John Hagee predicts more doom and gloom

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As for why anyone on the planet would take Hagee seriously? That's a deep mystery. Did you know that he explicitly denied that Jesus came to be Messiah? Read this thread and weep:

The Apostasy of John Hagee: Jesus was NOT the Messiah!

Let me know what you think after you get your jaw lifted up off the floor. This guy influences thousands of people!

Yes, I read about that when his book was first published. I did not think much him then and I have not changed my opinion to date. When I heard it, my jaw did not really drop. I have come to expect this from the religious system.

Good to hear.

Most Futurists and Historicists interpret it that way. Preterists say she is Apostate Jerusalem who was judged by God in the first century, just like Jesus predicted:

Where does the Apostate church fit into the Preterist's teaching? What do they say about the present day Harlot? Is there not dual or triple meaning allowed by the Preterists? Harlot in the OT, Harlot Jerusalem and Harlot Church?

Is there are reason we should expect the "apostate church" to be mentioned in the Bible? When did the "apostate church" begin? In the first century, e.g. Galatians? I see nothing that makes me think it should be a part of Revelation since that book is about the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.

Also, you have made the mistake of thinking the waters are literal. How is that possible?

That was a mistake. I recall dimly after submitting this post (it was late at night) that I did say that and it came out differently than I meant. But the Apostate Church is still all over the world, wouldn't you agree and it is not just the RCC. The RCC is a cult. They deny being born-again by the Spirit of God, believing rather in the Eucharist as the actual body, blood and divinity of Jesus Christ. They did not read all the way down in John 6. "...the flesh profiteth nothing."

Thanks for clearing up the mistake. Certainly understandable. But as for the Eucharist - you disagree with many early Christians concerning that. But there's no need to hash it out now.

So, I clearly see the Harlot Church (Congregation) in the OT, in the NT and through the centuries up until today. What say you?

I explored the Historicist interpretation some years ago. It was the first that I thought was most plausible. I then learn more and concluded that Preterism fit the facts best, though it has many flaws. Then I quit Christianity so I don't have a dog in this fight anymore. But I still think the best evidence is for Preterism. Historicism has some intriguing support, but it is too many problems. And Futurism is simply impossible - it has no Biblical foundation whatsoever.

And the scriptures are also clear to me that God will have a Remnant in every generation.

Really? I'm not familiar with those Scriptures. And it depends upon what you mean by "remnant." The first century "remnant" of faithful Israel was unique in the Biblical narrative. They were the ones chosen (elect) to found the church.

For the record, when I was a young pup in the Lord (less than a year old), shortly after I received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, someone (I think the Navigators) introduced me to the Rapture. I just never saw it in Scripture an did not get a witness from the Spirit of God. It seemed made up to me and did not make sense. They said after the Rapture that the Holy Spirit is taken off of the earth and people will get saved because of all the Bible stores and Christian literature around. Are you kidding me? Why doesn't that happen now? Just did not make sense to me and still does not.

That's very interesting. I had a similar experience. One of my first posts after creating this forum in which I first stated that I did not believe in the Rapture. It's very interesting to look and see how I used to speak and express my faith. I was very insecure about expressing my ideas since they were contrary to the beliefs of most Christians I knew.

The "whoredom" speaks of the apostasy of first century Jerusalem who crucified Christ and fornicated with the Roman beast.

Again, where is the allowance of all the "whoredom" today by the Preterists? I confess I am largely ignorant of Preterism, so please bear with my questions.

That's cool. I have no problem with questions - on the contrary, I love them!

Oh, one more thing, do Preterists say that everything in Revelation has already happened?

All the best to you,
Rick

There are varieties of Preterists just like in everything else. The big distinction is between Partial and Full Preterists. Partial Preterists usually say that everything up to Rev 20 has been fulfilled. But the problem with that view is that the New Jerusalem is a symbol of the Church, and so already here. Or so it seems to Full Preterists, anyway.

Great chatting!

Richard

[CWH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by heb13-13
My question on the drying up of the Euphrates is why?

Is this what it really means?

Do you think when the Euphrates is dried up there will be a nice, smooth road at the bottom of it so 200 million men can march?

And with Jets and Missiles, why march 200 million men from China through the Euphrates? How do they even get to the Euphrates to begin with?

I can't take Hagee seriously.

Can Jets and Missiles conquer a nation? Don't be so naive, no wars can be fought with Jets and Missiles only, if not, why didn't the US did that in the Korean War, Vietnam, war, Afghanistan? That will certainly save many young soldiers lives. In any war, infantry men, tanks are indispensible in order to fight, occupy and defend the conquered territory.

If you read Revelation carefully, there is a call from Satan perhaps deceivingly with signs to all the kings on the earth to fight in Armageddon. This is the mother of all battle. It's like the United Nations mobilizing all the countries of the world to gather at a certain region to fight an alien invasion. The current armed forces of the world if you add them up together is almost 200 million army strong. Armageddon should be at least 200 square kilometers in order to easily accommodate 200 million army. This is based on 1 soldier occupying a square meter of space (1,000 meter X 1,000 meter = 1,000,000 soldiers, therefore 200 million army = 200 square kilometers). Israel is currently more than 20,000 square kilometers in size which can easily accommodate the 200 million army with ample space to spare :

Revelation 16:12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13 Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.................16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.

God blessings to all. Amen

[heb13-13]

Hello Rick! Welcome to the Biblewheel.

Hey there Joe,

Thanks for the intro. This is generating more questions for me, but since this really seems to me now to be a forum of Preterists vs Futurists, I won't bore you with my questions. I just need to "bone" up on Preterism from this site's past threads.

You'll find that Richard is a very good teacher to learn from. I won't get involved with your discussions so I don't step on Richards toes. But to answer your question my friend, there are two branches of Preterism:

1. Partial Preterism
2. Full Preterism

Partial Preterism believes that 95% percent of Revelation has been fulfilled. According to this belief, we are in the post millennial reign of Jesus, and Satan is actively getting ready for his final battle.

Ok, so you believe Satan is not a pagan superstition?

The reign of Christ began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, which is when the Saints who first died in Christ, were raised to be with the Lord, and are all now watching/governing the world.

How are they governing the world? Can you give me some examples? Are they actually walking around? If so, are you able to point them out?

They believe in a physical bodily resurrection when the Church Age, also referred to as the Millennium, comes to an end.

Full Preterism believes that everything has been fulfilled. Now there are some differences within Full Preterism. Most full preterists believes that everything was fulfilled at 70AD. Others say that most was fulfilled at 70AD, with a few more years after the death of the Roman Empire; this group is very small though. FP's do not believe in a bodily resurrection of our corpse as there is nothing to raise. The body we get in heaven is a newly created spiritual body to serve as the eternal temple of our spirit. The Body of Jesus did not suffer decay (as was Prophesied) and was also used as a sacrifice for the heavenly altar. We are living in the New Heaven and New Earth as depicted in the book of Isaiah, were people still die, although live much longer than the ancients did. The average life span of the ancients was about 30 to 50 years of age, give or take. While today we are living well beyond 100 years of age.

Well beyond 100?? Maybe .00001 of 1%. I don't know any centenarians, personally, just the few I hear on the news once or twice a year.

Hope this answers your question. Again, welcome to the forum.

Thanks Joe.

Joe

[heb13-13]

Can Jets and Missiles conquer a nation? Don't be so naive, no wars can be fought with Jets and Missiles only, if not, why didn't the US did that in the Korean War, Vietnam, war, Afghanistan? That will certainly save many young soldiers lives. In any war, infantry men, tanks are indispensible in order to fight, occupy and defend the conquered territory.

If you read Revelation carefully, there is a call from Satan perhaps deceivingly with signs to all the kings on the earth to fight in Armageddon. This is the mother of all battle. It's like the United Nations mobilizing all the countries of the world to gather at a certain region to fight an alien invasion. The current armed forces of the world if you add them up together is almost 200 million army strong. Armageddon should be at least 200 square kilometers in order to easily accommodate 200 million army. This is based on 1 soldier occupying a square meter of space (1,000 meter X 1,000 meter = 1,000,000 soldiers, therefore 200 million army = 200 square kilometers). Israel is currently more than 20,000 square kilometers in size which can easily accommodate the 200 million army with ample space to spare :

Revelation 16:12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13 Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.................16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.

God blessings to all. Amen

Hi CWH,

Yes, of course missiles and jets just "soften up" the enemy. I think we have seen that carried out pretty well in the Persian Gulf wars. But the logistics of moving 200 million men through a bumpy, rocky dried up river bed with huge dried up cracks that a Hummer could probably fall into justs boggles the mind. They are going to have to build a road as they march and then the 200 million men will have to wait and wait and wait.

Why don't they just dry it up, build a road and then tell the 200 million men in China to start marching? By the way, does the Euphrates reach all the way to China? I have not looked, yet.

God's blessings to you my friend,
Rick

[heb13-13]

Good to hear.


Is there are reason we should expect the "apostate church" to be mentioned in the Bible? When did the "apostate church" begin? In the first century, e.g. Galatians? I see nothing that makes me think it should be a part of Revelation since that book is about the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.

Ok, so then you DO recognize an "apostate church", today but you don't see it in scripture? From what I am seeing, Preterism shows the beginning of the milennial reign, but has no details or anything even of a general nature that takes place during the milennial reign. Is that correct?

Thanks for clearing up the mistake. Certainly understandable. But as for the Eucharist - you disagree with many early Christians concerning that. But there's no need to hash it out now.

Yes, but I don't disagree with the plain sayings of Jesus. "The flesh profiteth nothing." I know, I know, it's just my interpretation, right?


Have you ever eaten the Eucharist, Richard on a weekly basis? Is Roman Catholicism, your background?

Hope you have a wonderful day,
Rick

Great chatting!

Richard

[Twospirits]

heb13-13 wrote,

Hey there Joe,

Thanks for the intro. This is generating more questions for me, but since this really seems to me now to be a forum of Preterists vs Futurists, I won't bore you with my questions. I just need to "bone" up on Preterism from this site's past threads.

By your statement I take it that you hold to a future fulfillment of scripture, or am I wrong in assuming this? Thanks, and welcome to the forum!

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi CWH,

Yes, of course missiles and jets just "soften up" the enemy. I think we have seen that carried out pretty well in the Persian Gulf wars. But the logistics of moving 200 million men through a bumpy, rocky dried up river bed with huge dried up cracks that a Hummer could probably fall into justs boggles the mind. They are going to have to build a road as they march and then the 200 million men will have to wait and wait and wait.

Why don't they just dry it up, build a road and then tell the 200 million men in China to start marching? By the way, does the Euphrates reach all the way to China? I have not looked, yet.

God's blessings to you my friend,
Rick

The logistics of moving a 200,000,000 man army proves that that passage can not be taken literally.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Is there are reason we should expect the "apostate church" to be mentioned in the Bible? When did the "apostate church" begin? In the first century, e.g. Galatians? I see nothing that makes me think it should be a part of Revelation since that book is about the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.

Ok, so then you DO recognize an "apostate church", today but you don't see it in scripture? From what I am seeing, Preterism shows the beginning of the milennial reign, but has no details or anything even of a general nature that takes place during the milennial reign. Is that correct?

When I was a Christian, I recognized that there were "apostate churches." But now, I see them as all wrong, so there is no "orthodox church" against which to judge an "apostate church." But none of that matters because the Bible doesn't focus on "apostate churches" anywhere in the Bible. The Great Harlot was apostate Jerusalem who rejected and killed the Messiah.

As for a "millennial reign" - there is no verse in the Bible that says Christ will reign on earth for a thousand years. Rev 20 does not say where he will be reigning, and the "kingdom" passages of the OT are applied to the church by Paul. This is why many Futurists are amillennial - like Henry (Twospirits).

Thanks for clearing up the mistake. Certainly understandable. But as for the Eucharist - you disagree with many early Christians concerning that. But there's no need to hash it out now.

Yes, but I don't disagree with the plain sayings of Jesus. "The flesh profiteth nothing." I know, I know, it's just my interpretation, right?

Are you rejecting the opinions of those who believe in transubstantiation as "just their interpretation?" It's either "your interpretation" or "their interpretation." Who's to judge? That's why they say they need the Pope, citing the 10,000 Protestant denominations as proof. Of course I think they are wrong, but the argument looks compelling to many people.

Have you ever eaten the Eucharist, Richard on a weekly basis? Is Roman Catholicism, your background?

I was baptized Catholic as a baby but raised by an unbelieving father and never practiced that religion. But I did have a brief encounter with the Catholic Church and the Eucharist that was very profound and mystical during my transition from being a non-specific "religious mystic" to becoming a born-again Christian. I thought for a while that I would convert to Catholicism but it never took.

Hope you have a wonderful day,
Rick

You too!

[heb13-13]

When I was a Christian, I recognized that there were "apostate churches." But now, I see them as all wrong, so there is no "orthodox church" against which to judge an "apostate church." But none of that matters because the Bible doesn't focus on "apostate churches" anywhere in the Bible. The Great Harlot was apostate Jerusalem who rejected and killed the Messiah.

As for a "millennial reign" - there is no verse in the Bible that says Christ will reign on earth for a thousand years. Rev 20 does not say where he will be reigning, and the "kingdom" passages of the OT are applied to the church by Paul. This is why many Futurists are amillennial - like Henry (Twospirits).


Are you rejecting the opinions of those who believe in transubstantiation as "just their interpretation?" It's either "your interpretation" or "their interpretation." Who's to judge? That's why they say they need the Pope, citing the 10,000 Protestant denominations as proof. Of course I think they are wrong, but the argument looks compelling to many people.

Yes, I reject them wholeheartedly. The Catholic church has hundreds and hundreds of schisms within itself.

I was baptized Catholic as a baby but raised by an unbelieving father and never practiced that religion. But I did have a brief encounter with the Catholic Church and the Eucharist that was very profound and mystical during my transition from being a non-specific "religious mystic" to becoming a born-again Christian. I thought for a while that I would convert to Catholicism but it never took.

Not saying people don't have a "mystical" experience. I was raised RCC. Both parents educated as good Jesuits. From first grade through University, they were educated in Jesuit schools only. Grandparents from Tuscany, Jesuit too. I was an altar boy back when altar boys had to speak Latin.

Transubstantiation and the Eucharist is a manipulative gimmick that keeps people coming to the Church because they cannot get it (the Eucharist) anywhere else. Not many would be attending the RCC if not for this and Auricular Confession (also very manipulative). It provides no power or fruit in their lives. My father would take the Eucharist each Sunday and as soon as he walked out of the church doors, he was cursing God's name. The priest used to cuss at me and call me an MF. The eucharist only manipulates the masses. It was decreed in 1215 along with Auricular Confession to be divinely inspired. If the RCC has always existed since the first century, and people in the 1st century believed in it, why did they wait so long to decree it as inspired and divine.

If you truly believed in transubstantiation you would be in the Catholic church now.

The RCC is a patchwork gospel. Always changing which is contrary to what they say (they say they never change). Soon, you will hear that Mary has been decreed as Co-Mediatrix to Jesus Christ. They have been campaigning for this for decades and the "faithful" have just about bought off on it. There will not be much struggle once the RCC adds yet another "patch" to their quilt, a Co-mediatrix patch.

Would you like me to tell you about some of their schisms?

The feminist movement wants a greater role for women in liturgical matters even to the point of ordination to the priesthood.

The celibacy crowd is putting pressure on the Vatican to approve marriages for Priests.

Pro-choice advocates want to have the right to terminate unwanted or life-threatening pregnancies and still be able to receive the "sacraments".

Homosexuals and Lesbians want acceptance of their lifestyles.

On top of all of this, Roman Catholic priests are being convicted as pedophiles and child molesters at great expense to the church and a substantial loss of respect as well.

Another group, which is actually gaining success are those that want divorces granted with the right to remarry. Annulments have increased and the church has relaxed its qualifications for annuling marriages to such a degree that any couple that wants out of a marriage can get it declared invalid.

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips", (Psa 89:34)

And they are still separated from the eastern church besides many more schisms within it's own.

Yeah, this would be a lengthy discussion for another thread. I could write a book on it. When I became a Christian I was like a Jew that found Christ. Ostracized. Like I had died and did not exist anymore. My mother's statement (she owns her own Catholic bookstore) was, "Rick, we are so glad that you are off drugs and don't drink anymore, but did you have to leave the Catholic Church?"

It's an amazing journey. It took years but today my mother and I speak, although she never really recognizes my wife or kids since they are non-Catholic. It is her manipulative way to put pressure on me to come back to Rome. Ain't working! Catholics believe when you are baptised that you have an indelible mark on your soul of being a Catholic that will always be there. Call it a spiritual tattoo that you can't remove.

Home sweet Rome? No!

Far from Rome, near to God.

Take care,
Rick

You too!

[TheForgiven]

Hello Rick.

With regards to the Catholic Church, I used to be part of the same Protestant ban wagon that constantly looked for faults against the Catholic Church. Be keep in mind that the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church has existed since the beginning. Sure they've made a lot of changes along the way. But if you are not aware, the Protestant Churches came from the RCC. And look at how many Protestant Churches we have now since the split. There are more "isms" in the Protestant Churches than there are in the RCC or the Greek Orthodox Church. Neither are perfect, but rest assured that Protestants have become a huge gathering of undisciplined Christians. Every time someone gets angry about something, such as a particular pet-pee doctrine, they branch off and start their own Church. In my town, we call this the Bible belt. Why? Because there are literally hundreds of different Denominations in a single town of about 30,000 people. Which one is correct?

Furthermore, I believe that Protestants (despite my being raised a Protestant) do not reflect any aspect of the early Church. There's far too much talking in the Protestant Churches. What I mean by talking is preaching. Preachers love to stand behind a pulpit and talk....and talk....and talk. Those that are organized speakers are usually pretty boring. Those who preach from the hip tend to be more exciting, but often without a solid point. And most importantly, those who wish to sit in a pew a listen to a good sermon, are guilty of merely wanting to hear a good song on the radio. It's entertaining to listen to a good sermon, or sing gospel praises, and there's not much wrong with that. But when you walk out the door, it's as though the song you just heard was nothing more than entertainment.

Traditional Church practices in the first century did not involve 45 minute lectures or sermons. Most of their services are mimicked in the Greek Orthodox Church; lost of prayer, chanting, teaching, and learning. I visited a Greek Orthodox Church a few years ago, and I was stunned. I fell in love. Of course that's the reason why I never returned; I knew that me falling in love with the service did not necessarily make it right. So much chanting, singing, and praying. And when they chant, they are chanting portions of scripture from the Old and the New Testament. The traditional Protestant services are geared for winning people over based on which Church as the best musical entertainment, and which preacher gives the most exciting sermon. But these are the wrong reasons to worship. To my, the Greek Orthodox Church has the most sincere style of worship; they worship as though Jesus were actually standing right there in front of them. Protestants...well, that's an entirely different story. Yea there are many Protestants who lift up there hands, and sing Alleluia! But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about actually bowing down on their knees, chanting, meditating, and communion. The Early Church practiced communion every time they gathered. Most Protestants only practice communion once a year, which is not enough if you ask me.

At any rate, don't put so much negative energy against the RCC my friend, for the Protestants have more than their fair share of hypocrisy.

God bless.

Joe