Happening H Now N ; The Dominion Theology of Jack Hibbs and his kind #Apostasy #EndTimes
Behold!
“Behold”, consists of two letters - Hay, and Nun. The gematria of Hay is 5. The gematria of Nun is 50. What do 5 and 50 share in common?
In the mystical sources, the decimal numbers symbolize the completion of an entire stage or level. To make the decimal number of ten, you could take one and nine, two and eight, three and seven, or four and six. However there is only one number which when added to itself will make ten. That number is 5. Similarly, the only number which added to itself will make the decimal number of 100 is 50. - Hain.
Hain (behold) symbolizes the Jewish People.
When the Jewish People find completion by connecting only with other Jews, they are safe from a hostile world.
     | --- | "Baals of Heights". |
    | --- | even, smooth; upright. |
 | --- | a falling; ruin (of a man); a trunk (of a fallen tree); a corpse or carcass. |
 | --- | to tear or pluck to pieces.. |
| --- | an eagle; a vulture. | |
| --- | to saw or cut asunder. | |
 | --- | to tear away; to draw off. |
| --- |
| - 550 - |
H in Hebrew numeral value is 5
N in Hebrew numeral value is 50
Image of Kabbalah
NOTES:
A great study on Dominion Theology and the dangerous of this fringe theology
Please read: Jack Hibbs and Amir Tsarfati 2 foul birds of the same feather
https://www.thethirdheaventraveler.com/2020/09/jack-hibbs-and-amir-tsarfati-are-foul.html
Disclaimer: I do not wish to promote Kabbalah, the Cabal, Jewish but rather expose it. Since my research of Amir Tsarfati these past few years has revealed his links to Kabbalah, (see Blog on Amir in notes above), and the Star of David as well as all symbols used as well as numbers - I've found a deep connection between this Zionist movement and the Evangelical MAGA Trump Dominion Theology movement. This is leading people straight to the Antichrist. Please read my Blogs on Amir and Hibbs above. The reason I'm focusing on the H N on Hibbs' website, is opening this up for discussion in wondering if Jack Hibbs in the H N happening now series is another staged sign. The H N either by pure coincidence or by design means BEHOLD which Amir uses that points straight to ancient Baal worship. DO NOT BE DECEIVED Dear Christian. Here's another quote taken from "The Coming Kingdom" By Dr. Woods on the deception on Kingdom Building Christians called Dominion Theology:
Begin Quote:
General Problems with Kingdom Now Theology Preview In prior chapters, the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation (chapters 2‒14). In view of this, why do so many believe that the Messianic kingdom has already materialized? Is there a biblical basis for such a belief? The same handful of New Testament texts are routinely and consistently employed in an attempt to argue for “kingdom now” theology. The purpose of the next major section of this book is to scrutinize those passages that “kingdom now” theologians routinely use and to demonstrate that these texts really do not prove “kingdom now” theology. First, this chapter will set forth some general problems with a New Testament based kingdom now interpretation (chapter 15). Second, future chapters will examine a few isolated texts that kingdom now theologians use and show their insufficiency to convey kingdom now theology (chapters 16‒21). Third, the book’s final major section will conclude by noting why this trend of equating God’s present work in the church with the Messianic kingdom is a matter believers should be concerned about since this theology radically alters God’s design for the church (chapters 22‒26). Problems with Kingdom Now NT Interpretations There exist two general problems with how kingdom now theologians use the New Testament to argue for a present, spiritual form of the Messianic kingdom. First, as explained throughout this work, the Old Testament portrays the kingdom in earthly, terrestrial terms (Gen. 15:18–21). When the kingdom comes, it will exercise dominion over a repentant Israel (Ezek. 36–37). Although the kingdom certainly has other qualities, an inductive study of the kingdom as portrayed in the Old Testament makes it impossible to divest the kingdom of these terrestrial, geopolitical characteristics. Thus, an understanding of the kingdom in strictly spiritual, non-geopolitical, non-terrestrial terms is not found in the Old Testament. This reality causes Renald Showers to observe: Several items of Scripture reveal that no form of the future Kingdom of God foretold in the Old Testament will be established before the Second Coming of Christ. . . . No Old Testament revelation concerning the future Kingdom of God indicated that the Kingdom would consist of two forms, one spiritual and the other political, established at two different points of time in the future.1 Therefore, the problem with using New Testament verses in an attempt to argue that the Messianic kingdom now exists in spiritual form only is to interpret the New Testament in a manner that contradicts the Old Testament. Hebrew-Christian scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains the fallacy of such a proposition: [I]t is incorrect to say that the Old Testament should be interpreted by the New Testament because if that is the case, the Old Testament had no meaning and seemed to be irrelevant to the ones to whom it was spoken. On the contrary, the validity of the New Testament is seen by how it conforms to what was already revealed in the Old Testament. The Book of Mormon and other books by cultic groups fail to stand because they contradict the New Testament. By the same token, if the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament, it cannot stand. It is one thing to see fulfillment in the New Testament, but it is quite another to see the New Testament so totally reinterpret the Old Testament that what the Old Testament says carries no meaning at all.2 Yet, kingdom now theologians consistently seek to sell their hearers on the notion that somehow the New Testament has changed how the kingdom is portrayed in the Old Testament. The reason for such advocacy relates to the fact that kingdom now theology is not possible unless the New Testament is understood as promoting something entirely different than the Old Testament. According to kingdom now theologian Colin Chapman: When the New Testament writers like John had seen the significance of the land and the nation in the context of the kingdom of God which had come into being in Jesus of Nazareth, they ceased to look forward to a literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies of a return to the land and a restoration of a Jewish state. The one and only fulfillment of all promises and prophecies was already there before their eyes in the person of Jesus. The way they interpreted the Old Testament should be the norm for the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament today.3 Furthermore, when confronted with “difficult” Old Testament passages that contradict his New Testament pre-understandings, note the hermeneutical methodology of replacement and kingdom now theologian Naim Ateek: The use of this “new” hermeneutic is accessible to all Christians, even to the simple of faith. . . . The constant application of this hermeneutic, therefore, is the best key for Christians to interpreting and understanding the biblical message. Furthermore, this theological understanding can determine the validity and authority of the Scriptures for the life of the Christian. It is grounded in the knowledge and love of God as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The revelation of God, God’s nature, purpose, and will as revealed in Christ, becomes the criterion by which Christians can measure the validity and authority of the biblical message for their life. When confronted with a difficult passage in the Bible . . . one needs to ask such simple questions as: Is the way I am hearing this the way I have come to know God in Christ? Does this fit the picture I have of God that Jesus has revealed to me? Does it match the character of God whom I have come to know through Christ? If it does, then that passage is valid and authoritative. If not, then I cannot accept its validity or authority.4 This interpretive approach should be rightly criticized not only on the grounds of its subjectivity, but also on the basis of its failure to allow the Old Testament to have its natural contribution. Yet, the authenticity of New Testament interpretations must be judged by their harmony and congruence with prior revelation. Determining what is true by its conformity to prior revelation is a principle that is taught throughout Scripture (Deut. 13:1–5; Acts 17:11; Gal. 1:6–9; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Cor. 14:29; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 2:2). If such congruence did not exist and God could rewrite concepts found in prior revelation, then the various biblical commands to test what one hears according to what God has already revealed (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Cor. 14:29; 1 John 4:1) become impossible to follow. The Bereans were commended because they tested Paul’s teaching by its conformity to the Old Testament Scriptures that they already possessed (Acts 17:11). Christ commended the Ephesians for a similar reason (Rev. 2:2). Kingdom now theology, with its emphasis upon a New Testament understanding of the kingdom that is allegedly present in spiritual form only, contradicts the Old Testament’s teaching that never bifurcates the kingdom’s spiritual quality from its terrestrial element. This point, in and of itself, causes kingdom now theology of any sort to be suspect. Such an Old Testament understanding of a literal and earthly kingdom explains why the bulk of the New Testament passages referring to the Messianic kingdom unambiguously refer to it as a future reality rather than a present one (Matt. 6:10; 20:20–21; 26:29; Luke 23:42; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18; Jas. 2:5; 2 Peter 1:11; Rev. 5:10). For example, why did Jesus instruct the disciples to pray for the coming of the kingdom (Matt. 6:10) if the kingdom had already been realized somehow in His First Advent? Interestingly, as will be discussed later, the entire prayer outlined in Matthew 6:9–13 revolves around a request for the coming kingdom and interim requests to be fulfilled during the kingdom’s absence.5 Similarly, Acts 14:22 says, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” Regarding this passage, Thomas Ice observes, “If they were in the kingdom, this statement would make no sense.”6 Second, the Old Testament teaches that the Messianic kingdom will only manifest itself after a time of unparalleled tribulation (Dan. 9:24–27; Jer. 30:7). In other words, the Old Testament predicts that the kingdom cannot be established until judgment precedes it. Thus, if the New Testament is interpreted to teach that the kingdom has come despite the absence of the preceding time of tribulation, then the New Testament is again rendered contradictory to the Old Testament. This problem causes Stanley Toussaint to ask, “If the kingdom began in the ministry of Christ, where is the prophesied judgment in the Gospels? Were the Old Testament prophets and John incorrect in their message?”7 In sum, the primary problem with using New Testament verses in an attempt to argue that the Messianic kingdom now exists in spiritual form is to interpret the New Testament in a manner that contradicts the Old Testament. 1. Renald Showers, “Critique of Progressive Dispensationalism,” Friends of Israel National Conference (June 2003), 5. 2. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “Israel’s Right to the Promised Land,” 17–18, accessed March 9, 2013, http://www.pre-trib.org.com. 3. Colin Chapman, Whose Promised Land? The Continuing Conflict over Israel and Palestine (Oxford, England: Lion, 2015), 262. 4. Naim Ateek, Justice, and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Ortis, 1990), 81–82. 5. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2005), 108–12. 6. Thomas Ice, “Amillennialism,” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2004), 20. 7. Stanley D. Toussaint, “Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 231.
Comments
Post a Comment