I was listning this week to John's sermons on the end times.
One of the comparisons he made really blessed me.
It was about the parallels between Jesus and Joseph.
But I'll get right to the part the blessed me.
1)
In Gen 42-45, Joseph is already ruler in Egypt.
His brothers visit him 3 times -- the Jews were sent out to the Gentiles 3 times and have now returned to their land 3 times.
2)
When Joseph could no longer bear it, he sent the Egytians out of the room while he revealed his identity to his brothers -- Jesus will send the Gentiles believers, the church, out of the world via the rapture so that He can reveal Himself to Israel.
3)
Joseph showed his brothers his circumcision as proof of who he was -- Jesus will show Israel his hands, feet, and sides (about midtrib, I believe, Zech 12:10) as proof of who He is.
4)
Joseph's brothers did, indeed, bow down the their brother (as Joseph had dreamed) and move into his kingdom -- Israel will bow down to Messiah Jesus and "move into" His MK.
It's pretty exciting stuff!
I haven't yet figured out some of the other symbolism earlier in the account, but stuff like the cup hidden in the sack of corn, etc. -- I bet they are significant, too.
Col 3:11 Here [In the Church.) there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
And if you add up the numbers of Ronald Reagan it equals 666.
Find it hard to believe Hagee would have anything to say that I would consider a blessing.
I guess the point that Joseph was just trying to prove who really was to his brothers is too obvious?
What about the fact that Joseph's brothers found refuge in Egypt not in Israel...how does that play out?
Funny that someone like Hagee who espouses a literal understanding of the Bible would be so allegorical to make a point.
Hagee is never one to allow the Bible to get in the way of "good preaching".
This goes to show that hard line dispensationalist's are only literal with the scriptures when it suits their cause.
This is a great point.
It is one of the major reasons my theology has changed from the dispensationalism that I grew up with.
I just assumed it was right without doing any study on my own.
You name it. But that's really neither here nor there. I just object to preachers who types and foreshadowings at the drop of a verse. Some are real (and usually the Bible will tell you which ones are important) and many, many more are just fabricated for the sake of a sermon.
Baptists for 400 years have been divided over soteriology, and the doctrines of grace have been a major point of contention. Ultimately, that means going to back to Calvin in one way or another.
Baptists have not traditionally divided over eschatology, which they have considered, from the standpoint of who is a Baptist and who is not, pretty much irrelevant.
Hagee is nothing but eschatology, and he has not influenced (or at least I hope not) Baptist thought in any significant way.
Well, like I said, it doesn't appear to be "drop of the hat" if Dr Rogers (and who knows how many others) finds the same parallels.
I think you are objecting against the man and not the message.
For an "other than biblical" sotierology?
Doesn't this make the same point about Hagee and Calvin?
Yeah, both are probably wrong to some extent.
But can you not discern the truth in each as well?
I will admit that my own church bookstore sells his books from "under the counter."
This is on account, not of his eschatology, but on account of his healing and prosperity messages.
Otherwise, you apparently aren't familiar enough with him to have an opinion on his "Baptist thought," right?
Or it could be that it represented the "cup of My blood" which Israel unknowingly went away from Calvary with but which causes them, by jealousy, to come back to Joseph, possibly?
I believe the Bible, just not the twisted manner in which Dispensationalism handles it.
I The passages you sight have been discussed and if you want to hear another point of view you could do the searching.
I am sorry that you feel your interpretation of scripture is the only one that is right.
I am also sorry that you are so quick to doubt my belief in the Bible, simply because I don't think like you.
Hagee is a televangelist, who does what he does to raise money to stay on TV.
He has figured out that there are enough folks like you willing to listen, send money and keep him "popular".
So he has a chart drawn up, that is essentially the same as the last one, throws in a few news stories and away we go!
Whether you like Hagee or not, your really have no business trying to state his intentions.
You don't know that man's heart, so please quit slandering him.
You are out of line.
For you, it can mean anything you want it to mean.
Get enough "scholars" like Hagee and Rogers to agree with you and it becomes "truth".
What hermeneutic did you apply to arrive at that conclusion?
I am free to dissect Hagee anyway I choose.
He dissects me every time he refers to those who don't believe like he does as "not teaching the truth".
I don't need to see his intents, I have his actions and words to examine.
Concerning John 14; Jesus is going to return one day and in the mean time is preparing a place for us.
Truth is you have more of a problem with John 14 then I do.
Where in John 14 do you see a rapture and second coming as two separate events?