Kabbalist Rabbis are awakening a Messianic fever in Israel.

From the Cutting Edge Ministries website: the following is nothing much more than sheer hype with nothing at all to really substantiate the claims that are being made. However, it may be of some interest to those of us who are keeping a close watch on the end times Bible Prophecies relative to the return of the Lord back here onto the earth.

Kabbalist Rabbis are awakening a Messianic fever in Israel.

One prominent Rabbi is writing a scroll that he will present to Israel's Messiah when he arises.

Will this scroll be the prophesied Covenant which Antichrist shall sign with Israel (Daniel 9:27)?

NEWS BRIEF: "Torah Scroll Being Written to Present to Messiah Upon His Arrival", Breaking Israel News, December 15, 2015

"Now it will come about that In the last days ... the Torah will go forth from Zion And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 2:2-3)

"Rabbi Yosef Berger, one of the rabbis in charge of King David’s Tomb in Jerusalem’s Old City, has been dreaming of a project for over a year – one Torah scroll to unify all of Israel. Recent global events have forced Rabbi Berger to move ahead quickly with his dream as he wants to be able to personally present this Torah as a gift to the Messiah. Many prominent rabbis and Kabbalists have told Rabbi Berger that may be very soon indeed."

Notice that Kabbalists are convinced that the Jewish Messiah will be arising within Israel "very soon indeed"! This understanding brings us to our DVD featured above, "Secret Societies Killed Jesus Christ". We prove that the Pharisees and Sadducees who conspired to murder Jesus on the Roman Cross were secret worshippers of Lucifer in an oral secret society, which became known as Kabbalist in approximately 1,100 AD.

We also prove that these Kabbalist Jewish leaders knew Jesus was the prophesied Messiah, but since He was the meek and mild "Suffering Servant", the Pharisees and Sadducees decided to murder Him so they could produce their own Messiah, the "Ruling King" Messiah who would rule from Jerusalem with a "rod of iron" forever.

This fervent plan to produce a Ruler Messiah has taken Kabbalist leaders 2,000 years, but today, they believe their bold plan is almost ready to produce this conquering King on the world scene.

Therefore, Rabbi Yosef Berger plans to create a Torah scroll to present this coming Kabbalist King as a means by which he can "unify all of Israel"!

I wonder if this scroll will also contain the prophetic "Covenant" with Israel foretold in Daniel 9:27. When the Kabbalist Messiah signs this Covenant, the seven year Tribulation Period will officially begin!

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week..." (Daniel 9:27a)

How soon will this Kabbalist King arise, in the estimation of these Kabbalist leaders?

"According to Rabbi Berger, Rabbi Abuhatzeira added that the combined numerologies of the phrases 'This year we will merit seeing him' ... and 'The arrival of the Messiah' ... , add up to 5776, the current year according to the Jewish calendar."

These priests plan to hold a parade to commemorate the completion of this special Torah scroll.

"When the Torah is completed, Rabbi Berger plans on having a parade through Jerusalem to dedicate it. The parade will go through every corner of the city in order to include as many people as possible and will finish at the Tomb of King David, where the Torah scroll will be kept."

This planned parade sounds suspiciously like the procession which modern Kabbalist leaders have planned for their "New David" Messiah as he appears on the world scene.

"... it may be possible for the New David to ride into Jerusalem in all his resplendent majesty ... The processional route will, of course, lie directly across the Kidron ravine, as close as possible to the Temple Mount ... he must be duly enthroned and anointed with oil (in token of Psalm 45:6-7) amid the rubble of the dome of the Rock..."[The Armageddon Script, p. 233-35; Emphasis added]

Notice that the Dome of the Rock is planned to be destroyed by the coming Kabbalist Messiah!

While we know that Antichrist's "timing is of the Lord", we also know that God allows the demonic realm limited foreknowledge so they can bring the kings of the earth into fulfillment of God's prophecies. The Albert Pike demonic vision of three world wars designed to produce Antichrist is proof positive of this fact 

Therefore, it is very likely that the demonic host is preparing the human Kabbalist leaders in Israel for the imminent arrival of Antichrist.

WHY I AM NOT A DISPENSATIONALIST John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh, 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement. CHM popularised Darby more than any other Brethren author. As there was no Christian teaching of a “rapture” before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation. Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because "God is able to graft them in again," and they believe that in His grace he will do so according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that, while the methodologies of God may change, His purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten, just as He has shown unmerited favour to the Church, He will do so to a remnant of Israel to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham. I am not a dispensationalist; it is unbiblical.

Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?

QUESTION: Did Jesus have brothers and sisters? If he did, how many of each were there?

ANSWER: We can begin to find our answer about whether Jesus had literal brothers and sisters by reading a small piece of Matthew 12. It states that while Christ was speaking to crowd the following happened.

"Behold, His (Jesus') mother and His brothers (not sisters mentioned here however) were standing outside, seeking to speak with Him." (Matthew 12:46)

First, to help answer this question about Jesus' family, we need to understand whom James the Less was and his relationship to Christ. This leads to another question - Is Mary's sister the mother of James the Less or is Mary herself the mother of James the Less? The answers will help us to conclude whether Mary and Joseph had other children (boys and girls) other than Christ. The 25th verse of John chapter 19 is the verse we need to analyze. When we understand who is actually James the Less' mother then the verses referring to Jesus' family as containing brothers Simon, James, Joses and Judas, along with (likely) two sisters will become clear.

It is unclear from Scripture whether the man whose name is Clopas or Cleophas and Alphaeus is the same man or not. James the Less had a father called Alphaeus. When translators translate common names they sometimes do not get the spelling right, which could be the case here. The letters "phas" that end the word Cleophas could be the same as the "phaeus" part of the name Alphaeus. Both endings sound phonetically like each other. 

If Alphaeus were the brother of Mary and the son of Heli with the second Mary as his wife who produced James, Joses, Judas, and Simon, then these would be cousins of Jesus. The word brethren would then identify them as close relatives.

Matthew or Levi was also the son of Alphaeus according to Mark 2:14. Was he part of the family of Jesus too? On the other hand, does this sentence mean something entirely different when rendered without the insertions by the translators? It would read "And as he passed by he saw Levi of Alphaeus . . ."

In the other passages that mention the word Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13) it is in relationship to James, and should be rendered "James of Alphaeus" because the words "son of" is in italics (or in brackets) which means they were added by the translators and are not a part of the original text. 

If, on the other hand, these four men were actually offspring of Mary and her husband Joseph as other passages seem to indicate then yes, Jesus had brothers and a sister or two. Matthew 13:55 seems to indicate a need to identify who our Savior is. It would not seem very logical for someone to question the identity of cousins to substantiate someone's identification. When the Lord bestowed upon John the responsibility of caring for his mother, could he have been his cousin too? If so, they were a very closely associated family (see John 19:26).

Matthew 12:46, Mark 3:31 and Luke 8:19 all suggest that Mary and Jesus' other physical family members were all outside waiting to talk to him. If the word for brothers or brethren meant his whole kindred or his fellow citizen, it would have to include the ones who were appealing to him at the door and the ones who were in the crowd. If the word brother meant just the sons of his aunt Mary the wife of Cleophas / Clopas / Alphaeus then why not his mother at the door and why would the door man think that he should want to stop what he was doing to speak to them. The person at the door was indeed his own mother because that would be the only person who would be important enough for any man to stop an important lecture to speak with her. Aunts and cousins could wait until he was finished with whatever he was doing, but only a mother would be bringing some kind of news he needed to know urgently. 

Once James the Less is identified and who his parents were, we will find that the Bible aligns him with Simon, Joses, Jude (Judas) and at least a sister named Salome. Sister Salome is identified in Mark 15:40 and 16:1 as the child of one of the Mary's who came to see Jesus crucified as well as visit his tomb. She and brother Joses were together with one of the Mary's at the cross.

If Salome and James were with their mother, and their mother Mary was in fact Mary the aunt of Jesus, they could technically be his brothers and sisters.

"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. " (John 19:25, see also Matthew 27:55 - 56)

The only scripture verse which includes all three people named Mary into one is John 19:25, which indicates that Jesus' mother had a sister-in-law or sisters, one of whom is named Mary whose husband was Cleophas (Clopas). The Bible does not state, however, that she was James the Less' mother.
So then we come to a passage in Acts 1:14 which says the following. 

"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers." (Acts 1:14, NKJV)

Why would Mary be here with the rest of the church if she had not been the same one who cared for the body and watched from afar? Her other two sons Jude and James were also disciples of the first apostolic church and wrote epistles to the brethren that are in the canonized Scripture. In Matthew 12:46-50 Jesus is contrasting his physical family who people knew versus those he considered to be his SPIRITUAL family members - those who had been called out of this world by his heavenly Father. 

Nowhere does it say that Mary and the men called Simon, James, Judas, and Joses cannot be the mother and brothers of Jesus. In fact, one other scripture lists ALL the physical family members by name and lets us know that He had a sister or two. During his ministry, Christ and the disciples travelled from Capernaum to Nazareth (where he grew up and lived until the age of thirty). When the Sabbath day came, he taught in the local synagogue. Those who heard his preaching KNEW his earthly family and some no doubt actually saw him grow up from a boy to a man! Their responses to his words are both revealing and a bit sad (Mark 6:1 - 3, see also Matthew 13:54 - 57).

Those in Nazareth did not accept Christ's words strictly in the light of scripture. Instead, they reasoned that somebody they lived near and whose family they knew quite well COULD NOT possibly be special or closer to God than they were! They rejected his message because they FIRST found reasons to reject HIM! Though a sad testament to human nature, these verses do show that the MANY locals who heard our Savior teach in Nazareth were quite knowledgeable about the composition of his earthly family. 

In conclusion, Jesus DID have brothers and sisters --- in fact, several of them! Including him, Mary gave birth to FIVE boys and at least TWO girls, for a family of SEVEN children!

WHY I AM NOT A DISPENSATIONALIST John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh, 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement. CHM popularised Darby more than any other Brethren author. As there was no Christian teaching of a “rapture” before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation. Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because "God is able to graft them in again," and they believe that in His grace he will do so according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that, while the methodologies of God may change, His purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten, just as He has shown unmerited favour to the Church, He will do so to a remnant of Israel to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham. I am not a dispensationalist; it is unbiblical.

Pope Francis: 'Christians and Muslims Are Brothers and Sisters' Hardly!!!

Pope Francise

(NEWSMAX)—Pope Francis said on Monday that Christians and Muslims were "brothers", urging them to reject hatred and violence while visiting a mosque in the Central African Republic's capital which has been ravaged by sectarian conflict.

On the last leg of a three-nation tour of Africa, the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics visited a flashpoint Muslim neighborhood in Bangui on what was the most dangerous part of his 24-hour visit.

Thousands of people gathered at the roadside, cheering as his popemobile drove down the red dirt roads. As his vehicle passed, many waving Vatican flags and dressed in long traditional robes, ran down the road after it, an AFP correspondent said.

"Christians and Muslims are brothers and sisters," he said after meeting Muslim leaders at the Koudoukou mosque in the PK5 district, the last Muslim enclave in Bangui where tensions remain high after months of violence.

"Together, we must say no to hatred, to revenge and to violence, particularly that violence which is perpetrated in the name of a religion or of God himself," he said....

His message—and the fact that he actually visited the country despite significant security concerns—struck a chord with locals and drew pledges of peace and forgiveness.

"We should eat together, we should live together with Muslims," said Clarisse Mbai, a mother who lost all her possessions in inter-religious violence.

"They looted everything, they burnt my house and I have nothing but I am ready to forget," she said.

Nicole Ouabangue, whose husband was hacked to death with an axe, said she had heard many speeches before but the pope's words were "different".

"Pope Francis has more influence. If there is anybody who can resolve our problems on Earth, it is him," she said....

WHY I AM NOT A DISPENSATIONALIST John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh, 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement. CHM popularised Darby more than any other Brethren author. As there was no Christian teaching of a “rapture” before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation. Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because "God is able to graft them in again," and they believe that in His grace he will do so according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that, while the methodologies of God may change, His purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten, just as He has shown unmerited favour to the Church, He will do so to a remnant of Israel to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham. I am not a dispensationalist; it is unbiblical.

Are Fossils Really Millions Of Years Old?

A Fossilized Shrimp

By Babu G. Ranganathan

Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the earth? Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The simple answer is "No".

Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the earth's age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.

For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have never been correct when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

The reason for such huge discrepancies from radiometric dating is because the rate of decay is not the same today as it was in the past. Evolutionary geologists go on the assumption that no major changes have occurred in the past which could have affected the initial amounts, or ratio, of the radioactive substances in the rocks as well as their rates of decay (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.

Complicated as the subject of the earth's age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the earth will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age. Contrary to popular belief, the age of the fossils is not determined by radiometric dating.

Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure, so that their bones, remains, and imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure their remains will decay rather than become preserved or fossilized. Most of the many billions of fossils in the earth are found in rock that has been affected by water (Sedimentary Rock). Therefore, most of the billions of fossils in the earth were formed as a result of the animals and plants being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure.

Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over periods of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth's crust. This is only one view.

Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of these animals and preserved them as fossils in the earth. Obviously, if it was one world-wide flood that deposited these animals and preserved them as fossils in the earth it would not have taken very long. But, if the fossils were caused by local and limited geographical floods then it would, indeed, have required many millions of years before such local floods could have produced the billions of fossils and deposited them in various layers all over the earth.

There are many problems, however, with many local floods as the cause behind the fossils. Even today local floods are not known to be able to generate the type of tremendous pressure and force necessary to fossilize creatures in rock. Among other arguments, it is difficult to explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks,over millions of years, was capable of performing such a feat!

If many floods had deposited these layers, we should see evidence of this between the layers, but the contact between the layers is razor sharp with no debris, erosion, or weathering.

The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the earth's past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth.

Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms (i.e. Psalm 104) describe God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of fossils.

The fossils in the earth are found to exist in various layers of the earth's crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.

Furthermore, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain (circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves!

There are numerous examples of layers containing "mixed" fossils where fossils of creatures that are supposed to have existed millions of years apart from one another are found right next to one another within the same layer or stratum (i.e. fossils of dinosaurs and birds in the same stratum. That definitely refutes the theory that birds had evolved from dinosaurs! There have been found dinosaur footprints and human foot prints crossing each other's paths!). Evolutionists simply ignore these fossils and continue with their dogmatic beliefs. Some excellent Internet resources to consult for documentation of these facts are: www.icr.org , www.creationscience.com, www.answersingenesis.org , www.christiananswers.net.

Besides the many assumptions involved, there are other problems with this view. First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. For example, there are no fossils of fish with part fins, part feet to show that fish evolved into land animals. In fact, the fossils show only complete and fully-formed species. There are no partially-evolved dinosaurs or anything else to indicate macro-evolution in the fossil record. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting of these layers. Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.

The recent discovery of dinosaur fossils containing actual soft tissue is powerful evidence that the fossil layers are not millions of years old because such tissue cannot possibly be preserved through millions of years. Read about this fantastic discovery at http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-soft-tissue-issue-here-stay/.
This discovery was finally examined by a peer review of fellow scientists who, instead of really addressing the problem, dismissed the strong evidence of a thousands of years old dinosaur soft tissue. You can read about the logical and scientific holes in their arguments here: http://www.icr.org/article/6237/. Read and see for yourself whether it was real science or evolutionary bias that determined their conclusions.

Recent scientific data shows that the rate of erosion in the earth would have leveled off all the continents on earth within fifty million years. Even evolutionists acknowledge this, but evolutionists claim that after the continents were fully eroded new geological upheavals created more continents and mountains. But, if this were truly the case, all the fossils should have disappeared also. The fact that the fossil layers along with the continents and their mountains still exist is powerful evidence that the earth is less than fifty million years old, at least!

Another major fact pointing to a young world is what is known as the "genetic load". The accumulation of genetic mutations, which are almost always harmful, will cause, over time, species extinction. Evolutionists realize this. The fact is, if our world were really millions of years old, all species would have become extinct long ago due the genetic load (the net accumulation of harmful mutations).

Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years old because it would have required billions of years for light from the farthest stars to reach the earth. This is assuming that the stars, galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.

Some creationists theorize that, by applying Einstein’s theory of relativity, during the fourth day of creation week billions of years transpired in the rest of the universe as God “stretched out the heavens.”

Highly respected scientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

According to evolutionists, our moon is nearly as old as the Earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the moon's surface over billions of years, there should be many feet of lunar dust on the moon's surface. Unlike the earth, the moon has no atmosphere to burn up meteors so massive collection of dust was a major concern for scientists and they were concerned that the lunar module, carrying the astronauts, would sink into many feet of dust. But, when we actually landed on the moon the astronauts discovered only a very thin layer of dust. This is strong evidence that our earth/moon system is young after all.

There is much more to say on this subject, and there are many positive evidences for a young earth and universe not covered in this article. Excellent articles and books have been written by highly qualified scientists, including geologists, who are creationists showing scientific evidences for a young earth and universe. M.I.T. scientist Dr. Walt Brown provides considerable information on the topic at his site www.creationscience.com. Also, considerable information on the subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research .

An excellent article on the subject is Evidence for a Young World: http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/.

Another site with information on how the most reliable radiometric dating methods show the earth to be thousands and not millions or billions of years old may be accessed at: www.icr.org/rate/.

WHY I AM NOT A DISPENSATIONALIST John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh, 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement. CHM popularised Darby more than any other Brethren author. As there was no Christian teaching of a “rapture” before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation. Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because "God is able to graft them in again," and they believe that in His grace he will do so according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that, while the methodologies of God may change, His purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten, just as He has shown unmerited favour to the Church, He will do so to a remnant of Israel to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham. I am not a dispensationalist; it is unbiblical.

Replacing Christianity

By Lee Duigon

Jesus asked, “When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)

Depends on where He looks—and it might take Him a while.

Atheism has always been with us, and always will be. It’s natural in superficially educated fat-heads.

What really threatens to replace our Christianity in the West is a threefold combo of para-Christianity, pseudo-Christianity, and downright poo-bah. We shall see examples of all three, but the first two are the worst: people can swallow these substitutes for Christianity and still think they’re getting the real thing.

“Para” is a prefix meaning “kinda, sorta,” so para-Christianity would be “kinda, sorta Christianity.” Young people who have been raised in church-going Christian families and educated in Christian schools and colleges still seem to fall easily into the net of para-Christianity—which makes us wonder whether those Christian churches, schools, and colleges actually do the job they think they’re doing.

Last week I heard from someone who attended her young adult son’s Bible study group, none of whose members brought Bibles. When they wanted a verse, they just found it on their smart phones. Instead of the Bible, they were studying a book called “Crazy Love” by Francis Chan.

This is where the skid begins. Instead of getting to know and understand the Bible, they focus on what some guy thinks about the Bible. Granted, a capable Bible teacher can often be a blessing; but he should never be a substitute.

And so these earnest young millennials, who come from Christian homes and churches, schools and colleges, wind up with a peculiar theology which my friend describes as “no substance, no current issues, no reality—just soft Jesus-loves-me stuff,” with an emphasis on earning salvation by gaudy works of the flesh such as “giving away all your money and living below the poverty line,” etc.

In fact, this approach to Christianity is repeatedly rejected in the Bible, which teaches that salvation is the gift of God, received by faith in Jesus Christ who has already done all the good works necessary to obtain it. The good works that we do are evidence of our faith—not a ticket into Heaven. Here we have an ancient heresy parading around in modern clothes, still bamboozling Christ’s people after all these centuries.

As an example of pseudo-Christianity, I offer an email received from a publicist touting a modern rewrite of Charles Dickens’

“A Christmas Carol” featuring a transgender character. Instead of telling us how Scrooge is made to see what a wretched sinner he has been, and how he sincerely repents, and is reformed and regenerated by the grace of God, this new, pseudo-Christian version of the story “encourages families to accept those members who may be ‘different.’” The author, a man who insists that he is now a woman, presents the pseudo-Christian doctrine that “love” transforms our sins into virtues that must be “celebrated.” The Bible, God’s word, turns out to be totally wrong on sexual morality; and instead of God, we have a fumbling Creator who makes mistakes which fallen man, in his worldly wisdom, can correct with science and technology.

Thanks to Biblical illiteracy—or, in many cases, willful blindness and rebellion—people can call themselves “Christians” while rejecting Christian teachings.

And then there’s poo-bah—truly weird beliefs that have nothing to do with Christianity but are nevertheless strongly held.

I heard from a reader who insists that Earth is flat, not a sphere, and that the whole space program—an enterprise involving uncounted thousands of persons over many years, in many different countries—is nothing but an elaborate hoax of gigantic proportions, none of which ever really happened. There are no satellites, he says, and never were—so much for his GPS, if he has one. No moon landing, either.

It’s like saying France is a hoax, that it doesn’t exist and never did. What it takes to believe such a stupendous shaggy-dog story, I can’t imagine. But there does seem to be an awful lot more of this now than there used to be.

Our Lord warned us (Matthew 7: 21-23): Many will come to Him, saying, “Lord, Lord, we did all sorts of really cool things in your name.” But He will only answer them, “I never knew you. Get lost, you workers of iniquity.”

For years I struggled with that parable, unable to understand what Jesus was telling us. But the message really is quite simple.

We can call ourselves “Christians” until we’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t make us Christians.

For that we have to turn to the Bible itself.

There is no substitute.

WHY I AM NOT A DISPENSATIONALIST John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh, 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement. CHM popularised Darby more than any other Brethren author. As there was no Christian teaching of a “rapture” before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation. Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because "God is able to graft them in again," and they believe that in His grace he will do so according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that, while the methodologies of God may change, His purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten, just as He has shown unmerited favour to the Church, He will do so to a remnant of Israel to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham. I am not a dispensationalist; it is unbiblical.

The Satanically Inspired Rapture of the Church

John Nelson Darby

Ever since being a very small child I have held a pre-wrath stance relative to the Rapture of the Church.

I have adopted that attitude for a very good reason.

There is nothing that I can find anywhere in the word of God that gives even the slightest hint of a Rapture of the Church.

In fact, the very early church/Christians said nothing at all about a Rapture. 

That in turn makes the Rapture a very recent invention indeed, more than likely going back in time only a couple of hundred years to its founder, Margaret McDonald and John Nelson Darby.

However, there are still quite clearly those out there who would prefer to hold fast to the idea of a Rapture of the Church even though common sense (and the word of God) dictates that there is no such event in store for mankind.

Just to fuel the satanically inspired passion for a Rapture of the Church there are several movies that Hollywood has produced lately dealing with the subject matter.

There is one such movie quite readily available for download on the internet at called “Final, the Rapture.

Obviously, the Rapture myth still remains a subject matter that still remains quite consistent within the realms of the thought patterns of some.

If there are those who are interested, why not take a look at the movie.

Please note though that even though I appear to be advocating the movie that does not necessarily mean that I agree with the contents of the movie.

WHY I AM NOT A DISPENSATIONALIST John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh, 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement. CHM popularised Darby more than any other Brethren author. As there was no Christian teaching of a “rapture” before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation. Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because "God is able to graft them in again," and they believe that in His grace he will do so according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that, while the methodologies of God may change, His purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten, just as He has shown unmerited favour to the Church, He will do so to a remnant of Israel to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham. I am not a dispensationalist; it is unbiblical.