FYI: Benny Hinn is a false prophet

Since for some reason I can't post on the other Benny Hinn thread, I made this one.

The guy is a false prophet, plain and simple. He should be treated as such. He is not anointed, and most of the people he saves will wander aroudn seeking another spiritual high.


Orlando Christian Center, Dec. 31st, 1989.

"The Spirit tells me - Fidel Castro will die - in the 90's. Oooh my! Some will try to kill him and they will not succeed. But there will come a change in his physical health, and he will not stay in power, and Cuba will be visited of God."


Orlando Christian Center, Dec. 31st, 1989.

"The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid 90's, about '94-'95, no later than that, God will destroy the homosexual community of America. [audience applauds] But He will not destroy it - with what many minds have thought Him to be, He will destroy it with fire. And many will turn and be saved, and many will rebel and be destroyed."

- Benny Hinn.

Benny Hinn claimed that God revealed the above prophecies to him. Now either God has erred, or Benny Hinn invented these prophecies and he never heard from God. The truth should be obvious - Benny Hinn does not hear from God, he is without doubt a false prophet.

Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Ezek 13
[NIV] "Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: 'Hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! Your prophets, O Israel, are like jackals among ruins. You have not gone up to the breaks in the wall to repair it for the house of Israel so that it will stand firm in the battle on the day of the LORD. Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. They say, "The LORD declares," when the LORD has not sent them; yet they expect their words to be fulfilled. Have you not seen false visions and uttered lying divinations when you say, "The LORD declares," though I have not spoken?"'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because of your false words and lying visions, I am against you, declares the Sovereign LORD. My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign LORD.


I judge someone who makes prophecys and claims that God speaks to them as a prophet, not as a faith healer. Many claim its not fair to judge him as a prophet as he only claims to be a healer, but he is making prophecies, ones that DO NOT COME TRUE. The hand of the Lord according to the scripture is against false prophets, of which benny hinn is clearly one.

Three cheers Joshua!

(Although be careful here...if "failed prophecies" invalidate the prophet you might have to toss out Jesus and The Bible as well...;-0)

-Prof (aka RabbleRousing Heathen)

But those propehcies happen in the second coming, they don't involve saying that no later than 1995 X or Y will happen...these do, different subject matter.

He is also a false teacher.

Saying you must have faith in your faith.

Faith in the bible means essentiall trust in God, not trust in yourself

Jesus was a rich man

Jesus said "the son of man has no where to lay his head"

and

When Adam was in the garden of Eden he could fly, he was to have dominion over all of the animals, how could he have dominion over the birds if he could not fly?

ridiculous, and I suppose that means man could photosynthesize also, since he was to have dominion over the plants.

Benny, and his friends are charlatans, and will be dealt with.

the rev

many hours with expensive hairstylists can mimik an act of God to the untrained eye my friend.


--"Oh, quite the contrary. More than 48 Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. What are the odds of that?"--

Uh..pretty darned good, considering one goal of the Bible would be to make a convincing case for it's central character.

Really, quoting the later half of a story-book in order to miraculously "confirm" the first half is rather circular, wouldn't you agree?

Prof.

Matt,

PLEASE break out the Hinn pics.

Hinn is a JOKE, and is one of those who drag Christ's name in the mud.

JoshuaB is correct!


--"LOL. Ummm....many of the prophecies fulfilled were written 700 years before the birth of Christ."--

So the second installment of an ancient book containing outrageous claims conforms to the first installment with outrageous claims...and that is supposed to be some sort of validation of those claims?

Using the information in the Bible to confirm other information in the Bible is a circular argument.


--"And Jesus is the central character of the NEW Testament, not the Old."--

Funny, I thought God was the central character of the Bible. So Jesus is not Lord then?

Cheers,

Prof.

MatMagician quote: "but people are accepting Jesus Christ as lord and savior at these exhibits".

Are you sure? Hinn's "christ" or the Biblical Christ?

Sinister Minister, you rock! I almost spit up yesterday morning's coffee lookin' at those pix.
That blonde woman shall haunt my dreams tonight...

Prof.

thx dude

awesome pics

haaa matt you kick ass bro.


BTW,

Benny Hin suffered some sort of health ailment during one of his shows (a heart attack or some such thing).

When it came to his own health crisis did Benny call upon God's healing power? Nope. He called an ambulance, putting his "faith" squarely upon modern medicine.

Not that anyone in his audience likely noticed the message.

Prof.

Yeah Kenneth Hagin went out of state to get an operation so his church wouldn't know.

Prof,

If the bible is the central book of our faith, then how could we use anything but it to "confirm" these prophesies? And if you need for me to get into the whole dispensationalist understanding of scripture, to explain the way the prophesies of Jesus are fulfilled in two seperate scenarios, just let me know. Not trying to be a smart ass, but am not sure if this has been explained to you before.

You're using rhetoric, and poisoning the well, which are both beneath you.

the rev


--"If the bible is the central book of our faith, then how could we use anything but it to "confirm" these prophesies?"--

How about exterior, objective sources of information?
If we can verify the story in a book simply by citing other parts of the book, then pretty much any fictional book can be self-confirmed as "true," no?

If an ancient book claimed that the Sun is going to burn out in 2005, the reasonable thing to do is not freak out and expend humanity's resources building an interplanetary space ship. First we'd use whatever objective, investigative methods are available to see if in fact the Sun is likely to burn out within the next year.

Likewise, I wouldn't simply accept one part of an ancient myth story telling me the other part is true. I'd reasonably require significant external,objective evidence that supports what the text is telling me.
No historian would rely on one text's account of history.

As to dispensationalism I do appreciate your offer, but it's probably best you not waste your time on me
:-) While dispensationalism seems to portray it's goal as reading the text "plainly" (unless clearly figurative) I find it still boils down to liberal interpretation of the often vague, lyrical passages of text that pass as "prophetic." These are "confirmed" by associating those vague prophecies with more vague, lyrical text or quotes from the New Testament. I find the same malleable interpretations applied when dispensationalists attempt to harmonize scripture to history or current events. Likewise with those who attempt to "harmonize" the textual contradictions in the Bible.


I haven't the time or inclination to become a Bible scholar - all I can do is evaluate the arguments put to me by Christians. And as you know I don't buy them.

One thing I'd point out is that often in a discussion of a certain biblical passage a Theist will retort: "You are discussing that passage out of context. You only come to that conclusion because you are ignorant of the context." The thing is, when pressed to provide the context, the context proves just as problematic, or more problematic, than the initial problem. So I never buy the "you just don't get it" retreat. Either the Theist can present his position persuasively...using whatever context he feels supports his case...or he can not. Retreating to an "It's all solved by the context, but you won't get it so I won't bother explaining to you" doesn't cut it.

Rev, I'm not saying I've seen you pulling this stunt.

If you see opportunity to correct or educate me a bit more about dispensationalist claims, feel free. I'm all ears.

--"You're using rhetoric..."--

Yeah, I admit my replies here may sound simply rhetorical. But mostly because I'm being terse. The central point holds: if you are investigating the veracity of a story, using one part of the story to confirm another doesn't wash.

That you see it as poisoning the well probably outlines the difficulty we have discussing this. I am looking at Christianity as a proposition - an argument - whereas it has much more emotional resonance for you. I apologize if my criticism of Christian arguments or The Bible strike you as insulting. It's not always easy line to tread for us heathens.

Prof.

Prof,

I've come to understand that your an atheist or at least you don't believe in the bible or something to that effect.

What I don't understand is why put forth so much time and effort looking into, researching and discussing things which you don't believe in to begin with?

I've come to know how pointless and fruitless it is to discuss matters of deep conviction to those who have deep conviction. You can't really convince a person who really believes in this or that they are wrong because that person hs such deep conviction AND for you to actually put time into the matter is all the more fruitless when considering you don't believe it in the first place.

This brings me back to my point why even bother?

I never could understand why people who don't believe the bible is true spend so much time reading it, and worse, debating people who believe it. The ultimate outcome is fruitless. And to make the whole thing even more strange is the fact your going out of your way to do all this.

Why?

The rhetoric is beneath you bro.

The poisoning the well, you take away the bible, which is our only real foundation to stand on. The historical evidence of Jesus outside the bible is slim. You also say, well imagine that Jesus followers wrote the new testement, and proclaim he fulfilled these prophecies, implying that they lied to make their position seem stronger. However they actually died horrible deaths in not admitting to their lie, which to me is problematic. And that is extra biblical. They atleast believed what they were saying. As did their followers, and so on.

As to scientific proofs, how do you prove a man 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin? How do you prove a man 2,000 years ago healed people, walked on water and so on. Eyewitness accounts? Well you can't use those because they are obviously not credible. Why not? Cause people can't walk on water, so that person is either lying, fablising or crazy. Not credible.

How do I prove someone was healed after I prayed for them. There was medical personel on the scene. They diagnosed the patient, I prayed. Instant healing. They said, oh we must have been wrong. But how come he couldn't walk at all, and we had to carry him. And now he is walking with no pain? How come the lump that was what you called a broken bone, is now completely gone? Don't know, but he is obviously not suffering from a broken leg now, so we must have been wrong.

Faith is the bottom line, but not blind faith, I must deal with the info I have, and I trust that it is God. This trust has made my life more meaningful, my marriage and family better, my relationships with others better, and has helped me to grow as a person, and have a transcendent fullfilment in my life.

btw, I know this is an imperfect medium for expression, so let me say I am not in any way upset, I like and respect you. So don't read anything more than my undying love for you into my post :)

the rev

Hi m.g.,

--"Prof, I've come to understand that your an atheist or at least you don't believe in the bible or something to that effect."--

Yeah, something to that effect. I've never been inclined to label myself anything really. Rationalist maybe? I don't believe in the Supernatural. I used to really want to. Growing up I was big on a lot of fringe stuff: Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts, Mentalism, UFOs...you know, anything cool like that. I also used to pray to God. I always wanted it all to be true (and I remember thinking briefly that I was able to bend spoons a la Uri Geller). However, the more I studied these subjects, and the more I learned about science, psychology and the inherent tendencies of Humans to make great cognitive mistakes...well...the "evidence" for those things just seemed to whittle away. I'd love nothing more than to have psychic powers, or to see a "monster" rise out of Loch Ness. But I don't have any illusions it's going to happen anymore.

--"What I don't understand is why put forth so much time and effort looking into, researching and discussing things which you don't believe in to begin with?"--

Very good question. Sometimes I ask that myself. But I'd say it goes something like this:

I spent a lot of time looking into religions and philosophy in my twenties, mostly because I was utterly fascinated with the subjects. I'm not so interested in religion these days but I guess I still have a reflex left over that draws me to conversation about religion. And given my deep admiration for science, and given my general rational/empirical outlook on things, I can't help throwing that into the mix as well.

...

Also, there is the fact that religion matters. Big time. Most of the world is religious. The leader of the Free World is (ostensibly) quite religious. We have right wing, religion-driven parties in Canada who are also gaining in popularity.
My life *could* be drastically impacted by religious thinking.
So the veracity of religion, and the reasons for religious thinking are very important subjects.

I couldn't be more supportive of someone's right to believe as they wish. After all, it grants me the same freedom too. Not to mention no one has a monopoly on The Truth. I like the fact people are out there investigating all the possibilities of what life is or could be about...and if that includes people trying to ascertain a supernatural realm so be it.

However, there are elements of religious thinking that can just plain freak me out. Some times I find myself dumbfounded that some people say and believe what they do here in the twenty first century. I am very fascinated with what the widespread influence of religion tells us about mankind...both the good and the bad.

And the bad can really spook me. Recently I was listening to a few debates between Evangelist speaker Kent Hovind and some atheists and scientists. Hovind is the poster boy for whacko Creationism (often derided even by many Christians; he asserts Tyrannosaurus Rex was a herbivore, for instance, given that T-Rex lived happily in Eden along with man). But just like so many other Theist speakers, does he know how to work a crowd! Evangelists are practiced and expert at ringing the faithfull's emotional bells. Hovind presents himself as a learned teacher, and whips through an anti-Evolution, anti-secularist rant at top speed, drawing impressive sounding references from many areas of science to "support" his Biblical literalist view. And virtually all of it is outright B.S Completely wrong, utterly perverting the work and conclusions of real scientists to fit his agenda.
And he knows it, given that he's been corrected over and over. But the church audiences in these debates do not know it; they sit there "a-mening" and chuckling derisively every time Hovind uses a piece of garbage science to "prove scientists wrong."
He even says things like: "Evolutionists want you to believe you came from a tomato. Do you believe that? I've never seen anyone come from a tomato!" (Applause from church-going crowd)And I know he is the tip of the iceberg. There are all sorts of folks out there preaching ignorant garbage concerning the work of scientists whenever they feel it impinges on their religious belief. And I'm not saying Church goers are not smart, but there is a vivid anti-intellectualism that permeates such scenes. Many of the Church goers start out ignorant regarding many of the scientific subjects being discussed, and types like Hovind are out there re-enforcing their ignorance, re-enforcing inaccurate caricatures of scientific findings.

I just don't think ignorance, irrationalism and superstition are good things for mankind. Therefore, I find it very hard to let it go unchallenged. Sometimes challenging other people's views is simply fun or interesting. Other times I hear Bush speaking about "Evil" and I think it's damned important, and I truly fear for my Kid's future when that type of thinking takes over.

As well, I love having my views challenged! I'm never more thankful than when I have to replace one of my misconceptions with something better.

Another reason I find myself chatting with people here is, well, I tend to like Christians (that's a bit of a generalization of course). The folks here are great. And mixing it up with believers helps me avoid forming caricatures of Christians, and it keeps me aware of the wide range of views Christians have on various topics. Plus, I find many non-Christians just don't care to talk about this stuff.

...