John Hagee

[Nadiine]

that being so don't you think American Christians especially and indeed ALL Christians should be afraid, very afraid of the judgment stored up for them??

1 Peter 4
17 For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?
18 Now


“ If the righteous one is scarcely saved,
Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

 

[Simon_Templar]

I enjoy watching John Hagee. He generally gives an inspiring bible based message along with some genuine laugh out loud humor.

There was such an uproar about him endorsing John McCain. I'm wondering if I'm missing something. I'm open to negatives about Hagee I just don't know what they are?

In all honesty, John Hagee's biggest problem is that he is basically kind of an idiot. I'm sorry if that offends people, but the reality is he just can't control his own mouth. He routinely says stuff that is just so incredibly stupid and it always ends up getting him in hot water because its always horribly offensive to one group or another.

For example.. on the one hand he has bordered for years on teaching dual covenant theology (basically teaching that the Jews don't need to accept Christ because they are automatically saved by virtue of being Jews). He's been accused of that for a long time. He claims he doesn't believe that... but then he comes out with a book in which he argues that Jesus was not the messiah to the Jewish people, and he holds a series of conferences on Israel where the Christian speakers are not allowed to mention the gospel message.

For years he has accused the Catholics of being pagan idolaters, relying on a bunch of nonsense evidence about Nimrod and Semiramis, which I personally heard him claim was "all in the bible" and of course none of it is.

I also heard him say once in one of his prophecy teachings that people who don't believe in the pre-trib rapture aren't Christians.

Finally, the thing that really got him into hot water this election was that he said, in effect that the holocaust was a good thing and that God caused the holocaust. Now the reality is you would be hard pressed to find a person more pro-Jew and pro-Israel than John Hagee.. in fact in my opinion he goes way over board in that regard. What he meant was that the holocaust though it was a terrible evil, God used it never the less to accomplish his purposes for Israel. It was largely because of the holocaust, for example, that the nation of Israel was recreated by the UN etc. However, being the brilliant communicator that he is, when he said it, he made it sound like he thought God brought about the holocaust and the Jews had it coming.
That, together with his anti-catholic rhetoric were the things that got him into trouble during the election season here.

Of course prior to that he was widely and perhaps justifiably being denounced by many Christians as a heretic because he wrote a book saying that Jesus wasn't the messiah for the Jewish people.

 

[Simon_Templar]

that being so don't you think American Christians especially and indeed ALL Christians should be afraid, very afraid of the judgment stored up for them??

in temporal terms, yes. Our comprimise and impurity will be judged in order that it may be cleansed. The new testament teaches (though many disagree) that there will be a final terrible persecution commonly referred to as the great tribulation in which the forces of evil are allowed to persecute both the Christians and the Jews in one final wave of awful trial, and that will purify the saints.

You may not agree, but my belief as a Christian is that both your people and mine will suffer terribly in that persecution and that in it we will be united into one people of God, finally.

 

[Nadiine]

In all honesty, John Hagee's biggest problem is that he is basically kind of an idiot. I'm sorry if that offends people, but the reality is he just can't control his own mouth. He routinely says stuff that is just so incredibly stupid and it always ends up getting him in hot water because its always horribly offensive to one group or another.

For example.. on the one hand he has bordered for years on teaching dual covenant theology (basically teaching that the Jews don't need to accept Christ because they are automatically saved by virtue of being Jews). He's been accused of that for a long time. He claims he doesn't believe that... but then he comes out with a book in which he argues that Jesus was not the messiah to the Jewish people, and he holds a series of conferences on Israel where the Christian speakers are not allowed to mention the gospel message.

For years he has accused the Catholics of being pagan idolaters, relying on a bunch of nonsense evidence about Nimrod and Semiramis, which I personally heard him claim was "all in the bible" and of course none of it is.

I also heard him say once in one of his prophecy teachings that people who don't believe in the pre-trib rapture aren't Christians.

Finally, the thing that really got him into hot water this election was that he said, in effect that the holocaust was a good thing and that God caused the holocaust. Now the reality is you would be hard pressed to find a person more pro-Jew and pro-Israel than John Hagee.. in fact in my opinion he goes way over board in that regard. What he meant was that the holocaust though it was a terrible evil, God used it never the less to accomplish his purposes for Israel. It was largely because of the holocaust, for example, that the nation of Israel was recreated by the UN etc. However, being the brilliant communicator that he is, when he said it, he made it sound like he thought God brought about the holocaust and the Jews had it coming.
That, together with his anti-catholic rhetoric were the things that got him into trouble during the election season here.

Of course prior to that he was widely and perhaps justifiably being denounced by many Christians as a heretic because he wrote a book saying that Jesus wasn't the messiah for the Jewish people.

I heard John Hagee defend his controversial statements on the Catholic church & the holocaust on an AM. talk radio station right after the incident w/ McCain, & from what he said he was taken out of context in his statements,
he denied that he believed all Catholics are unsaved.

And it would be my assumption based on his past preaching of the gospel that his claims on the Messiah would be misconstrued.
I haven't heard or watched him in years - so I'm ignorant on his books & sermons over probly the past 5-6 yrs now.
IF that's what he's reverted to, I'm sad & dissappointed.

He's always preached the true gospel of Christ.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I heard John Hagee defend his controversial statements on the Catholic church & the holocaust on an AM. talk radio station right after the incident w/ McCain, & from what he said he was taken out of context in his statements,
he denied that he believed all Catholics are unsaved.

And it would be my assumption based on his past preaching of the gospel that his claims on the Messiah would be misconstrued.
I haven't heard or watched him in years - so I'm ignorant on his books & sermons over probly the past 5-6 yrs now.
IF that's what he's reverted to, I'm sad & dissappointed.

He's always preached the true gospel of Christ.

I read his book in which he said that Jesus wasn't the messiah. What he was teaching was blatantly incorrect biblically. But at the same time he wasn't intending to say it the way that many people took it.

He was attempting to argue that the Jews did not reject the messiah, because in his first coming Jesus didn't intend to be the messiah. However, he's doing this from the position of viewing the term "messiah" as applying to the annointed King of Israel. So he's saying that Jesus didn't intend to be the king of Israel at that time. He would say that Jesus was and is the savior.. but he will only be the "messiah" when he comes again. Its linked to a concept that some Jewish leaning Christians use to refer to Jesus under the two different terms, "messiah ben Joseph" and "messiah ben David". The first time he came as messiah ben joseph, the second time he will come as messiah ben David.

The problem with this is that it is directly contradictory to what the new testament actually teaches and thus these people are setting themselves up as an authority above the bible. The writers of the New Testament routinely referred to Jesus as the messiah. The word "Christ" is the greek equivalent of "messiah" both meaning "annointed one". So every time that the new testament refers to Jesus as "christ" it is referring to him as the messiah. Obviously that is probably numbering in the hundreds of times.

Further, Jesus was called the son of David during his time on earth and its clear that was his justly deserved title (as the promised messianic King who would sit on David's throne). The entire event of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem was his royal entry and being received as the King. The reason he rode on a donkey was because that was the tradition and law for the King.

So what Hagee intended to teach might not be as bad as it was perceived, but it was still blatantly wrong and directly contradictory to scripture.

 

[Nadiine]

You know, sometimes just to make things SIMPLE, you should bypass your little teaching intracacies and NOT make blatant statements like that when you mean it in a certain way (ie. definition-wise) ---

stupid move.
A teacher is supposed to make things more simple to understand.
Why come out with a heretical claim for the sake of making a bold statement of fact as to an intricacy/technicality?

He could have saved himself a whole lot of trouble if he just took the time to spell it all out instead of using such a contradictory claim like that.

I agree, not smart. But this goes towards what I've said before, I've noticed him "slipping" some in his teaching 5-6 yrs ago... I can only imagine it's gotten more pronounced now?
I think age is catching up w/ him or something.

 

[Wade Smith]

I read his book in which he said that Jesus wasn't the messiah. What he was teaching was blatantly incorrect biblically. But at the same time he wasn't intending to say it the way that many people took it.

He was attempting to argue that the Jews did not reject the messiah, because in his first coming Jesus didn't intend to be the messiah. However, he's doing this from the position of viewing the term "messiah" as applying to the annointed King of Israel. So he's saying that Jesus didn't intend to be the king of Israel at that time. He would say that Jesus was and is the savior.. but he will only be the "messiah" when he comes again. Its linked to a concept that some Jewish leaning Christians use to refer to Jesus under the two different terms, "messiah ben Joseph" and "messiah ben David". The first time he came as messiah ben joseph, the second time he will come as messiah ben David.

The problem with this is that it is directly contradictory to what the new testament actually teaches and thus these people are setting themselves up as an authority above the bible. The writers of the New Testament routinely referred to Jesus as the messiah. The word "Christ" is the greek equivalent of "messiah" both meaning "annointed one". So every time that the new testament refers to Jesus as "christ" it is referring to him as the messiah. Obviously that is probably numbering in the hundreds of times.

Further, Jesus was called the son of David during his time on earth and its clear that was his justly deserved title (as the promised messianic King who would sit on David's throne). The entire event of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem was his royal entry and being received as the King. The reason he rode on a donkey was because that was the tradition and law for the King.

So what Hagee intended to teach might not be as bad as it was perceived, but it was still blatantly wrong and directly contradictory to scripture.

Well, I've only read one of his books, and that was from several years ago.

I will also admit that I haven't watched even one of his sermons in about 5 years, and not regularly for about 8 years or so.

I have never heard him teach these things before. So if he's doing it, then shame on him.

I try not to buy too many of these books by most of these pastors.

Among the last several "Christian" books that I bought were:

"Azusa Street" which is the biography of Frank Bartleman. (bought about 4 years ago.)

"The Seduction of Chrisitanity"- Dave Hunt

"Deceived on Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose Driven Church" - Warren Smith

"Who's Driving the Purpose Driven Church?" -James Sundquist


I tend to buy books examining false doctrines and false church movements.

The ONLY Hagee book I bought must have been in early 2004, because that is the copyright date on it, and from what I read in there, I don't recall seeing anything "heretical" certainly.

 

[Henaynei]

You may not agree, but my belief as a Christian is that both your people and mine will suffer terribly in that persecution and that in it we will be united into one people of G-d, finally.

the persecution to come is coming upon us more quickly than the vast majority will believe, and, yes, there will be great devastation to fall on Israel first, so painful and unbelievable will it be that the world will avert their gaze and cover their ears.... and far too few will see and recognize the fatal warning of the canary.... the world and the church has never failed to miss that warning whenever it has been made manifest... and always to their own great injury...

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I don't at all care for John Hagee as a preacher. That is, I include him in my love as a brother in Christ, but I don't think he represents the Kingdom of God in a very good way. I never have liked his style, but that's a matter of personal taste. I have problems with the substance of his teaching also. It's not that he's politically incorrect, it's that he's so often just plain wrong, and in an embarrassing way. I don't know why he says the goofy things he does, and I wasn't familiar with him years ago when perhaps he may have been different. Perhaps it may be just be that he's getting too old, I don't know, and that may also be the case with Robertson. But for whatever reason, they both have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot, and when they do, it isn't just their own foot that gets hurt, but the reputation of Christians in general. What do I think he's wrong about? Not about the true Gospel of Christ; he's got that part right. But exactly what Simon Templar said.

 

[MrJim]

I've never heard the guy preach~I've seen him; another thick pastor teaching spiritual disciplines

 

[Nadiine]

I've been dissappointed with Pat Robertson for awhile now -

I know one thing John Hagee preached was that God commanded us all to be fruitful & multiply - not have cats, parakeets & dogs, etc. etc.
That people were wrong (can't say as I remember he said it's sin - but it's the impression I was left with) if they didn't have any kids.

I have never felt everyone was called to have kids (on the sole basis of their biological ability) and I didn't think it was something he should throw guilt trips about.
I had heard other minor things he's said that I thought were harsh for harshness' sake, not necessary to say.
Like when he says a man came to him (who didn't tithe) & asked if he would pray for him (I think about finances) & John Hagee said he replied "No, I don't think I could trust you if I closed my eyes.....' -------- something about for fear the man would steal from him or something about stealing.
He was using Malachi 3 about robbing God if you don't tithe.

Well, that was unecessary & mean - stuff like that is what I dislike.
I do like his preaching style - I like a forceful, tell-it-like-it-is teacher, but some things fall into the unecessarily rude category and that's where I can't agree.
I would have prayed for the man right there on the spot and then if compelled to say more, I'd offer principles on tithing or offerings as a possible reason for financial lack.

So in that regard I can agree w/ you Izdarri

 

[Nadiine]

I've never heard the guy preach~I've seen him; another thick pastor teaching spiritual disciplines

thyroid?



But hey, we can't judge people becuz they're overweight or disqualify them from teaching can we?

 

[MrJim]

thyroid?



But hey, we can't judge people becuz they're overweight or disqualify them from teaching can we?

Pretty tough learning spiritual discipline from a thick preacher~just sayin'...

 

[Nadiine]

Pretty tough learning spiritual discipline from a thick preacher~just sayin'...

not for me... only unless he preaches against gluttony -- (which I've actually heard him do) :o

but then we don't know if he does have a medical issue like thyroid or whatever. Doubtful, but I work not to make judgments on appearances.
I don't consider that it disqualifies him from being a teacher.

 

[Wade Smith]

Pretty tough learning spiritual discipline from a thick preacher~just sayin'...

You see, you just fell for one of the devil's oldest tricks.

You see somebody who has an "outward" appearing problem that you classify as "sin", and then you immediately want to discard the whole message.


Well, first of all, you don't know the whole story. Some people are "big" and can't really help it.

I am not a "glutton" and usually only eat two meals per day, and all through high school i exercised as much as 15 hours per week in martial arts and aerobics and PFT in my ROTC class, and was still overweight. Because believe it or not, my dad's side of the family is genetically predisposed to weight gain.

I've done every exercise in every fitness book, and I still have "stubborn belly fat". I even fast from time to time.

So with the attitude you seem to have, you obviouslyu would have trouble listening to me or someone else like me, in spite of the fact I would tell the truth.


Even if a preacher is a "glutton", does that make his message somehow less true? So what? You see one sin problem, if indeed it is a sin problem, which he likely lays on his face before God for hours on end begging for help, and yet you discard the man and the message.


This is what is so wrong with us as Christians. Any little excuse to destroy another preacher.


If somebody is preaching false doctrine, then correct them and rebuke them and rebuke the false doctrine.


If somebody is preaching the truth, yet has a flaw, as EVERYONE DOES, then why do you throw "stones"?


It is a wonder to me that people "disqualify" preachers who preach the truth, because they catch them slip up a time or two, or because they are fat.*

Yet they will listen to false preachers all day long and send them their money by the millions.


* Hey, you know what? I'll tell you something. I'm a SINNER. That is why I needed a savior in the first place. I'm not making an excuse for anybody's sin, mine or someone elses, but the fact is I am still a human being in a fallen mortal body and I do sin, and quite often in fact. It happens.

Has everyone forgotten Paul was a murderer and ended up writing half the New Testament?

Or what about David? He too was an adulterer,a polygamist, and a murderer, and wrote about 1/4 of the Old Testament, about half of which was AFTER the murder...God didn't disqualify David because of his "acts" of sin either.

People need to quit being such hypocrites.

"Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief."

 

[MrJim]

didja get it all said?

 

[LadyGenteel]

John Hagee is in the highest degree of the freemasonry he is not A christian but he is Zionist Freemason

Can you provide evidence of this, Edmond89?

 

[Wade Smith]

didja get it all said?

Yeah, I think so.

All I'm saying is don't judge somebody by what is probably their worst problem just because you see it.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Yeah, I think so.

All I'm saying is don't judge somebody by what is probably their worst problem just because you see it.

My pastor is a little on the chubby side, but he's still one of the best teachers I've ever heard. It doesn't seem to slow him down at all.

 

[Nadiine]

Can you provide evidence of this, Edmond89?

I so agree -