Hanegraaff and LeHaye

Well, there are several "theories" - and I believe it's possible that any one of them could be right, given the information we currently have. I have read good arguments for most of the theories - at least to the point to make me think it's "possible". I'm a little afraid of anyone who thinks they "know" exactly what it all means. It's just not that "clear".

While this is interesting, it's taking us away from the original topic regarding Hank and LeHaye. I've been pretty surprized to see Hank attacked as much as he has, and virtually no mention of LeHaye.

 

Start with Josephus.

Talk is very cheap. Why don't you prove Revelation was written after AD70. Then show me where Anti-christ is mentioned anywhere in the book of Revelation.

 

Well, there are several "theories" - and I believe it's possible that any one of them could be right, given the information we currently have. I have read good arguments for most of the theories - at least to the point to make me think it's "possible". I'm a little afraid of anyone who thinks they "know" exactly what it all means. It's just not that "clear".

While this is interesting, it's taking us away from the original topic regarding Hank and LeHaye. I've been pretty surprized to see Hank attacked as much as he has, and virtually no mention of LeHaye. </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. lol

My husband has said many times, I bet we're all wrong.

 

Yes - I think your husband is a wise man! The more I study and the more debates I find, and knowing the difficulty of understanding the meanings behind written words, the more I believe we'll be in for some real surprizes when we get to Glory!

 

Grasshopper:Of course many would say the same thing about your eschatology.

me: Talk is cheap. How about proof from history?


Start with Josephus.

OK. Josephus was a Pharisee who'd been appointed commander of a group of Jews in Galilee rebelling against Rome. However, he was captured by Vespasian in 67 AD, but his life was spared when he agreed to provide Vespasian with a history of the Jewish people, also predicting Vespasian would become Emperor. He was later adopted by Vespasian, thus becoming Flavius Josephus.

He was witness to the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian's son Titus. His writings about this, and the remainder of this war by the Romans against Jewish revolt was finished in 78 AD.

We must remember that Josephus spent the remainder of his life at the Emperor's court in Rome and that he was careful not to write anything anti-Roman. He died during Trajan's reign, prolly in 101 AD. He didn't live to see Hadrian's dispersal of the Jews in 133-36 AD, so the destruction of Jerusalem seemed most apocalyptic to him. OBVIOUSLY, JOSEPHUS WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE REVELATION!

quote: Perhaps Hank takes Rev 1:1,3 seriously.

And perhaps NOT, seeing as how it was written AFTER the events occurred which he describes as the Trib & the AC's appearance...also given the fact that JESUS told John that the trib and the AC were in the FUTURE.
Rev.4:1, NKJV- "After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this."

Talk is very cheap. Why don't you prove Revelation was written after AD70.

Easy.Irenaeus wrote, in against heresies"for if it were necessary that his(antichrist's) name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

The times of Domitian's reign are solidly established as having been from September, 81 AD to his assassination Sept. 18, 96. No serious scholar disputes those dates.

Irenaeus studied under Polycarp, who had studied under the Apostle John. His work, from which the above quote was taken, was finished about 120 AD. While Irenaeus was wrong about some theological matters, his simple narration of events has been found to be correct, and there's no valid reason to deny the accuracy of his statement regarding the Revelation. Irenaeus was closer to the writing of Revelation than we are to the writing of the Gettysburg Address, and long as this age lasts, no one will doubt the time of ITS writing.

Also, many of the early "Church Fathers'" writings indicate the later date.

However, I believe Jesus was referring to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, & Luke, but the Revelation is about many FUTURE events. None of the great plagues of Revelation has occurred yet, nor the cosmic disturbances prophesied by Jesus in Luke. And Jerusalem was soon rebuilt after its destruction by Titus. Hadrian, in 135 AD, exiled all jews from the city, and allowed the Philistines(Palestinians) to move in. After Hadrian's death, some Jews began to return to Jerusalem, but were only TOLERATED by the Romans and Palestinians, until early in the 4th century, when Jerusalem was established as a Christian site and the Jews allowed to legally live there.

Clearly, the events of Revelation and those in Daniel that haven't already occurred are for the future. Jerusalem is still trodden underfoot by gentiles although it's the capital of Israel. It is a holy site to Moslems, remember...and Israel has guaranteed religious freedom and the right of religious pilgrimmage to all Christians and Moslems, as well as to the various sub-groups of Judaism. Jerusalem does NOT truly and absolutely belong to the Jews...YET. But it WILL happen!


Then show me where Anti-christ is mentioned anywhere in the book of Revelation.

Simply read Rev.13-14.

And simply put current events together. Judah(Israel)is stronger now than ever before. They are gaining control of Jerusalem by degrees. The Palestinians could be taken out by the Jews any time now, as prophesied in Zechariah. But Israel's enemies are implacable. Knowing they cannot defeat her by direct military force, they seek to use the subversive method of terrorism, while Israel is just-as-inplacably determined to avenge each and every act of terrorism against her. I believe the AC will win worldwide acclaim by brokering what appears to be a solid peace between Israel and her enemies, and that will be the beginning of his path to worldwide rule.

In conclusion: Revelation is about the FUTURE. If it was written earlier than 70 AD, why didn't any of the other Apostles preach from it? Why didn't Josephus mention itif it already existed?

There are simply too many events yet to come written in the revelation, including JESUS' RETURN, which EVERYONE will see. Therefore, Hank's preterist view is wrong.

 

I admit I know little about Hank Hanegraff/Bible Man. An old friend thinks he is great. But I am just learning from this thread about some of his views on eschatology. I was told this weekend that Hank believes in Replacement Theology. Is this true? This would be enough for me to stay clear of his teaching.

What are the issues with LeHaye?

I am not too familiar with these guys.