Replacement theology? Yes or No.

  • 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.
I think the main teaching of the dispensational school of thought is that God has two groups, the church (a parenthesis in history) in his plan and then then the ethnic group.

The church age, also called the age of grace, which is now, which is a separate group, will be raptured away and then God goes back to the first ethnic group.

Major problem with dividing the bible like this people were always saved by grace, in the OT and presently.

The ethnic group will ALL become believers sometime soon ............after the anti-Christ, famines, wars and so on.

So they want us to believe that there have been generations of Jews who were not given this special privilege of whole group salvation, only those living in a certain time, which to them is present day.

How does that even make sense. :rolleyes:

Dispensationalism also denies Christ Jesus/God fulfilled all his promises of the Old Testament, especially the land promise which again is a direct contradiction of scripture found in Joshua and Corinthians.

For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.
2 Cor. 1:20

Here is a image showing the different dispensations.

View attachment 296062

The chart in that picture mane me laugh.
Don't we all need a dude like that to help us along!
 
Definitely agree on this.

That's the reason I say no matter which view one believes, we are not to support murdering, stealing, sexual immorality....stuff.

Jesus don't need us to behave as Judah to help the process.

You are correct in your second statement, but your statement about "Judah" tells me that you're not looking at the bigger picture or possibly understand the current events going on there. Israel is currently defending itself from Muslim terrorist nations who's goal is to take Jerusalem and all of Israel for themselves as a part of their own religious beliefs. It offends them that Jews are living in what they consider to be THEIR land. A land that they religiously believe belongs only to Muslims. It's not theirs to take.
 
You are correct in your second statement, but your statement about "Judah" tells me that you're not looking at the bigger picture or possibly understand the current events going on there. Israel is currently defending itself from Muslim terrorist nations who's goal is to take Jerusalem and all of Israel for themselves as a part of their own religious beliefs. It offends them that Jews are living in what they consider to be THEIR land. A land that they religiously believe belongs only to Muslims. It's not theirs to take.
For that part you need to look back in history before 1948,
Start with king David hotel bombing. 1946.
 
For that part you need to look back in history before 1948,
Start with king David hotel bombing. 1946.

There's a lot more to the story, but things are playing out in Israel just as the Bible said it always would be...

Genesis 16:12 - And he will be a wild man (Ishmael); his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

This is why Jesus said that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...not Ishmael.


Here's another look at the overall picture of what was going on during the King David Hotel bombing according to history outlined by my A.I. assistant:

The opposition to British rule was driven by several overlapping grievances that intensified over the 1940s:

1. The White Paper of 1939

This was the single most important catalyst. Britain imposed strict caps on Jewish immigration (15,000 over five years, then only what Arab "economic absorptive capacity" allowed), restricted Jewish land purchases, and declared an intention to create an independent state with an Arab majority within ten years. The Zionist leadership saw this as a direct betrayal of the Balfour Declaration and the terms of the Mandate, which had promised a "national home for the Jewish people."

2. The Holocaust and blocked rescue
After WWII, hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors in displaced persons camps across Europe desperately wanted to reach Palestine. Britain continued to enforce its immigration restrictions and intercepted ships carrying Jewish refugees (most famously the Exodus 1947, whose passengers were forcibly returned to Europe). This created what David Ben-Gurion called a situation "nourished by despair" — the groups argued that Britain was, by its inaction, complicit in the destruction of European Jewry.

3. A sense of betrayal after WWII cooperation
Tens of thousands of Jews had volunteered for the British army during the war, and the Haganah had cooperated closely with British security forces. The expectation was that this loyalty would be rewarded with a favorable postwar settlement. Instead, Britain maintained its restrictive policies, which the Yishuv experienced as a profound betrayal.

4. British repression of the Yishuv
The British response to Jewish resistance was heavy-handed: mass arrests of Jewish leaders, suspension of habeas corpus, military courts, death sentences, and raids on Jewish institutions. This turned much of the previously cooperative Jewish population against the Mandate authorities and pushed even moderate Zionists toward support for the insurgency.

5. The strategic logic of forcing withdrawal
The groups' core goal was not anti-British in a racial or ideological sense — their propaganda explicitly stated they had "no animosity toward the English people." Rather, they saw British rule as the obstacle to Jewish statehood. Menachem Begin's strategy was to make Palestine a "glass house" — so unmanageable and internationally embarrassing for Britain that withdrawal became the only option. The insurgency was, in their framing, a war of liberation against a foreign occupying power that was blocking their right to self-determination.

In short, the combination of immigration restrictions, the Holocaust's aftermath, perceived betrayal, and British repression created a situation in which the Yishuv concluded that only force could remove the one power standing between them and an independent state.
 
I affirm your structure, not your Flavian labels.
The text calls the horns “ten kings” who “have received no kingdom as yet” (Dan 7:24; Rev 17:12), so the pattern you traced—sea‑beast as Gentile power, earth‑beast as Jerusalem religious power, woman as Jerusalem, kings turning on her—is biblical; but when you then name those kings as specific Roman rulers under the Flavian dynasty, that step goes beyond what Scripture itself says.
I’m with you on the world‑system categories because the verses explicitly define them; I push back only where the text stops and historical reconstruction starts, especially on making the ten kings past Roman emperors instead of the future kings Revelation describes.

I thought that we were in agreement that historical fulfillment of prophesy should be taken seriously?
Roman history is very well resourced and easy to find.
Rome operated through 10 provincial rulers, this was still the case in the Flavian dynasty.
They were not emperors, and I did not say they were.
Jerusalem was destroyed under Titus with the help of the provincial rulers.
Of course that is not Biblical text, and the information we find could be flawed,
but the parallels between Revelation and Rome are highly detailed and I find them fascinating.
This of course involves opening a history book once in a while, and I think I am allowed to do that.

I seem to have made some progress with you regarding the earth beast as the Jerusalem religious powers, and I have so far shared very little about it.
If I was to suggest that the two horns are first century persons that have known names, and have been written about by Josephus, I may be taking you beyond your limits.

I do not just want to "stand" on the Bible, I want to find out what it is talking about.
 
I thought that we were in agreement that historical fulfillment of prophesy should be taken seriously?
Roman history is very well resourced and easy to find.
Rome operated through 10 provincial rulers, this was still the case in the Flavian dynasty.
They were not emperors, and I did not say they were.
Jerusalem was destroyed under Titus with the help of the provincial rulers.
Of course that is not Biblical text, and the information we find could be flawed,
but the parallels between Revelation and Rome are highly detailed and I find them fascinating.
This of course involves opening a history book once in a while, and I think I am allowed to do that.

I seem to have made some progress with you regarding the earth beast as the Jerusalem religious powers, and I have so far shared very little about it.
If I was to suggest that the two horns are first century persons that have known names, and have been written about by Josephus, I may be taking you beyond your limits.

I do not just want to "stand" on the Bible, I want to find out what it is talking about.
Your instinct is right, but the boundary still matters: history can illuminate the text, but it cannot define the text.

The moment you say the ten kings are Roman provincial rulers under Titus, you’ve crossed from what Revelation states into what Roman administration suggests.
Revelation explicitly says these kings “have received no kingdom as yet” and only receive authority for a brief, unified moment with the beast—language that simply doesn’t match governors who already held office and exercised long‑term provincial authority.

So yes, historical fulfillment should be taken seriously, but only as correlation, never as definition, and never in a way that contradicts the timing or role the text itself assigns.
The earth‑beast as Jerusalem’s religious power fits because the text’s own markers point there; the woman as Jerusalem fits because the prophets’ blood is found in her; but naming the horns or the ten kings from Josephus is a different category—interesting, possibly insightful, but not text‑anchored.
You’re absolutely allowed to explore those parallels, and some of them are genuinely fascinating, but they remain historical hypotheses, not Scripture‑defined identities, and keeping that distinction clean is what lets you “find out what it is talking about” without letting external sources override the inspired categories.
 
Seems like a rhetorical dear brother , you tell me . All I was saying is scientific dating doesn’t agree with one set year or anything , carbon dating isn’t even meant to do that.
Sure, but as I pointed out earlier, 3 times in the first chapter of Revelation there is reference to coming events being imminent. So, regardless of how one dates the book, there would need be imminent events that follow. If the book was written in 65 AD, the events of 70 AD would qualify as those imminent events. I know of no events circa 95 AD which do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pilgrimshope
There's a lot more to the story, but things are playing out in Israel just as the Bible said it always would be...

Genesis 16:12 - And he will be a wild man (Ishmael); his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

This is why Jesus said that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...not Ishmael.
There are many scripture verses against jews too. Fyi.
Jesus is God of the faithful ones, not about ethnic, consistent from ot to nt.

Here's another look at the overall picture of what was going on during the King David Hotel bombing according to history outlined by my A.I. assistant:

The opposition to British rule was driven by several overlapping grievances that intensified over the 1940s:

1. The White Paper of 1939

This was the single most important catalyst. Britain imposed strict caps on Jewish immigration (15,000 over five years, then only what Arab "economic absorptive capacity" allowed), restricted Jewish land purchases, and declared an intention to create an independent state with an Arab majority within ten years. The Zionist leadership saw this as a direct betrayal of the Balfour Declaration and the terms of the Mandate, which had promised a "national home for the Jewish people."
So bomb the workers? Isn't this the beginning of terrorism?
Christians shouldn't support secular political movement.
2. The Holocaust and blocked rescue
After WWII, hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors in displaced persons camps across Europe desperately wanted to reach Palestine. Britain continued to enforce its immigration restrictions and intercepted ships carrying Jewish refugees (most famously the Exodus 1947, whose passengers were forcibly returned to Europe). This created what David Ben-Gurion called a situation "nourished by despair" — the groups argued that Britain was, by its inaction, complicit in the destruction of European Jewry.
Very biased.
So if I am homeless, I can go rob other people s home? Sounds like usa liberals saying.
3. A sense of betrayal after WWII cooperation
Tens of thousands of Jews had volunteered for the British army during the war, and the Haganah had cooperated closely with British security forces. The expectation was that this loyalty would be rewarded with a favorable postwar settlement. Instead, Britain maintained its restrictive policies, which the Yishuv experienced as a profound betrayal.
Biased.
4. British repression of the Yishuv
The British response to Jewish resistance was heavy-handed: mass arrests of Jewish leaders, suspension of habeas corpus, military courts, death sentences, and raids on Jewish institutions. This turned much of the previously cooperative Jewish population against the Mandate authorities and pushed even moderate Zionists toward support for the insurgency.
Biased.
5. The strategic logic of forcing withdrawal
The groups' core goal was not anti-British in a racial or ideological sense — their propaganda explicitly stated they had "no animosity toward the English people." Rather, they saw British rule as the obstacle to Jewish statehood. Menachem Begin's strategy was to make Palestine a "glass house" — so unmanageable and internationally embarrassing for Britain that withdrawal became the only option. The insurgency was, in their framing, a war of liberation against a foreign occupying power that was blocking their right to self-determination.

In short, the combination of immigration restrictions, the Holocaust's aftermath, perceived betrayal, and British repression created a situation in which the Yishuv concluded that only force could remove the one power standing between them and an independent state.
Biased.

Anyway, leave secular things to secular. Do not drag Jesus name into secular war.
 
I think the main teaching of the dispensational school of thought is that God has two groups, the church (a parenthesis in history) in his plan and then then the ethnic group.

The church age, also called the age of grace, which is now, which is a separate group, will be raptured away and then God goes back to the first ethnic group.

Major problem with dividing the bible like this people were always saved by grace, in the OT and presently.

The ethnic group will ALL become believers sometime soon ............after the anti-Christ, famines, wars and so on.

So they want us to believe that there have been generations of Jews who were not given this special privilege of whole group salvation, only those living in a certain time, which to them is present day.

How does that even make sense. :rolleyes:

Dispensationalism also denies Christ Jesus/God fulfilled all his promises of the Old Testament, especially the land promise which again is a direct contradiction of scripture found in Joshua and Corinthians.

For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.
2 Cor. 1:20

Here is a image showing the different dispensations.

View attachment 296062
Ahh now I understand and do agree with you I personally have never seen evidence but on the contrary there’s a lot of “ ethnicity no longer applies but rather faith in Jesus Christ “ in the New Testament.

At a time god had a covenant with only the tribes of israel because he promised Abraham.

But Abraham is father of many nations and through him and his seed all nations and peoples of the earth would be blessed not only the singular ethnicity or even nationality .


Yes if that’s dispensationalism I don’t agree thanks for explaining to me !
 
Sure, but as I pointed out earlier, 3 times in the first chapter of Revelation there is reference to coming events being imminent. So, regardless of how one dates the book, there would need be imminent events that follow. If the book was written in 65 AD, the events of 70 AD would qualify as those imminent events. I know of no events circa 95 AD which do the same.
Yes that was sort of the original point I was making brother one person can say “ my argument is supported by the fact it’s 65 ad the other can say mine is supported by the fact it’s 95 ad ….. but the point is mute regarding the date of the text no one actually knows for sure it’s date but only approximation.


The point being simply dating of the text isn’t a good support for either argument ….. not sure that makes sense brother
 
  • Heart
Reactions: Cameron143
Yes that was sort of the original point I was making brother one person can say “ my argument is supported by the fact it’s 65 ad the other can say mine is supported by the fact it’s 95 ad ….. but the point is mute regarding the date of the text no one actually knows for sure it’s date but only approximation.


The point being simply dating of the text isn’t a good support for either argument ….. not sure that makes sense brother
I get your point, but there is plenty of evidence in the book of Revelation to confirm the dating before 70AD. I was just pointing out one.
 
Yes that was sort of the original point I was making brother one person can say “ my argument is supported by the fact it’s 65 ad the other can say mine is supported by the fact it’s 95 ad ….. but the point is mute regarding the date of the text no one actually knows for sure it’s date but only approximation.


The point being simply dating of the text isn’t a good support for either argument ….. not sure that makes sense brother
Also, good to see you posting again. Hope you are well.
 
Ahh now I understand and do agree with you I personally have never seen evidence but on the contrary there’s a lot of “ ethnicity no longer applies but rather faith in Jesus Christ “ in the New Testament.

At a time god had a covenant with only the tribes of israel because he promised Abraham.

But Abraham is father of many nations and through him and his seed all nations and peoples of the earth would be blessed not only the singular ethnicity or even nationality .


Yes if that’s dispensationalism I don’t agree thanks for explaining to me !
In ot, many ethnic Israelites were not followers of God, while a few were.
Daniel was the only one not bowing to statue, 3 young men only ones didn't bow to earthly king n.

God was using national Israel as a shadow , or to say a theatrical play to showcase what is to come.

Never about ethnicity, only about faith in God.