Hinn is a liar? Really?

[brent]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EVxDuOj ... re=related

Get this. Jesus is walking around himself in the Muslim world:

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/benny-hinn-1.wav

We know this is true because he says so:

http://www.intotruth.org/sounds/anointing.wav

[executioner]

No he is not!!! His words were taken out of context.

[Jonathan]

That's Hinn-sterical.

[knotodiswrld]

The problem with referring to Benny Hinn as a "liar", of course, is that you must be able to prove that his statements are not only inaccurate, but that he knew them to be so when he made them.

As for his claim that a man was resurrected during a particular event at which he was preaching:

First note that Hinn did not claim to have resurrected the man himself. Second, can you prove that it did not happen? Do you not believe in the Power of God to resurrect the dead?

For those of you not Pentecostal, you must understand something. Those of us who are Pentecostal think it no more unlikely that a person might be resurrected today than it was in Biblical times.

Of course, even in Biblical times, such things were rare. How many dead people did Christ, or the Apostles, or E^2 (Elijah and Elisha) see in their lives? And yet, how many were resurrected? Only a tiny percentage. So one would expect this to be rare even today.

"Well, wouldn't we hear about those who are ressurerected?" you ask. Really? Do you really think that? NO!!! Every case would be dismissed as a hoax or a lie or explained away. "Well, he wasn't really dead, you see," the doctors would say. Only those who actually witness the event will know for certain that it happened. Everyone else will hear very confllicting stories.

Even folks who specialize in investigating this sort of thing can seldom sort through the conflicting stories. Take these these two stories reported on "truthorfiction.com". Even they can't sort it out.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/ ... hedead.htm

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/monk.htm

There are many credible reports of resurrections during the ministry of Smith Wigglesworth in the early part of the 20th century. The normal assumption of those who don't believe in such things will of course be, "Well, they must not have actually been dead." And thus, these events were reported (at least in a positive light) only in the Pentecostal publications of the day.

As for Hinn's claim that Yeshua is walking physically in the Muslim world ... well, I haven't been there and I haven't seen it. But can you prove he isn't ? Look, I'm not saying I believe it, but to call Hinn a liar (as I said before) you must prove that:

1. Yeshua is not, in fact, walking in the Muslim world.
2. Benny Hinn is aware of fact #1.

If you can only prove #1, then the most you can accuse Hinn of is being mistaken.

Now, one problem I have always had with Benny Hinn is that he takes the claims of others at face value. This has caused him difficulty in the past. When someone comes up during one of his crusades and says, "I've been healed," he takes them at their word. He admits that he has, on several occasions, been mislead. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes by someone who sincerely believed they had been healed.

But all that proves is that he isn't skeptical enough.

As for the third statement of his words being annointed, if you are preaching God's Word, your words had better be annointed. If you don't believe they are, then what on earth are you doing preaching?

And many preachers can attest that at times they are aware of their words being specially annointed, and knowing that God will use them to accomplish a task.

Now, I'm no great fan of Rev. Hinn. There's a good deal of his teaching with which I disagree; sometimes strongly. But disagreeing with someone's theology does not give you the right to call them a "liar".

[separateunion]

The problem with referring to Benny Hinn as a "liar", of course, is that you must be able to prove that his statements are not only inaccurate, but that he knew them to be so when he made them.

I was a dog in my past life. Until you prove my statement wrong, you cannot refer to me as a liar.

Sorry, but "it can't be proved untrue, therefore it must be true" is a fallacy. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the ones objecting to the claim.

For those of you not Pentecostal, you must understand something. Those of us who are Pentecostal think it no more unlikely that a person might be resurrected today than it was in Biblical times.

Which means...what? This proves nothing. People who are not Pentecostal for the most part know what Pentecostals believe. We just believe that either a) they are wrong or b) it can happen, but certain people claim it does when it really doesn't. We don't need to understand anything to believe that.

"Well, wouldn't we hear about those who are ressurerected?" you ask. Really? Do you really think that? NO!!! Every case would be dismissed as a hoax or a lie or explained away. "Well, he wasn't really dead, you see," the doctors would say. Only those who actually witness the event will know for certain that it happened. Everyone else will hear very confllicting stories.

With today's amazing technology, it would be very easy to prove scientifically and with a video camera and photograph's that resurrections and healings of the type Hinn and co. claim actually happened. Conveniently, none of this has ever come to light.

There are many credible reports of resurrections during the ministry of Smith Wigglesworth in the early part of the 20th century. The normal assumption of those who don't believe in such things will of course be, "Well, they must not have actually been dead." And thus, these events were reported (at least in a positive light) only in the Pentecostal publications of the day.

Which, again, doesn't make them true.

As for Hinn's claim that Yeshua is walking physically in the Muslim world ... well, I haven't been there and I haven't seen it. But can you prove he isn't ? Look, I'm not saying I believe it, but to call Hinn a liar (as I said before) you must prove that:

1. Yeshua is not, in fact, walking in the Muslim world.
2. Benny Hinn is aware of fact #1.

Ridiculous. Do you accept similar claims from people of other denominations or religions without any proof? You can't disprove that Joseph Smith had magic glasses and tablets given to him by an angel, therefore, you can't disagree with Mormonism.

If you can only prove #1, then the most you can accuse Hinn of is being mistaken.

You can be mistaken and a liar at the same time. Being ignorant and not fact checking is not excuse enough from being a liar. Why would he makes such claims without proof anyways?

As for the third statement of his words being annointed, if you are preaching God's Word, your words had better be annointed. If you don't believe they are, then what on earth are you doing preaching?

You're going to have to explain what you mean by anointed. I don't believe that every pastor or preacher is anointed, but then we may have different definitions.

And many preachers can attest that at times they are aware of their words being specially annointed, and knowing that God will use them to accomplish a task.

What is the difference between anointed and specially anointed? And God uses everyone for a specific task. Accepting that he is using you for task while not knowing what it is doesn't change anything.

But disagreeing with someone's theology does not give you the right to call them a "liar".

I can tell you from knowing Brent on these boards that he does not simply disagree with Hinn's theology, he believes that Hinn is a false prophet. That being so, he has every right and a Christian DUTY to call Hinn a liar.

[knotodiswrld]

I was a dog in my past life. Until you prove my statement wrong, you cannot refer to me as a liar.

You are correct. I cannot and will not refer to you as a “liarâ€

[separateunion]

Your post is pretty ridiculous, and I don't have time to dissect it right now, but I will say this:

lie
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

Notice the bold. An untrue statement does not have to be knowingly made in order for it to be a lie. Therefore, one who makes untrue statements, knowingly or unknowingly, is a liar. It may not be a premeditated lie, but it is still a lie. Killing someone is considered murder, whether there was intent/premeditation or not. We may say someone who KNOWINGLY lies is worse than someone who doesn't but they are both liars just the same.

[knotodiswrld]

Your post is pretty ridiculous,

You are now the one making a claim, i.e. the claim that my post is “pretty ridiculousâ€

[Edward]

First of all, there is no new revelation from God. Scripture is it. It is the measuring stick. All things spoken by men and angels are to be judged in the light of scripture. Benny adds to scripture religiously. Benny claims to hear messages from God that are not in character with the God of the bible.

Benny is no longer a pentacostal. He was removed from the AOG. He is a non-denom Word of Faither. He has been proven to be a trixter and a fraud time and time again. He has used confetti canons to shoot gold foil from the air and claim God was raining gold from heaven. He has consistantly staged his prayer line with actors. When did Jesus need deceit to inspire faith? This is exactly why the AOG disassociated from Benny. They have a letter of their decision on file. Ask for it.

It is certainly within the power of God to raise someone from the dead. But it is not the norm. God is always the same, but God has Not always done things the same way. He has not always revealed himself the same way. He has not always worked the same way with man. We see God saying that he is doing a NEW thing. We are in an age where God has his Holy Spirit on earth, not a physical incarnation, not an angel. Miracles are called Miracles because they are abnormal, unexplainable and for a purpose. We would surely have proof and eye witness accounts of a resurrection. No such statement by a man has been made. No proof has been given and verified.

Jesus said that he was going to prepare a place for us. He said that he was sending a comforter. Jesus was NOT returning to earth until HE SAID he would and HE did not know when that would be. Only the Father knows when Christ will return. So unless God removed the Hioly Spirit to allow Jesus to break his own word and come to a Benny Hinn meeting, it just didn't happen. IF it did, why hasn't Benny provided proof? He would be selling the helloutof it! People would be buying it. The debate about whether Jesus is real would be over. There would be no reason for faith. Prophecies would be inaccurate, etc, etc.

[knotodiswrld]

Now see, Edward. That's the kind of response that's required. Quite good, all of it.

Instead of shouting out accusations of "liar", you actually use facts, reason, and logic - all of which you explain clearly and carefully. Very nice. Seriously, that's the kind of thing that's constructive. That's how we have a productive conversation about a topic on which people have divergent views.

Yes, I remember when Benny Hinn first joined the AG ... and how very brief that partnership was.

As I said, I disagree with a good bit of what he teaches, some of it quite strongly.

The only points of disagreement I would have with your post:

1. Hin "adds" to the scriptures - I think he honestly believes his teachings and "revelations" to be in complete accordance with the Word Of God. I agree with you that they are not always in accordance, but I think in his interpretation of scriptures, they are. Thus, while you say he is "adding" to the Word, I would say he is merely dividing it incorrectly.

2. He has consistently staged his prayer line with actors - I'm not sure that's been proven. I know it has been alleged. I may be wrong however. Do you know of any source that documents this as proven? I'm not saying he does or does not do this. I'm merely wondering if there is documentation available.

3. He has been proven to be a trixter and a fraud - Again, I'm not sure it's been proven. I know many allege it, and even some former members his own organization. It gives me great pause that his ministry refused to join the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability). It is true his organization is under investigation, but this isn't the first time. It has survived previous investigations. I will say this is the first I've heard about golden confetti. That bears further investigation.

4. Jesus was NOT returning to earth until HE SAID - Well, He appeared to Paul. He appeared to John. So, appearing to people and returning to earth are not quite the same thing. So, if the story is that Christ has returned to Earth and is truly walking in physical form in the Muslim world, or Buenos Aires for that matter, I can see the problem. If the story is merely that He appears to someone now and again to point them to the truth ... that's a little harder to argue against.


Look, Hinn says some wacky things. That I'll grant you. His practices are questionable to say the least.

I've actually been to one of his crusades. I've also studied hypnosis, stage and otherwise. I saw some disturbing similarities. I don't know if this was deliberate on his part or not, but it is troubling nonetheless. I know of at least one couple that saw the same disturbing similarities and left the AG over it.

So, all I'm saying is that a charge of "lying" and a charge of "grave error" require two completely sets of documentation and evidence. If you charge Hinn with "grave error", I think you'll not have too much difficulty making your case ... though a clever (or desperate) defender might challenge your definition of "grave".

To accuse him of deliberate deception ... all I'm asking is whether the evidence of that can be shown. Perhaps it can. It's quite possible. So if anyone knows of any, it would be good to post it.

[epdc]

Let´s forget about the dictionary, no one cares what the dictionary says, we only care about our daily language, what we use everyday.

If I say "Silvester Stallone died today" and you say "you are a liar elo", what does that mean? that you imply that I invented that and I´m saying it even though I know it´s not true.

If you say "elo, you are mistaken" then it means that I didn´t know the truth and just said what I thought was the truth, my intention was never to lie to you, I told you what I thought it was true.

The only way someone can lie is by knowing the truth first and change it and say people that what you say is real even though you know it´s not.

If I share my information and I believe is real (even though it might not be but I don´t know that), then I´m not lying, I´m mistaken.

About resurrecting people, I read a book about a missionare in Asia that talks about that, it is a real thing to resurrect people, it happens, thinking that resurrecting people is a new testament thing only is wrong, God still does miracles today.

If benny would record every single miracle he does, I would doubt of him, it would make me think "what if he has already planned all this?" so anyway we see it, we would think wrong of Benny.

That´s my only comment about the frauds Benny has done or his statements, as we would say in Mexico "that is flour of another sack", I´m just talking about the whole lying and mistaken thing and the death resurrection

[Edward]

A great article:

http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_outs/b ... prophecies

[knotodiswrld]

The article is very interesting. I have only one complaint about it.

The author states that Hinn made certain statements on certain dates. However, he offers no documation that Hinn made those statements. He has no clips, and cites no sources he can document. He just makes the statement and expects his reader to believe it based on his word.

How do I know the author is telling the truth? Perhaps he himself has been misled? How is is reader to know?

I do not know if Hinn made the alleged statements or not. But I am not the one claiming he did (or did not) make the statements. Such claims, when made, must be accompanied by documentation.

The claims may be absolutely true. That's not enough. They must be documented. The author should link to clips of the show, or quote sources which can back up the statement. He can't just say, "Hinn said such-and-such" and leave it at that.

I could write another article saying that Hinn never said such things. If neither of us posts documenation, how would anyone know which of us is right?

It seems to me that humans in general are far too eager to believe allegations made against others without proof. The extreme consequence of this in the legal world is shown by the work of The Innocence Project (click for link). This group of die-hard activists has so far managed to exhonerate 245 prisoners who had been previously convicted and incarcerated for serious felonies. Most of the cases involved murder and/or rape.

We are talking about 245 people that the Innocence Project has thus far managed to PROVE were wrongly convicted. How many more people are in prison because humans too readily believe any allegation made against another?

The church is often guilty of the same crime. We far too easily believe allegations made against another without proof.

I don't know if Hinn really said the things alleged by the article or not. But I'm not going to believe that he did until someone provides some actual evidience and not just a well-written article.

[Jonathan]

I don't know if Jesus really said the things alleged by the Bible or not. But I'm not going to believe that he did until someone provides some actual evidence and not just a well-written Bible.

[knotodiswrld]

I don't know if Jesus really said the things alleged by the Bible or not. But I'm not going to believe that he did until someone provides some actual evidence and not just a well-written Bible.

Good for you. You shouldn't believe those things without some evidence.

However, I know those to be His words. I am certain of it. I realize you have no reason to believe me, and for that I am truly sorry. However, if you wish to consider eye -- or ear -- witness testimony, I will assure you that they are, in fact, His Words.

How do I know, ask ye? Simple. I recognize His voice. See below.

27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

Now, I know you were just trying to make a point, but the example you give doesn't really apply.

First, you have the evidence you need ... the Witness of The Spirity Within You ... that those are, in fact, His Words. If someone does not have that evidence then, frankly, there's not much more we can do.

Second, we are talking specifically about accusations brought against another person, not about information in general. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing only applies specifically to accusations levelled against someone.

Accusations and allegations of wrong-doing against someone have a much higher standard of evidence than every-day conversation.