| Author | Message | ||
     bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1868 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.218.233.50 |
"I remember back in 1980 Pop Gaylord introduced RWD as an "Apostle"..." Mark G So, why is Davis an apostle? Davis' own definition of an apostle: One who goes where the Gospel has not been preached, and trains and sends out native converts to preach the Gospel to their own country: a missionary. Davis: Graham So, by this definition Davis is an apostle, because he preached to a village over a hill in the Phillipines (He was really there first, and got some blood on his tootsies too!), and he now trains & sends Phillipinos to preach. (His wide-wide-world of Organizational outreach...) Nowaday Apostles? 1) Kinson helped teach the idea of 'nowaday' apostleship (to give credence to the idea of Davis the Apostle. And Why not? After all, he's also called Davis the Christ. So, being apostle is nothing, just like Paul said (2 Cor 12:11)... NOT!) by suggesting that there were more than 12 apostles after Jesus' resurrection, because Paul's listing of those seeing Jesus shows chronologically that there MUST have been more than 12. 1 Cor 15:5-8 says that Jesus was seen of Peter, then of the 12 (apostles), then of over 500, then of James, then of all the apostles. As though chronologically ALL the apostles includes others in the 5OO in addition to the 12 original ones, who had already seen Him. a) None in the 500, indeed no other believers than the original 12 and Paul are EVER called or named apostles in Scripture, nor is there ANY other number than 12 ever given for them. And Luke 6:13 can be read as a fact that the ONLY apostles of Jesus are those chosen and NAMED by Himself. And how would we know those He has named? IN SCRIPTURE, of course (!) WHere then does Jesus Name Paul an apostle in Scripture? In the Scriptures themselves where Paul calls himself such, as the apostle to the Gentiles, and Luke in Acts 9:15 confirms this calling from Jesus Himself. b) This chronological argument only shows that Jesus was seen on 2 separate occasions by ALL the 12 Apostles after He came first to one of them: Peter, then James. 2) It was also suggested that there MUST be apostles given by God and set in the church today, even as he did before with prophets, teachers, pastors, etc... in the early church (1 Cor 12:28)(Eph 4:11), since He is still giving pastors, teachers, etc... today. (It's debatable just how many so-called teachers and pastors today are really given by God, but...) All this proves is that apostles were given, and even though (if) pastors and teachers are still given, it doesn't mean that apostles (and prophets) are necessarily given today with them. So, the Davis Definition and his loyal ministers' teachings don't hold Scriptural water to prove it: AS USUAL! And don't we think that with something so important to Davis' dominion (as with the soulwinning program this apostle has made), that it ought be really & readily provable?? | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1869 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.218.233.50 |
So far as being there first to preach? Paul the apostle does speak of himself as having preached first to the people where God sent him. (1 Cor 15:3)(Gal 4:13)(1 Tim 1:16) Paul spoke of his 'seal of apostleship' by those converts in the Lord due to his first preaching Jesus' cross (1 Cor 9:2). Paul also referred to them who did not recieve him as an apostle. Perhaps those who loved Peter as 'their' apostle, were relunctant to also acknowledge Paul? The idea being the natural love one has for a local Pastor, especially one who first preached to them, double-especially to one who first preached the gospel in that country... Hence, really-loved Pastors can be elevated to that of an apostle, especially if they allow it, or even encourage it, or just plain ACT like it. (And, one thing's true, if Davis is NOT an apostle, he shor do act like one (!)) So, Davis' apostleship would be because he's an "I was here first" builder of his own organization in America and elsewhere. and since it's the past-hidden true message of 'Holiness', then it is missionary work, even where the Gospel has been preached, because they are all compromisers. And, his stint as a paid missionary in another organization, where he took a trip over the hills ONCE, gives him his true apostleship creds. Which has become his oft-repeated legend & mantra. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1374 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"a) None in the 500, indeed no other believers than the original 12 and Paul are EVER called or named apostles in Scripture..." Really?: "Acts 14:13. Which, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard, rending their clothes, they leaped out among the people, crying..." But that has no bearing on RWD's "apostleship." | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1870 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.216.183.88 |
Thank you Vic. You tha man! Since, you are the one with his fingers on the pulse, I'll submit this, to see if it is so... I say there were 12 Apostles of Jesus: '(Jesus) called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.' (Luke 6:13) And ever shall be ONLY 12 Apostles Of Jesus: 'And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.' (Rev 21:14) | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1377 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"And ever shall be ONLY 12 Apostles Of Jesus: 'And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.' (Rev 21:14)" That's plausible. However, it doesn't preclude the possibility of modern apostles (although I can't think of any who have so distinguished themselves through the "signs of an apostle" cited in 2Cor 12:12). | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1872 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.216.183.88 |
To say it is plausible, but does not preclude, is to say it is plausible but not possible: Because if it is so, then it does preclude there being more than 12 apostles named by God. The appearance here is of a definite unwillingness to take a stand on what is plainly written, due to an overzealous reaction to those who wilfully stand on what is plainly NOT written (!) Since Scripture itself tells us to give the plain sense of itself when it speaks plainly (Nehem 8:8)(2 Cor 3:12), then it is far more safe & noble to take it literally so, than to literally refuse to take it as it is. (I'm not trying to dominate your thinking, but can help you to be set free from just thinking about things to standing on God's things by a sure faith... in the Scriptures) The plain reading is The 12 Apostles, not the original, or the first 12 apostles. To read 'the twelve' as a sort of title referring to the first 12 is a one-step removal from the plain sense of the verse. This also would of necessity go all the way back to including Judas, who was one of the first 12. (Acts 1:17) To read it as the 'latter but not last' 12 we all know and love, where Paul had replaced Judas, is a two-step manuevre (like a country-western dance with the Scripture...(Ha!)), that begins to look suspiciously like a wrestling match. Whenever Scripture can be taken literally, we are bound to do so, except it literally contradicts other Scripture. (Which does not happen where doctrine to the church is concerned, whereof apostles are at the very foundation, as we can plainly see...) | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1873 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.216.183.88 |
1) What makes an apostle of Jesus Christ? The Apostles are those disciples of Christ who were specifically Chosen and Named by Jesus Himself by sight in Person: (Luke 6:3)(Acts 9:15,22:14)(1 Cor 15:8) Paul was the LAST apostle to see the Lord and be so chosen and named. 2) What were The Apostles of Jesus for? The Apostles were the specific disciples entrusted with the Authorized ministry, gospel, commandment, and doctrine of Jesus Christ: (Acts 1:2&17,2:42,15:7,20:24)(2 Peter 3:2)(Heb 6:1)(2 John 1:9,10) The 12 Apostles were the ministers of God who laid the foundation of Christ for His church, upon which ALL OTHERS may build up one another in His faith. That one, true, and ONLY foundation of Jesus Christ has already been laid with the ministry of His 12 apostles, which no other man may lay (1 Cor 3:10-11). That same foundation of the apostles' doctrine of Christ is written in the Scriptures of the New Covenant of Jesus. And those same apostles' names are written in the foundation of His city, of which there are 12. So, as is commonly believed among the church, it is in fact true: The twelves apostles of our Lord delivered to the world His Gospel, commandments, and doctrine. And even as He has no other apostles chosen, named, and given by Him to the church, so He has no other Gospel & doctrine blessed of Him in the church. (Gal 1:8) And also as is commonly suspected, people would be called apostles that they might have apostolic authority over the church, where Whatsoever THEY say, is so... (To wit: Davis the Apostle) There were and are other apostles than the Lord's 12, and they were and are ALL FALSE. (2 Cor 11:13)(Rev 2:2, 22:18-19) | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1379 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"The appearance here is of a definite unwillingness to take a stand on what is plainly written, due to an overzealous reaction to those who wilfully stand on what is plainly NOT written (!)" That's not the appearance; all I was saying was that your distinction made sense, although it doesn't preclude the designation of apostle referring to some beyond the twelve (e.g. Barnabas). Are you saying that even though he is unambiguously referred to as an apostle in scripture that he didn't attain GENUINE apostleship? I'm not getting your semantics here, and my reluctance to roll over is based on a literal reading of Acts 14:13. How can you chastise me for not "standing on God's things by a sure faith" when Luke himself by inspiration called Barnabas an apostle? It seems to me that you are the guilty one in that regard. So was Barnabas an apostle or not? | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1874 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.216.183.88 |
Ha! You still the man! Not going to let me get away with it, eh? Good. Bully. (T.R.'s an American hero of mine...) To firmly stand on the plain reading of Rev 21:14 was necessary, in order to go for this next piece of Scriptural work: Were the apostles correct, when they chose a 12th to replace Judas by lot? Was Matthias an apostle of Jesus Christ? He was numbered with the eleven... The key is found in any Scriptural proof of who, what, how apostles come to pass. If indeed an apostle of Jesus is ONLY one that is chosen, named, and seen of Jesus Christ, which all may KNOW BY SCRIPTURE: the Red Letters. Then neither Matthias was Jesus' apostle, though the Holy Ghost allowed the first eleven to think so, nor was Barnabas though the Holy Ghost allowed Luke to even say so (!!!) Jesus has only one kind of an apostle: the Red-Lettered Edition (!) | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1380 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
Derrick, I'm still trying to sort out just what it is you are saying. Do you mean that there are "Jesus apostles" and "non-Jesus apostles?" When I said your theory was plausible, I meant that there is and should be some kind of distinction between the twelve and others, but that doesn't demote the non-twelve from apostleship, since Luke did unmistakeably call Barnabas an apostle. You aren't making much sense to me here; are you obfuscating, or is your explanation just muddy? When you say "a) None in the 500, indeed no other believers than the original 12 and Paul are EVER called or named apostles in Scripture..." and are immediately confronted with clear scriptural evidence to the contrary, why don't you just admit you were wrong about it? I'd respect you more for that than for this new "Jesus-apostle" tap dance. Part of my "unwillingness to take a stand" is based on scenarios exactly like this, where you seem to be so invested in "standing on God's things by a sure faith" that you can't discern when your "sure faith" is really only a weak opinion. Barnabas is called an apostle. That's all I know, and I'm not going to waste time trying to figure out just where in that pantheon he fits. Let me know when you think you have it nailed down, but I certainly reserve the right to skepticism regarding your conclusion. | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1876 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.197.104.150 |
Right. And I am definitely on new ground here, so I'm glad your here to help sort it out. Let's start over some: I believe that Rev 21:14 means that at the end of it all, there shall only have ever been 12 apostles chosen and named by Jesus, whether in Scripture or out. Your answer seemed equivocal, because you seemed to say it that was possible, but not really. Now I see that you think there is room to distinguish between the 'official' or 'familiar' 12 well-known by name in Scripture, yet there are others not so well known that Scripture verifies: Barnabas. And so there could be others as well not even in Scripture. ? | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1381 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"Now I see that you think there is room to distinguish between the 'official' or 'familiar' 12 well-known by name in Scripture, yet there are others not so well known that Scripture verifies: Barnabas. And so there could be others as well not even in Scripture." That's a bit clearer and I wouldn't disagree (but of course I wouldn't spend much time agonizing about it either, being the way I am). | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1878 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.197.104.150 |
As Lincoln may say, "You continue in the argument, and I'll risk the agony." I propose that such willingness to believe such things is the very reason why good sheep are become such prey to bad wolves that used to be good sheep as well... The main lesson I have learned by my strong delusion under Davis is: Nothing other than what is plainly written for all MUST BE accepted by me as Christian rule over me. And, Everything that is plainly written for all can be stood upon easily and surely, nothing doubting. These Scriptures (Luke 6:3)(1 Cor 15:8)(Rev 21:14) say to me that the only apostles of Jesus Christ are those that have seen Him personally and been chosen and named by Him as such, and their number is 12 only. And standing on this truth I will never believe, recieve, nor call aposlte any other than the twelve, whether they be good ministers or bad, and whether I personally like them or not. And no good minister of God would lay claim to that office since that twelve. Though many good Christians have, no doubt, referred to other good ministers as such, sincerely and without harm, even as Luke did... in Scripture... and no harm done (!) Hence, no Holy Ghost objection to it, though not entirely true (Paul was indeed an apostle of Jesus', though not yet even considered the senior member of that team... by other good men). | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1879 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.197.104.150 |
And since He also leads us into ALL truth, then an excellent teaching point was had by it as well: to wit, one of the most ? confirmations I can think of to demonstrate beyond doubt, that no matter how seriously, unselfishly, purely, charitably we may believe something to be true concerning God and His ministry to man by Jesus Christ, If it ain't written, it ain't necessarily so, and if it is so, then of necessity it MUST have two or three witnesses of Scripture to prove it... even if it is written once... even with good intent... even by the Holy Ghost Himself (!!!) (Deut 19:15)(2 Cor 13:1) Indeed, for even God Himself is in subjection to His own rule, even unto death, the cross. And God never, ever contradicts Himself in Scriptural teaching, though the Bible MAY have an error of some fact or figure. (But I wouldn't EVER think Davis would EVER make a mistake with numbers. So he may indeedy be the very best of the best after all, even better than Gaaaaaaawwwwwd Himself!) And who knows but that perhaps God even ALLOWED some error of numbers listed in the Bible, just to show and teach us, that SOME PEOPLE can indeed be too good at such business for their own good and especially for that of others (!!!) (Oh man, this is just too much. Can it be so?? If it is, the Bible will tell us... plainly) | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1382 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"And, Everything that is plainly written for all can be stood upon easily and surely, nothing doubting...If it ain't written, it ain't necessarily so, and if it is so, then of necessity it MUST have two or three witnesses of Scripture to prove it... even if it is written once... even with good intent... even by the Holy Ghost Himself (!!!) (Deut 19:15)(2 Cor 13:1)" It is plainly written that Barnabas was an apostle. The "two or three witness" criterion is something you and Dake came up with by taking the relevant verses, which have nothing whatsoever to do with scriptural exegesis, out of their contexts. Barnabas, though not numbered among the twelve, was an apostle. I understand that because it is plainly written. Did God stutter? Does he really need to repeat it twice before you will believe him? That's kind of insulting. | ||
| kobegone Junior Member Username: kobegone Post Number: 33 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 66.74.43.210 |
Mr. Victorjohanson "It is plainly written that Barnabas was an apostle. The "two or three witness" criterion is something you and Dake came up with by taking the relevant verses, which have nothing whatsoever to do with scriptural exegesis, out of their contexts. Barnabas, though not numbered among the twelve, was an apostle. I understand that because it is plainly written. Did God stutter? Does he really need to repeat it twice before you will believe him? That's kind of insulting." You finally agree that the bible is plainly written, and so do Dake. First you attack NTCC, and then everybody else on this site, and now Dake. My my my, why don't you get a life? NTCC is wrong, I am wrong, Dake is wrong, but you are right. Your worse than a radical muslim!! | ||
| imaskingwhy Junior Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 39 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 216.40.83.166 |
Ephesians 4:11-13 is a passage of scripture of major importance: “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” While we have come to accept the ministry gifts of evangelists, pastors, and teachers, it is much more difficult for some to embrace the ministry gifts of apostles and prophets. To be absolutely consistent and scripturally true as stated in Ephesians 4, if there are no apostles today, then neither are there pastors, evangelists, or teachers. Just because you don’t understand it or like it, you can’t arbitrarily embrace some of the gifts while rejecting others. Jesus did not give three or four ministry gifts. He gave five! Each of these gifts is an extension of the ministry of Christ himself. BDH | ||
| imaskingwhy Junior Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 40 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 216.40.83.166 |
Bro Derrick said "If indeed an apostle of Jesus is ONLY one that is chosen, named, and seen of Jesus Christ, which all may KNOW BY SCRIPTURE: the Red Letters. Then neither Matthias was Jesus' apostle, though the Holy Ghost allowed the first eleven to think so, nor was Barnabas though the Holy Ghost allowed Luke to even say so (!!!) NOTICE THE WORD "if". The reason some Christians assume that the apostolic ministry ceased during the New Testament era is because of the failure to differentiate between the original apostles of Christ and the other apostles mentioned in scripture. The original apostles have been commemorated forever in the New Jerusalem (see Revelation 21:14), but they were not the only apostles. There were many others called “apostle” in the New Testament, including Andronicus, Apollos, Barnabas, Epaphroditus, James the brother of Jesus, Junia, Matthias, Paul, Silas, Timothy, and others referred to but not specifically named. I Corinthians 15:5-7) mentions that after the resurrection Jesus appeared to the twelve and then also to all the apostles, indicating that there were apostles other than the twelve. Also, the warning in scripture against “false apostles” would be nonsense if apostles were limited to the twelve. If there only were to be twelve, then Jesus should have warned us against all subsequent apostles, not just the false ones. Yes, there a false apostles but there are also false pastors, false teachers, and false evangelists. I Corinthians 11:19 states: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” The false only helps to illuminate the true. “And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues” (I Corinthians 12:28. Is it not hypocritical that you accept teachers, helps, and gifts of administration, but reject the rest? let's be consistent here, if apostles are not part of the formulary for the church then lets do away with the rest also. BDH | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1384 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.230.87.251 |
"You finally agree that the bible is plainly written..." When it comes to the limited topic at hand (Barnabas' apostolic status), yes. I don't see how acknowledging that makes me "worse than a radical muslim," (which is a humorous characterization coming from a narrow minded fundamentalist like you). I never said that nothing in the bible is clearly written; my assertion was that much isn't and to pretend otherwise is to succumb to self-deception. Regarding your hero Finis Jennings Dake, since you value his commentary so highly, how about telling us whether you agree with his views on race? Is miscegenation sinful? What say you, Mr. Bible Answer Man}? | ||
| mark_g Advanced Member Username: mark_g Post Number: 554 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
Finis Jennings Dake..... I'm sure that you are aware that he spent 6 months in Jail for being with a 16 year old, Don't you? He was 32 at the time. These days they call that Child Molestation. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1385 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.230.87.251 |
"I'm sure that you are aware that he spent 6 months in Jail for being with a 16 year old, Don't you?" Well, NTCC's doctrine is mostly plagiarized from Dake, so maybe he is also being imitated with regard to his penchant for teenage flesh. I've seen a number of girls married off at 16 in the org, usually to twentysomething preacher candidates. As one would expect, problems usually ensue, and many of these unions are doomed from the start. | ||
| imaskingwhy Junior Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 41 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 216.40.83.170 |
Just so I am not misunderstood. My post is not meant to authenticate RWD as an apostle. BDH | ||
| imaskingwhy Junior Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 42 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 216.40.83.170 |
Just so I am not misunderstood. My post is not meant to authenticate RWD as an apostle. BDH | ||
| kobegone Junior Member Username: kobegone Post Number: 34 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 66.74.43.210 |
Look at the facts, many people are falsely accused of something they did not do. Why do you think they released him after 6 months; it was because they found no evidence. I have a question for you; since you have been saved, have you sinned since then? I think so; do you think your sin was greater than Dakes....no no no. Remember what Jesus said, "Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." You see; even if Dake did do that, the blood of Jesus Christ can wash away all sin, and restore. Remember David, he was restored, but I guess you'll bash him too; he committed adultery with Bathsheba. But on the other hand, I know that you have sinned since you've been saved, but except you repent you will perish. If Dake did that, I know he would repent, besides, I heard that it was all a set up. | ||
| mark_g Advanced Member Username: mark_g Post Number: 555 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
"Look at the facts, many people are falsely accused of something they did not do. Why do you think they released him after 6 months; it was because they found no evidence." Falsely accused? I beg your pardon? He pleaded GUILTY to the charge before it ever went to trial to save himself and his wife as well as the CHURCH HE WAS PASTORING the embarrassment of this all. Kobegone, you really should get all your facts straight before you say things like that. Right now I'm in a hurry and have to go to work but I'll provide you with the details, as well as where you can find it. "But on the other hand, I know that you have sinned since you've been saved, but except you repent you will perish. If Dake did that, I know he would repent, besides, I heard that it was all a set up." A setup? You heard wrong. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1386 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.230.87.251 |
"If Dake did that, I know he would repent, besides, I heard that it was all a set up." Why do you have such confidence in Dake? Because he wrote a commentary? This reminds me of the stance loyalists take regarding RWD: it's hearsay, it was a setup, lies of the Devil, blah, blah, blah. Of course if anyone ever wonders about what they've observed, they can just ask him about it and he'll tell them it never happened. NTCC preachers have been known to make such asinine statements as "If Pastor said the sky was purple, then I would believe him over my own eyes." And they do, with regard to other things. BTW, when are you going to tell us if you accept Dake's white separatist doctrine? You apparently view him as some kind of authority. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1388 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.230.87.251 |
"Nashville - Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart and his publisher are accused in a lawsuit of stealing a deceased minister's writings and passing them off as his work. The heirs of the Rev. Finis Jennings Dake and Dake Publishing Inc. also are suing Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, other Baton Rouge, Louisiana-based religious groups associated with Swaggart, and Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers Inc. of Brentwood, Tennessee. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Nashville, accuses the defendants of copyright infringement and plagiarism." I guess they never heard about NTCC penchant for plagiarism; otherwise maybe they'd have filed two lawsuits. When I went to BS in St. Louis, the Genesis textbook we were required to purchase was a photocopied sheaf of notes straight from the Dake bible, with no attribution whatsoever. I even still have mine. Other works were photocopied and sold as well, such as the Leviticus textbook (which I also still have). What do you think of that practice, kobegone? Is that how 'God's special forces' should behave? | ||
| steve_tyrer Member Username: steve_tyrer Post Number: 78 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 69.154.22.179 |
I enjoy Dake's bible, but then I like Adam Clarke's commentary and Larkin's dispensational books - the Dake bible is mainly a mixture of those two, with a little Scofield thrown in. I looked up the charges about Dake on the internet; he pled guilty to violating the Mann Act, but said he did not have sex with her. He said he was trying to get her a job. I think he, most likely, was guilty. However, because someone has done something wrong doesn't make everything they say or write wrong. If that were the case, none of us could be believed for anything. And of course, we could not enjoy many of the Psalms written by David. My main complaint about Dake's beliefs are about physical healing and faith. His notes state God always heals if we believe. That is just not true - Dake even died with Parkinson's disease. | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1880 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.218.83.159 |
Vic: Paul himself said the truth of a matter was established by him saying it twice, and in Scripture (2 Cor 13:1-2) Can you show us any single verse of Scripture that states the truth, and yet is not confirmed elsewhere? Brian: Good work. But... 1) False apostles appearing in the days of the apostles makes perfect since: they were competing with the named ones, as though you didn't have to be named by Jesus, nor seen Him personally (As the other 12 had, including Paul) And no doubt some of the 500 tried to horn in on the acts of the Apostles, because they saw Him too (!) 2) I did talk about 1 Cor 15:5-8 in the first post: It can easily be read that the record shows Jesus showed Himself on two separate occasions to all the 12 apostles, after coming personally to one of them, first Peter then James. 3) You had me realy flumuxed(?) with that list of yours, in how I could have possibly missed all those other called apostles, but... -being of note among the apostles is as it simply says: the apostles notedly knew them, rather than they were of notable reputation as apostles... -being men chosen by men does not make an apostle, and being of their company included elders, as well as the apostles, hence being chief men among the brethren... -Epaphroditus is a brother & fellow-laborer, which does not make a brother & fellow-apostle. -Same with Timothy: Paul was an apostle, and Timothy a brother... -Apollos is not to be reckoned an apostle simply for being listed among Paul & Cephas as ministers, anymore than those three are to be reckoned as Christs simply for being wrongly treated as such, when people get into favorites and competitions (!) (As we see with loyalties like 'I am of Davis', 'I am of Denis'...) -Paul, as with the other 11, was named as chosen by Jesus in Acts 9:15. -James the Lord's brother was His cousin, James the Less, the son of Alpheaus one of the 12. His brother Judas (Lebbaeus) was Jude, also of the 12 and son of Alphaeus, thus calling himself the brother of James. Alphaeus was also called Clopas, the brother of Joseph, husband to Mary. Clopas had another son Simeon, who succeeded the apostle James as Bishop of Jerusalem. James the Less' mother was Mary, the sister of Jesus' mother Mary. (By this and ancient tradition of more closely linking such cousins, he was properly called the Lord's 'brother'. And Jesus Himself spoke of such 'brethren' as members of His own house AND kin.) None of Jesus' brothers by Mary and Joseph believed on Him (John 7:5), as Scripture foretold, 'I am an alien to my mother's children.' (Psalms 69:8) This leaves us back with one other person, Barnabas, called an apostle other than the original 12, then Paul (Who took Judas' office by Jesus' choosing, NOT by men's choosing of lots for Matthias.) | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1881 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.218.83.159 |
Once again, the ONE MAIN office of an apostle of the Lord was to recieve and give His doctrine and commandments to the church. (Acts 1:2,2:42)(Eph 2:20)(2 Peter 3:2) And so in like manner, the very foundation of Christ's doctrine is lain by and closely identified with His spostles in that of the heavenly Jerusalem. That foundation of Christ was laid in their ministry, and no man was to lay it anymore as apostles. (1 Cor 3:11) There were 12 original apostles chosen by Jesus and so named, and He then chose Paul to take Judas' office. These are THE 12 Apostles of the Lamb. Those choosing themselves as apostles and thus passing on 'commandments' from the Lord were false then, even as they are now. The only commandments of the Lord for His church were given to the original 11, and then also to Paul. Thus also to ADD commandments to those already given by the apostles is to ACT as an apostle. Such personally-made commandments of 'other' apostles ALWAYS result in personal allegiance to themselves, not just as apostles, but eventually as false christs as well (Hello Davis and Denis!) | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1882 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.218.83.159 |
"...let's be consistent here, if apostles are not part of the formulary for the church then lets do away with the rest also." Brian At this point I would sooner do that than to allow for ANY OTHER apostles of Jesus, either then or now. (It's both more provable AND safer(!) "Just so I am not misunderstood. My post is not meant to authenticate RWD as an apostle." Of course not. No more than Vic. I find it interesting that a teaching that would be most helpful in preventing cultism among Christians by anulling ANY pretence to modern apostleship is met with resistance on an anti-cult forum. I believe it is because ex-cult-members are some of the best Christian ctiquers around: 1) They are no longer impressed by titles. 2) They are no longer impressed by appearance of knowledge. 3) They are no longer impressed by claims of authority. 4) They are no longer impressed by presumed superiority of Christian spirituality and living. Yet, they can still be duly attracted to sincere love, faith, and God's Word on His things if decently presented... Oh by the way, there actually are 13 apostles: 12 names written in the foundation stones, and 1 in the cornerstone: 'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.' (Heb 3:1) So, the ONLY ONE who can bestow that title upon another by name is Jesus Himself, none other. And I only read of 14: 1 Cornerstone, 12 living foundation stones, 1 dead & gone. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1389 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
Vic: Paul himself said the truth of a matter was established by him saying it twice, and in Scripture (2 Cor 13:1-2) This is not a conclusive statement about the truth of any matter, but specifically regards human witnesses when charges have been laid against another. Why would you extrapolate and include scriptural exegesis in its scope? There is no authority for you to do so, and this is another example of one of those things "everybody knows" which falls apart under scrutiny. Just because you interpret something a certain way doesn' make you the final arbiter. Other reasonable people shouldn't feel compelled to accept anything merely on your word. One of my main beefs with you is your rigidity concerning matters which are pure opinion, and this qualifies under that category. But it's nothing personal, bro. | ||
| mark_g Advanced Member Username: mark_g Post Number: 556 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
"I looked up the charges about Dake on the internet; he plead guilty to violating the Mann Act, but said he did not have sex with her. He said he was trying to get her a job." They both went into different Motels over a period of 2 to 3 days and went under the alias of "Mr. and Mrs. Anderson" and had some very heavy "Petting" sessions. As a matter of fact the column in the Chicago Tribune was under the subtitle "Petting Parson goes to Jail" or something like that. Believe it or not I had that column from the newspaper for a number of years and just recently threw it away. But, it is available upon request. My Dake commentary is right where it belongs....... In the City Dump. | ||
| kobegone Junior Member Username: kobegone Post Number: 35 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 66.74.41.184 |
"They both went into different Motels over a period of 2 to 3 days and went under the alias of "Mr. and Mrs. Anderson" and had some very heavy "Petting" sessions. As a matter of fact the column in the Chicago Tribune was under the subtitle "Petting Parson goes to Jail" or something like that. Believe it or not I had that column from the newspaper for a number of years and just recently threw it away. But, it is available upon request. My Dake commentary is right where it belongs....... In the City Dump." Gossip gossip gossip. It's amazing to me how a Christian (if you're even a Christian) can rejoice when one falls; and go back and dig up his past, kind of like the devil. I'm glad God is not like that though, but is not willing that any man perish, but that all come to repentance. We are all tempted, and has transgressed God's law since we've been saved (probably not you!) just as David (a man after God's own heart) committed a worst act than Dake. Not only did David commit adultery, but he also had her husband killed, you know that. I guess you tore out anything written about David in your bible and put it in the city dump. Researh that I found concerning this matter about Dake. Show proof that Dake plead guilty to this crime. This is from someone who knew Dake. "It seems that in an attempt to embarrass and cause disrespect to the Dake writings, you give summaries of newspaper stories concerning a supposed incident that took place in the mid 30's, which cast Rev. Dake in a bad light. The truth of these stories cannot be verified at this date. But there are a number of points in Mr. Dake's favor that can be known. 1. Dake's wife believed in her husband, for she continued to support him all the days of their life. Dake and his wife Dorothy were married in 1925, that means that they enjoyed over 62 years of marriage, prior to Rev. Dake's home-going in 1987. 2. Dake's church supported and stood by him during this incident. 3. I have letters on file from 3 people who where there, who say that because of this young ladies Catholic involvement, this story was trumped up. 4. Dake himself never let it effect his ministry for the Lord. 5. The Church of God allowed brother Dake to join and hold ministerial ordination after this so-called incident. 6. Finally no matter what happened, if anything, Christ blood is able to forgive and release. Judging from the remainder of Dake's ministry it is evident that he lived a life of faithfulness and devotion to God and his Kingdom." | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1390 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.230.87.251 |
"Not only did David commit adultery, but he also had her husband killed, you know that." Uh, you've omitted that little detail about David's genuine repentance. When Nathan confronted him, he didn't pull the old Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman" routine (like Dake did); he said "I have sinned" without trying to mitigate his guilt. Even pleading guilty to avoid embarrassment would make Dake guilty of lying under oath (and is similar to the recent Larry Craig situation; do you think he was set up too?). "It's amazing to me how a Christian (if you're even a Christian) can rejoice when one falls" Who is rejoicing? It's nothing to rejoice in, but neither should it be covered up. "Show proof that Dake plead guilty to this crime. This is from someone who knew Dake." Of course his friends would stand by him. And just who is this anonymous individual "who knew Dake?" If there are newspaper articles still extant about this crime, how is it that "the truth of these stories can't be verified?" These are matters of public record. "1. Dake's wife believed in her husband, for she continued to support him all the days of their life. Dake and his wife Dorothy were married in 1925, that means that they enjoyed over 62 years of marriage, prior to Rev. Dake's home-going in 1987." That says more about his wife than him. To their credit, many women have nobly forgiven philandering husbands and continued to love them despite their indescretions. Hilary Clinton is still married to Bill too even though he was guilty. I wouldn't criticize her for that, do you? "3. I have letters on file from 3 people who where there, who say that because of this young ladies Catholic involvement, this story was trumped up." Right. It was a conspiracy by the Pope. Give us a break. "5. The Church of God allowed brother Dake to join and hold ministerial ordination after this so-called incident." That says more about the Church of God than it does about Dake. I think Granite has alleged that this organization has been referred to as "the trash can of Pentecost" because of their lax standards when it comes to ministerial ordination. NTCC has some scoundrels in its ministerial ranks too. It's all damage control, just like what you are trying to do regarding NTCC. Try to spin things all you want, but the ugly truth is coming out. | ||
| mark_g Advanced Member Username: mark_g Post Number: 557 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
Kobegone..... You deserve NTCC, and NTCC deserves you. You are just right for that Church, and it's just right for you. It's amazing how you can read so many things into what I've said. I can tell you where to find the article, if you are interested at all. But, I know you are not interested. It's "defend at all costs". And, It's the same thing with RWD. At least I will give Dake this much credit. He admitted he was wrong, and didn't let it affect his ministry. He didn't have a sexual escapade and then get behind the pulpit and say "I can't remember the last time I sinned". So, In that respect, He is better than RWD. And really, I don't give a Rats Tu-Tu whether you think I'm saved or not. I think it's interesting that you would even bring salvation into this thread at all. I never questioned your salvation. My Dakes commentary is right where it belongs. It really doesn't matter whether he had sex with a 16 year old or not. One would be wise indeed to get a Matthew Henry Commentary, or one of the other fine authors or Commentaries that are out there. Also, what qualifies Dake to write a Commentary anyway? When I was at NTCC I heard all these "Legends" about Dake being able to speak Greek and Hebrew, In fact, It was said that he spoke 7 different languages, as well as having a Doctorate degree.(I believe) But, in reality, Dake never went to Seminary, and only spoke 1 Language.(English) The totality of his education consisted of one Bible Class. ONE BIBLE CLASS!!! THAT'S ALL!!!! He misuses Greek, as well as the Hebrew text. I can give you one example right off the top of my head where he twists a Greek word to make it fit his particular brand of Theology. Believe me, Dake has no business writing a Commentary. Never mind about what he did with that 16 year old. | ||
| steve_tyrer Member Username: steve_tyrer Post Number: 79 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 198.209.199.251 |
Mark, I'm not positive, but I don't think Charles Spurgeon or D. L. Moody had very much education either. Do you know? Steve | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 209 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
Vic: The epithet, "The Trash Can of Pentecost," was applied early on to the Pentecostal Church of God of Joplin, Mo. (from whence sprang NTCC), not to be confused with the larger Pentecostal group called 'The Church of God' of Cleveland, Tenn., which Dake had joined after being defrocked by the Assemblies of God for his alleged indiscretions. It was applied because for nearly half a century the PCG was the only Pentecostal organization that would ordain divorced and remarried preachers. | ||
| mark_g Advanced Member Username: mark_g Post Number: 558 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
Mark, "I'm not positive, but I don't think Charles Spurgeon or D. L. Moody had very much education either. Do you know?" Steve I can't speak about DL Moody, But Charles Spurgeon I'm pretty sure did not have Seminary or Language Study. You are right about that. I'm not saying that you have to do all of that to write a commentary, But what I am saying is don't mangle the text so badly that it is virtually unrecognizable just to fit your own doctrine, and further your own agenda. As I said before there are many fine Commentaries out there, and Dake IS NOT one of them. I brought up the fact that Dake had no formal education basically just to show how a persons "mystique" can precede the truth. Also, just to let you know, Kobegone, It's nothing personal, so please don't take it that way. Nice to "see" you out here Steve. Have a good day. | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1883 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.197.248.193 |
Dear Vic, Good job, and I'm not discounting what you say at all. You and Brian have challenged me with Scripture honestly, which is all I ask. Both of you have almost stymied me, but certainly had me sitting back astonied for a season. So far as apostles go: I still believe one can certainly teach there are no more God-chosen apostles He sets in His church. Though many may practise and experience the signs and services of apostleship: with the absolute exception of delivering any more commandments and foundation of doctrine (Which I believe was the main purpose of select apostles from among the disciples of Christ at the foundation time.) 2) So far as two or three witnesses of Scripture, I'll narrow it to proving doctrine: not just to know something is true. So once again, Can you show me a case where a single Scripture would teach something concerning doctrine, yet does not have any other Scripture teaching the same thing, so as to prove it is so? (The Scripture referring to Barnabas as an apostle is the only one that plainly refers to any other person than the original 12 and Paul (who refilled the 12) as chosen & named apostles by Jesus Himself. Which is 1 more than I originally thought, and you corrected me on. So, I'm still tenaciously hanging on... Not because it really matters to me, other than to know and teach the truth. If God does not have only 12, and He can have some of His own apostles today. Fine by me! And we have enough Scripture to know there are still false ones and how to recognize them, even as they were in Rev 2:20) P.s. I am truly loving the honest challenge you present, and you have shown more Scriptural knowledge and discernment in the last week, than I have seen from you in the past. I don't believe it is something to be hidden as a matter of humility, but rather used as a matter of good instruction to them that believe... the written Word of God. But, to each his own... Do what keeps working for you; you've been here longer than I. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1391 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.230.87.251 |
"So once again, Can you show me a case where a single Scripture would teach something concerning doctrine, yet does not have any other Scripture teaching the same thing, so as to prove it is so?" I've never really tried to find any, but in any case it doesn't matter. A principle shouldn't be based on examples; rather examples should flow from principles. Even if there were no examples at all, it wouldn't change the truth of the principle that God is able to declare something once and not be second guessed. Since there is no compelling scriptural argument that something has to be repeated to be valid, I don't have a problem accepting that Barnabas was an apostle, though not attaining to the status of the first twelve. Have there been others? I don't know or much care. Are there any today? There could be, but I'm skeptical and can't think of anyone who would remotely qualify (particularly the "apostle" in question). | ||
| mklo Advanced Member Username: mklo Post Number: 663 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 67.185.114.218 |
Skeletons eventually get restless in the closet, and one day they parade out. It's always worse with people like Swaggart and the Catholic Priests because of what they supposedly stood for by virtue of their chosen occupation. | ||
| imaskingwhy Junior Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 43 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 41.194.20.30 |
Ephesians 4:11-13 is a passage of scripture of major importance: “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Have we arrived to the to "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”? Once that happens we don't need "apostles" anymore. BDH | ||
| imaskingwhy Junior Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 44 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 41.194.20.30 |
Ephesians 4:11-13 is a passage of scripture of major importance: “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Have we arrived to the to "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”? Once that happens we don't need "apostles" anymore. BDH | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1890 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.216.125.144 |
Welp, I guess we can genuinely say there is a little bit of disagreement among us that's really not a big deal, and certainly has no bearing in living for God, and I don't think any of us are prone to swallowing peoples' apostleships so easily anymore. Brian's point certainly seems to mean, there are either apostles today too, or no chosen ministers at all. ANd I'd really rather choose the latter than risk the former. I suppose there can be apostles like Barnabas in the good ministerial work of God, but no more like the famous 12, who gave God's commandments to the church orally recieved from Jesus by the Holy Ghost. All the holy commandment and doctrine of Christ is already written, and any more commandment-making not already written is man's added commandments passed off as God's doctrine (which Davis-types specialize in). I suppose it would be safe to say, that God can choose to give the gifts of apostleship with signs following to anyone He chooses for the edifying of His church, but it CANNOT include anymore doctrine of Christ that was already laid in His foundation by His Scripturally named 12 (1 Cor 3:10-11): to wit, the apostles' doctrine is the whole, complete doctrine of Christ we are all to have among one another, without which we are not to bid one another God's speed (2 John 10-11). So, perhaps God can still give us apostles with signs following for our good, but no more FOUNDATION apostles with 'more' commandments to the church not already written. The only other apostles are those who build on the foundation already laid by the 12, which don't include unwritten law, rule, and commandment (!?) It's sortta like, Jesus has said, "Enough rule for one day, and I lay nor other burdens upon you, though the one laid is not grievous, but easy & light..." (1 John 5:3)(Rev 2:24) | ||
| kobegone Junior Member Username: kobegone Post Number: 36 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 75.85.199.182 |
"Uh, you've omitted that little detail about David's genuine repentance." Since when did you take the place of God? How do you know if he genuinely repented or not? As a Christian you should should think of the positive, and not the negative, and have compassion which I doubt you have, Jesus did though. It seems like you hate Dake and NTCC worse then you hate the devil. Don't you realize that this supposed incident happened in the 30's, yet Dake went on to have a successful ministry? "Who is rejoicing? It's nothing to rejoice in, but neither should it be covered up." Now you are playing the role of the hypocrite. Do you think that Dake's sin (If he did it) is greater than your sins that you have committed since you've been saved? Nay, but except you repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Since what he supposedly did shouldn't be covered up, why don't you go ahead and list the things you've done wrong, since they shouldn't be covered up, but I guess you've done nothing wrong, no not you. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1399 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"How do you know if he genuinely repented or not?" Because genuine repentance entails an acknowledgement of sin, not a denial or an excuse. He came up with some BS story about trying to help the girl get a job, when his actions don't appear to support that flimsy theory at all. What planet are you from? Married preachers boinking 16 year old girls (or boys, for that matter) is not earthshaking news, you know. Dake is the one who makes such a big deal out of Rev. 21:8, but he was either lying about the details or lying in his guilty plea. So he's a human being. I have compassion for his frailty, but not much sympathy for his evasion. "Since what he supposedly did shouldn't be covered up, why don't you go ahead and list the things you've done wrong, since they shouldn't be covered up, but I guess you've done nothing wrong, no not you." I've done plenty wrong; haven't you? Do you deny it? I don't (I quit trying to pretend I was perfect after leaving your schizoid org). I make no special claims to personal holiness, and I'm also not setting myself up as an authority on how others should live. My point here is that Dake violated his own standards, not an arbitrary one devised by me, and then tried to cover it up and make it go away. It hasn't. And how about that racial doctrine of his, chief? You sure seem reluctant to discuss it. One thing we can deduce with reasonable certainty--the girl was lily white. | ||
| mark_g Advanced Member Username: mark_g Post Number: 559 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
"Since what he supposedly did shouldn't be covered up, why don't you go ahead and list the things you've done wrong, since they shouldn't be covered up, but I guess you've done nothing wrong, no not you." I can speak for myself, and only for myself on this one. On other threads I have said that after I left NTCC I was bitter about a lot of things. But, that still doesn't answer the question of Dake. In my opinion he never really came clean on the matter of his sexual proclivities. He only admitted to what he absolutely had to. Only the things that there was just no denying that he did. Kobegone, How about RWD and his sexual exploits? He stands up from behind the pulpit and makes the comment that he can't remember the last time he sinned. How about that? Try and deny the fact that he said it. Since you seem to want to defend Dake, and what he did. Others out here have been forthright with you, So lets talk about Rodger Wilson Davis. Is he also without sin? | ||
| kobegone Junior Member Username: kobegone Post Number: 40 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 75.85.198.163 |
(YAWWWWN) AND ANOTHER (YAWWWWWWN) I'M GOING TO BED, I HAVE PT IN THE MORNING, SEMPER FI!!!! NEXT TIME ON VIC.NET WITH SPECIAL GUEST MARK G! IS JOSEPH SMITH RELATED TO R.W DAVIS; DOES BILLY GRAHAM BELIEVE IN GOD. NTCC AND IT'S SECRET SOCIETY. DOES HILLARY CLINTON GO TO NTCC IN NEW YORK AND SO MUCH MORE. OH, AND IS FINIS J DAKE GEORGE BUSH INCARNATED, ANNNNND IS PELDADDY RELATED TO PUFF DADDY? | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1406 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
OK, kobegone. Come back when you want to discuss Dake's racial views. Perhaps you agree with them--is that why you are so reluctant to address the subject? | ||
| kobegone Junior Member Username: kobegone Post Number: 41 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 75.85.198.163 |
Did you know that Dake preached in black churches, and got baptized in a black church? I have Dake's GPM on CD where Mr. Dake is speaking himself. It's 52 hours of teaching the bible from beginnig to end, and not one time does he make any racial slurs against any race. I'm an African American, and if I even had one hint that he was racist I would have stopped listening to him a long time ago. O.K. he said negro and colored people a couple of times, but so did my grandmother say colored people, and negro, and she was black. LEAVE DAKE ALONE!!!!!! | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1407 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"I have Dake's GPM on CD where Mr. Dake is speaking himself. It's 52 hours of teaching the bible from beginnig to end, and not one time does he make any racial slurs against any race. I'm an African American, and if I even had one hint that he was racist I would have stopped listening to him a long time ago." I have read ALL of the Dake notes (and his book, God's Plan for Man), and I guarantee you he taught that God commands racial separation. Maybe you have one of the newer versions, where his family expunged those controversial views after his death. Go ahead and keep your head in the sand, but you are only deceiving yourself, because Dake's views on racial purity are well documented. You are simply demonstrating stubborn denial be refusing to acknowledge them. I never said and don't believe that Dake hated other races. But he did promote a "separate but equal" policy, especially when it came to intermarriage. What do you think about that? And if he's wrong on race, don't you think he could be wrong about some other issues? If I have time, I will look up some choice passages for you. You can compare them to your Dake bible and see if they are still there. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1408 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
I had time; found it posted online. Isn't the internet great! You can see scans of the changed pages here: http://www.peterlaitres.net/DakesNewPage.htm The notes are also posted on a "Christian Identity" (white separatist) website; here they are for your edification: "30 Reasons for Segregation of Races" by Finis Dake. (Acts 17:26) 1. God wills all races to be as He made them. Any violation of God's original purpose manifests insubordination to Him(Acts 17:26; Romans 9:19-24) 2. God made everything to reproduce "After his own kind" (Genesis 1:11-12, 21-25; 6:20; 7:14). Kind means type and color or He would have kept them all alike to begin with. 3. God originally determined the bounds of the habitations of nations(Acts 17:26; Genesis 10:5, 32; 11:8; Deuteronomy 32:8) 4. Miscegenation means the mixture of races, especially the black and white races, or those of outstanding type or color. The Bible even goes farther than opposing this. It is against different branches of the same stock intermarrying such as Jews(sic) marrying other descendants of Abraham(Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 9-13; Jeremiah 50:37; Ezekiel 30:5). 5. Abraham forbad Eliezer to take a wife for Isaac of Canaanites (Genesis 24:1-4). God was so pleased with this that He directed whom to get (Genesis 24:7, 12-27). 6. Isaac forbad Jacob to take a wife of the Canaanites (Genesis 27:46-28:7). 7. Abraham sent all his sons of the concubines, and even of his second wife, far away from Isaac so their descendants would not mix (Genesis 25:1-6) 8. Esau disobeying this law brought the final break between him and his father after lifelong companionship with him(Genesis 25:28; 26:34-35, 27:46; 28:8-9). 9. The two branches of Isaac remained segregated forever (Genesis 30; 46:8-26). 10. Ishmael and Isaac's descendants remained segregated forever (Genesis 25:12-23; 1 Chronicles 1:29) 11. Jacob's sons destroyed a whole city to maintain segregation (Genesis 34) 12. God forbad intermarriage between Israel and all other nations (Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:5-6) 13. Joshua forbad the same thing on sentence of death (Joshua 22:12-13) 14. God cursed angels for leaving their own "first estate" and "their own habitation" to marry the daughters of men (Genesis 6:1-4; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6-7) 15. Miscegenation caused Israel to be cursed (Judges 3:6-7; Numbers 25:1-8) (continued below...) | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1409 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"30 Reasons for Segregation of Races" by Finis Dake. (Acts 17:26) (continued from above...) 16. This was Solomon's sin(I Kings 12) 17. This was the sin of Jews(sic) returning from Babylon (Ezra 9:1-10:2,10-18,44; 13:1-30) 18. God commanded Israel to be segregated (Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 23:9; 1 Kings 8:53) 19. Jews(sic) recognized as a separate people in all ages because of Gods choice and command (Matthew 10:6; John 1:11). Equal rights in the gospel gives no right to break this eternal law. 20. Segregation between Jews(sic) and all other nations to remain in all eternity (Isaiah 2:2-4; Ezekiel 37; 47:13-48,55; Zechariah 14:16-21; Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32-33; Revelation 7:1-8; 14:1-5) 21. All nations will remain segregated from one another in their own parts of the earth forever (Acts 17:26; Genesis 10:5,32; 11:8-9; Deuteronomy 32:8; Daniel 7:13-14; Zechariah 14; Revelation 11:15; 21:24) 22. Certain people in Israel were not even to worship with others (Deuteronomy 23:1-5; Ezra 10:8; Nehemiah 9:2 10:28; 13:3) 23. Even in heaven certain groups will not be allowed to worship together (Revelation 7:7-17; 14:1-5; 15:2-5) 24. Segregation was so strong in the O.T. that an ox and an ••• could not work together (Deuteronomy 22:10). 25. Miscegenation caused disunity among God's people (Numbers 12). 26. Stock was forbidden to be bred with other kinds (Leviticus 19:19). 27. Sowing mixed seed in the same field was unlawful (Leviticus 19:19) 28. Different seeds were forbidden to be planted in vineyards (Deuteronomy 22:9) 29. Wearing garments of mixed fabrics forbidden (Deuteronomy 22:11; Leviticus 19:19) 30. Christians and certain other people of a like race are to be segregated (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 6:15; 2 Corinthians 6:14-15; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-16; 1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:5). | ||
| kobegone Junior Member Username: kobegone Post Number: 42 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 75.85.198.163 |
You gotta be kidding me. I even knew Dake didn't believe in mixed races, but that doesn't mean he's racist at all. I told my sister who is black, that I'd rather her marry a black man rather than a man outside of our race. Are you saying I'm racist!! I think blacks should marry blacks, and whites whites, and hispanics hispanics, and on and on. Why? Because mixed marriages cause so much problems, and brings jealousy. Look at the Sicilians, and the Italians. Italians hate them because they are a mixed race, and so did the Jews hate the Samaritans which were a mixed race. Oh by the way, one of my best friends is white. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1410 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
So, kobegone, you are allied with all kinds of creepy KKK types in your admiration of Dake's doctrines. Your ignorance is understandable, since Dake's descendants have tried to distance themselves from these odious beliefs by revising the notes after Dake expired, but I bought my copy in the early 80s and the '30 Reasons' are there in all their splendor. I read ALL of the notes, and also "God's Plan for Man" back in the days of thralldom to NTCC. But I'm thinking for myself nowadays, and I think that both Dake and NTCC are all wet. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1411 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"Why? Because mixed marriages cause so much problems, and brings jealousy. Look at the Sicilians, and the Italians. Italians hate them because they are a mixed race, and so did the Jews hate the Samaritans which were a mixed race. Oh by the way, one of my best friends is white." I don't know if you are a racist, but I know that you talk like one. That "one of my best friends is white" line is a classic. Look in the mirror, dude. If everyone had your attitude, you would still be drinking from separate water fountains and sitting at the back of the bus. I can see that you're no friend to the civil rights movement. What an Uncle Tom. | ||
| kobegone Junior Member Username: kobegone Post Number: 43 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 75.85.198.163 |
If I was even close to being a racist which I am not, and have never even had a racist bone in my body; I would have never signed up to be a Marine in late 2001, and wouldn't have dared to fight a war in Iraq twice, and getting ready for a third deployment for a government in which I was racist against. If you would listen sometimes you would see that I said that I would rather my sister marry a black man, but not that she had to, and not that I would hate her if she didn't. I really don't have to explain anything to you, because it's not even worth it, you are not even worth it. All you are about is bashing people, and tearing down their character. You can call me what you want, but one thing for sure is that I'm a Marine fighting this nations battle, and protecting people like you, which sometimes makes sick to my stomach to know I'm fighting for people like you. No matter what you say about me; there's a lot of people who look up to me, and many have said, (Your an outstanding Marine) you want to check my track record? I'v accomplished more things than you ever have, and I'm pretty sure you're a couple of decades older than me. Say what you want to say about Dake, say what you want about Graham, and whoever else; it matters not to me, and it wont affect me at all. As a matter of fact I think I'm gonna listen to some Dake tonight. Semper Fi! | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1414 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"I'v accomplished more things than you ever have, and I'm pretty sure you're a couple of decades older than me." You don't seem to have accomplished much in the way of humility. | ||
| mark_g Advanced Member Username: mark_g Post Number: 560 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
"You can call me what you want, but one thing for sure is that I'm a Marine fighting this nations battle, and protecting people like you, which sometimes makes sick to my stomach to know I'm fighting for people like you." That's pretty condescending....Don't you think? I was in the service, as were most of the people out here. I was probably in the Military before you were even born. Vic was in the Military, as were others out here. The last I heard, this was a V-O-L-U-T-E-E-R system, as it was when I went in. If you feel that you made a bad choice in joining, then that is your tough luck. Also, for the record, let's get this fact crystal clear. You ARE NOT fighting for me, or my family, or anyones family out here. You are fighting for you own family. I don't need you doing any favors for me, and then throwing it back up in my face later on. And don't tell me that I'm not, or people like me aren't doing our jobs back here. Every time I look on my paycheck and see 200.00+ dollars taken out(weekly) I'm reminded of the ATROCIOUS WAR THAT WE ARE ENGAGED IN!!!!!!!!! | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1419 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"Also, for the record, let's get this fact crystal clear. You ARE NOT fighting for me, or my family, or anyones family out here." Amen, Mark. Kobegone, if you feel nausea because you have deluded yourself into thinking you are somehow "protecting" me, then we are even, because the fact that I'm helping pay your wages makes me queasy too. NTCC taught me not to be guilt tripped, and your phony patriotism doesn't mean anything to me. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1421 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
One more thing, kbg: the American Way doesn't consist in acquiescing to The Man and blindly following orders. You seem to be a poster child for mindless obedience. The Founding Fathers were all about questioning authority and refusing to accept the status quo. You'd have made a fantastic Tory, standing up for King George and resisting those rebellious colonists who ungratefully departed his orbit. I hope you wake up some day and realize what a tool you've become. | ||
| mark_g Advanced Member Username: mark_g Post Number: 561 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
In all fairness to Kobegone, I think that he is a man but a very young man who hasn't seen as much as most of us out here have seen, and probably talks like many of us out here used to talk. I also will stop short of saying that he is an "Uncle Tom" just like I will stop short of saying that White people who support the Civil Rights Movement are just inside out "Oreos". Sure, there are people on both sides who do this. I heard someone at work who was of Hispanic Heritage call Oscar De La Hoya (the boxer) a "Coconut". I asked him why he dispised Oscar so much he said that it was because he was to "White". I don't like him either, but not for that reason. Anyway, Kobe will do just like most people who have left NTCC will do in a few years from now. He will look back on his experience and say..... "How could I have been so stupid, so gullible?" Just give him a few years, He'll be Ok. Mark | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1423 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 216.67.57.23 |
"In all fairness to Kobegone, I think that he is a man but a very young man who hasn't seen as much as most of us out here have seen, and probably talks like many of us out here used to talk." Yes, I'm sure that's true. No doubt I would have been just as vocal during my years of NTCC zealotry, so I don't judge his motives. He's probably a good guy. Since I don't know him, I take back the Uncle Tom designation; that was pretty harsh. I'm sure his perspective will be quite different in ten years, and his self opinion won't be so inflated. | ||
| kobegone Junior Member Username: kobegone Post Number: 45 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 75.85.198.163 |
Marc G, Victor C, I can care less if you were in the military or not; I don't care if you call it phony patriotism, I know who I am and what I do. I don't go to work with Vic or Marc G on my mind. I rarely come to this site. Marc G said "You are not fighting for me" well Suck it up Marc G I am; the fact of the matter is; there are people who want to kill you as I speak who don't even know you. They want to chop your head off, and that's a fact; along with your kids, and the rest of your family. It's not because you are a Christian, but because you are an American. No matter if you hate the war or not, they still want to kill you and always have. It's matters not to me if you were in the military many many years ago; it's the present time that counts. Hate the war love the war (yawn), you might as well suck it up because it's still going to be a war. Mr. Vic you are not helping pay my wages Sir! Everyone pay taxes. If it wasn't for the military (present) you wouldn't have a job, or freedom, or Marc G. I'm going to read my Dake; I know Vic is going to start a thread to prove he helps pay the wages of the military. I might as well put on my seat belt cause it's going to be a roller-coaster ride. | ||
| mark_g Advanced Member Username: mark_g Post Number: 564 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
"Marc G said "You are not fighting for me" well Suck it up Marc G I am;" No, You're not fighting for me. You are fighting for your OWN FAMILY. Kobegone, You're still a Baby and you don't know as much as you think you know. I thought you were more of a Man than what you are acting. Sorry, My Bad. | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 211 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
"Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." - Rev. 2:2 "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ." - 2 Cor. 11:13 TRY THEM -- 1 John 4:1 REPROVE THEM -- Eph. 5:11 REBUKE THEM -- Titus 1:13 REJECT THEM -- Titus 3:10 COME YE OUT FROM AMONG THEM --2 Cor. 6:17 WITHDRAW YOURSELVES FROM THEM -- 2 Th. 3:6 BE YE SEPARATE FROM THEM -- 2 Cor. 6:17 MARK THEM -- Rom. 16:17 RECEIVE THEM NOT -- 2 John 9-11 HAVE NO FELLOWSHIP WITH THEM -- Eph. 5:11 HAVE NO COMPANY WITH THEM -- 2 Th. 3:14 GIVE THEM NO PLACE -- Gal. 2:5 "They shall bring in damnable heresies... They shall make merchandise of you." - 2 Pet. 2:1, 3 | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1430 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 216.67.57.125 |
"I'm going to read my Dake; I know Vic is going to start a thread to prove he helps pay the wages of the military." No need to waste a thread on something so self-evident. | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1928 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.196.45.254 |
1) Is Davis an apostle? Of the Lord Jesus, that is... 2) Does Davis claim to be an apostle? | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1940 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.196.123.57 |
*Le Bump* | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1962 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.197.241.91 |
*Bump-Bump* | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1452 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
Well, he did emphatically claim to be an apostle when I was in bible school in St. Louis back in the early '80s. It seems that claim was sort of toned down later on, but I never heard him issue any retractions. | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1963 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.197.211.49 |
2) So, that's a Yes. I was told the same from Kinson, who also explained that Davis didn't like trumpeting it out of humility (of course) and also tried to prevent others from saying so, at least publicly. "Well, there's no Scriptural reason why there can't be apostles today..." Olson (When asked if 'Pastor' was indeed an apostle.) By Davis' own definition he certainly is: One who preaches the gospel in a foreign country and trains and sends others out to minister there. A missionary. | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1965 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.197.211.49 |
1) Is Davis an apostle? | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1461 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"1) Is Davis an apostle?" Sure he is--a FALSE one! | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1968 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.196.255.232 |
Ha! Literally took the words right out of my mouth. Wait a minute, is that another one of those 'all of about 5 second' answers?? Didn't you have to seriously pray and think and think and pray and agonize and search your heart over it for at least a little while? | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1970 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.196.255.232 |
So, Davis makes himself an apostle by his commandments and rules added to Scripture as an apostle. (Which are the deeds of his false-apostleship) Thus, he is a decietful worker, transforming himself into an apostle of Christ (2 Cor 11:13). Which is the same characteristic as Satan, the ministerial father of all such 'transformed ministers of righteousness'. 1) Can the Holy Ghost still save and bless souls, even when a false apostle and Satan's minister does actually preach Jesus' cross? (Which becomes farther and fewer between the rest of the proselytizing and recruitment stuff falsley ministered...) "If the devil preached the cross, God would still save the souls that believe!" Davis 2) Can false apostles be ministerial vessels of God to honour? (2 Tim 2:20) |
