Search This Blog

Tuesday, 19 November 2019



Following Mike and Pat Rogers' public apology to Bill Randles, I have to say that Randles irrational behaviour is quite something to behold! Unsurprisingly, his illogical suggestion that they follow the Matthew 18 process in order to resolve their differences has resulted in further issues.

The Matthew 18:15-17 Process:

Stage 1: If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. (v15)
Stage 2: But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (v 16)
Stage 3: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. (v 17a)
Stage 4: And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (v17b)

Some thoughts: All this has taken place in the public domain. As such it is not an issue that can realistically be settled privately by the Matthew 18 process. Nevertheless Mike and Pat did listen to Bill Randles and took appropriate action (stage 1). However, Bill does not listen to their grievances, which necessitates the involvement of one or two others (stage 2). If Bill will not listen to one or two others, and as they are not in a church setting, Mike and Pat cannot “tell it to the church”. As such stage 3 does not apply. At stage 2 if there is no resolution, I think they would need to decide whether to regard Bill as a “pagan or a tax collector”. In a church setting that would necessitate that Bill's company is to be shunned. (Stage 4).
In any event, Bill invalidated the whole process when he vilified Mike and Pat publicly after Matthew 18 was initiated and after he had agreed to await their response. 
[William Randles Tim Wirth it is not true what they posted about how”vile” Kris and I, and these hypocrites repost from Jacobs website when it serves their interest in sliming my name, such as when they posted Sergio’s lying rant ... none of it is”hard truth”].  
A further violation of the process occurred when Bill copied another person into his email responses to Mike and Pat erratically without consulting them and without their permission.
Bill continues to flout the Matthew 18 process by adding to his list of original grievances.

In my view, resolution with such an unstable person will be very difficult indeed!

Further Problems
Both Bill and Kristin have broken the scriptures by making ad hominem remarks and accusations they are not prepared to back up with specific examples and facts. (2 Corinthians 13:1).
In my own case, Bill has accused me of being a "feminist", as well as making other false accusations against me.* However he failed to produce any evidence to substantiate those lies. He subsequently followed up by calling me a an "abusive reviler”. Despite being challenged by me, Bill completely ignores me and refuses to acknowledge my grievances against him. Is that scriptural?

* UPDATE 22/11/2019:  I have accepted Bill's recent apology on a previous obscure post of mine for calling me a "feminist".


When I asked Bill Randles to read my intra-seal critique on Prasch, he agreed, but he did not keep his word. His partiality was obvious when he asked: "What are the implications of Jacob not getting the counting of the Omer exactly right?" {1}

Concerning David Nathan:

Bill Randles: "In my view, the original issue which triggered all of this boils down to two statements of David Nathan’s; 
'The blood of Jesus will not profit anyone anything in the Millennium' and the twin statement in which Nathan strongly asserts that the blood sacrifices offered in the Millennium are in no way memorial. In other words, they do not point back to the cross of Jesus, as the Lord’s Supper does.

"God the Father did not Create anything”
Can Bill Randles clarify why precisely he will not “forgive” David Nathan? If it concerns the millennium question, then it is not for Bill Randles to “forgive” a doctrinal error.. only the Lord can do that. We forgive one another our sins against each other, not doctrinal error. (Colossians 3:13). We “expose” false teaching – that is all. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. Ephesians 5:1.
Bill Randles: "So what is my problem? WHY HAVEN'T I 'FORGIVEN' HIM?"
I have all kinds of problems with these two issues, but DON'T ASSUME I HAVEN'T FORGIVEN or don’t love David Nathan because it isn’t true..

DOCTRINAL ISSUES ARE NOT PRIMARILY A MATTER OF FORGIVENESS … they are matters of the determination of truth.."
This particular example of Bill's double speak had the effect of muddying the waters, and it prolonged an already unpleasant episode. In my view, it was a deliberate attempt to further damage David Nathan's reputation.

Further evidence of Bill Randles duplicity: 
"We don’t have to get personal. If we could just be objective people, take a look at Scripture, put aside personalities put aside people being rude, this or that or the other. Do you really want to promote a man, who says the Father didn’t create anything? Or that the blood of Christ has no profit AT ANY DISPENSATION.. People have to remember where their true loyalty lies, it lies with the Word." https://youtu.be/fPzfy83U5Y0 (1:17 mark).
To state that David Nathan was referring to ANY DISPENSATION is a complete fabrication! The original question concerned the MILLENIUM, and in that respect David Nathan has clarified his position.
David Nathan: "The statement which I should not have made but rather should have sought to express myself very differently and that folk have objected to is, 'The Blood of Jesus will not profit anyone, anything in the Millennium.' In using this phrase, which I regret, I was not stating that the Blood of Jesus does not cleanse in all ages as this would be a clear violation of scripture. His blood alone can take away sin and every sacrifice from Genesis 3:21, when the Lord clothed Adam and Eve in tunics of skin to the sacrifices of the Millennium all point to Jesus. In the teaching I kept using the word atone to describe the purpose of the millennial sacrifices in the sense that they do not remove sin but cover sin. I reiterate again that I do not teach nor believe that the sin of an animal or animals can ever remove sin. Not under the Old Testament, not now nor in the age to come. Only the Blood of Jesus can remove sin both now and forever, including the millennium. This is and has always been what I have believed though I did not express it succinctly in the series on Eschatology.
I only offer the above as an explanation of why I used the phrase and not as an excuse for trying to justify using it. I was wrong to use it as it does not, nor ever did convey what I actually believe regarding the eternal cleansing power of the Blood of Jesus which alone removes sin for all ages."  {3}
David Nathan: "The bible is absolutely clear that God is the creator. The Father ordained creation. Jesus was the creator in perfect unity with the Father.. not that God the Father was not involved in creation.." {4}
Kristin Randles has said all kinds of wicked things against David Nathan, as recorded on my previous post {5} .
Critically, Bill seems oblivious to the fact that Jacob Prasch thoroughly agreed with David Nathan’s millennial views. Bill has never acknowledged that fact – and that was his main bone of contention!

All these are the actions of a "pastor" who boasts of 40 years in the ministry! 

Monday, 18 November 2019



Saturday, 16 November 2019


Jacob Prasch: "One of the most vicious Jezebels with a Jezebel Spirit I have ever encountered in my life is in Fife Scotland.. What would you say of a woman who promotes somebody who says 'God the Father is not the creator..' that 'the gospel is not eternal..' and defends and promotes the priests of Baal.. 'you can pray into a jacket or a tie or a piece of cloth and knock people over with it..' and then when she is opposed she goes on the warpath (??). That's a Jezebel. She is a vicious, vicious woman, she is demonised.." (1:33-1:36).

These accusations against Deborah Menelaws are very serious! Indeed Prasch's habit of slandering women is not limited to Deborah Menelaws. The "Jezebel" slur is one of his favourite accusations against any woman who stands against him.

Why does Prasch continue to rake up issues that David Nathan publicly repented of some time ago? (Acts 3:19; Colossians 2:14; Isaiah 43:25).

As far as I am concerned David Nathan's name is cleared on all counts, with one exception - I still have reservations about his teaching on the millennium. However we must not forget that Jacob Prasch was in full agreement with David Nathan on this subject. After reading BW Newton, I now understand more fully the negative ramifications associated with salvation by grace ending upon Christ's return. {2}

Deborah's response:

Above - Jacob Prasch, David Nathan and Marco Quintana are all in agreement, i.e. after the rapture of the church, the age of grace comes to an end:

Jacob Prasch: "Once the harpazo transpires, the Lord will refocus His primary intentions on the salvation of Israel, although not salvation in the sense that we understand it, not by grace, it will ?? revert back to the Old Testament way of dealing with man and the nations."

David Nathan re-emphasises Prasch's point: "After the rapture, the age of dispensation of grace as we know it, the church age is over. From that moment until the end of the millennium, everything reverts back under law. There is no salvation in the sense of being adopted, being part of the family of God. The Jews and those in the millennium will become the people of God and not the family of God. Everything reverts back under old covenant. So when Jesus comes, that's it, salvation, as we understand it, by grace is over. That is why the parables of the marriage feast in Matthew 22 and in 25 says that when the door is shut, no one else can come in. If you don't have a wedding garment on, in other words, garments made of white by the blood of the Lamb ?? any other garment, you are going to get kicked out. So when the Lord returns, He comes for his bride, there are not two weddings. There is one wedding for one bride at one time in history. You are either in it or you are not. After that, everything goes back under Law."

Jacob Prasch nods at various points and is in full agreement with everything David Nathan says.

Jacob Prasch: "The wedding is the same as the door being shut in Noah's ark."

The statement that millennial Jews and Gentiles will not be saved under grace because the marriage feast is over is extremely problematic. Are not Israel regarded corporately as God's wife during the millennium? (Isaiah 54:5; 62:5; Hosea 2:16). {1}

Fake Jew Jacob Prasch is a proven false teacher whose deluded claim to have "the ministry of Elijah" is utterly absurd.

1. https://bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com/2019/04/jacob-prasch-david-nathan-marco.html
2. https://bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com/2019/05/jacob-prasch-millennial-views-tainted.html

Thursday, 14 November 2019


Jacob Prasch: Peering Out of Cloud Cuckoo Land in Midrash-Tinted Glasses from tbckawaii on Vimeo.

Prasch's habit of praying in Hebrew whilst attending Gentile congregations has become very tiresome. Many people stopped being impressed by these embarrassing displays of vainglory a long time ago. (Philippians 2:3; Proverbs 11:2). Prasch's Hebrew outbreaks are not "speaking in tongues". In the book of Acts, every one spoke in other tongues "as the Spirit enabled them.." (Acts 2:6-11). Prasch does not have to seek God for an interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:13).

Prasch: "If I was going to have a remnant of people to prepare the way for the return of Christ.. and I was going to use these people to recognise the times in which they lived, I would come up with Canada, it is a lot more suitable than that pathetic individual I see when I am shaving or brushing my teeth.."   

I agree with tbckawaii.. this is an odd way of putting things. Prasch seems to be implying that he himself will prepare the remnant for the return of Christ? His more recent comparisons with "the ministry of Elijah" seem to confirm his delusions of grandeur. {1}

Prasch: "We could have been born at any time in history." (he repeated this phrase at least three times). This statement is inconsistent with the scriptures. Without negating free will, our circumstances are in God's hands, there is no fatalism or chance involved in any aspect of our lives:

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, (Acts 17:26-27 cf. Galatians 1:15; Jeremiah 1:5).

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: "..and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation—The apostle here opposes both Stoical Fate and Epicurean Chance, ascribing the periods and localities in which men and nations flourish to the sovereign will and prearrangements of a living God." {2}

Matthew Poole: "Hath determined the times. &c.: the apostle asserts the providence of God against these Athenian philosophers, that nothing comes by chance, or a fatuitous concourse of atoms; but that God is in every thing, though men know it not, or rather will not consider it, Job 7:1 14:5,14. This doctrine was preached by Moses, who tells the people, that God is their life, and the length of their days, that they might love him, and obey his voice, and cleave unto him, Deu 30:20." {3}

tbckawaii has noticed that every statement Prasch makes about his ethnicity is vague, and that his Jewish ancestry is not specific but implied. That may be true in recent times, but on occasion Prasch has been explicit about his Jewish ancestry:

Prasch: "I have two first names - James and Jacob. When I was a baby they called me James. It was Anglicised from my grandfathers name, Ya'kov - Jacob. It is good that I have two first names because my family is a combination of two backgrounds - Irish Catholic and Jewish." {4}

Where I differ with twbckawaii and some others is the question of the apostate denominations. Much of what I write exposes the departure from orthodoxy of the "professing" church. It is no small matter that all the main denominations are ecumenical, having compromised with the RC church. {5} In addition, many supposed "evangelical" churches are tainted by the NAR, Dominion Theology, Calvinism, Charismania etc. Without exception, the main denominations, and also many of those who claim to be "evangelical" are steeped in false teachings. (Acts 20:29-30; Matthew 7:14-15, 24:11). Wycliffes "Islamacized" bibles have many problematic elements e.g. "Wycliffe is removing references to God as 'Father' and substituting terms such as 'Lord' - 'Guardian' - 'Most High' - and worst of all, 'Allah.'" {6} I do not dispute that there are some sound churches out there, but in my experience they are a rarity. I also do not dispute that there are genuine Christians inside apostate denominations, but my firm view is that they should pull out as we approach the New World Order and the one world religion. (Revelation 18:4).

Both Jesus and John the Baptist were indisputably opposed to the corrupt Jewish leadership i.e. the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 23:33-34; Matthew 3:7.) Jesus had compassion on the crowd because they were "harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd". (Matthew 9:36). Jesus' instructions to the people: "..do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice." (Matthew 23:3). Nevertheless the Jewish temple remained at the centre of worship and national identity in ancient Israel. The Law of Moses was observed at that time, including the temple sacrifices. (Luke 22-24). Jesus confirmed the temple as "my Father's house". "Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:49). The temple skirmish: "How dare you turn My Father’s house into a marketplace!” Simeon and Anna the prophetess were righteous and devout, but they did not form part of the Jewish hierarchy. Nicodemus was confused by Jesus' teaching. (John 3:4). It is no surprise to find Simeon and Anna at the temple:

She (Anna) did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:37-38).

Finally, Prasch's supposed self denigration as "a miserable pathetic loser" is an accurate description of a person who consistently fails to walk in the Spirit and who does not abstain from the passions of the flesh: ..put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. (1 Peter 2:1,11; Titus 1:16). However, true believers should not define themselves in those terms. Paul referred to himself as "the worst of sinners" in the past tense. (1 Timothy 1:16 cf. Titus 3:3,11). "..though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief.." (1 Timothy 1:13). In ourselves we are nothing at all and we are not without sin (1 John 1:18), but in Christ we have received mercy and blessing:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10).

I respectfully submit that in our zeal to expose Jacob Prasch as a false teacher, which he most certainly is, we should ensure that we do not deviate from the scriptures. The scriptures are the key to exposing false teachers. (1 John 4:1).

2. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/acts/17.htm
3. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/acts/17.htm
4. Jacob Prasch: Israel, The Church & The Jews 2008 page 263
5. https://www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches

Tuesday, 5 November 2019

Fellowship Bible Chapel Fall Prophecy Conference Session 3 - Charles Cooper

2019 10 12 FBC Fall Prophecy Conference Session Three - Charles Cooper

The following observations on Session 3 are a follow up to my previous post regarding the final Session 5 Q&A, in which I took issue with a number of Cooper's assertions, including:

* The application of 1 Kings 17:14-16 to believers during the great tribulation.
* The apostasy of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 refers specifically to Israel.
* The cleansing of the church will occur before the great tribulation.
* The Antichrist will take his seat in "a holy place".
* Jesus' return with the armies of heaven (Revelation 19:14-15) will not include the resurrected saints.

My refutation of Cooper's skewed assertions can be found on: https://bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com/2019/10/fellowship-bible-chapel-fall-prophecy.html

At the beginning of Session 3, Cooper expressed some sympathy with his audience for "enduring" the length of his sessions (an hour and a half as against Alan Kurschner's one hour sessions). Indeed Cooper's habit of wandering off into all kinds of extraneous subjects and side issues does call for endurance!

Session 3 is described as "An an-depth look at the significance of the Seals and Bowls in relationship to the rapture, resurrection, and Day of the Lord."

During this session Cooper confirmed my previous suspicion that his "tradition" is probably Charismatic. Cooper: "In my tradition people stand up, clap, run round, they do things .."

Cooper: "Keep the main thing to the main thing. Don't get distracted into arguments that have nothing to do with the core values and beliefs of the (prewrath) position. This.. has hurt the pre-trib position... because you try to argue too many things that don't have a solid textual basis. It is unnecessary - it makes your position weak because you are arguing something that is tendential. It is the old theological noise.. 'how many angels can sit on the head of a pin'. What does that have to do with the timing of the Lord's return?" (3:00) Perhaps Cooper has not considered the possibility that the weakness of the pre-trib position necessitates frequent digressions into all kinds of unnecessary speculations. In other words, their recurrent deviations may be a deliberate ploy to distract attention away from "the main thing".

Ironically Cooper condemns pre-trib "novices" who do not articulate their position well. (5:30) We should remember that God created all of us with free will and that we in the west are privileged to live in a society that upholds freedom of expression. The abuse of freedom of expression does have some unpleasant consequences, but the alternative is dictatorship. At the present time we are obliged to endure "novices" who make uninformed judgements, though we may refute them. (Titus 1:9). Those who twist the scriptures will face eventual judgement. (2 Peter 2:3). In some sense we are all "novices". (1 Corinthians 13:12). The state of apostasy generally prevailing in the professing church necessitates a challenge, and that challenge falls upon faithful Christians outside the apostate denominations to make informed judgements on various dubious teachings. God is accessible to all the faithful, and every Christian has equal potential to minister for God. The doctrine of the "priesthood of believers" stands in opposition to the concept of a spiritual aristocracy or hierarchy within Christianity. All Christians are exhorted to "test the spirits". (1 John 4:1). 

Cooper claims that Jesus Christ is not going to ask you "What was your eschatology?" In saying this, he immediately relegates eschatology to a non essential subject. I would argue that understanding the timing of the return of Jesus Christ is essential in many key respects if Christians are to avoid being deceived as we approach the 70th week of Daniel. (Matthew 24:4,5,10). Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees and Sadducees: "..you cannot interpret the signs of the times." (Matthew 16:3 cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:4).

Cooper states that eschatology will not ultimately matter. "What will have mattered is how you treated me as a fellow believer in Christ. The fact that we both believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, died and rose from the dead and is returning.. but you chose not to fellowship with me because of a theological difference on a point, that I think concerns God."

Cooper bemoans the animosity exhibited by the pre-trib camp against anyone who does not hold their view of the rapture. By calling it calling it "one little theological difference" (!!), Cooper grossly underestimates and de-emphasises the gravity of the pre-trib error. If it were such a small matter, then people like Alan Kurschner, Joe Schimmel etc. would not waste their time refuting it. I hold the same core beliefs about Jesus Christ as many pre-tribbers, and yet I believe that their error is lethal  i.e. lethal to the extent that it will lead many of its adherents to eventual apostasy! (Matthew 24:10). I could not attend a church that teaches pre-trib because in many cases their error frames the whole of their theology. A case in point is JD Farag, who made the insane accusation that anyone who attacks the pre-trib rapture is "satanic". {1} This is a classic case of calling good evil and evil good. (Isaiah 5:20). The scriptures tell us that divisions are unavoidable: for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. (1 Corinthians 11:19). At its source pre-trib is a satanic deception with not one verse of scripture to verify it. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14; 1 John 4:1). Although I would not deliberately subject or expose myself to the pre-trib error, I do have some sympathy for genuine believers who have been sucked into this deception. The "main thing" is not to put fellowship above truth as Cooper would have it; the "main thing" is to maintain sound doctrine. Those who persistently err in significant areas are to be avoided. (Romans 16:17). 

Pretrib Pastor J. D. Farag talking with Jan Markell and Amir Tsarfati said, 'This is not hyperbole. If it were not for the blessed hope of the soon return of Jesus Christ in the [imminent, pretrib] rapture…I would go literally insane. I would lose my mind. [Amir Tsarfati interjects and says, 'I wouldn’t live.'] I would not be able to handle what my eyes see – the evil and the darkness is such that the likes of which we have never seen in human history'" {2}

Referring to the hostility between pre-trib and prewrath believers, Cooper stated: "There is going to come a day when we are going to need one another." (7:50) When might that day be? If he is referring to persecution during great tribulation, I assume that he does not attribute the apostasy of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to pre-trib believers (amongst others). Indeed, during Session 5, he made the unaccountable assertion that he attributes the apostasy to Israel.

And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. (Matthew 24:10-13).

Cooper's paraphrase of Revelation 6:10: "God when are you going to get down there and start kicking butt for what they did to us?" (14:00).

Revelation 6:10: They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

These kind of cheap remarks devalue the terrifying events of Revelation. Teachers especially need to show a proper respect for God's Holy Word. (1 Peter 5:3).

I have great difficulty with Cooper's assertion that the Antichrist will take his seat in "a holy place". (1:24) My understanding is that the unveiling of the Man Of Lawlessness will be in the rebuilt third Jewish Temple on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem at the midpoint of the 70th week of Daniel (2 Thessalonians 2:3,4). As far as I am aware, the third temple will be an ecumenical centre and will be located near or actually on the plot presently occupied by the Dome of the Rock. As such, I cannot see how the temple where the Antichrist takes his seat can possibly be holy.. although no doubt it will be known as "holy".

..who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ = temple of God or temple of a god.

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ) (Matthew 24:15).

According to Cooper, the Antichrist will not take his seat at the location of the temple of old i.e. the site of Solomon's temple, but "in the only holy place in existence right now - Mount Zion." 

I stand to be corrected, but I am not at all convinced that physical Mount Zion is a holy place at the present time?

In the book of Revelation, Jerusalem is described symbolically as Sodom and Egypt. (Revelation 11:8).

For Christians, a physical place of worship is not a necessary requirement. In the book of Hebrews, Zion is considered as a type of the church.(Hebrews 12:18). 

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, (Hebrews 12:22). 

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation). (Hebrews 9:11).

When Jesus returns, He will rule over the entire earth during the millennial kingdom from Zion. (Joel 3:17-21; Zechariah 14:8-9, 20-21; Revelation 20:4-6).

As Christians we anticipate the heavenly Jerusalem that descends from heaven.." a new heaven and a new earth."

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (Revelation 21:1-2).