The Great Debate: Mark Hitchcock (95AD) vs. Hank Hanegraaff (65AD)

[dudsbalboa]

My 16 y/o son said it best. A preterist is afraid their Christianity will be destroyed when the prophecy doesn't come true. So it's safer to deny and worst case scenario, they get raptured.

[truthseeker9261]

Maybe Preterism is growing because of too many false flag predictions in my lifetime,

and False Dispensionalist Books like: ''88 Reasons For The Rapture in 1988",

''1980's Countdown To Armageddon, 1980's Decade Of Shock...etc etc.etc.

The Future's uncertain but the End is always near I guess.

[stevehauk]

THIS GUY UPHOLDS HIS VIEW WITH TRADITION AND EARLY CHURCH FATHERS--NOT THE BIBLE. THAT SHOULD TELL US SOMETHING!

[TheDogfight55]

@stevehauk To refer to church fathers is bad how? Men who lived centuries ago...which don't contradict scripture either....wow!

[stevehauk]

@TheDogfight55 They don't contradict scripture?! That's where you're sadly mistaken. Dispensational futurism contradicts scripture.

[TheDogfight55]

@stevehauk Not sure where to begin but I strongly and respectfully disagree.

[stevehauk]

@TheDogfight55 They (Hitchcock and Hanagraaff) are both wrong, that's where much of the problems lie. Preterism was a beginning for me, not an end all. The way I see it everything (including the "thousand years") was fulfilled except the Gog Magog war described in Rev 20 and the Great White Throne Judgment which is coming soon. Did you know we were in the Gog and Magog invasion now?

[coper11]

Though the Jewish, Mosaic, Old Covenant, age ended in AD 70, all people, including Jews, are welcome in this New Covenant age. All must come in through the Door, the Way, Jesus the Christ. Obviously, not antisemitic.

[2274brian]

@SoloFlyer55 There are many Orthodox Jews who are extremely anti-Israel, so anti-Israel and anti-Semitic are hardly synonymous. There are many who claim that the writers of the gospels as well as Paul were anti-semitic too.

[thomasyocklin]

Dispensationalist is a pessimistic theology. Christians everywhere have stuck their head in the sand awaiting the "Rapture". Dispensationalism itself is a novel theology. First developed in the 19th century, this doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. But leads one to ponder what did the church believe for nearly 1900 years? The fact of the matter is that only American Evangelicals are Dispensationalist.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin Well aren't you living up to your name here "doubting thomas"...lol!

[thomasyocklin]

If Mr. Hitchcock is placing all his eggs in the basket of Irenaeus then he has no argument. After all Irenaeus also said that Jesus lived to be about 50 years old. Hummmm.......Maybe he is not quite a credible source?The strongest evidence that the Book of revelation was written prior to AD95 is the lack of commentary by John on the destruction of the Temple in AD70.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin I didn't hear him put all his eggs in the Irenaeus basket but many others..so how did you get that?

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 He opens using the writtings of Irenaeus. I presume becaue he feels this is the most powerful argument. Everything eles he uses is scripture taken out of context. Much can be said about the dispensational view. Mainly it convinces people they will get a second chance after the rapture. This is a dangerous theology. When Jesus returns Thats It! The end of time, then the resurrection.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin As a Pre=trib person myself let me correct your inaccurate view that I'm trying to convince people you will get another shot if you miss the first time so it's no big deal..you jumped from Irenaeus to scripture out of context. What of his other sources as well which are all documented. I don't know what is a more dangerous doctrine, Jesus and the readiness of his bride in the rapture or God pouring his wrath on his own people...you tell me?

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 Irenaeus, argues that John or the Revelation was "seen" during the reign of Domitian is pivotal for the futurist position. The appeal to external evidence is weighted heavily since there is almost no support for a late date using internal evidence (using Revelation itself).

[thomasyocklin]

The time text in Rev of "near," "shortly," and "quickly" are indicative of a pre-A.D. 70 composition date. After nearly 2 millennia with no fulfillment this is hardly a literal interpretation of Rev's opening statemnt to John's first readers that "the time is near" (Rev. 1:3). Events "must shortly take place" (1:1) turns the Bible on its head when the described prophetic events are still in our future, a long time from when John rec'd, wrote, and distro'd Rev. to the 7 churches in Asia M inor.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin lol.. here is your problem with "near", "short", quickly (oops forgot the " marks), Rev1:1 contains the word "shortly" BUT so does Rev. 22:6...so where is the New Jerusalem, why is there still a sun / moon, etc. which Rev. 21 speaks of? How can you use shortly in Rev. 1 to mean 70 AD and re-interpet it in Rev. 22 to mean something else? Or do you believe this is the new heaven / earth?

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 Revelation 22 is a summary. I am surprised you failed to discern this.

No one believes all of revelation is fulfilled. We still are looking forward to the glorious return of our Lord, when there will be an end to pain and suffering and sin forever. We are not looking forward to 1000 years of a semi-golden age where there is renewed temple sacrifice, and sin still exist. This is a misreading of scripture. And is a blasphemy that trample on the words of our Lord.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin Blasphemy? Typical! Your the one that uses the word shortly so which shortly is it? So where is the dividing line for you on shortly? which chapter in Revelation ends @ 70 AD and then brings us into the permanent kingdom of Christ. To say someone has blasphemed and trampled the words of Christ becomes very close to you becoming a heretic and thus will end the discussion sir.

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 PLEASE! Give me a break with the attitude. It is a blasphemy to say there will be renewed temple sacrifice during a 1000 year reign of Christ. Why would we need to scrifice when Christ is the fulfillment of the Sacrifice. This is where Dispensationalism goes off the rails. Problem is that most don't realize what they are saying when they say this. Study the scripture! Read the NT the way it is intended to be read, that is in light of the OT. That is how you interpret

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin so according to scripture we are really only about 2 days removed from John's revelation....I would call that "shortly" which would also make Rev. 22:6 contextually sound thought as well but not with the way you use the word...lol!

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 I know your just joking, So I will not respond to the obvious scriptural error.

Let’s find common ground. Let’s agree that the blessed hope is the physical return of Christ in his second Advent. And the physical resurrection of all, John 28.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin Where is the "scriptual error"? I am joking by saying the 2 days thing but I'm certainly not going to joke about God not being reserved to my interpetation of shortly, etc.......common ground thing isn't bad thing..so I'll get back with you shortly...lol!

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin Are you using Irenaeus as a reliable source then? "Almost" no support isn't "No" support. :)

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 My statement says that support for Irenaeus is pivital for the "FUTURIST" positon, not mine. The reason being is that they can not find support using for a late date using Revelation. Using Irenaues as evidence is problematic to say the least. The silence on this issue speaks volumns for an early date.

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 The time text in revelation of "near," "shortly," and "quickly" are indicative of a pre-A.D. 70 composition date. Nearly 2 millennia with no fulfillment insights is hardly a literal interpretation of Revelation's opening statement to John's first readers that "the time is near" (Rev. 1:3). Events "must shortly take place" (1:1) turns the Bible on its head when the described a prophetic events are still in our future, distantly long from the time in John received, wrote Revelation.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin John did believe it was very near as did all of the apostles....Jesus said Luke 12:40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not...well in context a good watchman even at the 2nd or 3rd watch will be ready. Quickly in Rev.22 can also be translated "sudden" which goes with the previous scripture. As to "time" 2Pe 3:8 "be not ignorant" of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 You are using 2 Peter as a pretext to fit your world view. It does not mean what you intend it to mean. It is one of the most misused verses in the NT. What we find here is a reference to Psa. 90 regarded as a communal lament by Moses after the 40-year period of wandering in the desert, the great lawgiver, intercessor, and advocate of God’s people reflected on the brevity of human existence.

especially against the backdrop of Yahweh’s eternality.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin I'm not using it to fit my world view and stop trying to be the smartest person in the room like your "the Bible wanna be answer dude". No arguement on Ps.90 nor Is.43:13 which you forgot. The POINT I was making is that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ who is before the day ever was. So you disagree that a day with the Lord isn't nor couldn't "as a" thousand years?

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 Scripture always interprets Scripture. The Lord employs symbols in almost every sentence of the revelation. But He did not create them ex nihilo; these symbols are consistent with the Old Testament and Jewish apocalyptic literature. When this is not possible John explains the meaning(Rev 1:20). If a day is 1000 years, then Rev 11:3 = 1,260,000 years. This is bad exegesis.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin So to God a day is what? And as far as God creating something from nothing..well...he's done it before. We will not agree on theology if we disagree on the date of the writing of Revelation. Agree to disagree!

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 2 Peter 3:8 is meant to convey the nature of God as different from men. Time and Eternity are two quite different entities, and since God is eternal and man finite, they look at time in different ways. The quote is from Psalm 90:4 where man is pictured as "numbering his days" while God is "from everlasting to everlasting." In eternity there is no time. Your theology is ok; your eschatology is not, lol...Scripture interprets Scripture, the key to Revelation is the other 65 books.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin How is my eschatology wrong? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong :). My interpetation of Psalms 90 as in Is. 43 is that God is timeless. Surely you don't suppose I'm NOT using the 65 other books of the Bible? 

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 You are correct, God is timeless. But that is not the context you used in 2 Pet 8 above. Your context was that a day was "Literally” a 1000 years. Unless I incorrectly interpreted what you said. If so, I apologize. Sound hermeneutics uses Scripture to interpret Scripture. All credible Biblical Scholars agree on this. If you do this then Revelation and Matthew 23, 24 becomes very clear.

[TheDogfight55]

@thomasyocklin In fact I just eluded to the notion that John and in fact all the discip-les believed Jesus return was near to them, they had too. My 2 days comment was a joke however it didn't negate that in God time it wasn't very far away...

[thomasyocklin]

@TheDogfight55 

[coper11]

Preterism is not antisemitic. To say the Old Covenant age ended in AD70, and along with it the distinction between Jew and Gentile, is not antisemitic. There is only one way to God and that's through His Son. All, Jew or Gentile, are welcome in this New Covenant age.

[Dominick7]

Wow THIS is the winning side of the debate? I have yet to see this debate and have very much wanted to for a while, but this is really sad..psychologically interesting, but VERY weak reasoning. Funny observation as far as to what I see on this debate on youtube seems to be more so of a rah rah team one sided approach that comes off like a defensive measure as to save face and put salve on ones ego. Also interesting is how John Ankerberg did the same exact thing, like a knee jerk reaction to it.

[freetruth80]

Thank me for what? I said its the ONLY argument that has any weight. I'm postmillennial, like the majority of believers since the beginning.

[freetruth80]

They say that just because some "famous" Christians are dispensationalists that it doesn't mean its true, yet that is the only argument I have heard so far that has any weight to it.

[freetruth80]

Get the dates right on the discription, hanegraaff argues an early date not a late date

[BereanBeacon1]

@freetruth80 Thank you.

[onnarrowpath]

This discussion hits the problem on the head right away the host says, "If Revelation was written in 95AD, then how can we know what is going on today?" That's the real deal, You can't use Revelations to decifer the News paper headlines. The real question is if Revelations was written 25 years after the Temple at Isreal was destroyed why wouldn't John have mentioned it even once. I beg anyone listening to buy Hank's book and not Mark's if you want to know the truth.

[mamaschristmasbunny]

I agree with Hitchcock. Though my studies have never taken me to even go on about Revelation. I just assumed 95 AD was not even a debatable issue at all there. Walter Martin believed; or someone like Calvin Beisner most likely is of the 95 AD mindset. When Mark starts talking about Israel and Jerusalem being reinstated; that is where Mark argues from silence. I take Hanks side on that argument. I have studied thoroughly in that area. Hank is wrong on his 65 AD.

"Mark, debate is not a sport."

[mamaschristmasbunny]

I like Hank Hanegraff. But since Walter Martin past away 20 years ago, the Bible answer man has not been the same. Walter Martin would not have had let Mark Hitchcock go away talking like the debate was some sort of school yard spit competition. Debates are to be to retrieve and exchange facts. In my opinion Walter Martin would have waxed Hitchcock; or how about getting Calvin Beisner debating.

Professor Beisner is a great debater. Hank is not. I have not heard that particular debate.



[krisv001]

Excellent video !!

[ChristiansofAsia]

Hank Hanegraaff is a pro-Roman Catholic "Christian" apologist.

[onnarrowpath]

@ChristiansofAsia ...no idea where that comes from Hank is not Pro-roman catholic, He is always pro-anyone who believes in Christ's atoning work on the Cross and never pro-self work or good enough.

[ChristiansofAsia]

@onnarrowpath I used to subscribe to CRI's magazine until they start attacking Dave Hunt 's book "The Woman Rides The Beast" and also the classic "ROMAN CATHOLICISM" By Lorraine Boettner. These books expose the Catholic church for what it truly is but CRI is very soft on Roman Catholicism. To them the Roman Catholic church is another Christian church with some doctrinal errors. In CRI's Forward (Vol. 4, No. 2), CRI contends that "God is still at work within" Roman Catholicism. (Rev 17 &18)

[onnarrowpath]

@ChristiansofAsia I can see where U say he attacked these books that expose the catholics error would make U think he is soft on it. I think if U contacted CRI, they could clear up that issue for U. Hank likes to point out all error, even in Christian ministries if they are using the wrong arguments. I don't agree with everything Hank says, but I have to give CRI credit for what I now know as truth. God is still at work everywhere, U could apply the parable of the wheat and tares here.

[jhweh2007]

THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS