A
website has been on the internet for a few
years now made by Gary Reckart. It includes a webpage that is pure libel. Gary Reckart is a character libellist and character slanderer. His webpage personally attacks myself and my ministry. I count it all
joy!
Someone recently stumbled across that article and remarked how blessed
I must be, since the bible says there is a blessing for those who are
persecuted! I replied saying I must indeed be blessed!
Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and
persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely,
for my sake.
I refrained for several years from posting a rebuttal, but I realized that the Word of God commands us to mark those who cause division and warn others about them, as Paul warned the church about false prophets.
As the scripture quoted above states, the words made in this attack against my
ministry are indeed
falsehoods, with some truth mixed with lies. All manner of evil is written in that
webpage against me. Meanwhile, Gary Reckart who wrote it
admitted to me that he does not believe certain verses of scripture
should even be in the Bible, and was actually working on a bible
version that omitted these passages. One such passage was:
1
Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it,
and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do
in remembrance of me.
He claims Jesus was foretold to not have a bone of his body broken, so
this verse cannot be of God. The fact is that he was broken
in a manner of speaking through death, although no bones of his body
were broken.
Mr. Reckart also does not believe some verses in Revelation chapter 1 should be
in the bible. I cannot recall precisely which ones he referred to.
While appealing to the "UPC", a church fellowship, to "correct" me, Mr. Reckart has a history of having maligned and committed libel against the entire UPC fellowship, itself, by posting a juvenile picture on his website of the present General Superintendent of the fellowship with devil's horns and little televisions in the place of his eyes.
Ungodly mocking picture of Kenneth Haney
from Gary Reckart's website, but removed recently
(posted here to show the sort of heart
Gary Reckart possesses
and not to condone this mockery.) He did this in protest of the Superintendent's thoughts concerning opening the UPC fellowship up to TV ministry. His antics have been discussed on many Christian discussion forums and you read one example
here:
HOW
IT ALL STARTED
I was first contacted by the author of this webpage several years ago in the mid to late 90's. At the time I
was a proponent of
Post-tribulation rapture teaching. Mr. Reckart who contacted me, preached more about prophecy than anything
else in his public ministry, and calls himself "Mr. Post Trib". He pridefully claims to have taught many preachers "everything they know" about Post Trib teaching, even emphasizing in his writings that he wants credit for anything he may have supplied to others by way of information, and I now realize he was out to "father" me and pull me beneath his "Mr. Post Trib" authority.
To indicate the spirit of which he is captive, let me refer to an article study on his website about confirmation for the name of Jesus in the water baptism formula of the early church in the form of a reference to an archaeological find. He indicated that if anyone should use that information, he demanded credit for being the first one to point to this source of evidence. Clearly there is a severe problem with personal pride in this man's heart.
It was not long before he mailed me some of his teachings in booklet
form and mentioned quite an odd little note to me. He said that if I ever felt
to leave the fellowship with which I was then an ordained minister, I
had friends in his group outside that fellowship and could contact them. At the time I was not clued into his self-exalted spirit and his desire to be the big-shot over everyone who teaches post-trib rapture doctrine, so I just wondered why anyone would mention such a thing to me. Anyway,
I thanked him for his booklets.
Time passed and during our internet discussion by way of email and
discussion forums, etc., I happened to mention a certain detail of my beliefs
in prophecy that this man disagreed with. In fact he
responded so sharply to me about it that he asked me to send him back
all the material he mailed to me! He even offered to send me
the money with which to mail them back. That is when the
attacks started from him. All the while I was still
post-tribulationist in my beliefs concerning the rapture of the church just
like he was. I was shocked at how harsh and critical his
words to me became after a disagreement on such a small detail, while we
basically believed the same thing. I then realized this man
had problems with controlling others, and had not found a lackey in me, which enraged him. I learned he
started his own little fellowship and they concentrated upon Post-Trib
prophecy teaching more than anything else. It finally
made sense that disagreement with him over a minor detail in prophecy
would enrage a little man who was set to build his own little
kingdom. When I realized he wanted to be know as "Mr. Post Trib", all the invitations and so forth started making an odd kind of sense. Endtime prophecy teaching was so important to him,
more than anything else, that he named his website discussion forum
after the topic, and I had obviously challenged his self-proclaimed
expertise on the issue. He found what he figured could be his claim to fame, and was, in his mind, jilted by me. When I refused to agree with him, I
found this man could not handle that, and he began harshly castigating
me from that time onward. I had the distinct impression that
anyone who opposes this man, and rejects his self-alleged authority over post-trib teaching, is going to be attacked, and he will do all
he can to destroy the reputation of such a person. I then
learned other men of God who ran across his antics felt the exact same
way about him. My feelings were confirmed. He actually accused other men of the very spirit of which he was captive, claiming they set out to build their own empires, but they were always men who did not allow him to be lord over their lives.
I was tremendously relieved for not having got any deeper into fellowship with
this man after I realized what a violent and hateful spirit he
had. Needless to say, I soon realized this man knew nothing
about such scriptures as:
2
Timothy 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive;
but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
(25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if
God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the
truth;
Ephesians
4:15 But speaking the truth in love,...
Had I truly been someone whom he considered a person in error, then the
Word of God directed him to gently and kindly appeal to me and help me
recover myself from the error of my ways. But there was never
a kind word to me after he noticed a difference in our beliefs. It was
harsh, verbally violent and extremely mean-spirited. If he actually
had the truth, and I did not, I would expect a true believer to
lovingly and kindly speak to me about the issues, and speak what he
considered to be the truth in a spirit of love, and not hate.
I even told him that, and his castigation toward me only became worse.
Independent of my escapades with this man, it was shortly after this that I came to realize that post-tribulation
rapture teaching was error, and I came to believe Kingdom Eschatology
as the truth. Also called partial preterism, Kingdom
Eschatology proposes that Revelation chapters 1 through 19 were already
fulfilled in the first century, and focuses upon the judgment against
Jerusalem for rejecting and crucifying the Lord Jesus Christ, while some other prophecies about the rapture of the church and a final judgment were not yet fulfilled.
I saw that Revelation focused upon Israel's rejection of Jesus, and the gloom and doom found in the book paralleled judgments that Leviticus and Deuteronomy foretold would come upon Israel should they reject God's Word and live in disobedience. Jesus told Jerusalem that all the blood shed on the earth
since Abel's death would be avenged upon Jerusalem because of her
rejection of Jesus Christ. I saw that Revelation 18:24 said
this very thing about the harlot with whom the kings of the earth had
committed fornication.
Matthew
23:34-37 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and
wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and
some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them
from city to city: (35) That upon you may come all
the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous
Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between
the temple and the altar. (36) Verily I say unto
you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
(37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets,
and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have
gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens
under her wings, and ye would not!
Revelation
18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of
saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
I saw that Ezekiel 16 listed kings of the earth and world powers with
whom Jerusalem committed harlotry and played the whore. I
realized the Jesus had only come in judgment in AD70, but that the
Second Coming of Jesus Christ, also called the time when the rapture
shall occur, is also yet to take place in our future.
Well, this man had not shown his true colors until he found out I
then believed partial preterism. I thought I had seen the worst when he attacked me for not bowing down to him. I had not seen anything yet! His malice and hatred toward me
absolutely exploded, and it was not long until the webpage entitled "Mike
Blume's Heresies" was made public.
MY TRUE BELIEFS
The webpage called "Mike Blume's Heresies" is packed so full of lies,
that it moved me to contact Reckart. I personally told him
that I did not mind someone attacking what I actually believe, and even
calling it any heretical name in the book that he felt to call
it. But to say that I believe things which I have never
believed was something else altogether. I explained to him
that I did not believe many things he listed to be my
beliefs. I explained to him was I actually believed. What was
his response? "I am keeping what I have written on the
webpage."
In other words, knowing they were lies about me, he chose to keep those
lies on his webpage.
I will now list the lies he told about my beliefs and explain to you
what I REALLY believe.
LIES ABOUT MY PAST CHURCH
ASSOCIATIONS
This man lied and said I left Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, where I pastored for eight years, due to my
spiritual beliefs in the first paragraph of his atrocities.
That is not true. Ministers there with whom I worked are still dear friends in the Lord with me until this
day. The ministry with whom I worked and leadership of the church there can vouch for the fact that my departure from
Dartmouth church was absolutely nothing to do with beliefs.
It was solely due to issues outside doctrine and spirituality. Since I left Dartmouth Church, I was invited to,
and accepted a request to, preach in that church after the Sr. Pastor left this life and went to be with the Lord, and we had a wonderful church
service that Sunday night! The Holy Ghost moved and blessed
the congregation mightily. To this day I have an open
invitation to visit and fellowship with the church congregation, and
I still hear from some of the saints there quite often. If this
man's lies were true, that never would have happened.
LIES
ABOUT MY MANNER OF
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE
It is claimed that I drifted into "gnostic allegorical interpretation"
of the Word of God, which is absolutely untrue. Gnosticism is
the belief that anything physical is evil. It is an early
heresy the Church battled in a short time after the New Testament was
written. It proposes that the Bible does not plainly teach
some things, and that we cannot understand parts of the Bible unless we
obtain a mystical key to unlock its truths. I believe nothing
of the sort. I believe that anyone can understand the Word of
God as it is written in the Bible, and no special, mystical,
extrabiblical key is necessary.
This man accused me of making "kabbalistic speculations" about the
Bible. In his tirade against me, he explained that such
speculations take a mystical method of allegorical interpretation of
the Word of God in order to get the true meanings of the
Bible. He claimed I was depending upon what was called
"secret knowledge", which is absolute nonsense.
Where he got this distorted idea from was statements I made about the book of Revelation being comprised of symbols in
visions. But these are not interpreted by some mystical
manner that is secret and contained somewhere outside the Bible
itself as he accused. For example, Jesus was shown as a lamb with seven
eyes and seven horns in Revelation 5:6. I explained that this
is a symbol of Jesus, and we can look in the rest of the Bible to find
why those symbols were used and understand the points that God's Word
is trying to relate to us in Revelation about Jesus. The
Passover lamb that initiated the Exodus of Israel from Egypt was the basis for
Jesus being shown as a Lamb in Revelation. Just as the Passover
lamb's blood was placed around the doors of the Hebrews in Egypt and
redeemed them back to God, saving them from Egyptian bondage, Jesus Christ's blood
is said to redeem people from all the nations and tribes of the earth,
in Revelation 5:9.
The Book of Revelation is the only book entirely written from a series
of visions using Old Testament symbols. Hence, I have never proposed this about any other book in the Bible.
Another example was my reference to Revelation 4 where we see a throne
of God surrounded by a green rainbow, before which sat a sea that was
so still it appeared like crystal. And God who sat on the
throne held a sealed book in his right hand. I explained
that these are more pictures taken from the Old Testament, like the
rainbow Noah saw after the flood. When God gave Noah a
covenant, He betokened the covenant by a rainbow. Just like
God holding a covenant for the world and Noah floating his ark to the
mountain top surrounded by water, Revelation 5 continues and shows
Jesus walking like a lamb toward the throne and taking a sealed
book. The book is associated with the COVENANT, and God held
that covenant on His throne with a rainbow around the throne, just like
a rainbow in Noah's day betokened the covenant. I showed how
Jesus appeared like a dead lamb who stood and came to life and obtained
that book, explaining how the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
occurred for Him to redeem us and give us a new covenant!
None of anything I said has anything to do with secret knowledge that
is outside the bible. It is actually taking the symbols and
pictures used in Revelation, and finding them in the rest of the Old
Testament, and combining the stories and events in those old testament
incidents and seeing a message about the Cross of Jesus Christ and the
salvation of the New Testament. He called that gnosticism and
kabbalistic mysticism!
Reckart argued that Revelation was not written with symbols to this extent, although
the first verse in the entire book says John was given a message that
was "signified". "Signified" means it is a message using
SIGNS. And those signs are not kabbalistic nor gnostic, but
rather from plain Old Testament stories and events. I told
him he must believe Jesus actually turned into a seven-eyed and
seven-horned lamb after He ascended up in Heaven if he actually
believed Revelation did not use symbols. I said the seven
horns mean he Jesus has "all power", as horns in the Old Testament were
always associated with beasts of power. And the seven eyes
represented "all understanding", since Paul spoke about the "eyes of
our understanding" in Ephesians chapter 1. The number 7 is
commonly known to represent completeness or fullness in the
Bible. So, 7 eyes, means ALL understanding, and 7 horns means
ALL power. He felt that using the number 7 like that was
mysticism, when it is only taking the first mention of the number 7 in
Genesis and associating it with what it was associated with in
Genesis. God finished and completed the creation week with a
7th day of rest. So the number 7 implies the idea of completion. He mocked that idea. I said everything I claim to be symbolic in Revelation must be imagery about something the Bible plainly lays forth elsewhere in the Bible.
I was then accused of taking Matthew 24, which is about the coming of
the Lord, and allegorizing that to pieces as well. What I
actually explained was that Matthew 24 has statements that Jesus used
from Old Testament prophecies, such as "coming in clouds" and "the sun
shall turn to darkness, and the moon to blood." And these are
shown in the Old Testament, to anyone who might happen to research it,
as symbolic of the downfall of a kingdom. We read about such
instances
Isaiah 13:1, 10,13 - BABYLON'S fall.
Ezekiel 32:7-8 - EGYPT'S fall
Isaiah 34:4-5 - EDOM'S fall
When these kingdoms fell, the sun did not literally stop shining and the
stars did not literally fall to the earth. This was said to
have occurred several times in the Old Testament, and we still have a sun that shines and
stars still fill the night skies! It is an Old Testament
prophetic idiom that speaks of the downfalls of kingdoms. And
Jesus knew that and used it to describe the downfall of Jerusalem in
AD70.
Eminent theologians and respected Christian Scholar, Adam Clarke,
agrees perfectly with me and wrote these words:
Mat
24:29
Immediately
after the tribulation, etc. - Commentators generally understand this,
and what follows, of the end of the world and Christ’s coming
to judgment: but the word immediately shows that our Lord is not
speaking of any distant event, but of something immediately consequent
on calamities already predicted: and that must be the destruction of
Jerusalem. “The Jewish heaven shall perish, and the sun and
moon of its glory and happiness shall be darkened - brought
to nothing. The sun is the religion of the Church; the moon is the
government of the state; and the stars are the judges and doctors of
both. Compare Isa. 13:10; Eze. 32:7, Eze. 32:8, etc.” Lightfoot.
In
the prophetic language, great commotions upon earth are often
represented under the notion of commotions and changes in the heavens:
-
The
fall of Babylon is represented by the stars and constellations of
heaven withdrawing their light, and the sun and moon being darkened.
See Isa. 13:9, Isa. 13:10.
The
destruction of Egypt, by the heaven being covered, the sun enveloped
with a cloud, and the moon withholding her light. Eze_32:7, Eze_32:8.
The
destruction of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes is represented by
casting down some of the host of heaven, and the stars to the ground.
See Dan. 8:10.
And
this very destruction of Jerusalem is represented by the Prophet Joel,
Joel 2:30, Joel 2:31, by showing wonders in heaven and in earth -
darkening the sun, and turning the moon into blood. This general mode
of describing these judgments leaves no room to doubt the propriety of
its application in the present case.
That is what caused this man to write scathing accusations about my
so-called gnostic interpretations of the Bible.
ROMAN
CATHOLIC DOCTRINE?
He then accused my prophetic belief as being Roman Catholic.
I researched what the Roman Catholic church believes, and they believe
nothing similar to my beliefs regarding prophecy. In fact,
they agree more with the man who attacked me, by far, than they do my
beliefs!
I propose Matthew 24:21's Great Tribulation is past and
occurred in AD66-70, and the Roman Catholic church believes it is
still future just like my attacker.
I believe the Beast of Revelation 13 has come and gone in the First
Century, and there are always many antichrists, and the Roman Catholic
church believes this is all future just like my attacker believes.
The Catechism of the Roman Catholic church states the official Roman
Catholic doctrine, and .makes this statement:
Par. 675 "Before Christ's second coming
the Church must pass through a final
trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that
accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the 'mystery of
iniquity' in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent
solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The
supreme deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by
which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah in the
flesh."
Par.
677 "...The kingdom will be fulfilled...not by a historic triumph of
the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory
over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come
down from heaven...."
I believe none of the above from the Catholic Catechism, whereas, ironically, my
attacker believes those things. It is a lie to say that my
doctrine is Roman Catholic.
The attacks continued in his page mocking the ministries of several men
of God. The very childishness and juvenile nature of his
name-calling should alert anyone as to the truth behind his false
claims, if nothing else.
CANNOT
DISAGREE WITH A
PERSON OBJECTIVELY
He mocked my statements that we can disagree with doctrines of people
in an objective manner, but we should never personally and subjectively attack
them. Reckart has maligned and libeled my name and
many other Christians' names all over his website. Never once
did he show me kindness in trying to reason with me, but called me
names and libeled me from the start. In response I reasoned
kindly with him and objectively. I even asked him why he was
so hateful toward preterists, and he responded saying he has no
ministry to reach preterists and cannot help them. This
seemed to make him think he was excused from acting like a Christian, and gives him a right to hatefully slander us and not
even attempt to be kind.
I once asked a friend who is a lawyer about what this man is saying,
and what he thought of it. He advised me that anyone who
reads that webpage would immediately realize that I come out on top,
and that the man makes a fool of himself with his childish
hatred toward me. He assured me, I came out the better man
after he read that page. He said I certainly had a legal case
if I wanted to pursue it, and might even gain a few hundred
dollars. But in the end, this sort of thing is all over the
internet, anyway, and anyone with any intelligence would recognize
the idiocy of the man's entire efforts should they waste their time to
read it.
My accuser also mocked me for practicing pagan holidays such a
Christmas and Easter. I informed him that I once did not have
anything to do with these holidays because I learned where they
originated from. But then I read in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 and
1 Corinthians 10, that Paul ate meat that was offered to idols, and
only consider it just eating food. In other words, Christmas
may have pagan origins, but if we only give gifts to one another
without any inkling of worshiping a pagan god, Christmas is innocent
and just some good, old family-fun time. When a person has no
inkling to worship any false god when they give a gift to
someone on Christmas day, there is nothing wrong going on
whatsoever. He only mocked all of that and continued ranting
against my person.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE MARK OF
THE BEAST IS PHYLACTERIES OF THE JEWS
I made a study several years ago and associated the Mark of the Beast
as being satan's answer to the Law of God. I said that just
as God demanded the Law to be placed on the forehead and hand of the
people, satan mimicked that and counterfeited it using his own "law",
so to speak, and we read of it being on the right hand and foreheads of
satan's followers in Revelation 13. In Jesus' day, the Lord
referred to the PHYLACTERIES that the Pharisees broadened for people to
see. I indicated that these phylacteries were Jewish attempts to
obey God's word about putting the law on their foreheads and
hands. My attacker twisted all that I said, did not
understand what I was actually saying, and claimed I said the
phylacteries of Israel were the mark of the beast! I even
tried to correct him, and he mocked me and would not admit he twisted
what I said. So, when I proceeded to explain my true meaning
more clearly, in case anyone else got the wrong idea from my writings,
and how that I actually believed the mark of the beast was satan's
counterfeit of the phylacteries of Law, he claimed I was covering up my
false doctrine! I could not tell him the difference without
him mocking me and calling me a liar. Nothing I said about the true intentions of my words was accepted. He even twisted my explanation of attempts to clarify my own thoughts!
I realized Reckart will not admit he lied about me and twisted my
words, even when I give him free course to properly understand what I
believe and criticize it, if he wants to criticize it. He
won't admit his error in misunderstanding my beliefs and writing those
misrepresentations, no matter how I tired to clarify myself.
He claimed I altered the page of my study so I could lie about him
falsifying my information, when in actuality I did indeed alter it in order to clarify my
original point so that nobody would think I proposed anything as
foolish as the Jewish phylacteries actually being the mark of the beast!
My accuser then stated that he advised me to change the name of my
belief to "partial futurist" since "partial preterist" was too
Catholic, although the Catholics do not believe anything similar to
preterism in any form. I actually took his advice, and I even
considered his future view of the millennium for a short time, before I
realized that the 1,000 years in Revelation 20 is not a specific "age",
like the church age, but simply "a very long time" as understood so in
Hebrew cultural terms. I learned that "1,000" is a Hebrew
idiom that all Hebrews are aware of, and simply implies a very large
number. For example, the Psalms speak of the cattle on a
thousand hills owned by the Lord (Psalm 50:10). This does not
mean the Lord does not own the cattle on hill number 1,001 and
upward. It is not meant to be taken literally. It
is as though we spoke and said, "Tons and tons", or "lots and lots",
when we are not literally saying many "lots" of land or a certain
amount of "tons" of weight are involved.
I DO NOT BELIEVE CATHOLIC
DOCTRINE
When this man claims the preterist belief is from the papacy, believe
it not. That is another lie.l The Catholic church
believes nothing similar to preterism in any form.
One man claimed that preterism came from Catholic Jesuits who taught
preterism in order to to get "the heat" off the Catholic Church for being the "harlot
of Revelation 17". They proposed that the book of Revelation
spans hundreds of years from the early church into the time when
secular Rome, before the Catholic domination of Rome, ruled under the
Caesars. That is nothing similar to preterism which teaches
that the bulk of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century and had
nothing to do with the centuries after when Caesars ruled the
world. In short, these claims he made are just more lies.
I DO NOT BELIEVE I OLD
TESTAMENT "LAW" ENDED IN AD70
My attacker listed these items as things which I believe, and they
contain many things I DO NOT BELIEVE.:
"The Law did not end in 30AD at Calvary but in 70AD and the destruction
of Jerusalem."
This is another lie. I do not believe that whatsoever.
The Law did end at Calvary and I strongly preach that this is the case
since He nailed the ordinances to the cross and took them out of the
way. I do not believe Law ended in AD70. I have
made the statement that people kept keeping law until AD70 when the
temple was destroyed, but only because they THOUGHT Law had not ended
at the cross. In reality, I said, Law ended at the cross. As far as
God was concerned, Law did not exist any more after the cross.
Regarding the end of the AGE, Law itself ended at the cross, but
outward practice of the sacrifices under law continued mistakenly by
the people of Israel. God did not honor those sacrifices
after the cross and they meant nothing to Him. When I say an
AGE ended in AD70, I DO NOT mean that Law continued until AD70 by any
means. It is just that even the outward, useless practices of
law continued until AD70 when God made distinct efforts to stop them as well! Again, I
believe Law ended at the cross, once and for all. Israel mistook the Law as still being valid after the cross.
You can tell the man knows he is lying about me in this point, because
his writing tries reasoning with me, as though he is writing to me, saying
that if I believe an age ended at AD70 then it must mean that Law ended
at AD70.
I DO NOT BELIEVE DAN 9:27
WAS FULFILLED IN AD66 or AD70
Another lie: "The fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy: in the
middle of the week the oblation and sacrifice was to cease, was not at
Calvary by Jesus, but was by Titus in AD66 or AD70."
Again, he writes more, trying to force words into my mouth, indicating that he
knows he is actually lying about me. The situation is that HE THINKS I ought to believe "certain things" if
I claim I believe "other things". This caused him to accuse me of believing these
"certain things," when I do not! Nevertheless, he worked
his mind to make conclusions that, in his mind, if someone believes "A" then they
must naturally also believe "B". I can assure you that
I do not believe "B" just because I believe "A", neither must anyone else believe this way just because this man reasoned it through in the manner he did.
I believe that the sacrifices and oblations ceased when Jesus died on
the cross according to Hebrews 10 when we read that sacrifices will
cease to be offered once people come and are made perfect by a
sacrifice. And Heb 10:14 says that Jesus perfected forever
them that are sanctified. So, sacrifices ceased when He made
the sacrifice of Himself on the cross. My attacker is a liar.
I DO NOT BELIEVE NERO WAS
THE ANTICHRIST
Another lie with SOME truth: "The beast is the city Rome and
Nero is the antichrist; the mark of the beast is past."
I never said the beast is Rome and the antichrist is Nero. I
do no even believe we can call anything about Nero or Rome the
"antichrist." I teach plainly that ANTICHRIST has nothing to do with
the beast of Revelation, and that the term is only used in 1 and 2
John, and it is not talking about the beast of
Revelation. I believe BOTH NERO AND ROME are called the beast
in Revelation. The leader is identified with the
Kingdom over which he rules. So the Beast can refer to both the leader or the empire. As Daniel saw Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece as beasts in his visions, Rome was the fourth beast. Daniel
called Nebuchadnezzar the head of gold, "Thou art the head of
gold". And that head of gold also stood for Babylon, his
kingdom. This shows that the leader and the kingdom are often represented by the same symbol in Bible prophecy. I have plainly taught that Antichrist is solely a spirit that states Jesus did not come in
the flesh and it manifests in many men. It is not the beast.
Another lie, and you can notice he knows he lied by his explanation
afterward: "The two witnesses of Rev. 11:-6 are Joshua and
Zerubbabel."
The truth is that I said these men were called the two olive trees and
the two olive branches, the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of
the whole earth, in Zech 4. Since Revelation said the two
witnesses in Rev 11 were "the two olive trees that stand by the Lord of
the whole earth", I said there was a connection we are supposed to see
in Zech 4 when we read Rev 11. I said that as much as
Zerubbabel was a governor and Joshua was a high priest, these
men represented LAW AND GRACE, or TRUTH AND SPIRIT. I said
the two witnesses were Spirit and truth, and those two men merely
foreshadowed that fact. But I never said those two
men "were" the two witnesses of Rev 11. My attacker
misunderstood, to give him the benefit of the doubt, and claimed I said
something I never said.
He lied again with this statement: "Rome is the beast Blume
says but also said this: 'And people are commanded to bear the mark of
the beast in the form of phylacteries' .
I was teaching that satan has his own "phylacteries", and satan copied
the picture of phylacteries from the Jewish people and made up his own
form of them. That is not at all saying the phylacteries of
the Jews were the mark of the beast. I even stated that the
"law of the devil" is represented by his own version of phylacteries,
but is actually nothing physical whatsoever, and is, therefore, not
physically worn on anybody. I said it is all symbolic. The
mark is not a physical thing. I rewrote my study to clarify
that, and my attacker twisted that and said I was covering up what I
said earlier!
TWISTING MY
CLARIFICATIONS TO BE COVER-UPS
He then wrote, "He is a liar if he says he did not edit this page and
remove the quote I have above." I did indeed edit it in order
to clarify what I actually meant in case someone else made the same
mistake this man did, and tells someone I believe something I never
have believed! I cannot even clarify myself without this man
lying about my intentions of editing my own words!
TALKING
IN TONGUES IN
CHURCH
He then lied saying, "Speaking in tongues in Blume's Church is not
allowed (he says it's distracting)" That is not
true. I said people should not shout out in tongues, because 1
Cor 14 teaches that in the church Paul would rather say five words in
his native tongue than 10,000 words in other tongues. Paul, not Mike
Blume, said that unbelievers will come in and think we are mad if they
hear people shouting in tongues rather than speaking truth in the
native language Evidently, this man cannot follow the context of Paul's words in 1 Cor. 14.
1
Corinthians 14:18-19 I thank my God, I speak with tongues
more than ye all: (19) Yet in the church I had
rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might
teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
1
Corinthians 14:23-24 If therefore the whole church be come
together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in
those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are
mad? (24) But if all prophesy, and there come in
one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is
judged of all:
1
Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let
it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one
interpret.
Paul said that, not Mike Blume. I only repeated what Paul
taught and my attacker claimed I was preaching false doctrine.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE
SECOND COMING OCCURRED IN AD70
I was then accused as follows: "Blume has the Lord coming in
70AD and fulfilling the second coming Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24,
Mark 13, Luke 21, and Paul in 1Thes 4:16."
This is half a truth and half a lie. I do not believe "the
second coming" occurred in AD70. I believe the Lord did come
then, but that was not the second coming. It was a localized
coming in destruction only, and is the same coming Jesus spoke of in
Matthew 21:
Matthew
21:40-43 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what
will he do unto those husbandmen? (41) They say
unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out
his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits
in their seasons. (42) Jesus saith unto them, Did
ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected,
the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing,
and it is marvellous in our eyes? (43) Therefore
say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given
to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
I DO NOT BELIEVE 1 Thess
4:16 WAS FULFILLED IN AD70
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For
the
Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of
the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall
rise first:
Yes, I believe Matt 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 are fulfilled, but I DO NOT
BELIEVE 1 Thess 4:16 was fulfilled then. 1 Thess 4:16 is not
yet fulfilled. 1 Thess 4:16 is the rapture of the
church and I believe the rapture is going to happen and has not yet
happened.
This man has taken things I actually believe and mixed them with lies
that I do not believe, and claimed the whole conundrum as my beliefs. How people can live with themselves after knowingly making such lies is something I have never been able to understand.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE
LORD'S SUPPER SHOULD CEASE TO BE CELEBRATED
He also made this lie: "his false doctrines forces the end of
celebration of the Lord's Supper!"
1 Corinthians 11:26 For
as
often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's
death till he come.
He actually said I believe the Lord's supper has no relevance any more,
which is a lie. And this is something very similar to
that. I strongly preach the need for the Lord's supper until
Jesus comes. Somehow he thought my belief that the
Lord came in judgment in AD70 means the Lord's Supper should not be
practiced since AD70. That is ridiculous. The
reference to the coming of the Lord in association with the Lord's
supper is not the coming of the Lord that occurred in AD70.
It is a future coming of Jesus in the rapture of the church.
I teach we need to keep the Lord's Supper until Jesus comes in our
future.
This same lie was made about Larry T. Smith in this man's
website. He said Larry Smith sees no need for the Lord's
Supper since AD70, and that is a lie. Bro Smith agrees with
me that the Lord's second coming has not occurred yet and will occur in
our future, therefore we keep the Lord's supper.
So, this statement, "Thus Blume ends the necessity of observance of the
Lord's Supper (Communion-Passover) in 70AD." is a lie.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE NEW COVENANT ENDED IN AD70,
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE HOLY GHOST IS NOT IN THE CHURCH TODAY
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE LORD'S SUPPER HAS CEASED
Another lie is as follows: "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!"
We do not believe the church exists today without the Holy Ghost, and
without the New Covenant and without the Lord's Supper. These are all
lies. We believe Joel's prophecy said the Spirit of God would
be poured out on all flesh, and that was indeed fulfilled in the first
century. But that does not mean no one receives God's Spirit
any more! It's just that only Israel had blessings from God
before then. But Joel said ALL FLESH -- all peoples -- would
receive the Spirit of God in the first century, and they did!
And they still do! It was first poured out in the first
century and that initial outpouring was fulfilled. But by no
means do we believe that ceased and people no longer have a new
covenant and the Holy Spirit and the Lord's Supper. These are
outrageous lies.
When I corrected him he then proceed with another lie:
"Now Blume says the coming Paul mentioned in relation to the Lord's
Supper has not taken place yet. Yeah, changed again huh
Mike." I have never changed my belief on this. I
always believed the coming of the Lord that would cause the
Lord's Supper to cease has not yet occurred. Never have I
taught nor said that this particular coming of Jesus already occurred.
He then wrote, "He now claims the coming of the Lord that ends the
Lord's Supper is in Revelation 20 when the last judgment is set and the
dead is raised. Only thing is there is no coming mentioned in
that text."
Whether or not the coming of the Lord is mentioned in that text, I
teach plainly that it is involved in that text, and that coming has not
yet occurred. I teach that the
rapture of the church will take us to the white throne judgment, and
this has not yet taken place..
This man is a very small man, who craves a stage from which he can be
heard, and the only platform he presently has is his own
website. Anyone with Christian integrity would
immediately recognize his spirit of and slander. I ask
everyone to pray with me for this man that the Lord show him the error
of his ways, for we know what the Bible says about the fate of liars. I tried talking to him kindly and lovingly, but
he only castigated me in the most harsh manner he could
muster. He is obviously a bitter-hearted person, and
something at some time has corrupted his heart with such harshness,
that he cannot speak civilly to someone who disagrees with
him.
The apostle Paul told us to mark those who cause division and to separate ourselves from libelists and slanderers. Paul named people in his day whom he marked. Gary Reckart (aka. Cohen Reckart) is to be named and marked in this manner.
In closing, I wish to thank the Lord for counting me worthy to suffer
for His name's sake, and leave you with this statement by our Lord:
John
15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before
it hated you.
Matthew
5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute
you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
