False Prophets in my Lifetime

The following is a partial list of false prophecies about the Rapture, battle of Armageddon, or Return of Christ in my lifetime (post 1960).

Hal Lindsey
DatePersonGroup or other info
1964 – October Seventh Day Adventist
1972Herbert W. ArmstrongWorldwide Church of God
1975Herbert W. ArmstrongWorldwide Church of God
1975 Watchtower Bible & Tract Society expected Armageddon
1981Chuck Smith1948 plus 40 year generation minus 7 year tribulation
1982Pat Robertsontelevangelist
1982 – June 21Benjamin CremeBuddhist related
1988Hal LidseyThe Late Great Planet Earth 1948 plus 40 year generation
1988Edgar C. Whisenant88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988
1989Edgar C. WhisenantThe Final Shout: Rapture Report 1989
1991Louis FarrakhanNation of Islam
1993Edgar C. Whisenant23 Reasons Why a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Looks Like it will Occur on Rosh-Hashanah 1993
1994 – September 6Harold Campinggeneral manager of Family Radio and Bible teacher
1997 – October 23James Ussher17th Century Bishop expected the end as it was 6,000 years after creation
1999-2009Jerry Falwellpredicted in 1999 that the Second Coming would probably be within 10 years
2000Frank CherryFounder of the Black Hebrew Israelite religion
2000Ed DobsonThe End: Why Jesus Could Return by A.D. 2000
2000Timothy Dwight IV President of Yale University foresaw Christ’s Millennium starting by 2000
2000Edgar Caycepsychic
2000Sir Isaac Newtonscientist
2000 – April 6James HarmstonThe leader of the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
2011 – May 21Harold Campinggeneral manager of Family Radio and Bible teacher
2011 – October 21Harold Campinggeneral manager of Family Radio and Bible teacher
2011 – September 29Ronald WeinlandThe Church of God, Preparing for the Kingdom of God (COG-PKG) is an apocalypticist splinter sect of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG)
2012 – May 27Ronald WeinlandThe Church of God, Preparing for the Kingdom of God (COG-PKG) is an apocalypticist splinter sect of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG)
2012Jack Van Impetelevangelist
2012 – December 21New Age NutsMesoamerican Long Count calendar ended
2013 – May 18Ronald WeinlandThe Church of God, Preparing for the Kingdom of God (COG-PKG) is an apocalypticist splinter sect of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG)
2012Jack Van Impetelevangelist
2015 – September 28Mark Blitz & John HageeBlood Moon Prophecy
2017David MeadePredicted the end on YouTube
2018Henry MorrisMorris claimed that Worlds War I was the first sign of Christ’s return which would occur before that generation died
2019 – Ronald Weinland The Church of God, Preparing for the Kingdom of God (COG-PKG) is an apocalypticist splinter sect of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG)
2020Jean Dixonpsychic
2020 – July 22Chad and Lori DaybellMultiple murders
2021F. Kenton “Doc” Beshore1948 plus70 to 80 year generation
2025 – September 23-24Joshua MhlakelaSouth African preacher
2025 – October 7-8Joshua MhlakelaSouth African preacher
This was the warning about the Rapture that happened last year. If you’re reading this, sorry but you were left behind.

Harold Camping

The list also does not include the voluminous number of prophecy pimps in modern pulpits claiming all the signs are in place and it could be any minute. In the Old Testament God’s people were to execute false prophets, in the New we just buy their books. WTF?

The Biblical Mark of the Beast

Ok Kids. First thing. This “Beast” has nothing to do with the Marvel comics character.

The Beast from Marvel Comics

Neither does it have much to do with modern prophecy pimps like Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHay, Jack Hibbs, or C.I. Scofield.

Hal Lindsey’s false prophecy on the end times reportedly sold over 25 million copies

The core of the biblical prophecies about the beast are found in Revelation chapter 13. First, there are two beasts mentioned. Revelation 13:1-10 concerns a sea beast. Revelation 13:11-18 concerns a land beast. Verses 16-18 are the ones people cite when talking about the “mark of the beast.”

Background

Virtually every symbol in Revelation can be found in one way or another in the Old Testament. When you want to learn about a symbol always start there. Then ask how the original readers and hearers of Revelation living in the First Century would understand what it says.

God gave Abraham a geographical area of land back in Genesis. From then on, it is frequently called “the land.” The land is pictured in various ways through the history of the Jewish nation. Those outside the land are the sea of Gentiles. The sea is wild and chaotic. John even describes the sea:

15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest … are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

Revelation 17:15.

Below are comments from Logos on this subject:

In biblical symbolism, the sea represents gentiles while the land represents Israel.1 This symbolic framework appears consistently throughout Scripture, particularly in how Old Testament literature portrays foreign nations. After humanity’s fall, the separation between land and sea became emblematic of the division between God’s covenant people and the ungodly nations, with the chaotic sea constantly attempting to encroach upon the land just as gentile powers sought to destabilize God’s established order.2

Throughout the Old Testament, gentiles are frequently depicted through aquatic imagery or referenced in connection with crossing waters.1 This symbolic language extends into apocalyptic literature as well. In Revelation, the many waters are explicitly explained as representing peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues3, and Revelation consistently distinguishes Israel through land and earth imagery while depicting gentiles through the sea.2

The shift from Old Testament to New Testament narrative reinforces this symbolism. In the Old Testament, God revealed His ways through His priestly people inhabiting His land, and the text focuses almost exclusively on land animals—prophets and kings functioned as farmers, shepherds, and herdsmen.2 By contrast, none of Jesus’ prominent disciples were farmers or husbandmen; the most prominent were fishermen, and the disciples are characterized as fishers of men rather than shepherds—imagery indicating that Jesus’ kingdom would extend to the entire world, including the gentiles.1 This transition in symbolic language marks the gospel’s expansion beyond Israel to encompass all nations.

1 James B. Jordan, “153 Large Fish,” in Biblical Horizons (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 2000), 630.

2 James B. Jordan, The Geneva Review (Birmingham, AL: Theopolis Books, 2022), 20.

3 Alfred Ernest Garvie, “SEA,” in A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents Including the Biblical Theology, ed. James Hastings et al. (New York; Edinburgh: Charles Scribner’s Sons; T. & T. Clark, 1911–1912), 4:424.

The Sea Beast

This is a random sea beast that looked cool so I added it to the post

In Revelation 13:1 it refers to the sea beast as having seven heads and ten horns.

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Revelation 13:1.

Again, what John is describing in Revelation is symbols from the Old Testament. So where is he getting this description of the Beast?

Jump back to Daniel chapter 7. Daniel sees four beasts come up out of the sea (vs. 3).

1 Beast one was like a lion (vs. 4)

2 Beast two was like a bear (vs. 5)

3 Beast three was like a leopard with four heads (vs. 6)

4 Beast four was like a terrible with ten horns (vs. 7)

Add these up and you get seven heads (1+1+4+1) and ten horns.

The dragon (see below) gave the beast in Revelation 13 it’s power.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 12:9

Please note also the corresponding creatures.

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Revelation 13:2.

Revelation 13:1 also adds something new which is not found in Daniel, the ten crowns.

“The ten crowned horns (powers) of the Beast are explained in 17:12 in terms of the governors of the ten imperial provinces, while the seven heads are explained as the line of Caesars (17:9-11): Nero is one of the “heads.”

David Chilton “The Days of Vengeance” pg. 327

David Chilton’s commentary on Revelation

The ten imperial provinces are referenced in this passage:

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Revelation 17:12.

The line of Caesar:

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Revelation 17:9–11.

Chilton’s comments on Revelation 17:9-10 are also worth noting.

“The “seven mountains” again identify the Beast as Rome, famous for its “seven hills”; but these also correspond to the line of the Caesars, for they are seven kings; five have fallen: They first five Ceasars were Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. One is: Nero, the sixth Caesar, was on the throne as St. John was writing Revelation. The other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while: Galba, the seventh Caesar, reigned for less than seven months.”  

David Chilton “The Days of Vengeance” pg. 435-6

The Land Beast

Nothing says land beast quite like Godzilla

Concerning Revelation 13:12, Chilton writes, “The Jewish leaders, symbolized by this Beast from the Land, joined forces with the Beast of Rome in an attempt to destroy the Church. Thus the Land Beast exercises all the authority of the First Beast: “As the first beast is the agent of the dragon, so the second beast is the agent of the first beast. “All the authority’ makes the second beast the complete agent of the first.” Apostate Judaism became completely subservient to the Roman State.” Pg. 337

Mark of the Beast

This what you get when using pop-culture to interpret the Bible

Ok. So, we have briefly dealt with the Sea and Land Beasts. What about the balance of the chapter? Buying, selling, and the Mark of the Beast.

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive qa mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Revelation 13:16–18.

Folks, there is so much nonsense said about this passage that it makes me laugh on the one hand; but on the other, this is really simple if you confine your analysis to Scripture and don’t seek answers in your daily news feed.

Let’s take verse 18 first and then look at verses 16 & 17.

The first thing you need to remember when reading Revelation is this: what would the first Century audience think when reading or hearing this passage for the first time? Once you start looking at Revelation as someone living in 66 A.D. then a lot of the stuff that is popular today fades away as absurdity. Then it’s clear that the Beast is not Ronald Wilson Reagan (all three of his names have six letters) or Adolf Hitler, or Stalin, or the Prime Minister or any other contemporary person that might be suggested. Why would John suggest that someone in his day could calculate the number of the beast if they were wise? John is indicating that someone in his day might be able to calculate his identity; thus, the Beast was alive in his day.

So why six hundred threescore and six? Please note that it’s not presented as six-six-six or 666. Details matter. Remember also that I previously said that most of the symbolism of Revelation is from the Old Testament.

Let’s jump back to Deuteronomy. Moses knew that in the future that Israel would one day have a King. God planned for it. God even set up three rules for Israel’s king to follow.

14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. [Rule #1]16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. [Rule #2] 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: [Rule #3] neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Deuteronomy 17:14–17.

In summary, Israel’s King was not to multiply horses, multiply wives, and multiply gold and silver.

1 A multitude of horses were only for offensive armies. Now that Canaan had been conquered, Israel was only to have defensive military capabilities.

2 A multitude of wives would turn the King’s heart from worshipping the Lord. God was against political alliances bases in marrying daughters of pagan kings.

3 God was against excessive taxation and accumulation of wealth via harsh taxation.

My next question is kind of obvious, who in the Bible broke all three rules for a king and did so in spades? Solomon.

Violations of Rules 1 & 3 are covered in the same passage.

[Rule #1] 26 And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen: and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots, and with the king at Jerusalem.[Rule #3] 27 And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycamore trees that are in the vale, for abundance. 28 And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king’s merchants received the linen yarn at a price. 29 And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and an horse for an hundred and fifty: and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Syria, did they bring them out by their means.

1 Kings 10:26–29.

Violation of Rule #2 immediately follows the chapter break.

But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.

1 Kings 11:1–6.

Solomon broke all the rules God had set out for a King of Israel. Thus, he became a wicked ruler.

The Apostle John used Solomon as a prototype of a beast. Any ruler that sets himself up as a “god” is a beast. In Daniel, King Nebuchadnezzar was called King of kings (Daniel 2:37) but Nebuchadnezzar because proud and in his heart took credit for what God had done for him and God, as punishment, made him a literal beast. Eventually, Nebuchadnezzar repented and became a man again.

30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? 31 While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. 32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. 33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws. 34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

Daniel 4:30–35.

Now, back to Solomon. Drawing upon this imagery in the Old Testament of Solomon being an apostate ruler, John went to a verse that referenced Solomon’s sin.

14 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold,

1 Kings 10:14.

Yep. There it is. The good old six hundred threescore and six. This was the excess amount of gold that Solomon was taking in each year.

When Solomon died, his successor was faced with a choice, reduce taxation so the people would love you or increase taxation and oppress the people even more. Rehoboam decided to oppress the people, and the result was that the kingdom was split with him getting two tribes (known as Judah) and Jeroboam getting the other ten tribes (known as Israel).

More biblically based science fiction

I have said this all to prove that the Mark of the Beast originated in the apostacy of Solomon when he because a tyrant. The Beast in Revelation is tied to Solomon via the six hundred three score and six. If you wrote Nero Caesar in Hebrew, it’s numerical value is 666. In this passage, some textual variations have 616 instead of 666. This is the numerical value of Nero Caesar in Greek. Nero was Emperor when John authored the Apocalypse. Nero’s name was written in code to get the manuscript past any Roman censorship.

Obscuring a direct reference to Nero is much like Mother Goose rhymes and other “children’s stories” written to get around censorship of the times. Political commentary was disguised as children’s stories while poking fun at the English government. John’s writing technique is still used today in various media presentations.

The other thing that somehow gets lost in Revelation is that everyone has a “mark.” The mark is symbolic not literal. God’s people are sealed with the mark of the Holy Spirit; the devil’s people are sealed with the Mark of the Beast.

Due to illiteracy of the book of Revelation, I guess I have to prove my claim so here goes.

“ … till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.”

Revelation 7:3b-4

Oh, even better, the next verse after the number of the beast is about believers having God the Father’s name on their foreheads.

1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.

Revelation 14:1.

As Bob Dylan said, “It may be the devil, or it may be the Lord, but you gotta serve somebody.”

Buying and Selling

Random Roman coins from the Internet

Now for verses 16 & 17. If you didn’t serve the beast then you couldn’t buy and sell. But buy or sell what. Is this a blanket claim that commerce was forbidden or was something more specific in mind?

I know folks claim that you need a microchip, or bar code, or whatever to be part of the world system but is that what somebody in the First Century would understand? I doubt it.

The idol of First Century Jews was the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem. The Herod family started to refurbish the Temple in 20 B.C. and the project was completed shortly after John wrote Revelation. Refurbishment was completed about 64 A.D.

Gary DeMar

The following is from a blog by Gary DeMar.

Let’s begin at the beginning. Jesus told the church of Laodicea, “I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see” (Rev. 3:18). There is no market available to make such a purchase. Purchasing a commodity like oil for lamps to greet the bridegroom is not about economics but worship (Matt. 25:6–13).

In the same way, buying gold refined by fire is symbolic and is also related to worship. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the reference to buying and selling in Revelation 13:17 is also symbolic and not part of an end-time economic system or even one in the first century. Similar language is found in the Old Testament:

55 “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat!Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. 

2  Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy?Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food.

Isaiah 55:1-2

Temple leaders controlled buying and selling to regulate access to the temple (John 2:12–22Matt. 21:12). It’s why Jesus cleanses the temple twice as required by Leviticus 14:33–57. “This is established in [Revelation] 3:18 (and compare 21:6). When those who refuse the mark of the Beast are not allowed to buy and sell, it means that they are expelled from the synagogue and Temple. The merchants of the land in Revelation 18 are those who worshipped at the Temple and synagogue.” ((James B. Jordan, A Brief Reader’s Guide to Revelation (Niceville, FL: Transfiguration Press, 1999), 19. James was the person who suggested this interpretation. I’m indebted to him for it.))

Jesus foretold that this would happen: “They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God” (John 16:2). Keep in mind that the “beast coming up out of the earth” is involved in these events. The land beast is most certainly associated with first-century Israel, especially the priests who controlled access to the temple, which was finished during Nero’s reign in AD 64.

Early in the church’s history the disciples went to the temple to preach the gospel (Acts 5:20–21244224:12). At first, they were welcomed (2:46). Peter and John frequented the temple during “the hour of prayer” (3:1). Jewish Christians continued to use the temple, even participating in some of its rituals (21:26). After the temple officials learned that those Jews were preaching that Jesus was the Messiah—the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world—Paul was “dragged … out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut” (21:26–30).

During Jesus’ ministry, the temple officials were “selling,” and worshipers were “buying” access to the temple (Matt. 21:12), turning God’s house into a “robbers’ den” (Matt. 21:12–13). Only the Jews who aligned themselves with the priests (i.e., had the “mark of the beast”), the sacrificial system, and the temple buildings, could enter the temple for worship.

To take the “mark of the beast” meant a person denied that Jesus was the Messiah, the true temple of God, the only sufficient sacrifice (Heb. 9). Of course, Christian Jews avoided the “mark of the beast” and showed their true allegiance to Jesus, “having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads” (Rev. 14:1). They demonstrated that these (symbolic) names on their foreheads through their public professions of faith and allegiance to Jesus. Those who carried the mark of the beast professed that they had chosen Caesar over Christ (John 19:15).

When commanded not to speak to “any man in this name,” Peter and John responded, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:17–20). The proclamation that “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3) and “that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7) was a religious and political affront to those in power throughout the Roman Empire. Such proclamations were acts “contrary to Caesar” (17:7) and “against this holy place [i.e., the temple] and this law” (6:13).

These passages fit together nicely since true redemption comes, not from Rome or earthly Jerusalem, but from where “the Lamb was standing,” that is, on Mount Zion. The writer of Hebrews describes Mt. Zion’s location: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels” (Heb. 12:22).

Revelation 13 and 14 contrast two ways of salvation: access to the temple through the mark, name, or number of the Beast (Rev. 13:16–17) or through the name of the Lamb “having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads” (14:1). Those who were circumcised only in their flesh followed the Beast, while those circumcised in the heart followed the Lamb.

Conclusion

So, I think this about wraps up everything you wanted to know about the beasts of Revelation and the mark. God places his mark on the foreheads of his people, and the devil places a mark on the foreheads of his people. This motif goes all the way back to the beginning in Genesis but that is a separate topic.

What’s in your wallet?  Knights Of Columbus Edition

Fraternal organizations, church groups, volunteer groups, Kiwanis, Rotarians, Lions, Elks, even the Masons; when you think of them, you think service.  Charitable donations, raising money, involvement in the community.  One thing I doubt you think about?  A branded credit card from said organizations. 

In a first, the laymen’s service organization of the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus, is now proud to offer their very own branded credit card.

Samuel L Jackson asking, “What’s in your wallet?”

Nope, this card is not just for members who travel on church business that functions as a company credit card, but one available to the public.  Remember that availability to all is a requirement, as red-lining and discrimination is illegal in banking.  So yes, atheists, wiccans, freemasons, and heretical protestants can use and apply for our credit card too.

The Knights is a fraternal organization. A friend had sent me this email that I thought was either; the Onion (a satirical online newspaper), the Babylon Bee (also majoring in satire), or some AI generated attempt at trolling.  Nope, it’s true!  It’s on the Knights website.

I am actually pretty aghast. If it weren’t for other things going on in my life, I would likely leave the organization.  Seriously.  When you stray from your core values that much? It’s a big problem for me.

The big issue I have is what a credit card really is.  Sure, you think it’s a way to front some money, and as long as you pay it back each month, you’re fine.  In theory you are correct but that’s mostly the exception; I’m talking about the rule.  Quite a large number of people do not pay off said credit cards each month. Many are in debt over their head.  Just check out Dave Ramsey, Clark Howard, or Suze Orman’s shows to name a few.  Thousands of people are enslaved to debt, sometimes five figures! 

The Knights’ credit card carries an interest rate of 36% while paying 1% in rewards.  I believe the Bible makes several statements on usury (charging excessive rates/fees).  This goes completely against the Church’s teaching.

Aren’t the Knights a church ministry?  Correct.

At the same time we are touting the benefits of debt for our members, we have been offering prayers for the canonization (sainthood) of our founder Fr. Michael J. McGivney. 

Fr. Michael J. McGivney

This prayer specifically talks about caring for the needy and the outcast.  Doesn’t a credit card go directly against that?  Why the need for unsecured credit?  Don’t credit cards prey on the needy and outcast? So, what is the benefit to the Knights of Columbus in offering such a card?

The Knights do not have or operate a bank.  We have life insurance and investment divisions that aren’t predatory in nature like a credit card is. Venturing into credit cards seems way off mission to me.

Jake the Snake

Why I left the Roman Catholic Church

Yep. True story. Long ago I was a member in good standing of the oldest Christian Church in the West. I was baptized as an infant at Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Woodland. A small town just north of Sacramento California. I attended the parish school from kindergarten through sixth grade.

I won’t go into all the weeds but let’s just say that by fifth grade, I had decided God wasn’t real. I purposely wrote God with a lower case “g” and was sour on the idea of his existence. I butted heads with the nuns from the on-campus convent. I drive Sister Ilene up the wall, and my behavior prompted more than one parent-teacher conference.

I came across someone of a different faith that got me to read the Bible. I found stuff in the Bible that was contrary to what the church taught. I brought some of these things to the nuns at the school. They had no response to my Bible based questions except to say that I wasn’t capable of reading the Bible on my own. I needed the priests and bishops to tell me what it said. I was warned that if I continued reading the Bible on my own that I might become a heretic just like Martin Luther. (Oh, FYI it was the first time that I ever heard of Martin Luther.)

I became hungry for some answers to my questions.

Oh, the passage that gave the nuns fits was that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Yep. Jesus was the oldest but clearly, he had siblings. Roman Catholics reject these scriptures or try to weasel out of them, but they are unambiguous.

Here is what Logos found via an A.I. search.

The Gospels identify Jesus with specific family relationships: he is called “the carpenter’s son” with brothers named James, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt 13:55–56), and sisters are mentioned but remain unnamed (Matt 13:55–56). Mark’s account similarly refers to him as “the carpenter, the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), and after the resurrection, his brothers appear with Mary in prayer (Acts 1:14). Paul identifies James as “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19), and James eventually became a pillar of the Jerusalem church.

Source R. Alan Culpepper, Mark, ed. Leslie Andres and R. Alan Culpepper, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated, 2007), 190.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches claim that said brothers and sisters can’t really be that due to claims of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This doctrine is nonsense. The Bible says so.

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [quote from Isaiah 7:14] 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew 1:23–25.

It says Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary until Jesus was born, not that he never had sex with her. Folks, sex is part of being married. In fact, it’s not really a valid marriage if the couple doesn’t have sex. That is why having sex is called “consummating the marriage”.

Oh, for doubters of my claim, here is a portion of an article on consummating a marriage that I grabbed from my friendly Internet search engine.

In canon law and many religious traditions, consummation is considered essential for a marriage to be fully valid, often linked to the potential for procreation. Some doctrines even specify that intercourse with contraception may not count as consummation. Historically, consummation was sometimes verified through rituals or inspections, though such practices have largely disappeared.

Here are some Bible verses concerning, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus’ siblings.

55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Matthew 13:55–56.

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Mark 6:3.

22 … And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son?

Luke 4:22b.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?

John 6:42a.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Acts 1:14.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

Galatians 1:19.

By the end of seventh grade, I knew about Jesus, but I was confronted with the fact that I didn’t know him. I was missing a relationship with him. Frankly, I didn’t know there was such a thing. Knowing about someone and knowing them are two different propositions. I learned that this was a spiritual truth as well. Yes, I slowly decided that God was real, but I was missing him in the Roman Catholic Church.

During this time in my life, my mom ended up watching Bill Graham on television. She prayed along with Graham and gave her life to Christ. (More on this shortly.) She started taking us to a Baptist church in town. I liked that they had a youth program and was excited to have adults around me that were open to answering any questions that I could hurl at them. I got answers not deferrals to higher authorities.

As summer approached, mom signed all three of her children up to attend the summer church camp. At camp, I was told that Jesus died for my sins and I could have a personal relationship with him. He would forgive my sins and come into my life. I had only to ask him. As a first step to show my desire to know Christ in an intimate way, I was asked at the end of the chapel service to come forward and pray. I did so.

Folks, the act of walking down the aisle does not save anyone but for me it was a first step in knowing Christ as opposed to knowing about him. That camp experience really changed me. For others it was a flash in the pan that never really took, but it was transformative for me.

My life changed as a result of that encounter with God. My relationship with God has changed over the years because I have gotten deeper into the Bible than many others that I know. I have changed my views of somethings, but God is more real to me now than He was that summer. That was fifty years ago.  

If you have a desire to know God more intimately, then ask Jesus to save you from your sin, redeem you, and make you a new person. Then, start reading your Bible. Many folks say to start with the Gospels. On one level, the Gospel of John is an easy read but if you grew up with “a Charlie Brown Christmas” then start with Luke. It will sound familiar.

Over time, God expects you to deepen your walk with Him. Yep, you will mess up. Ask forgiveness and keep going. Perseverance is an important part of living out your faith. Oh, exercising your faith in a community of believers is the biblical norm. This might take some trial and error to figure out. For me, the Roman Catholic Church was not the place where I got fed a lot in a spiritual sense.

Knowing God is possible if you seek after Christ. I may say that I’m really right but I know that only God truly is.

As In the Days of Noah

I’ve probably mentioned this before but felt like writing on it again.

Supposedly, Matthew 24 contains a rock-solid proof of the Rapture of the Church. First, here’s the passage in question.

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Matthew 24:36–42.

Jesus says that something is coming and only the Father knows when. (We are actually given more context and time related information by Matthew but I’m strictly sticking to the quoted passage.) He then gives this analogy. People will be eating and drinking. Whoa. That’s evil? They will be marrying and giving in marriage. Whoa. That’s evil?

Seriously? Hey folks, life goes on, as normal but then Noah entered the Ark. Life still went on for another week.

“And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.”

Genesis 7:10.

Then the flood waters came. Guess what happened next?

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: Genesis 7:21.

Yep, all the bad guys died. The righteous folks, i.e. Noah’s family were safe in the Ark. The wicked were taken.

Ok, now look at verse 39 in Matthew 24. It actually says the exact opposite of when premillennial dispensationalists claim it does.

“39 And [they] knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”  

So, the bad guys knew not until the flood came and took them all away. Yep, the people taken are the wicked not the righteous.

Now look at verse 40 & 41 in Matthew 24.

40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

So, who is taken? The bad guys not the Christians.

FYI zero Christians were killed in the siege of Jerusalem. This was the reason that the church in Jerusalem sold their property and held it in common all the way at the beginning of the Book of Acts. They were told to flee when they see the signs and they did. Obey and live. In fact, you didn’t even need to be a Christian to avoid the coming judgment, just flee when the predicted signs appeared.

Jump back to the Sermon on the Mount; “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” Matthew 5:5.

So, class, who inherits the world? The righteous. We don’t inherit Heaven, but the earth.

Need more proof?

The righteous shall never be removed:

But the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.

Proverbs 10: 30

For evildoers shall be cut off:

But those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.

For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be:

Yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.

But the meek shall inherit the earth;

And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

Psalm 37:9–11.

Jesus is promising that the wicked, those that oppose the Christians of the First Century, will be removed from the earth. This allows the meek to inherit the world.

The problem is not the Bible; it’s the false understanding that we have when we impose our presuppositions on the text instead of letting the text speak for itself.

In Matthew 24, Israel and more specifically, Jerusalem and its Temple, are about to be judged. The wicked Jews of the First Century are about to be judged for “all the righteous blood from Abel through Zechariah.”

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Matthew 23:29–38

47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Luke 11:47–51.

The blood of all the righteous prophets ever killed in the history of the Bible would be required of this generation—those that heard the voice of Jesus just days before he was crucified. Folks, this promise is airtight. There is no deferring it or waiting until some future event thousands of years hence, it was going to happen to them, and it did. Jesus said the judgment would be so terrible that unless it was cut short, no flesh would be saved. Over one million people died in the siege of Jerusalem that ended in 70 A.D.

Folks, at the trial of Jesus, the crowd screamed let his blood be upon us and it was.

25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.”

Matthew 27:25.

Within a generation of his crucifixion, the Jewish nation was wiped off the map. The Old Covenant era was ended forever. Jesus said I will take it from you and give it to a nation bearing the fruit thereof and he did. That new nation began with a remnant of Jews on Pentecost. Eventually, this righteous remnant began grafting non-Jews (Gentiles) into its assembly. This nation will encompass the entire world not just a small patch of land in Palestine. The Bible says that the Gospel was spread to all the civilized world before the New Testament’s writing was even completed. The Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven.

In the early church, there was apostacy in the form of Judaizers and gnostic teaching. Many fell away from the true faith. There was also persecution instigated by Jews jealous of the freedom found in Christ. Up until the end of Nero’s reign, Rome protected Christians from the Jews. Under Nero, persecution against the church began. The Apostle Paul and Jesus via Revelation both promised the church relief if they would stay faithful just a little longer. Relief came when Israel was judged for its sin. The apostate whore was burned by her lovers and destroyed just as John had recorded in Revelation 17.

The Olivet Discourse was a prophecy in 33 A.D. but history by 70 A.D. The Apostle John lived to see his prophetic work come to pass during his lifetime just as Jesus had promised on a beach in Galilee many years before.

Sorry kids. No Rapture in your future, just God’s promises … if you’d only believe them.

Doug Wilson on Christians and Politics

I don’t know if the passage which I quote below ever made it into print. I have very few books by Doug Wilson, maybe three. However, I think it has application on the Abolitionists movement so I wanted to place it on the record. As usual, I quote more than a sound bite or sentence fragment to insure that readers will understand the context; especially since verifying my transcript will prove difficult for most folks.. The source of my quotation is from a four lecture presentation on Eschatology. This is from Lecture 3 “The Power of the Cross”. I think it was recorded in the early 1990’s. This quotation is not about Abolitionists (since they didn’t exist at the time of the recording) but is applicable to them. Lastly, the transcript was made using voice recognition in Microsoft Word and then edited by me. Thus paragraph breaks and punctuation were created by me.

— Transcript begins now: —

Romans 4:13

“13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. “

Now, a very simple, straight forward thing, what was Abraham promised? Not just lots of descendants, he was promised descendants like the stars in the sky, he was promised descendants like the grains of sand on the seashore. But how does Paul put that promise here? What was Abraham promised? The world. All right? And who is promised the world along with Abraham? “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed …”, OK, in other words, the promise to Abraham is fulfilled not just in what is given to Abraham, but what is given to Abraham through his seed. So, what was Abraham promised and what was Abraham’s seed promised? The world.

Let’s put another, let’s throw another verse here that you are very familiar with, but nobody believes. “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit heaven when they die.” (laughter) “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5), not heaven, the earth. Abraham and his seed were promised the world.

Now this is a very important distinction, by what instrument were they were they to be given the world? Not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith; not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Now let me, let me, throw a parenthetical comment in here, and I’m going to throw some turns out, you probably had a very similar experience with them. I don’t call myself a Reconstructionist but other people do, and when these other people say that you know Wilson’s a Reconstructionist, what do they mean?

They generally mean that I want to, and others like me, others of my ilk, want to march on Washington, institute biblical law, and impose it on everybody; wrapping it around their neck all the way down. Alright? Some sort of top-down thing. Well, that whole idea appalled me. It just, it just appalls me. There are Christians who do it and they’re called Dispensationalists. They’re the ones with Christian Coalition. They’re the ones with religious lobbying organizations. They’re the ones who are doing their big thing in Washington D.C.

The promise, and everybody thinks that because the politics is such an idol in our in our era, everybody thinks that if you if you believe that that the Christian faith is going to exercise universal dominion, everybody thinks that you’re running for Congress

It’s one of those bizarre things… I do believe that we are going to inherit the world. How? Through the righteousness of faith. Through the proclamation of the Gospel. The most important thing we can do for the recovery of godly order and civil decency is to bring about a reformation in the church. We don’t, we don’t need umm, we don’t need any more godly people going to Washington. H.L. Manchin, the erudite unbeliever said, “Trying to reform Washington by sending good people there is like trying to reform prostitution by staffing brothels with virgins.”

We just don’t fix things that way. Alright. You can send a good man to Washington, and the first thing that happens, is he grows in office. That’s the first thing that happens. He starts compromising. He starts going along to get along. We don’t, that’s not where the action is. The, Abraham, Abraham was promised the world. Abraham and his seed were promised the world; and it says not through law, but through the righteousness of faith. What does the righteousness of faith mean? It’s justification. It’s a response to the gospel. As we hear the gospel proclaimed, we believe the gospel, through that instrumentality; cultures, nations, peoples will be transformed and it will eventually be reflected in the political realm.

All right, but we don’t, we don’t go for the political realm, and try and reform the church. We reform the church, and through the Reformation of the church, will see the Reformation of families, towns, counties, entire nation, That’s, that’s what God calls us to but we don’t minimize the goal. You know, a lot of the people who are in Washington doing their thing, they want, they want our voice to be heard. They want as the saying goes, they want a place at the table. And I don’t, I don’t wanna place at the table. I wanna know who’s the cook. I just don’t want to place at the table, I want the table. I want the whole table and I want the Lord Jesus Christ seated at the head of it and I’m not gonna have anything to do with it until he’s honored and and honored at that position of headship. Now how is that gonna happen? It’s not gonna happen through me writing letter a letter to a congressman. It’s gonna happen through the work of reformation in the Church.

As the church has become sound and biblical that is, that is, what God tells us to do and there’s a promise attached to it. We know that this work of reformation that we’ve undertaken will not be unsuccessful, we know in the long haul, it will necessarily be successful because God’s promised He made a promise to Abraham. He made a promise to Abraham and to his seed. Every time someone’s converted, comes into the kingdom of God, there is God being faithful again, still to Abraham.

— End of Transcription —

My point in quoting Wilson is that he is saying the exact opposite of Abolitionists. Abolitionists want to reform the Church by passing laws in the States that will then enforce biblical law on the citizens with the hope that this will then lead to reformation of our culture. The biblical pattern is just the opposite; namely, start with the church and the revival of the church will lead to cultural and societal transformation. This was the pattern of the Reformation and it worked as long as the faithful were faithful.

The other question that begs asking is why not implement all biblical civil laws, why single out abortion as opposed to adultery, divorce, homosexuality, Sabbath breaking or disobedient children? Abortion, adultery, and divorce are just as common in the church as in world at large.

In the next few days, I plan on posting a transcript from David Chilton that answers my question about whom should we really start with if we want to reform our society and culture.

Acts 1:11 Gary DeMar v Jason Bradfield

The following discusses “Preterism.” Preterism is the belief that certain passages in the Bible were predicted and then fulfilled. To some degree, all Christians are preterists. They believe the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ of the New Testament. The issue is which biblical prophecies are fulfilled, and which are future. Within a subset of Protestants, a debate is raging over which prophecies of the coming of Jesus are future and which were fulfilled by the events of 70 A.D.—the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem.

Three Questions

In 2023, a letter was sent to Gary DeMar with three questions. The letter demanded that Gary affirm three statements as true. The statements were about biblical doctrines, but no supporting verses were included.

The three questions asked of Gary DeMar in 2023 were:

  • Do you believe in a future, bodily glorious return of Christ?
  • Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead?
  • Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?

The letter then goes on to state:

To refuse to affirm the future, physical resurrection, the final judgment of the righteous and the unrighteous, and the tactile reality of the eternal state is to refuse to affirm critical elements of the Christian faith. To contradict these doctrines is not merely to contradict a few specific biblical texts, it is to contradict indispensable aspects of the Christian faith and the biblical worldview.

CONCERNS RE: GARY DEMAR

Gary DeMar

The letter was leaked onto Facebook because DeMar didn’t respond. Public pressure was brought to bear on DeMar, and a website was even set up to solicit signatures of people that affirmed the questions. On the website, the three questions were expanded to seven weirdly worded questions; supporting verses were also added. The weirdly worded questions employed the type of verbal gymnastics that California voters are frequently confronted with where “no” means “yes” and “yes” means “no.”

The letter’s author, and agreeing signatories, were trying to position DeMar as a heretic—in their mind DeMar is a closeted full preterist—while they are Orthodox because they are partial preterists which affirm the Historic Creeds. (More on that shortly.)

Before being aware of the website, Gary DeMar responded by saying, which verses apply to these questions? Tell me that and then I will respond.

Once the verses were attached, DeMar was presented with a target rich environment. The signatories were at odds with each other as to which verses applied to A.D. 70 and which to the final return of Christ at the end of history.

The Historic Creeds

In the circles that DeMar runs in, folks are Presbyterian. They acknowledge the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and Westminster Confession of Faith. The controversy before people contemplating the Three Questions are mostly related to the return of Christ as mentioned in the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds.

“… he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.” — Apostle’s Creed

“He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.” — Nicene Creed

“… and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” — Nicene Creed

DeMar’s Response

DeMar spent many hours on subsequent podcasts pointing out that the signatories did not agree as to which verses listed as supporting the Three Questions applied to the coming of Christ in judgment in 70 A.D. and which applied to a return of Christ at the end of history. Gary’s response was essentially, what am I affirming if y’all can’t even agree amongst yourselves on the position of Orthodox Christianity.

Some of the signatories have changed their positions over the years, one of which is Kenneth Gentry. Gentry has changed his mind on his interpretation of parts of Matthew 24. His current view seems to be nonsense to me and unsupportable. Either Matthew 24 is past or future, but Gentry has decided without any textual support to split it so one verse is fulfilled and the next verse is future and then the next verse is fulfilled again. I don’t agree with splitting past and future at Matthew 24:35 or thereabouts but at least that way keeps verses one to the split together, so the first half is history and the remainder is future. However, Gentry does not do that either.

Part of the issue is that the Creeds have no biblical citations to show where the various clauses come from.

Here is an example of the problems that this creates.

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Matthew 16:27.

Again, the Apostle’s Creed “he will come to judge the living and the dead

These sound a lot alike but read the next verse.

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 16:28.

Read verses 27 & 28 together. Jesus said the Son will come with angels and reward (judge) every man and some of his First Century listeners would not die before they see this fulfilled. They would live to see him coming into his Kingdom!

Folks, many texts create similar problems. They were future to the people to whom Jesus spoke but fulfilled before the Creeds were even written. DeMar’s point was that the authors of the Creed ignored the time texts and just assumed it was speaking of a future event. As DeMar often says, “They [authors of the Creeds] didn’t show their homework.”

Per this verse, the judgment of all men is not a future expectation as the Creeds imply because some men were already judged—unless you want to say Jesus was a liar—which no signatories or DeMar would allow as a possibility. I think DeMar’s friend, Kim Burgess, would answer that the judgment of men according to their works (Matthew 16:27) was completed when the Old Testament Saints were released from Sheol and allowed to enter Heaven. This would have been between the Ascension and 70 A.D. Thus, Jesus literally opened the way into Heaven and before that time, nobody went there when they died. On this point, the Westminster Confessions are wrong. Only after this First Century judgment was “absent from the body, present with the Lord” a reality.

The problem that Gentry and others have is that they are wedded to the traditions of the Church. Sola Scriptura is not really a thing for them when considering this topic, they assume the tradition is right and then try to shoehorn everything into it. This is why Gentry changed his position on Matthew.

If you took every verse cited by one or more signatories of the Three Questions as applying to A.D. 70, you would end up with no verses applying to what is traditionally regarded as “The Second Coming”. This is why they regard Full Preterism as heresy. The underlying assumption of the signatories is that something must remain to support the position of the Creeds and the Church. DeMar points out that they have no agreement on the topic, but they assume the truth of the proposition because Church tradition and the Creeds demand it.

Jason Bradfield

Jason Bradfield

Kenneth Gentry has been putting forth Jason Bradfield as his attack dog on Facebook to counter Gary DeMar. I have two issues with this. First Bradfield comes across as holier than thou and smug in his attacks on DeMar and second, Gentry reposts Bradfield in a way that completely blocks comments on any of Bradfield articles. Thus, Bradfield does not have to defend his attacks on DeMar. To me it’s gutless if you are unwilling to defend your position.

The most recent volley between the two was on the topic of Acts 1: 9-11. Posts by both men on this topic went up on the Internet on March 22, 2026.

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Acts 1:9–11.

First, here is what DeMar posted.

Most futurists use this verse to show that Jesus will return in His physical body because that would be necessary in order to fulfill “just in the same way” He went away. The problem is that this Greek phrase is translated differently in other parts of the NT [New Testament].

Episode 93: Will Jesus Return in “Just the Same Way”?

The above quote from DeMar is not an exhaustive dissertation but from a teaser for a podcast episode on the passage.

Bradfield states this about DeMar:

Stage three is his only real engagement with the text itself: an argument about Greek phrase hon tropon (”in the same way” or “in like manner”). DeMar notes this phrase appears elsewhere in the New Testament (Matthew 23:37, Acts 7:28 Timothy 3:8) and is translated simply as “as” in those passages, not “in just the same way.” From this, he concludes that the translations of Acts 1:11 are prejudicially rendered, that hon tropon doesn’t actually require a precise correspondence between the ascension and the return, and therefore Acts 1:11 “not the slam dunk” people think it is.

Gary DeMar and Acts 1:11: The Art of Not Dealing With the Text

Based on what I have heard DeMar say on his podcast, Bradfield’s summary, which I quoted above, is correct. Bradfield then accuses DeMar of sleight-of-hand because DeMar does not deal with each Greek word in the passage.

If Acts 1:11 is the very text under dispute, you cannot settle its meaning by appealing to your conclusions about other texts. That is circular reasoning. You must deal with what this text says.

I frankly think this is Bradfield invoking his own sleight-of-hand to counter DeMar. To dismiss out-of-hand the way the Greek word is used anywhere else in Scripture as irrelevant to understanding hon tropon is prejudicial. Bradfield also ignores any passages that are parallel to Act 1:9-11. He deals with this verse in isolation. Whether he is employing the magic prophecy scissors, I will let the read decide.

Bradfield then goes on to dissect several Greek words in the passage. Ironically, he does this by citing other instances where certain Greek words are used—which he just castigated DeMar for doing. He does this by selecting quotes from Keith Mathison.

Keith Mathison

Mathison is having an imaginary conversation where he is rebuking someone else’s views as wrongly understanding the text.

Bradfield wants his readers to assume that said person getting rebuked by Mathison is Gary DeMar. In My mind this is a strawman argument or a tearing down via proxy. The things being rebuked by Mathison are things DeMar has never said. Bradfield is putting words into DeMar’s mouth via this method of analysis.

DeMar points out in his podcast that Jesus’s coming is described differently in different biblical passages. In some passages, Jesus comes on the clouds. Sometimes with angels. In Revelation he is coming on a white horse—Darrell Mansfield’s favorite description. Elsewhere, Jesus comes with a two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. You get the idea. His coming is a fact, the particulars are more descriptive. Some are more literal than others.

The core of Bradfield’s article is:

DeMar also never addresses the presence of houtōs (“thus,” “in this way”) in this verse. He treats hon tropon in isolation, as though it alone carries the full weight of the comparison. But in Acts 1:11, houtōs and hon tropon work together: “will come thus (houtōs)…in the manner in which (hon tropon) you saw him go.” As Mathison explains, “The construction hon tropon is a compound adverbial phrase corresponding to houtōs. It means ‘in the manner in which’ or ‘just as.’ The use houtōs together with hon tropon serves to emphasize the point that Jesus will come in the same way that he departed.” This houtōs…hon tropon combination creates a double emphasis on correspondence between the manner of departure and the manner of return. This combination does not appear in Matthew 23:37, Acts 7:2 or 2 Timothy 3:8. DeMar’s cross-references, therefore, are not as parallel as he assumes.

Again, DeMar is not a careless thinker. He knows where the exegetical pressure points are. That is precisely what makes the pattern so damning. When he engages Acts 1:11, he isolates hon tropon from its context, ignores the verbs of sight and the spatial language that define the manner of the departure, and imports a conclusion from other passages rather than deriving one from the text at hand.

Essentially, Bradfield is demanding that the passage says that Jesus will physically return to earth in the same way that he left. Taken literally, the return of Jesus will be a local event that almost nobody will see except eleven or twelve folks on an obscure mountain top.

Compare Acts 1:9-11 to Revelation 1:7

Remember that the following verse is about the judgment on Jerusalem, not the end of the world.

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Revelation 1:7.

So, every eye will see Jesus when he comes in judgment in 70 A.D. (Kenneth Gentry spends over 20 pages of his commentary on Revelation defending this interpretation) but in Acts 1:11, where Jesus is claimed to return physically at the end of the world, it is a private affair because his return is a carbon copy of his departure? Sorry but this makes zero sense. Clearly, Bradfield is trying to shoehorn the Acts passage into the preexisting mold of tradition and the Creeds.

Kenneth Gentry

Jason Brasdfield is trying to force at least two things from Acts 1, the when, and the how of Christ’s Return. If during the judgment on Jerusalem, “every eye will see him” then clearly Jesus came, and on the clouds too! The subject of “The Cloud” is important to the Acts passage too but gets zero mention from Bradfield. There is a long history and much biblical imagery attached to “The Cloud.”

The issue of Jesus coming more than once is also on the table but nothing from Bradfield on that either.

Bradfield can employ all the Greek Fire that he can muster but nobody has disputed that Jesus would return after the Ascension, it is the how, when, and how many times that needs to be addressed. DeMar is right. Once the signatories agree then have a chat with him and bring verses not slogans.

Conclusion

Gary DeMar has been singled out for special treatment for reasons that I just don’t understand. Gary doesn’t have to answer the questions. Frankly, his job is easy, pointing out the inconsistencies on the other side. I think Bradfield is tired of DeMar being evasive. I just think DeMar is having fun poking holes in the other side. They attacked him and he is making them pay for their stupidity.

The truth is that these guys agree on 98 percent of their theology. The Bible doesn’t tell us much of anything about what happens after death. When we die then we will be with Christ. Jesus comes multiple times in judgment throughout human history. It’s part of ruling on the Throne now. That is a present reality not a future hope.

Contrary to tradition, there are zero verses that say Jesus will ever set foot on planet earth again. I think he will, but I can’t find it in the Bible. The point of the New Testament is the end of the Old Covenant with its temples, blood sacrifices, and rituals. In the Kingdom age, we have work to do. The issue facing the Church in our age is Christians hiding out in their Churches praying for the Rapture, so they won’t have to transform their culture so it is subject to the Lordship of Christ.

Contrary to Premillennial/Dispensationalism, the focus of the New Testament is the Kingdom of God and his Church conquering the world. The last, last things (end of the world as we know it) are not for us to worry about. The Second Coming—whatever form it will take—will not happen for a very long time so quit worrying about it.

Enough with the circular firing squad, Jesus is knocking on the door of your church, will you let him in?

A Lesser Discussed Prophecy of Jesus

Folks, Jesus made several predictions about his return happening within the lifetime of those hearing his words. Sadly, many of his followers in our day and age don’t believe him or worse yet, think he was mistaken. If Jesus was wrong on this claim, then he is a liar and thus not God and has no credibility for anything else he claimed or was claimed about him.

Liberal theologians and some atheists believe Jesus made claims about returning within the lifetime of his hearers, not because Jesus was correct, but because they believe he was wrong. Christopher Hitchens used to beat up premil folks with this all the time. He tried it on Doug Wilson and got smacked.

Conversely, many evangelical Christians don’t believe Jesus because it doesn’t fit their presuppositions about what Jesus meant to say. Instead of taking Jesus at his word, they try to weasel out of it.

In the last chapter of John’s Gospel, is an account of Peter and Jesus at a beach in Galilee. Immediately following the “feed my sheep” story is the last documented squabble amongst the disciples. It involves, Jesus, Peter, and John.

21 Peter seeing him [John] saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

John 21:21–23.

Prior to these verses, Jesus had told Peter that “…  when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” This is understood to indicate that Peter would die of crucifixion. Tradition further states that said crucifixion of Peter was conducted with him upside-down.

Peter then looks at John and says, Hey Jesus, what about him?

At this point in John’s narrative, C.S. Lewis fans would expect to hear Aslan say, “it’s not your story” and end the discussion.

But that isn’t how the discussion ends. Instead, Jesus says that if I want John to live until I return, what business is that of yours?

Folks, as you know, John was the only one of the Twelve that was not martyred. John did in fact live until the destruction of the Temple and siege of Jerusalem were completed. He got to see the fulfillment of the Apocalypse that he had authored and the end of the Old Covenant age. The Kingdom of God came into its fullness and John lived to see it.

At the time of authoring the Gospel, John knew it was a possibly but not a certainty that he would live to see the end. In his epistle, John wrote it is the last hour. (I John 2:18.) John knew it was about to happen.

This account reminds me of Simeon and Anna at the circumcision of Jesus (Luke 2:25 – 38). God allowed both Simeon and Anna to see the salvation of God. In a similar way, John got to see the beginning of the next chapter of redemption. God’s promise to Abraham to bless all nations through the seed of a woman became a reality in his lifetime.

So, yep, John did tarry until Jesus came. How cool.

Mike Vrabel, Diana Russini and the Truth

In case you are not aware, Diana Russini covered the NFL for The Athletic; a pay-to-view website.  Mike Vrabel is the head coach of the New England Patriots and was head coach of the Tennessee Titans prior to that.  Russini gets paid to cover the NFL and more specifically get scoops before anyone else does.  She was by most accounts very good at her job.  Another thing that followed Russini was the rumors of inappropriate sexual behavior that she was trading for said scoops.  There was always smoke but never fire, well until now.

One piece of information I’d like to pass along.  Always tell the truth, you will never remember the story you told or who you told it too. 

The information above is what 90-day guy lacked.  It cost him.  He told five different stories to five different people.  The mental gymnastics is causing him mental anguish.  I witnessed him contradict himself 3 sperate times in the course of a 3 minute conversation.  When called out, he would go to his old standby “I don’t have a good memory.”  As Chief would say, “Folks, you know who doesn’t need a good memory?  The guy who always tells the truth.”

Back to Vrabel and Russini.

Both are married, but not to each other.  They were both photographed together at The Ambiante Hotel in Arizona.  The Ambiante is known for being adults only.  Also, it’s a romantic getaway where you usually are proposing to your girlfriend or you’ve made the decision you want to have a child in 9 months.  I went to the Ambiante hotel with my, at the time, girlfriend. Folks, as mentioned above, we left the room to eat, and to lounge by the pool, but a lot of sex was happening. 

Here are the photos of the two of them.

Russini is definitely very good looking but likely doesn’t have much in the brain department. 

The photos leaked out and Russini took a page out of the 90-day guy’s playbook.  It backfired.  I call it the Holy Trinity of Stupidity.

She first insulted everyone’s intelligence by saying it was a chance encounter with another friend.  Umm … folks, I have multiple female friends; we do not embrace or interact like that.  Also, not on a trip without our significant other/spouse.  Then she said that she was there for a girl’s weekend trip.  Then when out of lies, she decided to play the sympathy/victim card saying it was lies and she didn’t want to give the story any more oxygen.  If you are a loser in life, this is the playbook you follow.  Notice, she could have told the truth, and while consequences would have occurred, the story would blow over.

Again, she could have told the truth but didn’t want to risk her marriage so she claimed it was a chance encounter.  Then it was a girl’s weekend getaway, (strangely this would be the first girl’s weekend in the history of girl’s weekends with zero photos taken of said girls.)  Secondly, going to that particular hotel and calling it girl’s weekend was definitely an interesting choice of words. Just by going there, many would understand it as a girl-on-girl orgy type outing. Definitely a different spin on girls just wanna have fun. Again, bad move.  The pulling the victim/sympathy card is the last play in the playbook.  Yep, when all else fails, resort to the victim or sympathy card.  She is not a victim. 

Russini is now seeing her life come apart at the seams.  She lost her job reporting and covering New England in the NFL.  Bottom line, you cannot be having sex with your source and be non-biased.  It’s an ethics issue.  A big one.  She will land another gig, but she is damaged goods.  Her marriage is likely on the rocks.  No guy wants to be viewed as your “Monday through Thursday guy” with your side piece taking over on date night/weekends.  Oh, she has a son who is four named Mike. Coincidentally, she was photographed with Mike Vrabel 9 months prior to her son’s birth.  I would say we have even money odds that the kid may not be his.  Even if it is his kid, now you find out he is named after the man your wife cheated with?  Ouch. Her friend group is likely eviscerated as well. When she brought up it was a girl’s getaway trip, I have a feeling her group chat was filed with “keep us out of your adultery.”  Girls in your friend group are not dumb; they don’t want to be blamed for your marriage likely dissolving.  As one of Chief’s friends of the blog said, girls do not want to wreck a home. In the case of Russini, she wrecked hers. It seems as if Mike Vrabel likely dropped 7 figures on a ring or other material things for his current bride and his marriage may be ok.  Money can buy happiness, especially when happiness involves likely not working and being a stay-at-home wife.

One thing I saw, while buying a couple items at the grocery store, was a gossip magazine essentially asking why Vrabel has gotten a pass and asserting that double standard exists.  Folks, there is no double standard. Having an affair with a women who is not your wife doesn’t mean you get fired as a football coach. Morally bankrupt? Yes.  Unemployed? No.  He, to his credit, has also stayed silent for the most part, Russini lied over and over.  As mentioned earlier, Russini is paid for her ability to break news before it goes mainstream. When you are sleeping with your source, your ethics are compromised. 

Back to the point of this blog.  If you tell the truth, you have no reason to lie or fabricate a story.  It also makes memory easy. You can always recall the truth. Trying to memorizing 5 different stories you told to 5 different people is mentally taxing and emotionally draining.

It was amazing for me to hear 90-day guy, in a 3-minute, one-sided conversation, tell me he couldn’t get ahold of his doctor, then he loved his doctor and said he was the best, then he wanted to be on a stronger pill, then he also wanted off said pill. 

He has no issue throwing his brother or his other agent friend in front of the oncoming bus when needed.  Oh, when he was called out about his changing story he claimed he is the face of dementia.  Like I said earlier, Holy Trinity of Stupidity; insult someone’s intelligence by telling 2 completely different stories, throw other folks under the bus, then play a sympathy/victim card.

It’s why he has no friends and is alone.  Ditto for Russini.  No one likes the person who throws people innocently under the bus.  You want to cheat?  Leave your friends out of it.  You may be morally bankrupt; they do not need to be involved. 

For the 90-day guy, he watches too much TV to know he is a loser.  He knows he is alone but doesn’t seem to know why. His version of reality is quite malleable. My explanation for that is easy as I have seen the tire marks on Chief’s back from being thrown under the bus too many times when 90-day guy has been caught manipulating reality and needs to blame someone else. 

In the case of Diana Russini, it’s time for you to do some inner searching and reflection.  I will say the quiet part out loud, it’s going to hurt.  Diana you were just a hot little piece of ass for the football coach.  Hence when this news broke, he pulled out all the stops to save his marriage.  He may have loved “penetrating you’re A gap or being in your defensive backfield” (hat tip to Troll for that one) but do you really believe you’re the first that’s been his backup piece?  Diana, one sentence of a tip for you; you are 43 and still smoking hot, you won’t be that way forever.  Try to make right with your Shake Shack Executive husband.  This too shall pass.  People forgot the late Kobe Bryant cheated on his wife.

The point of this blog should not be forgotten, tell the truth because you will always remember it, you will never remember the lie you told or whom you told it too.  When you lie, the problem is you must tell another lie to cover that up, then another one, and so on.  If you are the 90-day guy or Diana Russini, you likely have an IQ in the mid-single digits, gentle reminder: there are a lot of people smarter than you, they can quickly figure out 1+1 wasn’t equaling 2.  Don’t lie.  The benefit of not lying is that you don’t need a good memory when you always tell the truth.

Jake the Snake

Streams of Light in Darkened Places

Drawing above is John Calvin.

In the last few weeks, I’ve seen the fruit of a paradigm shift in the church that I’ve been attending. Some of the clergy have been moving away from premillennial dispensationalism and toward a more historic understanding of the faith. The new pastor and the soon to be leaving one have been tag-teaming the book of Romans. In the last few weeks, they have been defending predestination as above free will and that God has one people—the church—which is the continuing Israel and true children of Abraham. Today the pastor went out of his way to proclaim that God has one people, not two. He even stated that only via faith in Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. God didn’t have one path for the church and a separate one for Jews. It sounded much like stuff that I’ve been posting here lately.

There are some really hardcore Armenians and Premil folks in the group. The pastor stating that eschatology was a secondary issue, not one that is core to the faith, was followed up by a plug for classic dispensationalism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. He said he had limited copies of a sheet with four views of eschatology for people to get at the back of the church after the service. He encouraged folks to consider views other than premillennial dispensationalism. Bold move. The four views documents were all gone when I went looking for one. I was going to photograph it and leave it for someone else but was unable to do that.

Folks, this is a dicey move to make in a nondenominational church. I think the pastors would only move their flock in that direction if they were convinced that it was true. There is a minority that is post millennial in the church but whether the clergy is heading that direction has not been revealed yet. I think they can move their people a ways down that track, but at some point, their paradigm shift will get some pushback.

A couple of the leaders in the church are what I would describe as old school Baptists. I think they will balk at any move away from Arminianism (free will) and Scofieldism.

Many Christians call eschatology a secondary issue, but the reality is that it is not. Eschatology cannot really be separated from core Christian doctrines. There is a huge difference between playing duck and cover, wait for the Rapture, and taking dominion because Jesus claims to be Lord over every area of life. Premillennial dispensationalism leads to escapism while post millennialism leads to progressive growth as nations are discipled not individuals.

I am very happy to see this change taking place. If America is to see revival, then many congregations will need to experience a similar shift in eschatology.