Posted on 01/03/2002 3:27:12 PM PST by VaBthang4
On todays program Benny Hinn announced that he had a vision and the Lord explained to him that the Lord was going to topple the current government of Iran.
He said that the Lord would show favor to the people of Iran because of the assistance Persian Kings gave in rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem [2 Chronicles 36:23,24].
The feed is a video of the "this is your day" program.
Perhaps you could show us all the rule.
No rules, just incredibly bad form and frankly rather rude, Rookie.
The sociopolitical transformation taking place in Afghanistan and Pakistan has its effect on neighboring countries. The Iranian regime has become panicky because of the events next door, where the people have been able to shake off Islamist dictatorships. Worst of all, this became possible thanks to American intervention. After the fall of the Taliban, the demand to exchange "mullacracy" for democracy has become louder in Tehran, too.
Could you tell me which books of the bible I am to refer to, and which chapters? Don't give me the verses, let me find them for myself. And of course apply biblical standards to it - provide a witness or two.
One comment: That is incorrect. The authorship and dating of Revelation to the time of Domitian's reign was written on by Irenaeus in the second century....1400 years before Erasmus compiled the Greek NT and 1500 years before the KJV was first compiled. In book 5 of his "Against Heresies, [5: 30: 3] he says that the book was composed "towards the end of Domitian's reign."
A lot of when you think Revelation was written depends upon whether you believe in a literal future fulfillment, or you are a preterist. Now...I am not saying that Revelation was written in 90 AD...to me it really doesn't matter who sent John to Patmos or when it happened...I am still a futurist...and beleive in a future filfillment of Revelation. However, my point in this post is to correct the misconception that the KJV scholars back dated it. It had been back dated to the late date back in the 2nd century. Of course, Clement in the 2nd century dated the book to Nero's reign...but you get my point.
Scholars such as Adams cite the Temple still standing in Rev 11 as "proof". That is fine if you are a historist or a preterist. However, many believe the temple will be rebuilt and I believe that as well. Jesus discussed the Anti-Christ sitting in the temple (abomonation of desolations) which proved that the passage in Daniel was NOT fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes desolated the temple. So....all arguements that come from the angle "this referred to that...and can't be because the temple is there...or this referred to the Jewish war" have to be thrown out simply because the point of view of the scholar clouds the judgment...i.e...the scholar looks at the book from a particular angle. There is no proof that the temple in Revelation 11 refers to the same temple that was destroyed before 70 AD. There is no proof that it does not. There is no proof the persecutions point to the Jewish war. There is no proof it does not.
So...the date depends on your escatological point of view. If you are a preterest...then Rev 11 is proof poitive of a pre 70 AD date because the temple is there. If you are a futurist...it really doesn't matter when the book was written because Rev 11 is future still (and I believe it is...simply because the Temple in Rev 11 was not the temple of pre-70...and in Rev 11...the diminsions of the temple are being re-measured). But again...it is all opinion.
And BTW....Revelation was canonized in 393 A.D. at the Council of Hippo and in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. This canon was set in stone long before the KJV scholars...there was no need to late date it to make it more canon...it already was.
(the above is you quoting Mr. Hinn).
While this statement cannot be proven true it also cannot be proven false. I see nothing inconsistent with scripture here but do see things that scripture does not tell us.
First, all men are three part beings, Body, soul (Mind will and emotions) and spirit.
God the Son (Jesus) is a 4 part being: body, soul, spirit and divinity (that special thing that makes Him God). He is all man and all God. God the Holy Spirit can be seen from scripture as at least three parts: soul (since He can be offended he has emotions) Spirit (obviously) and divinity (He is God). God the Father likewise from scripture can be seen as being at least three parts: Soul (he has mind, will and emotion) Spirit and Divinity. The question is do the Father and the Holy Spirit have bodies? Scripture doesn't tell us. Although it does refer to the hand of God etc, these references could be figurative instead of literal. We really don't know but we will find out when we get home.
So, while Mr Hinn has (possibly) done some things wrong I don't think this particular example can be used against him.
God Save America (Please)
Sort of. 'Word of Faith' was indeed the name of Tilton's ministry, but I'm referring to the movement, not Tilton in particular. Guys like Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Fred Price, Paul and Jan Crouch, Benny Hinn, Marilyn Hickey, Creflo Dollar, Myles Munroe, and Rod Parsley are all representative of this corruption of the Gospel.
-bc
RockyRich said: "You're WRONG!! Back up your statements with some concrete examples!!"
BearCub says: Ok.
Hinn claims that the Holy Spirit revealed to him that women were originally designed to give birth out of their sides.
Hinn admits to frequenting the graves of both Kathryn Kuhlman and Aimee Semple McPherson to get the "anointing" from their bones.
Hinn claims that Christians should not get sick & can experience victory over disease and sickness. He justifies his claim by citing Isaiah 53:5 ("by his stripes we are healed") but ignores the fact that Isaiah was speaking of spiritual healing, as is clear later in the passage.
Hinn says in one of his books: "You will never hear me pray such faith-destroying words as ‘If it be your will, Lord, heal them.’ God intends for you to rise and be healed. Today. Tomorrow. Always!” - but Jesus contradicts him in the strongest terms in the Sermon on the Mount ("..., Your will be done..." [Matt 6:10]).
He places blame on guilt on those that aren't healed, accusing them of a lack of faith, 'wrong thinking' or not following his 'three principles', 'four laws of healing' or 'seven guidelines'.
The bottom line is that the guy is full of crap & preys on the sick and hopeless (pun intended).
-bc
I do believe that we must be tolerant (oh no) of these people. I was one of those "faith" people. I was raised in it and didn't know any better. I always had questions growing up but was a submissive child and believed everything mom, dad and the pastor said. Now the people I am talking about are wonderful people but most of them have been duped. I didn't really find the truth until I was in my 30's after just reading the bible again and again and it finally sank in. One thing that happens with Faith people is they are frightened of offending God or the Holy Spirit and of course Jesus. Sometimes it just takes a while for it to sink in.
I do believe that many of these people are Christians and believe the basic doctrines of the bible but have been caught up in something they don't understand.
It is a sad situation but many of the name it, claim it people are finding the truth. Just takes time. The big guys raking in the money will never change.
Now each of the trinity being a triune in itself, that for sure I never heard, and seems alien. Hinn is, how I'll say..., "quirky" in this regard? Anyways I think it is a little interesting. Funny how some will rave about this guy's view on the trinity, but overlook the descretion of religion with "800" numbers, hard-sells and guilt-sells for moolah.
Be of good cheer. I think that what you are suggesting is not possible. (Ha!)
Fond regards,
I'll certainly give you that his phrasing in this matter is quirky. Its like referring to yourself as "we" just because you have three facets (body, soul and spirit) to you. God is a trinity. Three persons, one God.
Brother Hinn could have eliminated a lot of controversy by beiing more careful how he words things.
GSA(P)
LOL
My dad used to say you can tell more about a man's (or woman's) character by their enemies than their friends
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.