The Bible clearly teaches that bearing false witness about a person is a sin and a violation of the one of the very Ten Commandments.  The internet has become the home of many fabricators and liars.  Some have asked me about a particular person's online accusations of my beliefs and teachings.  Such a person has outright lied about my beliefs, as I will show in this note.  I have even made efforts in good faith to clarify my thoughts to those who misrepresented me, and my words fell on deaf ears that had no desire to hear about what I actually believe.  Some people simply choose to believe what they want to believe, despite reality to the contrary.  It amazes me how some people actually enjoy believing a falsehood about a person.  So, I simply write this clarification to you, the sincere observer, that your questions might be settled, while I enjoy the "spirit of glory" that rests on me due to this persecution!  Praise the Lord!

Here are some fabrications that were made about my beliefs, following which are responses of the reality of what I believe and teach.

"Why must we expose Blume's heresy?  It is because his false doctrines forces the end of celebration of the Lord's Supper!  Paul said in 1Cor 11:26 how long the Church was to observe the Lord's Passover 'ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.' Blume claims the second coming of Jesus took place in 70AD. He claims the only other coming will be the end of the world event in Revelation 20:5-15.  Thus Blume ends the necessity of observance of the Lord's Supper (Communion-Passover) in 70AD.  This shows the depth of his errors and spiritualized heresy.  He has with his false doctrine removed the Lord's Passover from practice and effect in the New Covenant by years end of 70AD.  The man has gone nuts!  Any Communion practice he observes with his congregation in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, would be nothing but falsehood and ritual.  This false doctrine forces the end of all observances of the Lord's Supper regardless when you held it. What is more dangerous with Blume's false doctrines, is the fact the celebration of the Lord's Supper is a continuing witness the NEW COVENANT remains in full effect and power.  When the Lord's Supper ceases, the NEW COVENANT has ceased.  This heresy of Blume's forces the end of the NEW COVENANT in 70AD!  He, along with Smith claim the prophecy of Joel about the pouring out of the Holy Ghost ended in 70AD.  So, we have a Church without the Holy Ghost; a Church without the New Covenant; and a Church without the Lord's Supper!  Blume will devise another of his escape tricks to deceive even more souls that he has not ended the Lord's Supper or the New Covenant.  But remember this one thing:  so long as the claims Jesus returned in 70AD, however he designs his new heresy, he can not weasel out of his dilemma and his stupidity."

As you can see, not only has the man fabricated these lies about my beliefs, but is quite mean-spirited and vile in his very attitude of writing.

This sort of criticism regards my views on Bible prophecy.  And if one were to label my system of belief, it would be "Partial Preterism."  

What the writer has done is made the mistake of confusing Partial Preterism with Full Preterism.  

Full Preterism teaches that Jesus will not come to this world again, and that already came in 70 AD and resurrected the dead saints.  My view is that, while it is true that Christ came in 70 AD, it was a coming in judgment against Jerusalem only at that time. It was an invisible coming as much as David's description of God's judgmental coming against David's enemies in 2 Samuel 22 was not literally visible.  Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in Matthew 23.  He, Himself, came in judgment, just as He came many previous times during the Old Testament period in judgment against His own people who sinned, and against other sinful nations.  However, rest assured, I wholeheartedly believe and teach that Jesus Christ is coming again for the church in the resurrection/rapture!  I have several studies in my prophecy section of this website that explain this quite detailingly.

While Full Preterists believe Jesus is not going to come again, they therefore propose that Communion Supper need not be celebrated any more, because Paul noted it should be celebrated until Jesus comes.  I believe and teach that His coming in the 70 AD judgment was not that coming to which Paul referred.  The coming of Jesus Christ that will end communion celebration has not yet occurred, and is still in our future!  Therefore, I wholeheartedly encourage all believers to sincerely celebrate communion supper and partake of the memorials of the bread and wine, that represent the broken body and shed blood of Jesus Christ.  

The fabricator wrote that any communion supper that I observe in our local church is therefore a falsehood.  That is absolutely ridiculous and betrays the critic's awareness that I do indeed celebrate communion supper with my whole heart.  I do not interpret the coming of the Lord in Paul's reference in 1 Corinthians 11 to be that of 70 AD.  I deny that the celebration of Communion today is a falsehood.  

And I also deny the thought that the New Testament ceased in 70 AD.  There is no other covenant for mankind aside from the present New Testament, which Jesus Christ brought to the world, and was preached by the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost.

Concerning Joel's prophecy as cited by Peter on the day of Pentecost, Joel was foretelling a day when, for the first time in earth's history, the Spirit of God would be poured out on "all flesh".  What is so monumental about this prophecy is that it foretold that Gentiles would be recipients of God's Spirit as well as Israelites.  "All flesh" meant people of all nationalities!  This was unprecedented, since only Israelites, in general, were recipients of any blessings from God beforehand.  Joel said this was all about to change!  And the Spirit was poured out and baptized the 120 on the day of Pentecost, and that is the same Spirit we are baptized with today!  I would not even call myself Pentecostal had I believed people no longer receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, as our confused critic proposes!  And Joel's prophecy also spoke of the sun turning to black and the moon to blood, etc., which were symbolic metaphors that speak about a destruction and an end to a kingdom.  Jesus used the same metaphors in Matthew 24.  How do we know they are metaphors?  They can also be found in Old Testament writings regarding the destruction of Babylon, Edom, and Egypt.  None of those cases literally saw the sun turn black and the moon to blood when those kingdoms were destroyed.  But the thoughts of these celestial bodies changing appearance were metaphors of "lights out" for those particular kingdoms.  And Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD was the fulfillment of the metaphorical sun and moon changing appearances to no more light the sky noted by Joel.  Joel used a common Old Testament metaphor, that evidently is not so well known by folks such as our critic.

In summary, Joel spoke of the initial outpouring of the Holy Ghost from the day of Pentecost onward, upon both Jews and Gentiles, and also foretold the destruction of and judgment upon Jerusalem for their rejection of Jesus Christ.  This by no means implies that the giving of God's Spirit to souls, or "all flesh", ended in 70 AD!  It would be insane to suggest that it did mean that!  

Therefore, it is simply another lie fabricated to make my ministry appear as wrong to say...

(1) That I do not practice and meaningfully celebrate the Communion Supper,

(2) That I do not believe the New Covenant extended beyond 70 AD and

(3)  That I do not believe God gives His Spirit to anybody since 70 AD.  

One simply has to read my sermons and my bible studies to know that such accusations are wicked misrepresentations of my ministry and beliefs.  Some Full Preterists, but not all,  would readily accept this critic's accusations about themselves.  However, Partial Preterism, and my own ministry and beliefs, proposes no such teachings as this man has accused me of teaching.

Amongst other accusations of my interpretation of the Book of Revelation, I have been misrepresented as proposing that haphazard allegorical meanings are to be contrived from the various visions in Revelation.  

Please understand this point, because so few care to even listen to it.  Most simply do not want their accusations proven wrong, and will turn a deaf ear to such explanations as I will now give.  

The Book of Revelation is filled with visions.  And every single vision in the Bible was always, in every case, symbolic of the actual intended message God was giving.  

The vision may have contained actual realities in life, such as Paul's vision of a man beseeching him to come to Macedonia to preach.  Obviously men lived in Macedonia!  But the intentions of the visions were not fulfilled with those very realities.  In other words, there was not an actual man from Macedonia who literally was desiring Paul to come and preach to him.  Nobody there even knew Paul!  This "man" was either representative of Jesus Christ urging Paul to come, as I have heard some propose, or simply represented the fact that Paul should preach to the sinners in Macedonia.  

Similarly, Revelation's visions were entirely symbolic.  The very first said they were "signifying"!  And "signified" means "betokened" or "symbolized".

And the manner in which I interpret those symbols is not by flights of fancy.  I am so severely careful about interpreting the visions of Revelation.  I could not live with myself if I would take flights of fancy and have no biblical foundation to interpret the visions. And the method I use is that of finding the same picture elsewhere in the entire Bible, usually the Old Testament, and noting the context of the picture there, and consult explicit New Testament teaching on the meaning this would have to the Christian today, and applying it to Jesus Christ in the setting it is found in Revelation.  Somehow, Revelation's message is going to reflect upon Jesus Christ using those pictures from the Old Testament that Revelation is practically filled with!

For example, Revelation 5 speaks of the Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns, who retrieves the sealed book from the right hand of God, and thereby redeems people from every nation on earth.  Revelation does not tell us that this is "Jesus Christ."  One has to recognize that this vision was symbolic of Jesus Christ, using the Old Testament story of the Passover to supply insight concerning Jesus' work on the cross for our salvation and redemption.  

We recall that Moses directed the people to put the blood of a lamb on their doorway's posts and lentil.  And by remaining inside these doorways during the night of the Passover, they would be spared from experiencing the loss of the firstborn in death that night.  And following this experience, they would leave Egypt while understanding that God "redeemed them."  All the details of what redemption meant in the Passover, and the thought of the blood of the lamb giving the firstborn salvation from death is to be considered in the story of Jesus Christ in when reading Revelation 5.  Jesus died and shed His blood on the cross.  The epistles clearly explain that propitiation to be had in the shedding of Christ's blood as a sacrifice.  

It is in this precise manner that I interpret the entire series of visions in the book of Revelation.  To someone, such as our critic, who barely knows of much of the Old Testament, the correlation of the symbols in Revelation would not be readily recognized as having been taken from the Old Testament.  Many such correlations would be extremely obscure to such people.  The Passover story is so well known that one would easily recognize the point in noting the Blood of the Lamb redeeming souls in Revelation 5.  But the other actual and historical stories of the Old Testament are not so readily known.  So people, such as our critic, mocks my use of referencing those Old Testament references in order to interpret the visions of Revelation.

If the City in Revelation 21 and 22 is not the Church, as Hebrews 12:22-23 says it is (!), then the Lamb in Revelation 5:6 is not Jesus Christ!

Also, I do not believe Law ended in 70 AD as our critic has once again fabricated, but it ended with the cross of Jesus Christ.

I do not believe the cessation of sacrifices in Daniel 9 was fulfilled in 70 AD.  Jesus' death on the cross was that fulfillment.

I never have stated that Nero is the antichrist.  In fact I have explained that there is no single person that is known as "the antichrist".  There is the "beast", but Revelation never calls "the Beast" by the title "the antichrist".  1 John teaches that there is no single person called "the antichrist."  There were "many antichrists" in John's day, letting John know he was in the last time (ask John about that, not me), and in our day as well, as there always will be so long as there is an earth.

I have never taught, neither do I believe, that the "two witnesses" in Rev 11 were Zerubbabel and Joshua the High Priest.  I said these men were the two anointed ones in Zechariah 3.  And Revelation 11 gives us the indication of the same similar picture, referring to the two olive trees.  So my point was that a picture of two elements are noted in Revelation that are SIMILAR to, and not actually, Joshua and Zerubbabel.  Big difference!  And my point was that Revelation is relating something about the early church and Jesus Christ that is foreshadowed by Zerubbabel and Joshua in Zechariah 3.  

I have never stated that the coming of a New Heaven and New Earth occurred in 70 AD.  In fact, I have yet to correctly ascertain the meaning of such words!

And last of all, I never started putting a Christmas tree in my house "after" I came to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.  (Haha).  I had one in my home long before that!

I trust you will pray for such critics, for bearing public false witness about any person is simply sinful and will damn a soul.  We do not want to see any such people lose their souls for eternity.