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.
I did agree with some of what you wrote, and went on to tell you what I did disagree with. It's called conversation. Read more carefully:
Agree: God is a covenant God.
Disagree: but the promises are in Him.
I went on to explain that the promises are not fulfilled by Israel, but Christ.
Until you guys understand this, you will not understand covenants or eschatology.
ONLY the Mosaic covenant is no longer in force. Tons of irrefutable evidence makes this clear.
The others are fully in force and eternal in nature. And there is zero scriptural evidence to say otherwise. Your fantasies to the contrary are NOT evidence.
And to say otherwise is..... calling God a liar and therefore a bald faced lie.
Are you talking about these verses:
Why these verses were not fulfilled in 70 AD
1. "All flesh" is universal, not local. The Greek pasa sarx (πᾶσα σὰρξ) means "all humanity" — the whole human race, drawn from the Hebrew kol basar. The siege of Jerusalem was a regional catastrophe confined to Judea. No matter how long it lasted, it could not have wiped out all human life on earth. The verse describes a threat to the entire planet, not one city.2. The tribulation's described severity exceeds 70 AD. The immediately preceding verse (Matt. 24:21) says it will be "great tribulation, such as has not happened since the beginning of the world until this time, no, and never will." The Roman siege, horrific as it was, was a conventional military campaign. It does not match a tribulation of unprecedented, global, existential severity.
3. The logical problem of "the elect." If the purpose of "those days" was final judgment on the Jewish nation (as preterists hold), the question arises: why would any life be saved? A final judicial judgment would require complete accounting. The verse instead implies a merciful interruption of a globally destructive event — which fits a future tribulation, not a local siege.
4. Luke omits the verse. Luke's account of the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21) focuses more heavily on 70 AD and omits the "shortened days" statement entirely. This suggests the author recognized it as referring to a different (future) event beyond the temple's destruction.
5. The surrounding context is unfulfilled in 70 AD. The verses immediately following describe the sun darkening, the moon not giving its light, stars falling from heaven, and the powers of heaven being shaken (Matt. 24:29), followed by the visible, bodily return of the Son of Man on the clouds (v. 30) and angels gathering the elect "from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (v. 31). None of these occurred in 70 AD. Since the "shortened days" are embedded within this sequence, they belong to the same unfulfilled horizon.
And I'm perfectly okay with that. Now, if your side could ever learn to express this without disparaging others, you will have learned how to love and fulfilled the law of Christ.
So to you, the 70th week of Daniel tribulation is done and over. Therefore the pre-trib rapture is done and over as well.
If you truly believed that God was a Covenant God, then you would already know that the Bible shows that He will FULFILL ALL OF HIS OLD COVENANTS, not partially, but fully, by the end of time. And no, they have NOT been completely fulfilled yet.
I didn't deny that the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants weren't still in force. I merely said they are all part of the covenant of grace...the new covenant...which began to be unveiled in Genesis 3 and was progressively revealed throughout history and fully revealed in the NT.
Seriously? No one ever said that the promises were fulfilled by Israel. They are fulfilled by God/Jesus FOR Israel because He made certain promises to them that He plans on keeping.
Oh yea, everybody on CC knows who is legitimately proclaiming the truth in righteousness and who are the frauds.
It's the slithering and hissing. You just can't miss it.....
At least you admit it.Oh yea, everybody on CC knows who is legitimately proclaiming the truth in righteousness and who are the frauds.
It's the slithering and hissing. You just can't miss it.....
Since when are we supposed to love lies and heresies and those who deny Biblically confirmed accurate doctrine and call God a liar?
You haven't cleaned anything but when the pit opens I'm sure you will find work.
Does not apply when exposing heretics and heresies. Obviously.
But the heretics do commonly seek refuge there.....
