step is not actually stated in the text.

Revelation certainly teaches massive persecution and martyrdom.
What it does not explicitly say is, "No believer remains alive on earth when Christ returns."

That's why posttribbers keep pointing back to Matthew 24:29-31.
Jesus explicitly places the gathering of His elect after the tribulation.
So if Revelation 13 is interpreted to mean there are no believers left to gather, then that interpretation has to be reconciled with Jesus' own stated sequence.
The debate is not over whether there is martyrdom.
The debate is whether martyrdom equals total extinction of all believers before Christ's return.
The text never explicitly says that.

 

[Psalm1]

I'm not ignoring Revelation 14.
I'm saying it has to be interpreted in harmony with the rest of Scripture.
I agree that the 144,000 are called firstfruits.
I agree that firstfruits implies a related harvest.
I agree that this is a significant detail and cannot be brushed aside.

Where we differ is that you treat your interpretation of that detail as the only possible conclusion.
But Revelation 14 itself never says:
"The Church was removed earlier."
"This is a separate Jewish resurrection."
"Therefore a pretrib rapture has occurred."
Those are conclusions drawn from the text, not statements made by the text.
So yes, Revelation 14 creates a crossroads.
The question is whether the crossroads leads uniquely to pretribulationism or whether multiple interpretations remain possible.
I think the latter.
The strength of your argument is that it forces people to account for the 144,000 as firstfruits.
The weakness is that it assumes the existence of a Jewish harvest automatically establishes the timing of the Church's gathering.

Revelation 14 is important.
It won't go away.
But neither will Matthew 24:29-31, where Jesus places the gathering of His elect "immediately after the tribulation of those days." That's why the debate continues.

It says in mat 24; after the trib, Jesus sends( he does not do any gathering)
He sends angels to gather in heaven.

In no way is that a postrib rapture of anyone on earth.

IOW angels gather saints in heaven to the white horses AFTER THE TRIB.

IOW After the trib,there is an assembly of saints to the white horses, in heaven.

 

[Genez]

Plus Muhammed was a pedophile.

Satan found a BUNCH OF BACKWARD THINKING PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO RESIST CHRISTIANITY SPREADING IN THEIR PART OF THE WORLD. The result was his invention of Islam.

 

[OMC]

It says in mat 24; after the trib, Jesus sends( he does not do any gathering)
He sends angels to gather in heaven.

In no way is that a postrib rapture of anyone on earth.

IOW angels gather saints in heaven to the white horses AFTER THE TRIB.

IOW After the trib,there is an assembly of saints to the white horses, in heaven.

That interpretation has a major problem:
Matthew 24 says the angels gather Christ's elect "from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" and
Mark's parallel account says "from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven" (Mark 13:27).

So the gathering is not limited to saints already in heaven.
The gathering extends from earth and heaven.
More importantly, in Matthew 24 the gathering occurs immediately after the cosmic signs that accompany the visible coming of the Son of Man.
The plain reading is that Christ comes and His people are gathered to Him.

Your interpretation is possible only if you first assume all believers are already in heaven and then read that assumption into the passage.
But the text itself never says, "The elect are already all in heaven when the angels gather them."
That's why, as I said, posttribbers keep pointing to Matthew 24.
The sequence is explicit:
Tribulation.
Cosmic signs.
The Son of Man appears.
The angels gather the elect.
If the gathering is merely a heavenly assembly of saints already raptured years earlier, that is something that must be imported into the text.
It is not stated by the text itself.

 

[Churchgoer]

You have a seriously deficient knowledge of history. One reason is that you have an anti Israel bias that blinds you to reality and truth. How many American Indians did your supposedly innocent colonials kill? Were they not there first?

God has a plan and purpose for Israel that is not yet complete. Your Bible makes that clear.

I am anti sin. Not anti ethnic. Please look into all the ot prophets. They criticized Israel too, out of love for God, and they got killed.

Please do criticize the colonials too. By all means. I don't put them on pedestal.