Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Churchgoer]

The most important thing by far in understanding scripture is faith.

Richard Dawkins is a well disciplined expert in atheism,
yet he has nothing to offer to us here because he has no faith in God.
His loyalty to atheism has compromised his ability to understand scripture.

Fruchtenbaum is a well disciplined expert in dispensationalism,
consequently his interpretations of prophesy are not Jesus based, but Israel based.
His loyalty to earthly Israel similarly compromises his ability to rightly understand prophesy.

Holy spirit guiding us, it is a journey. Our understanding continue to grow, from baby Christian to mature one, to higher ground, till we meet Jesus face to face.

 

[OMC]

You might understand this differently to me, but I notice that in the beginning of Revelation 11 that the temple is not yet destroyed.

Revelation11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Forty and two months is 3.5 years.
Jerusalem is also identified in this chapter in v.8.

Revelation 11 doesn’t contradict the covenant‑cosmos reading — it actually reinforces it — because John is shown the temple still standing precisely so he can narrate its judgment, not its survival, and the 42‑month trampling matches the same covenant‑collapse period Jesus gave in Luke 21.
The measuring scene is never preservation; in Scripture it is either assessment for destruction (Ezekiel 40–43) or marking off the remnant (Zechariah 2), and here the inner sanctuary is measured while the outer court — the part exposed to Rome — is handed to the Gentiles for 42 months, the same period Daniel calls “a time, times, and half a time.” Jerusalem is explicitly named in v.8 because John wants the reader to understand that the “holy city” being trampled is not a symbolic abstraction but the covenant city whose fall Jesus predicted.
The fact that the temple appears at the start of the chapter simply means the vision is pre‑destruction, just like Jesus standing in front of the still‑standing temple in Matthew 24:2; the narrative moves from temple‑standing to temple‑fall.
Nothing in Revelation 11 requires a future rebuilt temple — it only requires that John is shown the covenant structure that is about to be judged. However, a temple can be built, but it would have zero prophetic authorization, zero covenant function, and zero eschatological legitimacy, because Scripture never promises, predicts, commands, or requires a future physical temple after the destruction of the one Jesus judged.

 

[Beekeeper]

Revelation 11 doesn’t contradict the covenant‑cosmos reading — it actually reinforces it — because John is shown the temple still standing precisely so he can narrate its judgment, not its survival, and the 42‑month trampling matches the same covenant‑collapse period Jesus gave in Luke 21.
The measuring scene is never preservation; in Scripture it is either assessment for destruction (Ezekiel 40–43) or marking off the remnant (Zechariah 2), and here the inner sanctuary is measured while the outer court — the part exposed to Rome — is handed to the Gentiles for 42 months, the same period Daniel calls “a time, times, and half a time.” Jerusalem is explicitly named in v.8 because John wants the reader to understand that the “holy city” being trampled is not a symbolic abstraction but the covenant city whose fall Jesus predicted.
The fact that the temple appears at the start of the chapter simply means the vision is pre‑destruction, just like Jesus standing in front of the still‑standing temple in Matthew 24:2; the narrative moves from temple‑standing to temple‑fall.
Nothing in Revelation 11 requires a future rebuilt temple — it only requires that John is shown the covenant structure that is about to be judged. However, a temple can be built, but it would have zero prophetic authorization, zero covenant function, and zero eschatological legitimacy, because Scripture never promises, predicts, commands, or requires a future physical temple after the destruction of the one Jesus judged.

You may have that one right.
I also notice that in V. 8 Jerusalem is called "the great city".
We are told a lot about this Great City throughout the book of Revelation.

In v. 10 the word for earth is "ge" (also can be translated "land"), not "kosmos" which means world.
"ge" is used a lot in Revelation.

 

[OMC]

You may have that one right.
I also notice that in V. 8 Jerusalem is called "the great city".
We are told a lot about this Great City throughout the book of Revelation.

In v. 10 the word for earth is "ge" (also can be translated "land"), not "kosmos" which means world.
"ge" is used a lot in Revelation.

“the great city” in 11:8 is Jerusalem, and the repeated use of gē signals covenant‑land judgment, not global catastrophe.
John’s language stays consistent — the city that kills the prophets (Rev 18:24) is the same city Jesus identifies as Jerusalem (Matt 23:37), and the rejoicing of those in the gē (11:10) matches OT covenant‑curse geography, not planetary scope.
The vocabulary is doing the theological work: Revelation’s collapse is the collapse of Israel’s covenant world, not the destruction of the physical cosmos.