Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

P_Bear141

Pray For America And Israel?

Recommended Posts



And lastly, they are 7 Jewish TRIBULATION churches. All through chapters 2 and 3 are repeated reference to Jewish relics and Jewish stories (balaam and Balak 2:13-14, Jezebel 2:20) references to the synagogues (2:9) the Christian Jews trying those who say they are Jews and are not (2:2, 3:9) which is something no Gentile would be concerned about, and the focus is back on the Jew during the tribulation because there are no Gentile Christians around after the rapture.Prove THAT from scripture.

My view is not allegorical, but figurative, i.e. a signified view, Rev. 1.1.

But further evidence is that in Revelation 2:10, it states that the DEVIL will cast some of them into prison. This shows Satan's personal involvement in the persecution of believers during the tribulation and he is also responsible for leading the attacks on the world during the tribulation (Rev 9:1-4, and v. 11). The devil's personal involvement has not occured on a scale such as described in Revelation anytime throughout history which shows that all of the prophecies of Revelation from chapter 1 through 22 are yet future.

I beg to differ on that. Satan has been involved in every persecution and tribulation of the church. The RCC is satanic and Satan has been the prime mover of every papal war of extermination on Christ's witnesses. (As he also was in the persecutions of the Jews)

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.


II have a picture before me of a painting done by Peter Ruckman of a King James Bible pointing to the rapture of the church. So since pictures prove the validity of doctrine and history according to your logic of the Waldensian photo, then my picture of the rapture proves that preterism is a farse. (farce)

But Ruckman is a false teacher. The Waldensians were true witnesses to Christ, so your example is a farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I believe in a 7 year tribulation preceded by the rapture of the church. I will save that for another thread sometime because it's been discussed on here at length in other places. I use quite a few different texts than the standard I Thess 4:13-17, I Cor 15:51-58, Rev 4:1. I am writing a book in it that will include the Biblical position for it as well as a refutation of mid tribulation theory, dominionist theology and full and partial preterism.
Regarding the 1590 removal of the 70th week, that was removed long before Fransisco removed it in the bogus Hexapla by Eusibius. But, Roman Catholic "futurism" is extremely different from that of those who hold to a future rapture, 7 year tribulation followed by a one thousand year reign of Christ with his saints on earth of which Catholics believe none of. There were numerous early church leaders (whom historians call "fathers") who taught a pre tribulation rapture concept, they just didn't call it "rapture", but they didn't call the Jesus, Father and Holy Spirit the Trinity either.
Regarding Cory Ten Booms 1974 letter, she wrote quite a few letters about her experiences in concentration camps, but assuming you are talking about the letter she wrote about the rapture, from what I remember it wasn't too far off. I'd have to dig up my biography books and find it.


The so called fathers taught no such thing. They taught that after the Roman Emperor and Empire were removed the Antichrist would come (They thought it would be a personal Antichrist, but they did not see the centuries of antichristian tribulation) after which thay said would be the end of all things. Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see a Jewish church or Buddha or Hindu or Catholic as being Christian. I am Baptist: Baptist were first called Christians at Antioch ;-D

What seemingly is apparent from my understanding is; Roman invasion 66AD, then pull-back and the Christians depart as they believed the words of Jesus and then Jesus' prophesy was fulfilled with the destruction of the temple. The Jewish rebels destroyed the records and most of the 'pockets' of hold-outs were killed. In addition the best of my knowledge is that Jerusalem [Jeru (against) Salem (peace)] was mostly Christian albeit Jews by 70AD. The population was estimated at ~70,000 souls and over half as Christians. This would mean the departure of Christians would leave behind ~30,000. After the Roman slaughter only a hand-full were left. There are few scholarly books on the Jewish population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks; interesting. 450BC........ do you have some papers or a link on this? At 450BC it appears that would put Jesus' baptism at 33AD. Or; enlighten me. Thanks; it is interesting.

That wouldn't put Jesus baptism at 33 AD, that would be 483 years from 450 BC which means he was "cut off" in AD 33. Those that post His birth with an BC 4 date, date the decree at 454 BC (semantics). And as far as links, there are numerous links for that. I have several books on the subject so I'd have to do a search and see if I can pull some links if the same authors have what I have on the net somewhere. Edited by DrJamesA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see a Jewish church or Buddha or Hindu or Catholic as being Christian. I am Baptist: Baptist were first called Christians at Antioch ;-D

What seemingly is apparent from my understanding is; Roman invasion 66AD, then pull-back and the Christians depart as they believed the words of Jesus and then Jesus' prophesy was fulfilled with the destruction of the temple. The Jewish rebels destroyed the records and most of the 'pockets' of hold-outs were killed. In addition the best of my knowledge is that Jerusalem [Jeru (against) Salem (peace)] was mostly Christian albeit Jews by 70AD. The population was estimated at ~70,000 souls and over half as Christians. This would mean the departure of Christians would leave behind ~30,000. After the Roman slaughter only a hand-full were left. There are few scholarly books on the Jewish population.

That subject is being debated on several different threads at the moment, one is the America thread where there are opinions from preterists Invicta (who shares the exact same beliefs as all preterists but refuses to call it preterism)and Covanenter and those refuting preterism. It's a pretty exhaustive list of arguments on both sides Edited by DrJamesA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your time and effort appreciated. Here is what I've found; Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren
1 John 3:16 (KJV)

I am in an IFB church that has a complete school thru 12th grade, several ministries to the poor and down-trodden. I have run with BR Lakin some in my past and held with Roloff and such like minded Christians and yes Falwell was in the circle. Enjoyed face-to-face with RG Lee and a very dear friend (recently deceased) Walter StClair (Walter started 25 churches as a missionary outside the USA and preached in the leper colonies). And in all this, it is difficult to find almost anyone that share the same views on a number of issues. Oh; they may share the same fundamentals on salvation and do. But on other issues; it's like JR Rice, RG Lee and J Vernon McGee........... choose to disagree and keep love and fellowship.

My view is the KJV is the Word of God by the Holy Ghost. It is without error. All down through the ages God has kept and preserved His Word. The KJV is a version and not a translation like the NIV or NASB. The KJV is not the only version as God used Latin, Hebrew, Greek, etc... to put His word in the hands of man. To futher enhance this: since the Bible is God breathed it is the HOLY Word of God via the Holy Ghost so it is the Holy Ghost speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


And lastly, they are 7 Jewish TRIBULATION churches. All through chapters 2 and 3 are repeated reference to Jewish relics and Jewish stories (balaam and Balak 2:13-14, Jezebel 2:20) references to the synagogues (2:9) the Christian Jews trying those who say they are Jews and are not (2:2, 3:9) which is something no Gentile would be concerned about, and the focus is back on the Jew during the tribulation because there are no Gentile Christians around after the rapture.Prove THAT from scripture.

My view is not allegorical, but figurative, i.e. a signified view, Rev. 1.1sThat subject is covered under several other threads so I'm not going to start one about it here. Your preterist position has been stated on the Antichrist and Israel thread so no need to spread out the same arguments on several different threads

But further evidence is that in Revelation 2:10, it states that the DEVIL will cast some of them into prison. This shows Satan's personal involvement in the persecution of believers during the tribulation and he is also responsible for leading the attacks on the world during the tribulation (Rev 9:1-4, and v. 11). The devil's personal involvement has not occured on a scale such as described in Revelation anytime throughout history which shows that all of the prophecies of Revelation from chapter 1 through 22 are yet future.

I beg to differ on that. Satan has been involved in every persecution and tribulation of the church. The RCC is satanic and Satan has been the prime mover of every papal war of extermination on Christ's witnesses. (As he also was in the persecutions of the Jews)Satan may have been involved indirectly, but Rev 2:10 makes it clear that he will be in person directing the events and ordering the imprisonment and deaths of believers during the tribulation. And right now, the RCC isn't the largets murderer of Christians, Islam is, so if we are to use your logic that the majority rules (i.e., those who kill the most Christians is where the antichrist is) then the Muslims win it. The very first murder in the Bible says nothing of satanic control so not every murder or mass of murders can be attributed to the devil, sometimes (and often times) it's the flesh. But again, Rev 2:10 and Rev 9 show the devils personal involvement in killing believers.

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me That is a statement that was made about actions toward Christ, not the devil. Christ has different standards of how works are attributed and I think it's pretty dangerous ground to use Jesus words to prove that the devil gets the same kind of credit.


II have a picture before me of a painting done by Peter Ruckman of a King James Bible pointing to the rapture of the church. So since pictures prove the validity of doctrine and history according to your logic of the Waldensian photo, then my picture of the rapture proves that preterism is a farse. (farce)You also missed the double "I" at the beginning of the sentence.

But Ruckman is a false teacher. The Waldensians were true witnesses to Christ, so your example is a farce. So because you claim that the Waldensians were true witnesses that means that their pictures are inspired? Then you should also accept the Waldensians position on the pre-tribulation rapture! (Read up on the Waldensian Baptist William Farrell) Edited by DrJamesA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your time and effort appreciated. Here is what I've found; Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren
1 John 3:16 (KJV)

I am in an IFB church that has a complete school thru 12th grade, several ministries to the poor and down-trodden. I have run with BR Lakin some in my past and held with Roloff and such like minded Christians and yes Falwell was in the circle. Enjoyed face-to-face with RG Lee and a very dear friend (recently deceased) Walter StClair (Walter started 25 churches as a missionary outside the USA and preached in the leper colonies). And in all this, it is difficult to find almost anyone that share the same views on a number of issues. Oh; they may share the same fundamentals on salvation and do. But on other issues; it's like JR Rice, RG Lee and J Vernon McGee........... choose to disagree and keep love and fellowship.

My view is the KJV is the Word of God by the Holy Ghost. It is without error. All down through the ages God has kept and preserved His Word. The KJV is a version and not a translation like the NIV or NASB. The KJV is not the only version as God used Latin, Hebrew, Greek, etc... to put His word in the hands of man. To futher enhance this: since the Bible is God breathed it is the HOLY Word of God via the Holy Ghost so it is the Holy Ghost speaking.

The first half of that statement is a very good assessment. Just one note on the KJV though although I don't want to create another topic. The KJV is a translation, the fact that it is in English when the "originals" were Hebrew and Greek shows that. That doesn't mean, however , it is not inspired, it is. Some call it heresy to claim that a translation is inspired but I think it's erroneous to claim they are not because if the Bible was merely "given" by inspiration, that means it can't be "kept" by inspiration anymore than our salvation once God begins the work in us and since the Bible is clear that God preserves His word (Ps 12:6-7), I see no reason to water down the argument that a translation can not be inspired. All of the writings that were used by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were translations. If a translation can not be inspired, then none of the 4 gospels are inspired. Everytime Matthew, Mark, Luke or John quoted the OT and wrote the quote in Greek, you have a translation. When Matthew wrote of John the Baptist in Matt ch 3, he was quoting Isaiah chapter 40 from a HEBREW text, and translating it into GREEK.
Not only did the NT gospels contain several translations, they were also based on copies. The material they wrote on didn't last that long and the manuscripts were repeatedly copied over and over. So when Jesus opened up the Scripture in the temple and quoted Isaiah 63, He was quoting from a COPY of the original. Much of Jeremiah was destroyed by King Johoiakim in Jer ch 36 and the entire book had to be re written. So if the word of God is contained ONLY in the original manuscripts, then the entire book of Jeremiah isn't inspired, nor were their translations when the scribes had to keep up with the dialects of the times when recopying the texts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so called fathers taught no such thing. They taught that after the Roman Emperor and Empire were removed the Antichrist would come (They thought it would be a personal Antichrist, but they did not see the centuries of antichristian tribulation) after which thay said would be the end of all things.

Clement of Rome would disagree, as would Hippolytus (AD 170-236) who believed and wrote in his commentary on Daniel that the antichrist would persecute the world for 3 1/2 years of which he called the latter half of the tribulation and that the believers at that time would flee to the wilderness. Although this a failure to understand the "mystery" that Paul referred to in I Corinthians 15, it still shows that those as far back as AD 90, AD 170 taught that Revelation and Matthew 24 were still future and at that time, Rome was only considered to be a political tyrant, not a religious one as well , and of course the Roman Catholic Church had not yet been established so there was no pope to call antichrist.
Clement used the example of Noah and Lot to show that the believers would be protected from the tribulation and this was written in 96 AD. And don't let the name "Clement of Rome" fool you, Paul was a Roman citizen but that doesn't mean he was part of the Roman system, and neither was Clement, they killed him for what he taughtr
There are several other examples including those you claim were righteous (the Waldensians) that taught a pretribulation rapture (William Farel in the 1500s, long before John Darby)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one translates English to German and the German is the same as the English; it is a version. If the German says something differently, it is a translation. And so it is with scripture: the KJV is a version whereas the NIV and NASB are translations and source back to false texts Codex A & B.

Clement of Alexandria (200 AD)

Clement was a disciple of Tatian
Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.
He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.
He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.
Origen (184-254 AD)
Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.
He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.
Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).
Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).
Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).
Eusebius (260-340 AD)

He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.
Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).
These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.
Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5). He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Jerome (340-420 AD)

Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.
Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.
The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.
Tischendorf (1869 AD)

He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.
What makes some for good old fashion horse sense: How about learning to read one book that has been established for hundreds of years and has been accepted by Christians and those martyred for Christ Jesus.

Works for me; but, furthermore – what about reference books. Strong’s exhaustive concordance………. Are exhaustive concordances to be writing for all modern versions? YOU CAN SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING. Make it more difficult for the people to study and thereby bring in difficulty of researching and study. There is no way to have exhaustive materials for all the modern translations.
Now you’re another step away from God’s word.

Edited by SamuelP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one translates English to German and the German is the same as the English; it is a version. If the German says something differently, it is a translation. And so it is with scripture: the KJV is a version whereas the NIV and NASB are translations and source back to false texts Codex A & B.

Clement of Alexandria (200 AD)

Clement was a disciple of Tatian
Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.
He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.
He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.
Origen (184-254 AD)
Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.
He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.
Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).
Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).
Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).
Eusebius (260-340 AD)

He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.
Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).
These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.
Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5). He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Jerome (340-420 AD)

Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.
Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.
The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.
Tischendorf (1869 AD)

He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.
What makes some for good old fashion horse sense: How about learning to read one book that has been established for hundreds of years and has been accepted by Christians and those martyred for Christ Jesus.

Works for me; but, furthermore – what about reference books. Strong’s exhaustive concordance………. Are exhaustive concordances to be writing for all modern versions? YOU CAN SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING. Make it more difficult for the people to study and thereby bring in difficulty of researching and study. There is no way to have exhaustive materials for all the modern translations.
Now you’re another step away from God’s word.

I agree with virtually all of the above. The only thing, which is pretty minor, is the issue of version or translation, and to show the KJV is a translation is pretty simple, there are some Greek words that there are no equivalent for in English. A version would merely copy the text of another source, to provide accuracy, you have to translate to what best portrays the thought of the text to the one you are translating it to and that is where the inspiration is provided. Even the KJ workers themselves called their own work a translation in the preface. Perhaps this will clear up the matter of definition, it is BOTH. It is a translation in that is translated Greek and Hebrew mss to English and a version in that it used previous English Bibles to compare and revise.
I personally would burn every other translation in existance based on Hexapla/LXX "Septuagant" (no such thing, Origens forgery) and both popular Codex. The advent of the plethora of "Bible" versions is even an obvious black eye to believers that even atheists notice it. When they put out their signs against Romney, their sign read "Christianity: 30 thousand versions of truth", and sad thing is they are right. The scholarship onlyism motto is so the Roman church and all its progeny can maintain control over Bible students by convincing them you can't understand the Bible without a "learned scholar" (John 7:15) just the same way in RCC history you were not permitted to read the Bible without the aid of its clergy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that we are mostly on the same page. However at the time of 1611 the ability of the understanding and reading of Konine Greek hadn't been lost yet. But, now , no one in the last 300 yrs has been able to read Konine Greek............. It is possible that I can be wrong; but, this is my understanding.

I will say that Covenanter and Invicta are two whom I believe are good Christians and have the part about God's salvation correct. Are there two on this whole forum that see all eye-to-eye ? Regardless, we can talk without bitterness or anger. We are to help one another. I know if I have something wrong, I'd like to have a better understanding. I shall stand before God one day as I do now for it is with fear and trembling that He hearth me and I am aware that He is here as I write. I can make a mistake but not willingly or knowingly. I have to do my best before a living God Almighty.

I believe the scripture; all are in harmony and there is not error. Not one verse is in contradiction with another. Having said that; look at this........................
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Dan 9:24 (KJV) 1.) 70 weeks are determined.... 2.) and to seal up the vision and prophesy and anoint the most Holy. It appears to me that the full 70 weeks are utilized to and end the vision (not 69) and it is all about Christ Jesus; not Lucifer at the end-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clement of Rome would disagree, as would Hippolytus(AD 170-236) who believed and wrote in his commentary on Daniel that the antichrist would persecute the world for 3 1/2 years of which he called the latter half of the tribulation and that the believers at that time would flee to the wilderness. Thanks for the informatio. Please can you give a reference as to where I may find it in his writings, so I can look it up? Although this a failure to understand the "mystery" that Paul referred to in I Corinthians 15, it still shows that those as far back as AD 90, AD 170 taught that Revelation and Matthew 24 were still future and at that time, Yes, of course it was a mystery, as the papacy was a mystery till it arose and even then, many, not all, of the church did not recognise it. Rome was only considered to be a political tyrant, not a religious one as well , and of course the Roman Catholic Church had not yet been established so there was no pope to call antichrist.
Clement used the example of Noah and Lot to show that the believers would be protected from the tribulation and this was written in 96 AD. Thanks again, I have Clement in hardback so again if you can say where he wrote that, I will look it up. And don't let the name "Clement of Rome" fool you, Paul was a Roman citizen but that doesn't mean he was part of the Roman system, and neither was Clement, they killed him for what he taughtr
There are several other examples including those you claim were righteous (the Waldensians) that taught a pretribulation rapture (William Farel in the 1500s, long before John Darby) Again,Reference, please.


The compiler of my book with Clement, Justin Martyr etc., says that one thing marks all their writings, that although the apostles were writing scripture, and were therefore infalible, those who followed including those immediately after, were not, and made many mistakes. But, and I reapeat this, But, they are all we have to know what the early church believed, and while you may be correct, I wish to see it in their wrirings, then I accept that is what they taught. Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK James., I have glanced through Clement and I cannot find any reference to Noah. He does mention Caine and Abel, Jacob and Joseph, Moses and Pharoah, Aaron and Miriam, Dathan and Abiram, David and Saul, but then goes on to say, Cap 5, But not to dwell on ancient examples, let us come to those who in these last days have wrestled manfully for the faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam, Covenenter and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of prophecy, on some we do.

We met in London for a cup of tea once, and I would welcome any of you tou join us if you eever come to that great city,

I did see him on TV once, speaking about diabetes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James, I have googled William Farrell, and have not found any that fit your description, do you mean

William Farel (1489, Gap, Hautes-Alpes – 13 September 1565), Guilhem Farel, 1489 in Gap, Dauphiné, in south-eastern France, was a French evangelist, and a founder of the Reformed Church in the cantons of Neuchâtel, Berne, Geneva, and Vaud in Switzerland. He is most often remembered for having persuaded John Calvin to remain in Geneva in 1536, and for persuading him to return there in 1541, after their expulsion in 1538. They influenced the government of Geneva to the point that it became the "Protestant Rome", where Protestants took refuge and non-Protestants were driven out. Together with Calvin, Farel worked to train missionary preachers who spread the Protestant cause to other countries, and especially to France.

Incidentally, reading through Clement of Rome, it seems that he was what today you would call a Calvinist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James, I have googled William Farrell, and have not found any that fit your description, do you mean

William Farel (1489, Gap, Hautes-Alpes – 13 September 1565), Guilhem Farel, 1489 in Gap, Dauphiné, in south-eastern France, was a French evangelist, and a founder of the Reformed Church in the cantons of Neuchâtel, Berne, Geneva, and Vaud in Switzerland. He is most often remembered for having persuaded John Calvin to remain in Geneva in 1536, and for persuading him to return there in 1541, after their expulsion in 1538. They influenced the government of Geneva to the point that it became the "Protestant Rome", where Protestants took refuge and non-Protestants were driven out. Together with Calvin, Farel worked to train missionary preachers who spread the Protestant cause to other countries, and especially to France.

Incidentally, reading through Clement of Rome, it seems that he was what today you would call a Calvinist.

I have to go back through my desktop files and find the references to the quotes, I have about 100 folders with different notes on topics I read out of my books with about 100 books on church history but will see if I can find some of them online. And yes, that is the right William Farel.
And Clement may very well have been a Calvinist, but I am not quoting people that I agree with, I am quoting the sources that confirm that certain doctrines were around long before critics have claimed that they were ONLY around after Darby or the letter written by Margaret something. The only ones that were absolutely perfect in their doctrines were the apostles and that's because they were getting direct revelation from the Holy Spirit to write the Scriptures, but even they were at times disobedient: Peter being a hypocrite (Gal 2) and Paul disobeying God when he was told not to go to Jerusalem.
The death, burial and resurrection was a totally new concept for Jews and Gentiles alike: Jews with trying to understand how this Messiah was a fulfillment of the law and prophets and the Gentiles on how this God was different than their centuries of paganism. So one can not expect to see accurate doctrine when the church was still learning what these new doctrines meant. Paul even had to deal with diverse doctrinal issues in his time (I Cor ch 1). It wasn't until Constantine that there was a very large separation of mass amounts of believers due to the heretical teachings of Rome that attacked the fundamentals. Up until then there were small skirmishes with Gnostics and pagans. For the most part, the churches although varying in doctrines, maintained fellowship with those who adhered to the core fundamentals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrJamesA
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me That is a statement that was made about actions toward Christ, not the devil. Christ has different standards of how works are attributed and I think it's pretty dangerous ground to use Jesus words to prove that the devil gets the same kind of credit. I wasn't applying it to Satan, I was applying it to the papacy in his anti witness wars and crusades. Inasmuch as he did it to Christ's witnesses, he did it to Christ, and as such was recognized as the Antichrist, and quite rightly so.



II have a picture before me of a painting done by Peter Ruckman of a King James Bible pointing to the rapture of the church. So since pictures prove the validity of doctrine and history according to your logic of the Waldensian photo, then my picture of the rapture proves that preterism is a farse. (farce)You also missed the double "I" at the beginning of the sentence. touché

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then Calvin would have been a Clementist ;-D Maybe Margret McDonald............ JN Darby came to merica and now we have McDonald's golden arches. I'm given to understand there's wee little people with pots of gold under them.......... made someone rich.

When McDonald was having her 'dream/visions' Darby went to visit with her. Shortly after he formed the Plymouth Brethren and came to US.

There is a teaching of a 7 yr trib; no doubt. Most all source it to the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy. Are there other sources?

Topic is prayer: why limit it to it to USA and Israel......... we are to pray for our ___________________ and _____________. Maybe Iran should be at the top of the list. Seems that would solve some problems.

Some claim that while Mohammed was in Rome that the Pope was the inventor of Islam and that the catholics actually wrote the Koran. I have read a bunch of history on this. The Cardinals supposedly went to Mecca and taught his nephew. All the 300 statues were destroyed except Mary and Jesus. Any opinions or is it worth talking about?

Edited by SamuelP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to go back through my desktop files and find the references to the quotes, I have about 100 folders with different notes on topics I read out of my books with about 100 books on church history but will see if I can find some of them online. And yes, that is the right William Farel.
And Clement may very well have been a Calvinist, but I am not quoting people that I agree with, I am quoting the sources that confirm that certain doctrines were around long before critics have claimed that they were ONLY around after Darby or the letter written by Margaret something. The only ones that were absolutely perfect in their doctrines were the apostles and that's because they were getting direct revelation from the Holy Spirit to write the Scriptures, but even they were at times disobedient: Peter being a hypocrite (Gal 2) and Paul disobeying God when he was told not to go to Jerusalem.
The death, burial and resurrection was a totally new concept for Jews and Gentiles alike: Jews with trying to understand how this Messiah was a fulfillment of the law and prophets and the Gentiles on how this God was different than their centuries of paganism. So one can not expect to see accurate doctrine when the church was still learning what these new doctrines meant. Paul even had to deal with diverse doctrinal issues in his time (I Cor ch 1). It wasn't until Constantine that there was a very large separation of mass amounts of believers due to the heretical teachings of Rome that attacked the fundamentals. Up until then there were small skirmishes with Gnostics and pagans. For the most part, the churches although varying in doctrines, maintained fellowship with those who adhered to the core fundamentals.


I like a man who is interested in Church History. If you don't know history, you cannot know if prophecy has been fulfilled, or not.

I used to have 1 hour plus train journey to London and used to get books on church history from the library and read them on the journey. I was unable to find a book on the Bogomils except one which insisted that they believed in Two Principles or is it Principals? i.e. two gods, one good and one evil. I do have David Cloud's CD which has a history of them but there is an error on the CD and one chapter is missing. One Baptist writer I have, said that they must have been heretics as they went over to the Turks. Problem with that idea is 1stly, that the Turks invaded their country so they probably had no choice and 2ndly the alternative was the Inquisition. Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then Calvin would have been a Clementist ;-D Maybe Margret McDonald............ JN Darby came to merica and now we have McDonald's golden arches. I'm given to understand there's wee little people with pots of gold under them.......... made someone rich.


Yes I know Margaret McDonald is mentioned, but I don't agree with that. My studies show that the teaching was from Edward Irving and his prophets, McD was one, another was Robert Baxter. Irving got the teaching from a book called The coming of the Christ in Power and Majesty. by Juan Josephat ben Ezra, a converted Jew. But a psuedonim for Manuel Lacunza, a Jesuit Priest. Irving taught himself Spanish to enable him to translate this book. It took him one month to learn Spanish, it is said.

But what was Irving's teaching on the 'rapture'?

Well I am reading from one of Irving's prophets, Robert Baxter, who repented and accused himself of delusion shortly after making the prophecy. In a letter to Mr Amstrong. Aug 3 1835.

"....My desire was also to call back to your mind to those days when our poor dear brother Irving was sojourning amongst us, when we all received the utterances, as declaring the coming of our Lord , and the rapture of his saints at the end of three years and a half from 14rth January 1832.


He goes on to say that before that time they said that full apostolic powers would be restored and the Lord's elect from the four winds would be caught up on the day that the three years and a half expired, the church of God would be caught up and the earth would be delivered to judgment without a preacher and without a tabernacle. He goes on:

This, my dear brother, ye know was declared and believed, and was waited for; ; it was not alone by my utterance, but by by the utterance of every one who spoke..... long after I left you, it was declared to be the truth.... all your churches,( as you call them) were summoned for Sunday 14th July, that being the termination of the term, to await that Lord's fullfilment of what you deemed to be his own word.
Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invicta; read my post more carefully. Darby's brief visit to McDonald didn't constitute teaching or mentoring nor did I say so. Irving started his newspaper in London in 1827. A college in NC, USA has the full collection and making public as I understand. I think it was Darby's tie to Catholics that lead him to form the Plymouth Brethren and comes to USA. Seems he had an agenda.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.
John 14:12-14 (KJV)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the obvious reading, which fits with cross link in Zechariah as well, is that these two are two individual men. And the seven churches also are read most obviously as seven individual churches in actual cities.

You explanation is convoluted, and not based upon the plain reading of the verses but a predetermined position of a doctrine.

If you read these two passages plainly it makes good sense to see them literally.

Zechariah is a very interesting book to relate to the Gospels - particularly events of the last week, & in the consideration of significance of the various Revelation visions. More later - - - -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zechariah is a very interesting book to relate to the Gospels - particularly events of the last week, & in the consideration of significance of the various Revelation visions. More later - - - -

Zechariah & Haggai were primarily encouraging the Jews to complete rebuilding the temple after the exile, in about 520 BC.

Like John in Revelation, Zechariah (1 & 6) has visions of coloured horses & also chariots with coloured horses. In both Zech's visions, these are the LORD's agents, patrolling the earth. They do not appear to be directly related to the Rev. horsemen, unless we insist on a relationship. They are concerned with the defence, rebuilding & peace of Jerusalem. The colours do not have the significance as in Rev. 6 - though we see the same significance as Rev. in Ezec. 14:21
For thus saith the Lord GOD; How much more when I send my four sore judgme
nt
s upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man and beast?


Chapter 2 is a vision of Jerusalem without walls (!) so is of the heavenly Jerusalem - certainly not the present city.

Chapter 3 is of the transformation of the high priest from the degraded Joshua without a temple to the glorious Joshua (Jesus) the redeemer on Calvary:
Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they [are] men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my serva
nt
the BRANCH.

For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone [shall be] seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...