Replacement theology? Yes or No.

cv5 · 2026-10-07T18:26:41-0400

Revelation1v8 said:
Churchgoer has consistently used anti-semitic language during these discussion and some of your comments have been borderline as well.

The doctrine of Dispensational Pre-Millennialism is proven in the Bible, you just continue to refuse to see it that way and it may have to be with your borderline anti-semitic views on Israel.

You need to go back and review the scripture that I posted at post #4,814 - #4,816.

Well one thing is for sure:
The futurist dispensationalists are not in the business of deceiving anybody.
We state our doctrine outright, without admixture nor compromise.
We are likewise not attempting to deny our Church affiliation or denomination.

Do I exaggerate when I say that the "others" are being far from transparent?

Beekeeper · 2026-10-07T19:06:53-0400

Revelation1v8 said:
Churchgoer has consistently used anti-semitic language during these discussion and some of your comments have been borderline as well.

The doctrine of Dispensational Pre-Millennialism is proven in the Bible, you just continue to refuse to see it that way and it may have to be with your borderline anti-semitic views on Israel.

You need to go back and review the scripture that I posted at post #4,814 - #4,816.

Your posts #4,814-#4816 are too numerous for anyone to address in one post.
I would not know where to start addressing the errors of interpretation in a list that long.
People who are in disagreement about foundational approach to scripture need to go through points one by one if any meaningful discussion is to be had.

I think that you are confusing the idea of "antisemitism", which is a form of racism against persons, with attitude towards modern Israel.
If we were discussing any other Government I think that you would be able to distinguish the difference between people and the regime that they live under.
Modern Israel is not a person or race but a corporate entity.
I do not believe I have a reason or obligation to like it, and have not pretended that I do.
Many Jews are of like mind to myself in that.

Instead of comparing what we think about modern Israel I think we would do better to compare what we think Jesus stands for, and address the differences there.

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-07T19:10:39-0400

Beekeeper said:
Your posts #4,814-#4816 are too numerous for anyone to address in one post.
I would not know where to start addressing the errors of interpretation in a list that long.
People who are in disagreement about foundational approach to scripture need to go through points one by one if any meaningful discussion is to be had.

That's just an excuse. The scriptures and the points have been made REPEATEDLY here in this thread. People have been discussing them for more than 60 - 70 pages. In my opinion, there is no more "meaningful" discussion to be had.

--

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-07T19:19:55-0400

Beekeeper said:
I think that you are confusing the idea of "antisemitism", which is a form of racism against persons, with attitude towards modern Israel.
If we were discussing any other Government I think that you would be able to distinguish the difference between people and the regime that they live under.
Modern Israel is not a person or race but a corporate entity.
I do not believe I have a reason or obligation to like it, and have not pretended that I do.
Many Jews are of like mind to myself in that.

It's clear that you and Churchgoer are conspiracy theorists when it comes to Jews. Churchgoer himself considers Jews the ill of the entire world and has mentioned that Soros, Bibi, and Zelinsky are the equivalent of rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and robbers. He mentions that Israel worships Ba'al and the golden calf more than once or twice. Then there was the whole discussion about your parents having lived in Israel and how many people considered it Palestine and you've come close to defending Muslim terrorists because of your own negative views on Jews.

Now listen, I can understand why some feel that way, but that's not the way we're supposed to be viewing Israel. We should be looking at it as God's holy land, where He will redeem a remnant of His original people, and fulfill His promises to them in the land that He promised them, because that's what the Bible says. We need to set aside our negative views of Israel as a nation for the sake of God/Jesus if anything else based on what He told us. After all, God/Jesus will be willing to overlook it for the sake of their fathers too.

--

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-07T19:25:48-0400

Beekeeper said:
Instead of comparing what we think about modern Israel I think we would do better to compare what we think Jesus stands for, and address the differences there.

If you want to know what Jesus stands for, it's God. Jesus is God. In His preincarnate state, He was the one who made the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We have to remember that God/Jesus was the one who originally ordained some of their practices, whether we like them or not, or whether we see the purpose in them or not. Jesus fulfilled the law, but He didn't destroy it. Why? Because He expects the Jews to keep it and He's going to show them how to practice FAITHFULLY, like they used to before they just started going through the motions and not remembering what or why they were practicing what they did. That's why God/Jesus doesn't prefer rituals and sacraments. Too many people use them thinking they're being saved for performing them instead of performing them in the FAITHFUL manner that He expects.

--

cv5 · 2026-10-07T19:36:49-0400

Revelation1v8 said:
It's clear that you and Churchgoer are conspiracy theorists when it comes to Jews. Churchgoer himself considers Jews the ill of the entire world and has mentioned that Soros, Bibi, and Zelinsky are the equivalent of rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and robbers. He mentions that Israel worships Ba'al and the golden calf more than once or twice. Then there was the whole discussion about your parents having lived in Israel and how many people considered it Palestine and you've come close to defending Muslim terrorists because of your own negative views on Jews.

Now listen, I can understand why some feel that way, but that's not the way we're supposed to be viewing Israel. We should be looking at it as God's holy land, where He will redeem a remnant of His original people, and fulfill His promises to them in the land that He promised them, because that's what the Bible says. We need to set aside our negative views of Israel as a nation for the sake of God/Jesus if anything else based on what He told us. After all, God/Jesus will be willing to overlook it for the sake of their fathers too.

--

Consider that the present irrefutable reality of the (Ezekiel 37 cough cough) existence of the obviously pre-gathered Nation Israel is a huuuge problem and dire "impediment" to the incessant denials of the CTs and RTs and preterists and amils.

They try to tip-toe around it, then do the soft-shoe, then a jig. But to no avail.

There they are, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Or ever actually.

Who was it that staunchly opined that Israel will be soon be destroyed? Do I recall correctly that it was @WayneNSO ?

I thought that I heard applause in the background but I could be wrong...

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-07T19:41:22-0400

cv5 said:
Consider that the present irrefutable reality of the (Ezekiel 37 cough cough) existence of the obviously pre-gathered Nation Israel is a huuuge problem and dire "impediment" to the incessant denials of the CTs and RTs and preterists and amils.

They try to tip-toe around it, then do the soft-shoe, then a jig. But to no avail.

There they are, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Or ever actually.

Who was it that staunchly opined that Israel will be soon be destroyed? Do I recall correctly that it was @WayneNSO ?

I thought that I heard applause in the background but I could be wrong...

Well, no doubt it's not over yet. The Bible tells us there's going to be a couple of more big wars started against them before He steps in to save the nation, the land, and a remnant of the people. The nation will be made desolate again before He restores it to show everyone that He IS the God of the Bible and that He will fulfill ALL of His promises.

--

cv5 · 2026-10-07T19:42:29-0400

Beekeeper said:
Your posts #4,814-#4816 are too numerous for anyone to address in one post.
I would not know where to start addressing the errors of interpretation in a list that long.
People who are in disagreement about foundational approach to scripture need to go through points one by one if any meaningful discussion is to be had.

I think that you are confusing the idea of "antisemitism", which is a form of racism against persons, with attitude towards modern Israel.
If we were discussing any other Government I think that you would be able to distinguish the difference between people and the regime that they live under.
Modern Israel is not a person or race but a corporate entity.
I do not believe I have a reason or obligation to like it, and have not pretended that I do.
Many Jews are of like mind to myself in that.

Instead of comparing what we think about modern Israel I think we would do better to compare what we think Jesus stands for, and address the differences there.

You had best look out the window, check the time, and figure out which side of the tracks you’re standing on before the train hits you.

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-07T19:49:33-0400

Revelation1v8 said:
Well, no doubt it's not over yet. The Bible tells us there's going to be a couple of more big wars started against them before He steps in to save the nation, the land, and a remnant of the people. The nation will be made desolate again before He restores it to show everyone that He IS the God of the Bible and that He will fulfill ALL of His promises.

--

@cv5, this is why I've said a couple of times in this thread that I figured God/Jesus would even allow some Christians to be ignorant of these things in order for His end time plan to unfold the way it is written, with all of the nations and the people of the earth turning their backs on Jerusalem (Zechariah 12), but the ones who try to come up against it will be the ones who truly suffer and will be cut down and cut off like Zechariah says.

We can all speak flowery language to say that we are all one in Christ, and to Him we are, but not so much between the Jews and some Christians still walking the earth today. This is also why I have ALWAYS said that there is a difference between Spiritual fulfillment and Literal fulfillment, but both happen in their appointed times.

--

Beekeeper · 2026-10-07T23:16:44-0400

Revelation1v8 said:
That's just an excuse. The scriptures and the points have been made REPEATEDLY here in this thread. People have been discussing them for more than 60 - 70 pages. In my opinion, there is no more "meaningful" discussion to be had.

--

I do not really need to have an excuse as to why I would not give a comprehensive response here to such a long list of issues.
It would take the form of a 20 page sermon which nobody would read.
I am just being practical from the point of one who still thinks there is more to uncover in this discussion.
If you feel that there is not, it is better to just leave than try to kill it for others.
It seems that your biggest "beef" with me is my attitude to modern Israel
I would not think that your love of modern Israel would rank as my main point of disagreement with you though, because the plight of that nation is not relevant to my eschatology.
What concerns me most is that you present a Christ that is different from the one in scripture.

Revelation1v8 said:
If you want to know what Jesus stands for, it's God. Jesus is God. In His preincarnate state, He was the one who made the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We have to remember that God/Jesus was the one who originally ordained some of their practices, whether we like them or not, or whether we see the purpose in them or not. Jesus fulfilled the law, but He didn't destroy it. Why? Because He expects the Jews to keep it and He's going to show them how to practice FAITHFULLY, like they used to before they just started going through the motions and not remembering what or why they were practicing what they did. That's why God/Jesus doesn't prefer rituals and sacraments. Too many people use them thinking they're being saved for performing them instead of performing them in the FAITHFUL manner that He expects.

--

The view that Jesus still expect Jewish people to live under the law of Moses is an absolute nonsense, and you should know it.
Moses did not sprinkle the blood of that covenant over any other people than Israel, and none of the other nations were ever under it in the first place.
If God has found fault with this first covenant arrangement (Hebrews 8:8), that is not because because of the violations of the other nations who were not ever under it, but because of the violations of the nation that was.
If God has sought place for a second covenant (Hebrews 8:7), that second covenant is obviously the one established with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (8:8).

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
The law of Moses is done away with now, not because it was never good, but because Jesus is now risen.

All those rituals were there to serve as a ministry of the coming Messiah, and were never the substance of the matter.

1Corinthiand 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

The New covenant is not a temporary "church age" arrangement either, it is everlasting.
it represents Jesus' eternal state of being (Hebrews 7:17)

The eschatological Jesus predicted to rule the earth by dispensationalists is not Jesus at all, but a denial of everything that Jesus has done and stood for.

cv5 · 2026-10-07T23:42:38-0400

Beekeeper said:
I do not really need to have an excuse as to why I would not give a comprehensive response here to such a long list of issues.
It would take the form of a 20 page sermon which nobody would read.
I am just being practical from the point of one who still thinks there is more to uncover in this discussion.
If you feel that there is not, it is better to just leave than try to kill it for others.
It seems that your biggest "beef" with me is my attitude to modern Israel
I would not think that your love of modern Israel would rank as my main point of disagreement with you though, because the plight of that nation is not relevant to my eschatology.
What concerns me most is that you present a Christ that is different from the one in scripture.

The view that Jesus still expect Jewish people to live under the law of Moses is an absolute nonsense, and you should know it.
Moses did not sprinkle the blood of that covenant over any other people than Israel, and none of the other nations were ever under it in the first place.
If God has found fault with this first covenant arrangement (Hebrews 8:8), that is not because because of the violations of the other nations who were not ever under it, but because of the violations of the nation that was.
If God has sought place for a second covenant (Hebrews 8:7), that second covenant is obviously the one established with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (8:8).

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
The law of Moses is done away with now, not because it was never good, but because Jesus is now risen.

All those rituals were there to serve as a ministry of the coming Messiah, and were never the substance of the matter.

1Corinthiand 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

The New covenant is not a temporary "church age" arrangement either, it is everlasting.
it represents Jesus' eternal state of being (Hebrews 7:17)

The eschatological Jesus predicted to rule the earth by dispensationalists is not Jesus at all, but a denial of everything that Jesus has done and stood for.

"The eschatological Jesus predicted to rule the earth by dispensationalists is not Jesus at all, but a denial of everything that Jesus has done and stood for."

Well then, by your accounting, there are going to be a lot of both surprised and disappointed people at the time of the Second Coming.

Other than the futurist dispensationalists.
We will be neither....

cv5 · 2026-10-07T23:45:19-0400

Revelation1v8 said:
@cv5, this is why I've said a couple of times in this thread that I figured God/Jesus would even allow some Christians to be ignorant of these things in order for His end time plan to unfold the way it is written, with all of the nations and the people of the earth turning their backs on Jerusalem (Zechariah 12), but the ones who try to come up against it will be the ones who truly suffer and will be cut down and cut off like Zechariah says.

We can all speak flowery language to say that we are all one in Christ, and to Him we are, but not so much between the Jews and some Christians still walking the earth today. This is also why I have ALWAYS said that there is a difference between Spiritual fulfillment and Literal fulfillment, but both happen in their appointed times.

--

Yes? No? Maybe?
Or how about 24/7 non-stop?

Eph 4:14 - That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-08T03:00:17-0400

Beekeeper said:
What concerns me most is that you present a Christ that is different from the one in scripture.

How do you figure that? Maybe you're the one viewing Him differently than the way He has been presented throughout all of the scriptures.

Beekeeper said:
The view that Jesus still expect Jewish people to live under the law of Moses is an absolute nonsense, and you should know it.
Moses did not sprinkle the blood of that covenant over any other people than Israel, and none of the other nations were ever under it in the first place.

True, and I never said they were.

Beekeeper said:
If God has found fault with this first covenant arrangement (Hebrews 8:8), that is not because because of the violations of the other nations who were not ever under it, but because of the violations of the nation that was.
If God has sought place for a second covenant (Hebrews 8:7), that second covenant is obviously the one established with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (8:8).

I agree.

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-08T03:23:38-0400

Beekeeper said:
All those rituals were there to serve as a ministry of the coming Messiah, and were never the substance of the matter.

1Corinthiand 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

The keywords in the verse above is "in part" and "when that which is perfect is come" and I think you're looking at this purely as Jesus, when I believe it's referring to the New Jerusalem. After the Millennial Kingdom period on earth is over, there will be absolutely no need for such things. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle from the law would pass away until heaven and earth passed away.

Beekeeper said:
The New covenant is not a temporary "church age" arrangement either, it is everlasting.
it represents Jesus' eternal state of being (Hebrews 7:17)

The eschatological Jesus predicted to rule the earth by dispensationalists is not Jesus at all, but a denial of everything that Jesus has done and stood for.

I don't understand your first sentence about how the New Covenant represents Jesus' eternal state of being because Jesus has ALWAYS been eternal.

--

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-08T03:55:00-0400

@Beekeeper, I think I just figured out where our differences of understand are and I'm using A.I. to explain it below:

No, the word "forever" in the Bible does not always mean infinite, unending duration. In the original Hebrew (olam) and Greek (aion), these terms primarily denote a long, indefinite period, an age, or continuity relative to a specific context, rather than absolute timelessness.

Instances of "Forever" Meaning Limited or Earthly Durations

Several biblical passages use "forever" to describe events or institutions that clearly ended, indicating the term means "as long as the conditions exist" or "for an age."

The Levitical Priesthood: The priesthood of Aaron is described as an "everlasting" or "forever" priesthood (Numbers 25:13), yet it ceased with the destruction of the Temple and the tribe of Levi.
Passover and Ceremonial Laws: The Passover is commanded to be kept "forever" (Exodus 12:14), but Christian theology holds that these ordinances were fulfilled and abolished with the death of Jesus (Colossians 2:14).
Bondservants: A slave who chooses to stay with his master serves him "forever" (Exodus 21:6), which contextually means for the remainder of his life.
Judgment on Edom and Moab: Isaiah describes the smoke of Edom rising "forever" (Isaiah 34:10) and Moab’s destruction as "forever" (Jeremiah 48:4), yet Jeremiah 48:47 states God will eventually restore Moab’s fortunes, proving the judgment was not eternal in duration.
Jonah’s Experience: Jonah prays from the fish that the earth’s bars closed around him "forever" (Jonah 2:6), a clear reference to his three-day confinement.

Distinction Between Qualified and Categorical Forever

The Bible distinguishes between uses of "forever" that are qualified (limited by context or purpose) and those that are categorical (absolute).

Qualified Forever: Used for earthly things, judgments, or temporary covenants. It signifies irrevocable destruction or continuous action until a specific end goal is reached (e.g., the burning of a city until it is consumed).
Categorical Forever: Used for God’s nature, His love, and the New Covenant. Phrases like "forever and ever" (eis tous aionas ton aionas) in Revelation are emphatic constructions reserved for God’s eternal life and the unending reign of Christ, which transcend earthly time.

Conclusion

"Biblical forever" is often categorical when referring to God’s eternal nature and the New Covenant, but qualified when referring to earthly institutions, judgments, or human lifespans. Therefore, "forever" in the context of earthly states (like the Old Covenant or specific judgments) does not necessarily imply continuation into the heavenly eternal state.

The tension with "forever" in Hebrews 7

This is where your earlier question connects. Hebrews 7:24 says he "continues forever" (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) and 7:25 says he "always lives to intercede" (πάντοτε ζῶν). The most natural reading, given 1 Cor. 15:28, is that these "forever" and "always" are qualified by the age — they mean "for as long as the present age lasts, for as long as there are people who need intercession." The priesthood is forever (he never sets it down, never dies, never is replaced — contrast the Levites). The intercessory activity within that priesthood is bound to the age of need.

So to directly answer: Jesus doesn't "need" to intercede once God is all in all, because the conditions that make intercession necessary are gone. His priestly office is eternal; its present intercessory function is not.

So what is the "office" doing in eternity?

Honestly: the Bible doesn't say. The NT describes Christ's priestly activity only in the context of the present age — believers who sin, who need sanctification, who are in the gap between justification and glorification. Once that gap closes, the text goes silent on what "high priest" does in the new creation.

--

Beekeeper · 2026-10-08T07:34:40-0400

It would be very sad for any person to not know what Jesus does in His "office" on our behalf,
"where He ever liveth to make intercession for us" (Hebrews 7:25)
"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:17).
We are not able to enter into heaven alone, because we are unworthy, but can only enter in through Jesus who has paid the price of our sins.
For this reason we are dependent on Jesus being in heaven in the first place.

Jesus' role as high priest is truly everlasting, because unlike the high priests of Aaron He will never die (Hebrews 7:23).
"But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an UNCHANGEABLE priesthood." (Hebrews 7:24)

It makes absolutely no sense to claim that Jesus is going to re institute a Levitical priesthood, because He is from the tribe of Judah, and His priesthood is of a superior order than that of Levites.
Because Jesus has risen and entered his "office" the priesthood has been changed, and "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Hebrews 7:12).
"For there is verily a DISANNULLING of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (Hebrews 7:18).
The word "disannul" means to make void.
That is what has happened to both the law of Moses, and to the Levitical priesthood, together with the role of the earthly temple and the animal sacrifices.

That is also why Jesus will not come back as an earthly king and do all of those things.
He is ready to judge the world once and for all as soon as the last person that He intends to save is saved.
He will not abandon His role in Heaven, but rather bring his people there to join Him-

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." Hebrews 7:25.

Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

So that ai study on the use of "forever" did not get everything right.
It did however correctly list some conditional promises that were "forever" from the intention of God, but broken by man and therefore disannulled.
Interesting that it omitted to tell us that the land promise falls in that category.

OMC · 2026-10-08T07:53:28-0400

Beekeeper said:
I think I have been sincere in my dealings with you.
We have been comparing what we believe and challenging each other on how it compares to scripture.
All good stuff.
My appeal to you to apologize to that person was sincere too, because you really have crossed the line.
@OMC has not been challenging us on our beliefs, but on our ability to prove them with the Bible.
He has been scrutinizing me just as heavily as you, and I am pretty sure he disagrees with me on a number of things.
The difference is that while I welcome that type of scrutiny and consider it useful, you are in love with a doctrine that cannot stand up to it.
I think that is the reason that you are resorting to entirely different means to defend and promote your beliefs.

I never attack anyone's belief. I offer the scripture as it is written.
Something I have done for years.
I never came here to debate theology.
I'm not a preacher.
But I know when a man-made framework is being applied to scripture, and I attack that by pointing it out.
Nothing more. And I apologize if anyone ever felt like I was attacking their belief.
I attack systems, not people.

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-08T08:06:49-0400

Beekeeper said:
It would be very sad for any person to not know what Jesus does in His "office" on our behalf,
"where He ever liveth to make intercession for us" (Hebrews 7:25)
"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:17).
We are not able to enter into heaven alone, because we are unworthy, but can only enter in through Jesus who has paid the price of our sins.
For this reason we are dependent on Jesus being in heaven in the first place.

Jesus' role as high priest is truly everlasting, because unlike the high priests of Aaron He will never die (Hebrews 7:23).
"But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an UNCHANGEABLE priesthood." (Hebrews 7:24)

It makes absolutely no sense to claim that Jesus is going to re institute a Levitical priesthood, because He is from the tribe of Judah, and His priesthood is of a superior order than that of Levites.
Because Jesus has risen and entered his "office" the priesthood has been changed, and "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Hebrews 7:12).
"For there is verily a DISANNULLING of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (Hebrews 7:18).
The word "disannul" means to make void.
That is what has happened to both the law of Moses, and to the Levitical priesthood, together with the role of the earthly temple and the animal sacrifices.

That is also why Jesus will not come back as an earthly king and do all of those things.
He is ready to judge the world once and for all as soon as the last person that He intends to save is saved.
He will not abandon His role in Heaven, but rather bring his people there to join Him-

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." Hebrews 7:25.

Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

So that ai study on the use of "forever" did not get everything right.
It did however correctly list some conditional promises that were "forever" from the intention of God, but broken by man and therefore disannulled.
Interesting that it omitted to tell us that the land promise falls in that category.

So, you didn't read all of my comments?

Jesus doesn't sit at the right hand of God forever.

Psalm 110:1 — "The Lord says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'"
Matthew 22:44 — "'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet"'"
Mark 12:36 — "David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet."'"
Luke 20:42–43 — "How do the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? David himself said in the Psalm, 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' So David calls him Lord. How then is he his son?"
Acts 2:34–35 — "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool."'"
Romans 8:34 — "Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us."
Hebrews 1:13 — "To which of the angels has God ever said, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool'?"
Hebrews 10:12–13 — "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool."
1 Corinthians 15:25 — "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet."

After Jesus puts all of His enemies under His feet, He delivers the kingdom up to God. This is where the New Jerusalem/Heaven comes in.

1 Corinthians 15:24 — "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power."
1 Corinthians 15:25 — "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet."
1 Corinthians 15:26 — "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
1 Corinthians 15:27 — "For 'God has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But when it says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is plain that this is not to include the one who put all things in subjection under him."
1 Corinthians 15:28 — "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all."
Revelation 3:12 — "The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and MY OWN NEW NAME."
Revelation 2:17 — "To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, and to go into the Paradise of God. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it."
Revelation 19:12 — "His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written, known only to himself."

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-08T08:14:06-0400

Revelation1v8 said:
So, you didn't read all of my comments?

Jesus doesn't sit at the right hand of God forever.

Psalm 110:1 — "The Lord says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'"

Matthew 22:44 — "'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet"'"

Mark 12:36 — "David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet."'"

Luke 20:42–43 — "How do the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? David himself said in the Psalm, 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' So David calls him Lord. How then is he his son?"

Acts 2:34–35 — "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool."'"

Romans 8:34 — "Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us."

Hebrews 1:13 — "To which of the angels has God ever said, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool'?"

Hebrews 10:12–13 — "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool."

1 Corinthians 15:25 — "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet."

After Jesus puts all of His enemies under His feet, He delivers the kingdom up to God. This is where the New Jerusalem/Heaven comes in.

1 Corinthians 15:24 — "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power."

1 Corinthians 15:25 — "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet."

1 Corinthians 15:26 — "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

1 Corinthians 15:27 — "For 'God has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But when it says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is plain that this is not to include the one who put all things in subjection under him."

1 Corinthians 15:28 — "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all."

Revelation 3:12 — "The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and MY OWN NEW NAME."

Revelation 2:17 — "To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, and to go into the Paradise of God. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it."

Revelation 19:12 — "His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written, known only to himself."

@Beekeeper, in case you're not understanding STILL what I'm trying to communicate, Jesus does NOT need to be an intercessor for us FOREVER, only during the earthly ages. Once He delivers up the kingdom to God, we will all be living with God/Jesus face-to-face in Heaven and an intercessor will NO LONGER be necessary.

--

Revelation1v8 · 2026-10-08T08:21:46-0400

OMC said:
I never attack anyone's belief. I offer the scripture as it is written.
Something I have done for years.
I never came here to debate theology.
I'm not a preacher.
But I know when a man-made framework is being applied to scripture, and I attack that by pointing it out.
Nothing more. And I apologize if anyone ever felt like I was attacking their belief.
I attack systems, not people.

So, what do you consider a "man-made framework"? Can you take any of the verses that I've posted above or in the verses posted in posts #4,814 - #4,816 and show us how that creates a man-made framework? Or are you only referring to the Preterist view as a man-made framework?

Beekeeper wasn't referring to you in the first few sentences of his statement. It was directed towards me.

--

Replacement theology? Yes or No.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

The tension with "forever" in Hebrews 7​

So what is the "office" doing in eternity?​

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

The tension with "forever" in Hebrews 7

So what is the "office" doing in eternity?