Yes, both he and his son. John Hagee used the devil horn and cursed the congregation in an old sermon video. They weren't aware, this are Satanic in sheep skin
Replacement Theology
- Thread starter Barber
- 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.
Yes, both he and his son. John Hagee used the devil horn and cursed the congregation in an old sermon video. They weren't aware, this are Satanic in sheep skin
My friend, I think that ever since Abraham was born it has been the same.
The true children of Abraham have his faith, and are the redeemed in Christ, both new and old.
God has always had a special regard for the physical children too, including children of all believers, but they must be found faithful to have His blessing.
Under the old covenant it was still the kingdom of Christ though Jesus had not yet come to redeem it.
When Job says: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:"( Job 19:25), he is speaking of his faith in Jesus, through which he becomes a spiritual child of Abraham, for ever.
Jew? Gentile? If our father is God it is one and the same.
In the NT we are all named after Jacob (Gal 6:16), after Isaac (Rom 9:7) and after Abraham (Gal 3:29).
We are even all called Jews, but in the spiritual sense (Romans 2:28).
We prefer to name ourselves after Christ for good reason, because through Him we call God our Father.
In the OT they named themselves after Jacob also for good reason.
Israel is the name of a man who wrestled with God and yet prevailed.
That can only be done through Christ, so the true kingdom of Israel is the kingdom of Christ.
I'm not sure really which way to Go with replacement theology unless I know for certain it's worth replacing the theology I already have, from what I consider sound doctrine,
A person hardened in Belief who's theology is different to yours is never going to changed yours if your hardened to in your difference.
I've learned that lesson well.
I mean you can talk and stuff but you'll only see an agreement through close up long friendship.
This is where our disagreement lies. God's everlasting covenant with Abraham was and is through Christ alone. Possibly as we can't agree on this, we won't agree on the theology that stems from it.
Demonstrably false. The penalty for uncircumcision was death or being "cut off", just as the penalty for murder and adultery (i.e. quite explicitly death for these). There were no sacrifices to atone, although in the case of uncircumcision, still a chance to undo.
Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Exodus 21:12 - 14
He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
Welcome to CC. The Jews were chosen to be separate from the Gentiles until Messiah was produced by them,
after which all who accept Jesus as Messiah/Christ/Lord in the human dimension are chosen/elect/saved, etc.
Galatians 3:28 is the short version of Romans 9-11.
God's 1st covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15) promised to give the land to Christ; it had nothing to do with Israel other than Christ being out of Israel. God's 2nd covenant was circumcision, which obviously wasn't everlasting and found its fulillment and end in the new covenant. But while it was in force it was with Israel alone, and even Christ had to submit to it.
Again, we disagree. It's not unexpected. If you have your basis inaccurate (or wrong), the theology that is built around it will also be inaccurate (or wrong).
The covenant of circumcision is everlasting through Christ. Christ submitted to the Law because He fulfilled the Law, that in Him, we are imputed the righteousness of Christ.
Colossians 2:6 - 15
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
This is just untenable and ridiculous. There would be no reason to kill a man when the matter could be easily be remedied by circumcising him. Furthermore, uncircumcision was a sin committed by the parents, not an 8-day old child, and no one was to be put to death for their parents' sins. The fact that you keep repeating this is because you really don't have a good argument.
Exodus 4:24 - 26
And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
It doesn't say who the him was. Moses, or his son? And behold he, whoever he is, wasn't killed; the problem was solved by .... circumcision!
The point was the penalty was death, which you argued was "untenable and ridiculous". Do you now concede?
The everlasting covenant God promised Abraham is fulfilled through Christ. If anyone is mixing covenants, I would say it is you by getting natural Israel mixed up with spiritual Israel.
Lol. The problem was remedied by circumcision because the penalty was death. It doesn't change that the penalty was death.
The covenant of circumcision was with natural Israel, of which spiritual Israel was a part.
In that particular case, but we have no other evidence of that with natural Israel. But as I've said, uncircumcision was easily fixed by circumcision, so there was no need to kill anyone.
The covenant of circumcision was with natural Israel, some of whom comprise spiritual Israel. Ultimately, the covenant of circumcision was fulfilled by Jesus Christ being "cut off" on the cross.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
I'm not arguing from theology. I haven't mentioned theology at all. You're the one who keeps interjecting yours.
You're very focused on the work, rather than the faith that drives it. God's focus (I'd argue) is the faith behind the work. I've shown that there were people who didn't get circumcision who were deemed righteous, and people who did that were deemed unrighteous.
Many of the Old Testament nations did circumcision. Even amongst the Israelites, God's interest has always been in the heart. Circumcision was just an outworking of the faith God sought, embodied through father Abraham who believed God before he was circumcised.
When I say "theology", I mean those things you say or believe that scripture refutes.