Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[cv5]

Revelation 5:9–10 as showing the heavenly host praising the Lamb before the seals are opened, not a church already taken from the earth.

You are saying that the holy unfallen heavenly host need redemption?

That is..... insanely Biblically illiterate.

Rev 5:9
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God ***by thy blood*** out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

[cv5]

The Hebrew betrothal pattern is fascinating, and I agree that Jesus clearly reflects the ancient Jewish marriage customs—the covenant, the bride price, the Father’s house being prepared, the Bridegroom’s arrival, and the final marriage feast.
These are rich with meaning, but I don’t think this typology sets the timeline for Revelation 4–6.
Typology serves as an illustration, not direct exposition, and John never uses the betrothal pattern to explain the throne room vision.
I can see how the pattern explains why Christ returns for His bride, but it doesn’t reveal when in relation to the seals this happens.
In Revelation 5, we see the Lamb receiving the scroll, the heavenly host praising Him, the elders representing the redeemed, and countless angels.
Still, there’s no statement that the whole church is raptured, that it’s in heaven, or that the seals follow the bride’s removal—those ideas come from the betrothal pattern, not the text itself.
I affirm Jesus perfectly fulfills the marriage imagery, but I deny it determines Revelation’s sequence, holding that doctrine must rest on explicit Scripture rather than patterns layered onto it.

You know, I have been around here for quite a while. And it is apparent to me that we are dealing with basically two groups:

1) Those that rightly divide the truth in righteousness.

2) Those that wrongly deny the truth in unrighteousness.

To the latter I say: enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek. Truly you have labored for it and earned it.

 

[OMC]

You are saying that the holy unfallen heavenly host need redemption?

That is..... insanely Biblically illiterate.

Rev 5:9
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God ***by thy blood*** out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

I believe Revelation 5:9 is spoken by the twenty‑four elders, not by angels or the unfallen heavenly host. John makes it clear: the living creatures and elders fall before the Lamb (Rev 5:8) and sing the new song (Rev 5:9). Angels don’t sing this redemption song, as John distinguishes them right after: “And I heard the voice of many angels around the throne” (Rev 5:11). While angels join in the praise, they don’t sing about being redeemed “by Thy blood.” Only the elders do. I also don’t believe the elders must represent the entire raptured church, since Revelation never states that; instead, they serve as symbolic representatives of redeemed humanity, just as the living creatures represent creation. So, the idea that I’m claiming “the holy unfallen heavenly host need redemption” comes from a misreading — the angels never claim redemption, only the elders do, and the text never identifies the elders as the already‑raptured church.

 

[OMC]

You know, I have been around here for quite a while. And it is apparent to me that we are dealing with basically two groups:

1) Those that rightly divide the truth in righteousness.

2) Those that wrongly deny the truth in unrighteousness.

To the latter I say: enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek. Truly you have labored for it and earned it.

I reject your division of believers into “those who rightly divide” and “those who wrongly deny,” as I believe such a distinction isn’t found in Scripture. Your closing remark — “enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek” — comes across not as a biblical argument, but as a curse driven more by frustration than by sound interpretation. It sounds..... desperate.

 

[cv5]

I believe Revelation 5:9 is spoken by the twenty‑four elders, not by angels or the unfallen heavenly host. John makes it clear: the living creatures and elders fall before the Lamb (Rev 5:8) and sing the new song (Rev 5:9). Angels don’t sing this redemption song, as John distinguishes them right after: “And I heard the voice of many angels around the throne” (Rev 5:11). While angels join in the praise, they don’t sing about being redeemed “by Thy blood.” Only the elders do. I also don’t believe the elders must represent the entire raptured church, since Revelation never states that; instead, they serve as symbolic representatives of redeemed humanity, just as the living creatures represent creation. So, the idea that I’m claiming “the holy unfallen heavenly host need redemption” comes from a misreading — the angels never claim redemption, only the elders do, and the text never identifies the elders as the already‑raptured church.

You have been thoroughly discredited, your theories debunked.

As it should be.

 

[OMC]

You have been thoroughly discredited, your theories debunked.

As it should be.

I reject your claim that I’ve been “thoroughly discredited,” because nothing in our discussion has refuted the clear exegetical points I’ve made. Your declaration of victory isn’t an argument, but rather an assertion aimed at shutting down Scripture instead of engaging with it.

 

[cv5]

I reject your division of believers into “those who rightly divide” and “those who wrongly deny,” as I believe such a distinction isn’t found in Scripture. Your closing remark — “enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek” — comes across not as a biblical argument, but as a curse driven more by frustration than by sound interpretation. It sounds..... desperate.

Those who are filled with the Spirit of Godly wisdom and knowledge are perfectly capable of making these kinds of assessments.

Like Paul did as regards these two who were propagating brazen false doctrine about the harpazo. Yes, I know that you do not rightly comprehend these verses either. But understand that this is your failing and not mine.

[2Ti 2:17-18 KJV]
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

[Delvianna]

Here's my personal opinion. We are currently in the time of Ezekiel's dry bones for Israel. Which puts us still at the time of the gentiles which Christ said needs to be fulfilled. So...

• Israel was given information on how people could be saved and they were supposed to spread it to the world. They screwed up.
• New covenant. Now, the gentiles are tasked with the same thing the Jews were supposed to do until Israel's revival with both dry bones + the fig tree.
• Then the Millennial reign starts with truth being housed in Israel again with God's presence and both Jew and Gentile live as one family.

This way Jews cannot claim total victory and the need for the Jews past means Gentiles cannot claim total victory. So no one can boast. We need each other.

 

[cv5]

I reject your division of believers into “those who rightly divide” and “those who wrongly deny,” as I believe such a distinction isn’t found in Scripture. Your closing remark — “enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek” — comes across not as a biblical argument, but as a curse driven more by frustration than by sound interpretation. It sounds..... desperate.

Indeed, Paul was quite capable of properly DIVIDING those who were spreading biblically true doctrine from those who were spreading egregious heresies.

And so am I.

Do you have a problem with Paul's powers of discernment? Or those likewise equipped?

 

[OMC]

Those who are filled with the Spirit of Godly wisdom and knowledge are perfectly capable of making these kinds of assessments.

Like Paul did as regards these two who were propagating brazen false doctrine about the harpazo. Yes, I know that you do not rightly comprehend these verses either. But understand that this is your failing and not mine.

[2Ti 2:17-18 KJV]
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Paul condemns a specific false teaching: “Saying that the resurrection is past already.”
This is not a general “you’re wrong.”
This is not “you don’t rightly divide.”
This is not “you’re in the tribulation you deserve.”

It is a precise doctrinal error that:
contradicts apostolic teaching
destroys eschatological hope
undermines the gospel
“overthrows the faith of some”
Paul is not pronouncing a curse. He is identifying a false doctrine that directly attacks the resurrection.

Your statement: “Enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek.”
…is not a doctrinal correction. It is a personal malediction, a rhetorical strike, not an exegetical one.

Paul never does that to regenerate believers who differ on prophetic timing.

You wrote: “Those who are filled with the Spirit of Godly wisdom and knowledge are perfectly capable of making these kinds of assessments.”

Correct — but only the kind Paul actually made:

He named the false teachers.
He named the false doctrine.
He named the destructive effect.
He did not curse them with tribulation.
He did not tell them to “enjoy” judgment.
He did not equate disagreement with apostasy.
You are invoking Paul’s authority to justify a different category of speech.

Paul rebukes false doctrine. You rebuked a fellow believer with a tribulational curse.
Those are not the same.

Hymenaeus and Philetus were not wrong about:

the timing of the harpazo
the structure of Daniel’s 70 weeks
the nature of the tribulation
the order of eschatological events
They were wrong about the resurrection itself — the core of Christian hope.

Your disagreement with me is about:

the structure of Daniel 9
the continuity of the 70 weeks
the nature of the tribulation
the application of justification
the timing of eschatological events

Those are in‑house debates, not resurrection‑denying heresies.
Paul never anathematizes believers over prophetic timing.

Paul’s condemnation is grounded in:

the apostolic proclamation
the resurrection of Christ
the future resurrection of believers
the eschatological hope of the church

Your condemnation was grounded in:

your eschatological system
your interpretation of Daniel 9
your view of the 70th week
your reading of Revelation
your High Calvinist metaphysics
Paul rebukes those who contradict explicit apostolic revelation.
You rebuked someone who disagreed with your interpretive framework.
Those are not equivalent.

Look carefully: “Their word will eat as doth a canker.”
Paul is describing destructive teaching, not disagreement.

Your statement: “Enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek.”
…is not teaching. It is reviling.

Paul forbids reviling: “Revile not one another.” — Titus 3:2“Speak evil of no man.” — Titus 3:2“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.” — Eph. 4:29“Bless, and curse not.” — Rom. 12:14
You invoked Paul to justify something Paul explicitly forbids.
The irony: your own verse proves my point You quoted: “Who concerning the truth have erred…”
Paul identifies error in doctrine, not error in tone.
Your statement was not doctrinal error. It was tone error.
Paul rebukes false doctrine. I rebuked your curse, not your eschatology.
You responded by appealing to Paul’s rebuke of false doctrine —but your statement was not doctrine.
It was a personal curse.
You used the wrong category of Scripture to defend the wrong category of speech.

 

[cv5]

I reject your division of believers into “those who rightly divide” and “those who wrongly deny,” as I believe such a distinction isn’t found in Scripture. Your closing remark — “enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek” — comes across not as a biblical argument, but as a curse driven more by frustration than by sound interpretation. It sounds..... desperate.

Indeed, Paul was quite capable of properly DIVIDING between those who were spreading biblically true doctrine from those who were spreading egregious heresies.

And so am I.

Do you have a problem with Paul's powers of discernment? Or those in the Church today who are likewise equipped?

Oh and BTW, I said discerning DOCTRINE. Not discerning who is saved and who is not.....

 

[cv5]

Paul condemns a specific false teaching: “Saying that the resurrection is past already.”
This is not a general “you’re wrong.”
This is not “you don’t rightly divide.”
This is not “you’re in the tribulation you deserve.”

It is a precise doctrinal error that:
contradicts apostolic teaching
destroys eschatological hope
undermines the gospel
“overthrows the faith of some”
Paul is not pronouncing a curse. He is identifying a false doctrine that directly attacks the resurrection.

Your statement: “Enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek.”
…is not a doctrinal correction. It is a personal malediction, a rhetorical strike, not an exegetical one.

Paul never does that to regenerate believers who differ on prophetic timing.

You wrote: “Those who are filled with the Spirit of Godly wisdom and knowledge are perfectly capable of making these kinds of assessments.”

Correct — but only the kind Paul actually made:

He named the false teachers.
He named the false doctrine.
He named the destructive effect.
He did not curse them with tribulation.
He did not tell them to “enjoy” judgment.
He did not equate disagreement with apostasy.
You are invoking Paul’s authority to justify a different category of speech.

Paul rebukes false doctrine. You rebuked a fellow believer with a tribulational curse.
Those are not the same.

Hymenaeus and Philetus were not wrong about:

the timing of the harpazo
the structure of Daniel’s 70 weeks
the nature of the tribulation
the order of eschatological events
They were wrong about the resurrection itself — the core of Christian hope.

Your disagreement with me is about:

the structure of Daniel 9
the continuity of the 70 weeks
the nature of the tribulation
the application of justification
the timing of eschatological events

Those are in‑house debates, not resurrection‑denying heresies.
Paul never anathematizes believers over prophetic timing.

Paul’s condemnation is grounded in:

the apostolic proclamation
the resurrection of Christ
the future resurrection of believers
the eschatological hope of the church

Your condemnation was grounded in:

your eschatological system
your interpretation of Daniel 9
your view of the 70th week
your reading of Revelation
your High Calvinist metaphysics
Paul rebukes those who contradict explicit apostolic revelation.
You rebuked someone who disagreed with your interpretive framework.
Those are not equivalent.

Look carefully: “Their word will eat as doth a canker.”
Paul is describing destructive teaching, not disagreement.

Your statement: “Enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek.”
…is not teaching. It is reviling.

Paul forbids reviling: “Revile not one another.” — Titus 3:2“Speak evil of no man.” — Titus 3:2“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.” — Eph. 4:29“Bless, and curse not.” — Rom. 12:14
You invoked Paul to justify something Paul explicitly forbids.
The irony: your own verse proves my point You quoted: “Who concerning the truth have erred…”
Paul identifies error in doctrine, not error in tone.
Your statement was not doctrinal error. It was tone error.
Paul rebukes false doctrine. I rebuked your curse, not your eschatology.
You responded by appealing to Paul’s rebuke of false doctrine —but your statement was not doctrine.
It was a personal curse.
You used the wrong category of Scripture to defend the wrong category of speech.

You rebuked a fellow believer with a tribulational curse.

Nope. This is your category error. I am stating the Biblical precedent of what is in store for those who are UNBELIEVERS at the stroke of "end-time" judgment.

[Luk 21:35 KJV] 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.

Did you need my help to rightfully comprehend the essential eschatology of this passage too?

 

[OMC]

You rebuked a fellow believer with a tribulational curse.

Nope. This is your category error. I am stating the Biblical precedent of what is in store for those who are UNBELIEVERS at the stroke of "end-time" judgment.

[Luk 21:35 KJV] 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.

Did you need my help to rightfully comprehend the essential eschatology of this passage too?

Quoting Luke 21:35 doesn’t back up your earlier point, because Jesus’ warning — “as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth” — is a broad statement about unbelievers, not a personal prediction of tribulation for a fellow believer who happens to disagree with your prophetic view.
He’s talking about the suddenness of judgment on the world, not giving believers license to throw end‑time curses at each other.
You didn’t use Luke 21:35 as a doctrinal point; you used it to strike back, taking a global warning and aiming it at one person, which is exactly the category error I called out.
The verse says unbelievers will be caught off guard by the coming judgment — it doesn’t give you the right to tell another believer, “enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek.” That’s not sound interpretation; it’s just reviling, and it twists a universal warning into a personal curse, ignoring the very interpretive rules you claim to uphold.

 

[cv5]

Paul condemns a specific false teaching: “Saying that the resurrection is past already.”
This is not a general “you’re wrong.”
This is not “you don’t rightly divide.”
This is not “you’re in the tribulation you deserve.”

It is a precise doctrinal error that:
contradicts apostolic teaching
destroys eschatological hope
undermines the gospel
“overthrows the faith of some”
Paul is not pronouncing a curse. He is identifying a false doctrine that directly attacks the resurrection.

Your statement: “Enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek.”
…is not a doctrinal correction. It is a personal malediction, a rhetorical strike, not an exegetical one.

Paul never does that to regenerate believers who differ on prophetic timing.

You wrote: “Those who are filled with the Spirit of Godly wisdom and knowledge are perfectly capable of making these kinds of assessments.”

Correct — but only the kind Paul actually made:

He named the false teachers.
He named the false doctrine.
He named the destructive effect.
He did not curse them with tribulation.
He did not tell them to “enjoy” judgment.
He did not equate disagreement with apostasy.
You are invoking Paul’s authority to justify a different category of speech.

Paul rebukes false doctrine. You rebuked a fellow believer with a tribulational curse.
Those are not the same.

Hymenaeus and Philetus were not wrong about:

the timing of the harpazo
the structure of Daniel’s 70 weeks
the nature of the tribulation
the order of eschatological events
They were wrong about the resurrection itself — the core of Christian hope.

Your disagreement with me is about:

the structure of Daniel 9
the continuity of the 70 weeks
the nature of the tribulation
the application of justification
the timing of eschatological events

Those are in‑house debates, not resurrection‑denying heresies.
Paul never anathematizes believers over prophetic timing.

Paul’s condemnation is grounded in:

the apostolic proclamation
the resurrection of Christ
the future resurrection of believers
the eschatological hope of the church

Your condemnation was grounded in:

your eschatological system
your interpretation of Daniel 9
your view of the 70th week
your reading of Revelation
your High Calvinist metaphysics
Paul rebukes those who contradict explicit apostolic revelation.
You rebuked someone who disagreed with your interpretive framework.
Those are not equivalent.

Look carefully: “Their word will eat as doth a canker.”
Paul is describing destructive teaching, not disagreement.

Your statement: “Enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek.”
…is not teaching. It is reviling.

Paul forbids reviling: “Revile not one another.” — Titus 3:2“Speak evil of no man.” — Titus 3:2“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.” — Eph. 4:29“Bless, and curse not.” — Rom. 12:14
You invoked Paul to justify something Paul explicitly forbids.
The irony: your own verse proves my point You quoted: “Who concerning the truth have erred…”
Paul identifies error in doctrine, not error in tone.
Your statement was not doctrinal error. It was tone error.
Paul rebukes false doctrine. I rebuked your curse, not your eschatology.
You responded by appealing to Paul’s rebuke of false doctrine —but your statement was not doctrine.
It was a personal curse.
You used the wrong category of Scripture to defend the wrong category of speech.

It is the passive-aggressive control freaks that are generally the most odious and repulsive spectrum of personalities.

Just a FYI friend.....

 

[OMC]

It is the passive-aggressive control freaks that are generally the most odious and repulsive spectrum of personalities.

Nothing in my manner, tone, or argument relies on indirect hostility, guilt-tripping, manipulation, or covert pressure. I speak plainly, directly, and without hidden motives, and passive-aggression depends on the very thing I don’t use—ambiguity.
I don’t withdraw to punish, hint to control, or hide disagreement behind fake politeness; I state my position openly, defend it openly, and correct errors openly.
Passive-aggressive personalities avoid confrontation while trying to influence others through emotional leverage; I tackle ideas head-on, without emotional leverage, veiled barbs, or the psychological games that define that style. The accusation falls flat: the traits described are the opposite of how I communicate, and the charge reflects a style I simply don’t use.

 

[cv5]

Quoting Luke 21:35 doesn’t back up your earlier point, because Jesus’ warning — “as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth” — is a broad statement about unbelievers, not a personal prediction of tribulation for a fellow believer who happens to disagree with your prophetic view.
He’s talking about the suddenness of judgment on the world, not giving believers license to throw end‑time curses at each other.
You didn’t use Luke 21:35 as a doctrinal point; you used it to strike back, taking a global warning and aiming it at one person, which is exactly the category error I called out.
The verse says unbelievers will be caught off guard by the coming judgment — it doesn’t give you the right to tell another believer, “enjoy the 70th week tribulation that you seek.” That’s not sound interpretation; it’s just reviling, and it twists a universal warning into a personal curse, ignoring the very interpretive rules you claim to uphold.

"for a fellow believer"

Again, you make the same category error.

Only those not (yet) redeemed enter into the time and place of the tribulation.

The redeemed are "tereo" "ek" as regards the tribulation.

Rev 3:10 - Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Did you need any assistance to help you sort out the specific Greek terms? They are quite clear after all.

 

[cv5]

Here's my personal opinion. We are currently in the time of Ezekiel's dry bones for Israel. Which puts us still at the time of the gentiles which Christ said needs to be fulfilled. So...

• Israel was given information on how people could be saved and they were supposed to spread it to the world. They screwed up.
• New covenant. Now, the gentiles are tasked with the same thing the Jews were supposed to do until Israel's revival with both dry bones + the fig tree.
• Then the Millennial reign starts with truth being housed in Israel again with God's presence and both Jew and Gentile live as one family.

This way Jews cannot claim total victory and the need for the Jews past means Gentiles cannot claim total victory. So no one can boast. We need each other.

"We are currently in the time of Ezekiel's dry bones for Israel."

No doubt whatsoever that this is certainly the present stage of God eschatological plan.

I am frankly shocked that anyone could think that these staggering geopolitical phenomenon could be some kind of random irrelevant glitch.

 

[OMC]

"for a fellow believer"

Again, you make the same category error.

Only those not (yet) redeemed enter into the time and place of the tribulation.

The redeemed are "tereo" "ek" as regards the tribulation.

Rev 3:10 - Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Did you need any assistance to help you sort out the specific Greek terms? They are quite clear after all.

You’re repeating the same category mistake, because Revelation 3:10 describes God keeping the redeemed out of the hour of trial, not giving believers authority to declare tribulational curses on one another, so your appeal to tereo ek does not justify turning a universal warning into a personal threat.

 

[cv5]

You’re repeating the same category mistake, because Revelation 3:10 describes God keeping the redeemed out of the hour of trial, not giving believers authority to declare tribulational curses on one another, so your appeal to tereo ek does not justify turning a universal warning into a personal threat.

"believers authority to declare tribulational curses on one another"

Again, you make the same category error.

Only those NOT (yet) redeemed enter into the time and place of the tribulation.

Furthermore, this is not a case of me declaring tribulational curses, rather it simply a statement of irrefutable eschatological fact.

Rev 3:10 - Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Did you need any more clarification or assistance? I am here to help you untangle your state of confusion in this matter of precedent and logic. I can only imagine that it is quite frustrating for you.

 

[OMC]

"believers authority to declare tribulational curses on one another"

Again, you make the same category error.

Only those NOT (yet) redeemed enter into the time and place of the tribulation.

Furthermore, this is not a case of me declaring tribulational curses, rather it simply a statement of irrefutable eschatological fact.

Rev 3:10 - Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Did you need any more clarification or assistance? I am here to help you untangle your state of confusion in this matter of precedent and logic. I can only imagine that it is quite frustrating for you.

According to Scripture, your statement that it is “irrefutable eschatological fact” that another believer will enter the tribulation is itself the category error, because Revelation 3:10 speaks of Christ keeping His faithful ones from the hour—not giving believers authority to pronounce who will or will not face judgment—and Scripture forbids using future wrath as a weapon against a brother (Romans 14:4), commands us not to “render evil for evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:15), and teaches that final separation belongs to Christ’s judgment alone, not to believers declaring outcomes over one another.