Jack Van Impe preaching=Jesus is about to Return!!

[Taken]

Jesuit Futurism says:

• there will be a period of "7 last years of tribulation"
• during this time some evil person will arise and sit in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem
• he will broker a 7 year peace treaty between that Arabs and Jews
• 3 1/2 years after, he will break the treaty
• Armageddon will ensue
• Christ will come back at the end of the 7 years

QUESTION: Does Jack disagree with any of that?

Disagreement with that, is what defines a "jesuit Futurist" ?

Then, he preaches Jesuit Futurism.

I would be interested to know...
What group you represent...and the name of the members your group is called...it's Office, and head of that Office.

A couple of points of Jacks quoted teaching,
(Against any of the points you billeted)
and your responsive shredding, using Scripture.

All that aside, Happy New Year to you and yours, friend!

Thanks. Same to you and yours.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Taken]

If he had a clean slate,

Thanks for sharing YOU were appointed the Authority to determine who has and who has not "a clean slate".

it would help. But all Dispensationalists are false prophets until they can produce one scripture supporting any of their claims

That's funny. According to you someone is a false prophet until they produce ONE scripture supporting any of their claims.

Scripture is more that ONE scripture.

But then we have already established, your favor is carnal understanding and not Gods spiritual understanding.

including 7 year tribulation. Pre Trib Rapture, Restored Roman Empire, Gap in Daniel's 70 weeks, etc., etc.

You have been given multiple, (which means more than ONE ) scriptures.

The Carnal Mind can not understand it, and the Godly Spiritual Understanding comes from God.

I accept you favor your carnal understanding, and disagree with you, same as Scripture disagrees with you.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Dave L]

Thanks for sharing YOU were appointed the Authority to determine who has and who has not "a clean slate".



That's funny. According to you someone is a false prophet until they produce ONE scripture supporting any of their claims.

Scripture is more that ONE scripture.

But then we have already established, your favor is carnal understanding and not Gods spiritual understanding.



You have been given multiple, (which means more than ONE ) scriptures.

The Carnal Mind can not understand it, and the Godly Spiritual Understanding comes from God.

I accept you favor your carnal understanding, and disagree with you, same as Scripture disagrees with you.

Glory to God,
Taken

If you had direct scriptural quotes supporting any of the claims you or any other Dispensationalist makes, we wouldn't not be having this discussion.

 

[Waiting on him]

If you had direct scriptural quotes supporting any of the claims you or any other Dispensationalist makes, we wouldn't not be having this discussion.

51] Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

Here’s the scripture I received.

 

[Waiting on him]

Here’s the scripture I received.

We all have a clean slate, let’s ask the Lord to write on it!!

 

[Waiting on him]

We all have a clean slate, let’s ask the Lord to write on it!!

And if anyone wants to know what group I’m affiliated with.....the church my office is foot washer and Jesus is the head

 

[Phoneman777]

Disagreement with that, is what defines a "jesuit Futurist" ?

You may formulate your own opinions but you cannot formulate your own facts.

The historical facts are that in the mid-16th century Protestant Reformation, when the Protestant Reformers by their eschatological interpretation known as Protestant Historicism were condemning the papacy as the Antichrist of prophecy, the papacy convened the infamous 18 year "Council of Trent" aka "the Counter Reformation" - the longest council ever convened by the papacy because it took them that long to figure out how to destroy the Protestant Reformation. It was then that the Jesuits were commissioned to extract from the Bible an new interpretation of prophecy which get them off the hook. Thus, Jesuit Francisco Ribera's "Futurism" idea was born, along with Jesuit Luis Alcazar's "Preterism" idea. Both were rejected by the Great Protestant Reformers who knew their Bibles. Today, men who presume to know the Bible are preaching the very same false ideas that those great men of old rejected almost 500 years ago.

I would be interested to know...What group you represent...and the name of the members your group is called...it's Office, and head of that Office.

Why? I'm not the least interested in your affiliations. What I am interested in is that we allow our spiritual propositions to either stand the test of Biblical scrutiny or disregard them. Usually, when one finds no defense for his challenged ideas, his only recourse is to find a means of condemning the person himself by such things as his associations. Did they not contemptuously do the same to Jesus?

A couple of points of Jacks quoted teaching, (Against any of the points you billeted)

OK, what points might those be?

and your responsive shredding, using Scripture.

If I could sit down with Jack, I'd use the same Biblical arguments that men like Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Tyndale, Zwingle, Coverdale, and countless other Protestant Reformers used to disprove his Jesuit ideas. You seem to be somewhat unacquainted with what Protestantism used to teach about eschatology, so if you're interested, you could watch "The Antichrist Chronicles" on Youtube, by Jewish convert Steve Wohlberg. [/QUOTE]

 

[Taken]

You may formulate your own opinions but you cannot formulate your own facts.

I asked you a question, that marely required a one word answer.

Jesuit Futurism says:

• there will be a period of "7 last years of tribulation"
• during this time some evil person will arise and sit in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem
• he will broker a 7 year peace treaty between that Arabs and Jews
• 3 1/2 years after, he will break the treaty
• Armageddon will ensue
• Christ will come back at the end of the 7 years

QUESTION: Does Jack disagree with any of that?

Disagreement with that, is what DEFINES a "jesuit Futurist" ?

What does my question have to do with formulating opinions?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Why?

So I know what to refer to you as, like you do others.

I'm not the least interested in your affiliations.

You seem to have a great interest in identifying and calling people "Jesuit Futurists".

What I am interested in is that we allow our spiritual propositions to either stand the test of Biblical scrutiny or disregard them.

This OP specifically mentions Jack Van Impe, and so, are you trying to say; he does not provide Scripture to parallel/verify what he is preaching? <--- yes or no will suffice.

Usually, when one finds no defense for his challenged ideas, his only recourse is to find a means of condemning the person himself by such things as his associations. Did they not contemptuously do the same to Jesus?

Is it someone on this forum's obligation to DEFEND Jack Van Impe's "ideas"?

Because I certainly do not feel obligated to DEFEND anyone's IDEAS.

If they speak them, they can defend them.
Perhaps you could teach that lesson to Dave L.

If I could sit down with Jack, I'd use the same Biblical arguments that men like Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Tyndale, Zwingle, Coverdale, and countless other Protestant Reformers used to disprove his Jesuit ideas.

You seem to be somewhat unacquainted with what Protestantism used to teach about eschatology, so if you're interested, you could watch "The Antichrist Chronicles" on Youtube, by Jewish convert Steve Wohlberg.

Personally I find it on the edge of comedy to watch men dictate what other men believe, and then decide some name tag "for them".

I have never once heard Jack claim himself to be a Jesuit Futurist, nor seen a billiet list of his beliefs, such as you provided.

But IF you could provide a quote of his own words to that effect, that would be appreciated.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Phoneman777]

I asked you a question, that marely required a one word answer.



Disagreement with that, is what DEFINES a "jesuit Futurist" ?

What does my question have to do with formulating opinions?

Glory to God,
Taken

Perhaps I need to clarify that I'm not saying Jack is a Jesuit, I'm saying he preaches Jesuit Futurism. Because it's the Jesuit Order responsible for introducing the world to that doctrine.

 

[Enoch111]

I agree with that. Why would 70 weeks start, then stop, then start up again 2,000 years in the future. If that's the case, the 70th week really isn't the 70th week.

That's like asking why would the incarnation of Christ be delayed about 4,000 years after creation, when the prophecy of His crucifixion is found in Genesis 3:15?

There are some very good reasons why Daniel's 70th week is in the future. It is connected to the Day of the LORD, and God has purposely and purposefully delayed the Day of the LORD until the Church has been completed.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (2 Pet 3:9,10)

 

[Phoneman777]

So I know what to refer to you as, like you do others.

Well, some people call me "Phoneyman" which I find really clever LOL

You seem to have a great interest in identifying and calling people "Jesuit Futurists".

Well, since the Bible warns us not to accept the Mark of the Beast, I feel it extremely important to identify the Beast, so that people will watch out for it's Mark. The Beast is the papacy, which military/intelligence arm is the Jesuit Order.

This OP specifically mentions Jack Van Impe, and so, are you trying to say; he does not provide Scripture to parallel/verify what he is preaching? <--- yes or no will suffice.

That would be naive to say no. (But his "proof" texts simply are no proof at all).

Is it someone on this forum's obligation to DEFEND Jack Van Impe's "ideas"? Because I certainly do not feel obligated to DEFEND anyone's IDEAS. If they speak them, they can defend them. Perhaps you could teach that lesson to Dave L.

Why are you concerned about defending Jack? How about you concern yourself with contending for "the faith once delivered to the saints" which was Protestant Historicism, not Jesuit Futurism.

Personally I find it on the edge of comedy to watch men dictate what other men believe, and then decide some name tag "for them".

Some names serve an important purpose. I call Bread of Life "Dead Bread" because I want everyone to be constantly reminded that there is absolutely no power whatsoever in the "Eucharist", though the church turned millions over to the state for execution because they refused to acknowledge the catholic church's claim that it had such power.

I have never once heard Jack claim himself to be a Jesuit Futurist, nor seen a billiet list of his beliefs, such as you provided.

Clarified in another post that I don't mean he's Jesuit, but that he preaches a Jesuit doctrine.

But IF you could provide a quote of his own words to that effect, that would be appreciated.

Do mean to tell me that as a fan of Impe, you've never heard his "proof" texts for his Jesuit doctrine? Good gravy, his "proof" for a future 7 year tribulation is to transport the last Week of Daniel's 70 to the end of time...that's textbook Jesuit Francisco Ribera!

 

[Enoch111]

The subject of Daniel 9:25-26 is the Messiah. That means the antecedent to the word 'HE' in verse 27 is the Messiah, not the anti-Christ.

How did you miss the difference between *the Messiah the Prince* (Christ) and *the prince that shall come* (the Antichrist)? They are both right there.

The prophecy of the seventy weeks is very comprehensive and includes both the first and second comings of Messiah (Christ) as well as the Abomination of Desolation set up by the Antichrist. So kindly go back to verse 24 and study the whole subject.

 

[Enoch111]

So the "prince that shall come" should be the Messiah.

Except that he is not the Messiah but the anti-Messiah as noted below.

...and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (Dan 9:26,27)

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. (Dan 11:31)

 

[Naomi25]

That's like asking why would the incarnation of Christ be delayed about 4,000 years after creation, when the prophecy of His crucifixion is found in Genesis 3:15?

There are some very good reasons why Daniel's 70th week is in the future. It is connected to the Day of the LORD, and God has purposely and purposefully delayed the Day of the LORD until the Church has been completed.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (2 Pet 3:9,10)

I'm not saying that God couldn't insert a 'gap' here. He could. And we know he's done it before, as you've pointed out...what the OT prophets thought was one coming of Christ turned out to actually be 2. However, that being said...the texts themselves don't actually say that there will be a gap. The gap is assumed. And they can only be assumed when you come to the text in question already have suppositions about what it's supposed to say. No natural reading of Daniel 9 would leave someone going "ah ha! there must be a gap there!"
So...I think it behoves us to be a little wary of placing something there when it's not naturally there. Can we find it elsewhere in scripture? Or do you assume it in other texts because you've already assumed it here? If you're not careful, a whole doctrine can be built around an assumption, when very clearly, the text is silent.

 

[Dave L]

People can quote endless reasons why they believe the Papacy is the end-time beast. However, Rome is NOT mentioned in ONE verse of end-time prophecy, and Rome is not committing the abominations of the earth TODAY. Islam is. Rome is powerless to impose a mark. Islam already has the Mark! It already worships a beast called the Kaaba.

Too many people believe the Mark of the beast is worldwide. That's because they've been taught that a global dictator and a one world government and religion are coming. The kingdom of the anti-Christ is a Mid-East Empire, likely an Islamic Caliphate, limited to a 10/7 alliance of kings. This is the mark of the beast...

View attachment 5063

Interesting. Luther and Calvin among others said the Papacy was a manifestation of the Antichrist. But they also said Islam was too.

 

[Taken]

Perhaps I need to clarify that I'm not saying Jack is a Jesuit, I'm saying he preaches Jesuit Futurism. Because it's the Jesuit Order responsible for introducing the world to that doctrine.

Ok.

My clarification is:
"The Name Tags Themselves", and WHO is Declaring What.

IF "A" teachers teaching, "INCLUDES" "A" point that "A" "particular group" TEACHES....

For Example...
Like....A Catholic Point
Like....A Roman Catholic Point
Like....A Mormon Point
Like....A Islamic Point
Like....A Jewish Point
Like....A Hebrew Point
Like....A Greek Philosopher's Point
Like....A Baptist's Point
Like....A Jesuit Priest's Point

And THE Person MAKING "A" Point, NEVER Includes mention of the "OTHER" groups...

IS THE Person themselves, "associating themselves" IN ALLEGIANCE with the "OTHER" groups? Uh, no.

But, WHAT IF...A third party "OTHER" person DECIDES to "CONNECT A PERSON TEACHING, WITH "A GROUP specific"....

WHAT IS the THIRD party "other" persons "IMPLICATION" regarding the "TEACHER"?

Now....Consider, This Third Party's Words....

And.....Consider, Those LISTENING to the Third Party's Word....

And.....Consider, the huge number of LISTENERS, who are IGNORANT of the Word of God, (Own a Bible, but Never READ the Bible) and ACCEPT ANY ONE, even strangers, to BE "their" TEACHER.
And the MINUTE, they Hear, Another Teachers Name ASSOCIATED with, A particular "GROUP"...
What IS the "outcome" of the LISTENERS of the "thrid party"....ABOUT a "particular" Named TEACHER?

Answer....EXACTLY what the "THRID Party" "teacher" Intended to BE the outcome"...
That the LISTENERS at large, "WOULD" repeat and dictate and declare.....the "TEACHER being NAMED, "IS" "part of", has "allegiance to", one of the named particular groups.

You for example...
Associated Jack Van Impe's Teaching WITH, Jesuit Priests (an order of Priest of the Roman Catholics).

Then You expressed, WHO accepted those teachings of the Jesuit Priests, and WHO did not.

By YOUR implication...
You implied:
1) Jack is in Agreement with points OF Jesuit Priests, "BECAUSE", he believes WHAT Jesuit Priests Believed.
2) Jack is in NOT in Agreement with points OF Protestants, (particulars, that you named), "BECAUSE" you declared it.
3) Thus, IF ANOTHER, is ONLY in agreement WITH Protestants, THEY MUST IGNORE JACK, as a FRAUD, BECAUSE, you have declared, he has ADOPTED belief in some points of Jesuit Priests, (that he "apparently", ONLY got from Jesuit Priests teaching).

By Dave L. Implication...
He implied;
1) Jack is in Agreement with points of Baptists, and then associated Jack's Name, with another Baptist involved in a Scandal, implying Jack is IN AGREEMENT with a SCANDALIZE Baptist.
2) Then introduced Some unknown mans opinion, that Jack has associated with Roman Catholics, and BY ALL APPEARENCES, has concluded, Jack is likely, a Roman Catholic.

What IS the Point of Associating JACK'S NAME with OTHER specific GROUPS.....BUT to Influence Others, THAT JACK "MUST" be in "ALLEGIANCE AND PART" of those groups....?

AND...."IF" an individual themselves...."IS NOT" ....in allegiance with the other "named group".... the OTHER individual themselves,
MUST view Jack as a Fraud, and distance themselves FROM HIM.

Isn't that the Real Intent ?

THAT was my Point of the Comedy, about NAME TAGS.
Not particularly "funny", but rather "ridiculous", of how "THRID parties" can Dictate what ANOTHER TEACHER BELIEVES, and THEIR SOURCE of TEACHING, IS DECLARED (by said Third Party) as COMING """FROM""" SOME "particular group".

My Point regarding...."coming """FROM'''' some "particular named group"...

IS THIS...Jack, the Teacher, himself, HAS NOT declared, HE STUDIED AND "ADOPTED" ANY "GROUPS" Beliefs.

Jack HAS Declared "himself", AS:
A Bible BELIEVING and Teaching Christian.
An Evangelical Christian.

Has "HE" declared "himself", AS:
Having "allegiance" with, or "joined" with,
ANY "particular" Religious group?
No.

Does an Evangelical "IGNORE" people FROM
Other Religious "groups" ?
No.

Did Jesus "IGNORE" people FROM "other groups", because they DID NOT BELIEVE, as He did?
No.

What SET Jesus APART from "other men", (not exclusively, but important to note)...
IS He Preached the Word of God TO "anyone" willing to Listen.

Not comparing Jack to Jesus proper....but I am comparing Jack's WAY of Preaching to Jesus WAY (which was the WAY Jesus Himself
Taught).

That is what SETS Evangelical Christians APART from "other Christians".

"Other Christians" Teach and Preach ...
Doctrine Specific TO the WAY of "their Denomination"...Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.

An Evangelical Christian teaches and preaches, according to the strict wording of Scripture.....WITHOUT regard of the Listeners "domination preference"....WITHOUT regard of the Listeners" allegience to whatever "religion".

Anyone can come to a scheduled meeting, or tune in to a radio broadcast, or tv broadcast and HEAR, Listen, Agree, Verify, or walk away.

Billy Graham; a Christian Evangelist, traveled the world wide, setting up scheduled meetings, inviting anyone interested, and millions, from ALL kinds of DIFFERENT religious denominational backgrounds and allegiances, Heard Jesus Preached, and elected to Give their Lives to Christ Jesus.

Jack; uses a different format, called a television broadcast, to teach and preach, Christ Jesus IS the WAY to Salvation. Anyone from ANY religious denominational background and allegiance, can TUNE in to Jack's broadcast and hear, listen, accept Jesus' teaching and Give their Lives to Christ Jesus, or walk away.

When a "third party" starts teaching, an Evangelical Christian is "associated" with or IS part of "other" groups, """"BECAUSE''''' of what the 'other' group teaches....
THAT is False.

An Evangelical Christian DOES preach a raising up of Christ's Christ's Church, a Specific Raising Up of ONLY Christ's Church being redeemed, signified by a specific Term, commonly called the RAPTURE. (It has nothing to do with OTHER men being raised up, at other Specific times.)

Evangelical Christians DO teach a Specific Seven Year Tribulation Period, Which is Specific to Foretold Biblical Prophecies Coming to Pass, in regard to ""ALL"" of Gods Creations...
Heavens, Earth, Celestials, Terrestrials, Animals, Plants, Trees, Water....etc.

No man KNOWS the exact HOUR Gods Tribulation WILL BEGIN.
Yet Biblical Scripture itself reveals SIGNS of WHEN thee Lord God SHALL commence the Seven Year Tribulation Beginning, and other things that WILL Happen DURING that SEVEN TIME FRAME.

IF an individual DOES NOT Believe, in a Coming TRIBULATION period, lN the World, such as WAS in the beginning....that IS their prerogative, to believe what THEY choose.

Matt 24:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Happpy New Year,
God Bless,
Taken

 

[Phoneman777]

People can quote endless reasons why they believe the Papacy is the end-time beast. However, Rome is NOT mentioned in ONE verse of end-time prophecy, and Rome is not committing the abominations of the earth TODAY. Islam is. Islam already has the Mark! It already worships a beast called the Kaaba.
Too many people believe the Mark of the beast is worldwide. That's because they've been taught that a global dictator and a one world government and religion are coming. The kingdom of the anti-Christ is a Mid-East Empire, likely an Islamic Caliphate, limited to a 10/7 alliance of kings. This is the mark of the beast...

I'm reading this post and I'm like a mosquito at a nudist colony --- wondering where to get started...

"I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots..."

Those ten horns arose out of the fourth beast - the 4 beasts being Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece, and pagan Rome - and the Little Horn Antichrist is stated there in black and white that it was to arise among the ten which immediately arose upon the heels of the fall of the fourth beast. The papacy arose in 538 A.D. among the ten barbarian nations of the divided pagan Roman Empire and fulfilled the 1,260 year prophesied reign when in 1798 A.D., Napoleon abolished the papacy. This "deadly wound" was healed later and now "all the world wonders after the beast". W Bush said when he looks in the eyes of the pope, he see's "God".

By this one fact of prophecy alone, Islam is crossed off the list, being over 200 years late for the party.

 

[Phoneman777]

Ok.

My clarification is:
"The Name Tags Themselves", and WHO is Declaring What.

IF "A" teachers teaching, "INCLUDES" "A" point that "A" "particular group" TEACHES....

For Example...
Like....A Catholic Point
Like....A Roman Catholic Point
Like....A Mormon Point
Like....A Islamic Point
Like....A Jewish Point
Like....A Hebrew Point
Like....A Greek Philosopher's Point
Like....A Baptist's Point
Like....A Jesuit Priest's Point

And THE Person MAKING "A" Point, NEVER Includes mention of the "OTHER" groups...

IS THE Person themselves, "associating themselves" IN ALLEGIANCE with the "OTHER" groups? Uh, no.

But, WHAT IF...A third party "OTHER" person DECIDES to "CONNECT A PERSON TEACHING, WITH "A GROUP specific"....

WHAT IS the THIRD party "other" persons "IMPLICATION" regarding the "TEACHER"?

Now....Consider, This Third Party's Words....

And.....Consider, Those LISTENING to the Third Party's Word....

And.....Consider, the huge number of LISTENERS, who are IGNORANT of the Word of God, (Own a Bible, but Never READ the Bible) and ACCEPT ANY ONE, even strangers, to BE "their" TEACHER.
And the MINUTE, they Hear, Another Teachers Name ASSOCIATED with, A particular "GROUP"...
What IS the "outcome" of the LISTENERS of the "thrid party"....ABOUT a "particular" Named TEACHER?

Answer....EXACTLY what the "THRID Party" "teacher" Intended to BE the outcome"...
That the LISTENERS at large, "WOULD" repeat and dictate and declare.....the "TEACHER being NAMED, "IS" "part of", has "allegiance to", one of the named particular groups.

You for example...
Associated Jack Van Impe's Teaching WITH, Jesuit Priests (an order of Priest of the Roman Catholics).

Then You expressed, WHO accepted those teachings of the Jesuit Priests, and WHO did not.

By YOUR implication...
You implied:
1) Jack is in Agreement with points OF Jesuit Priests, "BECAUSE", he believes WHAT Jesuit Priests Believed.
2) Jack is in NOT in Agreement with points OF Protestants, (particulars, that you named), "BECAUSE" you declared it.
3) Thus, IF ANOTHER, is ONLY in agreement WITH Protestants, THEY MUST IGNORE JACK, as a FRAUD, BECAUSE, you have declared, he has ADOPTED belief in some points of Jesuit Priests, (that he "apparently", ONLY got from Jesuit Priests teaching).

By Dave L. Implication...
He implied;
1) Jack is in Agreement with points of Baptists, and then associated Jack's Name, with another Baptist involved in a Scandal, implying Jack is IN AGREEMENT with a SCANDALIZE Baptist.
2) Then introduced Some unknown mans opinion, that Jack has associated with Roman Catholics, and BY ALL APPEARENCES, has concluded, Jack is likely, a Roman Catholic.

What IS the Point of Associating JACK'S NAME with OTHER specific GROUPS.....BUT to Influence Others, THAT JACK "MUST" be in "ALLEGIANCE AND PART" of those groups....?

AND...."IF" an individual themselves...."IS NOT" ....in allegiance with the other "named group".... the OTHER individual themselves,
MUST view Jack as a Fraud, and distance themselves FROM HIM.

Isn't that the Real Intent ?

THAT was my Point of the Comedy, about NAME TAGS.
Not particularly "funny", but rather "ridiculous", of how "THRID parties" can Dictate what ANOTHER TEACHER BELIEVES, and THEIR SOURCE of TEACHING, IS DECLARED (by said Third Party) as COMING """FROM""" SOME "particular group".

My Point regarding...."coming """FROM'''' some "particular named group"...

IS THIS...Jack, the Teacher, himself, HAS NOT declared, HE STUDIED AND "ADOPTED" ANY "GROUPS" Beliefs.

Jack HAS Declared "himself", AS:
A Bible BELIEVING and Teaching Christian.
An Evangelical Christian.

Has "HE" declared "himself", AS:
Having "allegiance" with, or "joined" with,
ANY "particular" Religious group?
No.

Does an Evangelical "IGNORE" people FROM
Other Religious "groups" ?
No.

Did Jesus "IGNORE" people FROM "other groups", because they DID NOT BELIEVE, as He did?
No.

What SET Jesus APART from "other men", (not exclusively, but important to note)...
IS He Preached the Word of God TO "anyone" willing to Listen.

Not comparing Jack to Jesus proper....but I am comparing Jack's WAY of Preaching to Jesus WAY (which was the WAY Jesus Himself
Taught).

That is what SETS Evangelical Christians APART from "other Christians".

"Other Christians" Teach and Preach ...
Doctrine Specific TO the WAY of "their Denomination"...Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.

An Evangelical Christian teaches and preaches, according to the strict wording of Scripture.....WITHOUT regard of the Listeners "domination preference"....WITHOUT regard of the Listeners" allegience to whatever "religion".

Anyone can come to a scheduled meeting, or tune in to a radio broadcast, or tv broadcast and HEAR, Listen, Agree, Verify, or walk away.

Billy Graham; a Christian Evangelist, traveled the world wide, setting up scheduled meetings, inviting anyone interested, and millions, from ALL kinds of DIFFERENT religious denominational backgrounds and allegiances, Heard Jesus Preached, and elected to Give their Lives to Christ Jesus.

Jack; uses a different format, called a television broadcast, to teach and preach, Christ Jesus IS the WAY to Salvation. Anyone from ANY religious denominational background and allegiance, can TUNE in to Jack's broadcast and hear, listen, accept Jesus' teaching and Give their Lives to Christ Jesus, or walk away.

When a "third party" starts teaching, an Evangelical Christian is "associated" with or IS part of "other" groups, """"BECAUSE''''' of what the 'other' group teaches....
THAT is False.

An Evangelical Christian DOES preach a raising up of Christ's Christ's Church, a Specific Raising Up of ONLY Christ's Church being redeemed, signified by a specific Term, commonly called the RAPTURE. (It has nothing to do with OTHER men being raised up, at other Specific times.)

Evangelical Christians DO teach a Specific Seven Year Tribulation Period, Which is Specific to Foretold Biblical Prophecies Coming to Pass, in regard to ""ALL"" of Gods Creations...
Heavens, Earth, Celestials, Terrestrials, Animals, Plants, Trees, Water....etc.

No man KNOWS the exact HOUR Gods Tribulation WILL BEGIN.
Yet Biblical Scripture itself reveals SIGNS of WHEN thee Lord God SHALL commence the Seven Year Tribulation Beginning, and other things that WILL Happen DURING that SEVEN TIME FRAME.

IF an individual DOES NOT Believe, in a Coming TRIBULATION period, lN the World, such as WAS in the beginning....that IS their prerogative, to believe what THEY choose.

Matt 24:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Happpy New Year,
God Bless,
Taken

I admit I got lost your post after the third line and stopped reading. How about you just stick to defending your claim that I'm wrong about Jack preaching Jesuit Futurism ("Futurism" if that suits you better). Tell me if you would, where does Jack stand on the Little Horn, the 70 Weeks, the Two Witnesses, the time of the arrival of Antichrist, etc.??????

 

[Taken]

Well, some people call me "Phoneyman" which I find really clever LOL

And the difference IS, the comment being addressed "TO" you, that you can respond.
I don't see Jack on this forum, responding to other men, making their claims ABOUT him or TO him.

You have an option. Be amused at an others clever name-calling. And address an others specific points, simply disagree with them, or ignore them.

Where is Jack's options...? There isn't one.
Thus, with Dave L. Claims....I asked him to REVEAL some facts....Which SHOULD have been Jack's OWN QUOTES of HIS OWN WORDS, "saying", what Dave L, was "claiming" "FOR" JACK". Guess what...
Dave could not PROVIDE ONE QUOTE of Jacks own words to VERIFY Dave's claims.

Thus personally I dismiss Dave as an "instigator, gossiper, false testifier", AGAINST Jack.

It becomes a DEFLECTION, away from Jesus' Word, TO Jacks words....THAT Dave claims, for Jack, without a shred of evidence that is a fact.

Well, since the Bible warns us not to accept the Mark of the Beast, I feel it extremely important to identify the Beast, so that people will watch out for it's Mark.

"There are SEVERAL SPECIFIC BEASTS mentioned in Scripture".

Some Beasts have a SPECIFIC, "look/ appearance, which a man would recognize that specific "look".

Some SERVE GOD. Some Beasts Serve themselves. Some Beasts are Governments (leaders particularly, that dominate people at large). Some Beasts MIMIC Beasts that SERVE GOD. Some have BEEN revealed, throughout history of mankind....and SOME SHALL BE REVEALED, at a Specific TIME...with mankind Being foretold it SHALL HAPPEN, but mankind NOT PRIVY to the HOUR it SHALL HAPPEN....NOR "WHAT" the specific BEAST SHALL BE CALLED "BY NAME".

The Beast is the papacy,

Nothing whatsoever IN SCRIPTURE, mentions a "papacy".

What Scripture DOES mention IS:
ONE BEAST shall rise up to power, in a "governing position" OVER other governing powers. And ANY government, and ANY person WILLINGLY agreeing their SUBJECTION to the "ONE BEAST OVER other governing powers"....WILL BE MARKED according to the "MARK" the governing Beast Reveals...IS HIS MARK.

ONE OTHER, called A FALSE PROPHET, shall also rise up to world dominance, IN CAHOOTS, IN ALINEMENT and AGREEMENT, with the WORLD GOVERNING BEAST, His Message will be revealed SUPPORTING the WORLD "government head" (over other governments and peoples) ....AS THEE, Head above ALL world Governments....AND AS THEE LORD GOD HIMSELF.

THEE Beast, WHO SHALL, assume position as the WORLD Head governing power....
IS SATAN.
(Under WHICH world governing power in existance, Satan WILL be revealed, IS NOT YET KNOWN, because it hasn't YET happened.)

What we can and do OBSERVE IS...Current powerful NATIONS competing Against other current Powerful nations, in TRYING to CONTROL (and OVER power) other nations.

And every POWERFUL Nation has a WHOLE pocket full of "TACTICS" to gain "POWER over "other" nations".
(From FORCE, WAR CONQUERING, THREATS, TREATIES, PACTS, ENTICEMENT, PROMISES, PROVISIONS, and on and on.) End result...
TO EFFECT CONTROL.

THEE "all powerful" who SHALL SIT, as the ONE over "ALL" the Nations....is NOT YET come into fruition, nor HIS NAME specific revealed....ONLY that it SHALL HAPPEN.

WHY? Because God Himself has revealed ... ALL Nations SHALL come AGAINST Israel.
ALL Nations SHALL come UNDER the Power of
THE BEAST.
That THE BEAST....MIMICS....What the Lord God Himself SHALL DO.
That THE BEAST, SHALL be Given power, BY thee Lord God Himself, to EFFECT. "His fraud".

THAT Thee Lord God Himself HAS GIVEN MEN, WITH Him and IN Him, the knowledge and understanding of HOW TO recognize the FRAUD, Be Saved from the FRAUD, and REJECT Being MARKED with the FRAUDS MARK.

A man who has heard, learned, submitted, committed, unto the Lord God, IS a man WHO IS, MARKED BY Gods SEAL, and thereafter, a man WHO CANNOT BE MARKED, by the BEAST.

And vise versa, a man WHO BECOMES MARKED with the Beasts MARK, can NOT BE MARKED with Gods MARK, called Gods SEAL.

Men can hear, learn, know, THE MARK of God, is called Gods SEAL, and it is AVAILABLE for every man RIGHT NOW TO TAKE, and HAVE forever.

And the URGENCY for a man TO DO THAT NOW, in every mans current lifetime...
IS precisely BECAUSE they DO NOT KNOW, the HOUR, "THE Lord God WILL "REDEEM" those Sealed unto Him"....and then UNLEASH the BEAST, "WITH POWER" to DEVOUR the remaining inhabitants of the Earth....with force and death, should they reject "His MARK."

Continued...