You wrote: Yeah, right.
You can read, can't you? I see you have failed to dispute a single quotation I presented from the early Church Fathers. Therefore I must assume you either cannot read, or you cannot find anything to dispute. Whatever the case, your only recourse would be to either acknowledge your doctrinal weakness, or cast aspersions and redirect the conversation. I see you have chosen the latter. But I do understand: you are, after all, only a futurist.
>>> … just like your fellow preterist, Hank Hanegraaf, “presented” at this debate on the dating of the book of Revelation. Hanegraaf’s “presentation,” to an unbiased observer, was laughable, I actually felt sorry for poor old Hank, all he had to offer was the typical preterist twisting of the scripture and history...like you just did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlT8S6KgOl4&list=PL0osYxTc0WTMkqnpnVM9UNefs-p5r6FNv<<<
LOL! You are absolutely correct about Hank's presentation! I watched the entire video last summer (very long and boring,) and Hanegraaf is truly a lightweight. Why else would a lightweight like Mark Hitchcock choose him to debate? You did notice that one of the "moderators" was another dispensational lightweight named Tommy Ice, didn’t you?
>>>Mark Hitchcock, on the other hand, presented the truth in a very sensible way. <<<
Mark Hitchcock doesn't know the truth. He is a dispensationalist.
>>>Hanagraaf didn’t even attempt to respond to 90% of Hitchcock’s arguments for the late date writing of Revelation. I suggest anyone confused by Freneau listen to the debate. The debate is quite lengthy, but well worth the time.<<<
I also recommend watching the debate, not for Hanegraaf's presentation (which is almost non-existent,) but for Hitchcock's. Be certain to read (actually read) the references that Hitchcock claims support his late-date theory. In particular, carefully read the reference by Polycarp (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter XI.) It is an eye-opener, exposing Hitchcock for the charlatan he truly is, since the claim he makes about Polycarp is not to be found in Polycarp's epistle. But it is a common claim by futurists, and helps expose the weakness of their arguments.
>>>If Revelation was written in the very late part of the first century, which it was, then all this twisting of scripture and history, which you’ve just seen, is exposed for what it is, worthless and contrived.<<<
It would not affect me one way or the other. I go wherever the scripture leads. I have no cult/clique to defend. However, those with "set in stone" doctrines, like dispensationalists/futurists, have a lot to lose, including a massive book industry (which is affectionately called, the "Fundamentalist Industrial Book Complex.") Be certain to join their "Antichrist-of-the-Month Book Club" if you want to keep current on the name of latest antichrist. LOL!
One dirty little dispensationalist/futurist secret is this: when it is proven (and it will be) that the Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem, the entire, dreary, dispensationalist/futurist house of cards comes crashing down. Good riddance!
>>>I know, Hitchcock is a dispensationalist, which I’m not, however, he is a futurist and a premillennialist, which I am, I agree with him on those points. I think he did a great job debating Hanegraaf.<<<
We debated (briefly) a dissertation by Hitchcock on this forum several months ago in a related thread. The Hitchcock-Hanegraaf debate was also mentioned. The link is below, if you are interested:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3129149/posts
Philip
“One dirty little dispensationalist/futurist secret is this: when it is proven (and it will be) that the Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem, the entire, dreary, dispensationalist/futurist house of cards comes crashing down. Good riddance!”
I think what you said here should be restated... thusly:
“One little secret is this: it has been proven (despite what you said, Hitchcock did a very good job) that the Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem, which has brought down the entire preterist house of cards.”
Notice, I didn’t include your last over the top words, “good riddance,” it doesn’t sound like something a Christian should say on a forum like this.
And, by the way, I’ve told you before, I’ll tell you again, I am not a dispensationalist, futurist, yes, but not dispensationalist.
It seems to irritate you why I won’t go point by point with you, I certainly could, especially on the early church fathers, if I thought you a genuine seeder of truth I would, but I don’t waste time with debaters, it is clear to me that all you are is a debater.