"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."  Psalm 119:105

  Contact Editor  | Bible studies  | Newer students  |  Bible Q & A's  |  Study tools  | Search our site
Library/Bookstore  |  Statement of faith  |  New material on site  | Join our mailing list  |  Home Page | Donate
 

QUESTION LIST; Page Number 51
| To list of all questions on Website |   

1. Does it matter how a Christian male wears his hair?

2. The Mark of the beast—will they know it when they take it?

3. More on Ezekiel 44 NOT being the Millennium; More on the so-called "second chance doctrine"

4. Propaganda movie designed to discredit the Protocols of...Zion and all who believe in their Judaic authorship and execution

5. The Videos and further analysis of these three videos regarding Martial Law and Concentration Camps In America

6. Tacmars (Tactical markers); Internet control; Search engine shenanigans

7. The inadvertent result of the Millennium so-called "second chance" doctrine

8. Where do aborted babies, deceased children, etc., go in the end?

9. "New Things" and "New Groups"

| To list of all questions on Website |

Question #1

| Back To Top |

Does it matter how a Christian male wears his hair?

1 Corinthians 11:3-16
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [the fallen angels, the evil angels that are coming in the Tribulation]
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?  [speaking of the perversion that would be taking place had a man needed to covered because of the angels as women do in verse 10 above (all angels are male)]
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. [i.e., wear your hair as you wish.]  KJV

Back to list of questions at top of page

Question #2

| Back To Top |

The Mark of the beast—will they know it when they take it?

A reader writes:

Answer:

Revelation 14:9-12
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.  KJV

Back to list of questions at top of page

Question #3

| Back To Top |

More on Ezekiel 44 NOT being the Millennium; More on the so-called "second chance doctrine"

A reader writes:

Subject: Ezekiel 44/Millennium study

Nick,

     After reading your "no second chances" essay [...is Ezekiel 44 in the Millennium?]
 to the person who asked you about Ezekiel 44 and the Millennium, some of
the students in my SC [Shepherds Chapel] discussion circle think you're slipping!  Are you?

     For a serious bible student, your "study" fell short of
explaining--IF the Millennial reign of Christ will not be a time of
teaching--just WHAT then, will the purpose of it be (why not just go
immediately to the Great White Throne judgment following the 7th trump?)

     Also, you seemed to overlook REV 20:7-9 as to WHY "after the 1000
years are expired, satan shall be loosed"!  If EVERYONE'S eternal fate
was already settled going into the Millennium, and there was no "chance"
for ANY souls to overcome at the Second Resurrection, then there would
be no need for the devil to "go out to deceive the nations"....would
there?

     Come on, Nick, play fair!  You know that a "certain pastor from
Arkansas" doesn't really teach or believe in "second chances" either, as
he's always qualified his answer on this subject by stating that most
"never had a prayer of a chance" anyway, with what's been taught in most
so-called churches.  Right?

     No, we're going to be working our butts off during the
Mill....surely you don't believe the priests will get to "party hearty"
for 1000 years?  Perhaps you could follow-up with more scriptural
documentation on this one, lest we think you were merely trying to pick
a topic (EZE 40-48 does not refer to the Mill!) that you and Lance
Knight can both agree on. :)

Yours in Christ,
[Xxxxxxxxxxx]

P.S.  You do realize that Pastor Knight of the now-defunct King's Chapel
also believed and taught that on this same subject "a certain pastor
from Arkansas"  was in error.
 

Answer:

     Hello.  I understand why you need this doctrine (a second chance in the Millennium); and we shall discus this shortly.  And I also want to thank you for having the courage to bring this discussion to me, instead of letting it fester behind my back.  As you know, I don't discourage honest disagreement, I do not shy away from posting it here, and I believe that every man has the right to his/her own opinion on any matter biblical.  All that I do expect is that their opinion or disagreement be based upon the words of our Lord's book, the Bible; and that they be allowed to rise and fall based upon that perfect holy Word.  A quick word on the accusations in your E-mail, then we will get right into the Scriptures that you inquire for.

    I knew at the moment Lance Knight fell (The Overnight fall of Pastor Lance Knight...) that there was a phenomenon coming.  That phenomenon being that since Lance's fall, and since he spiritually hurt so many people, that what would result from that was that people would withdraw to a safe place.  That safe place is that if anyone disagrees with pastor Murray on anything, then that person is to be dismissed for fear that another Lance Knight debacle is happening.  What has resulted from Lance's antics is that people are afraid of anyone who is not in lockstep with the good pastor from Arkansas on every single thing.  This, I believe, is why satan used Lance.

    As I have without pause stated so many times before that I like pastor Murray, think that he is fine Bible teacher, is honest, means well, has dedicated his life to teaching God's Word, and has been used mightily by our Heavenly Father to lead many to salvation—I shall not now use our time herein to say it any further.

     I will overlook the shot that you threw at me when you said:  "some of the students in my SC discussion circle think you're slipping!" and "lest we think you were merely trying to pick a topic...that you and Lance Knight can both agree on." 

     But I will address where you said: "You do realize that Pastor Knight...also believed and taught that on this same subject "a certain pastor from Arkansas"  was in error. ." 

     So, what of it?

     No doubt that both Lance and I know that the sun shall rise tomorrow—does that make me a yokefellow of his?  Surely Lance knows that Jesus Christ is the Son of God—does that make me a Lanceite for knowing the same thing?  How about you?  Is the sun coming up tomorrow?  Is Jesus Christ the Son of God?  Does that make you suspect?  Are you going the way of Lance Knight?  Of course not.  Sure, Lance is right about some things, but then even a broken watch is correct twice a day; nevertheless, that does not mean that anyone who is also right about those some things that Lance is, is like unto Lance.  Please think a little deeper here, please be a little bigger than sophomoric debate tactics.  This is very serious, and Lance Knight is in trouble with the Lord—pray for him if you ever followed his ministry.  But don't listen to him!  And quit using him as a battering ram.

    And, how can you compare me to Lance Knight?  I disagree with pastor Murray on a particular doctrine, but am always careful to show the man the respect that he has earned; while on the other hand, Lance called him the antichrist and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden," which is to say—satan!  Please do not compare me to Lance Knight.  Nobody (that I know of) has done more on their Website to expose Lance Knight's false teachings than I.  I refer to my below work:

• The spiritual origin of the "new" doctrine of Pastor Lance Knight

• More Bible students injured and confused at Pastor Lance Knight's hand

• Excerpt of Lance Knight's dangerous "new" (false) doctrine (learn to identify the heresies, so you won't get drawn in)

• The Overnight fall of Pastor Lance Knight and his Flock (with audio excerpts of Lance's heretical 'teachings')

• Deceived (Lance Knight's student?) Student Writes

     One more thing, then we will move to questions regarding the millennium and Ezekiel.  You said:

"After reading your "no second chances" essay [...is Ezekiel 44 in the Millennium?] to the person who asked you about Ezekiel 44 and the Millennium, some of the students in my SC [Shepherds Chapel] discussion circle think you're slipping!  Are you?"

     Slipping?  Is that what it is called when one disagrees with the Shepherd's Chapel pastor Murray on something, especially when one offers Scriptural support for that disagreement; "slipping," is it now?  I see; could it be that you feel that I own a certain loyalty to pastor Murray since I have studied his work for some decade and a half, and that I should not be publicly disagreeing with anything he teaches and says?  Do you think that I betray him here in presenting a Scriptural rebuttal to one of his doctrines?  I'm sorry, perhaps you don't know my position.  Please allow me to state it boldly and unapologetically so that there is never again any misunderstanding on where Nick Goggin stands:

     I pledge no allegiance to any human being, angel, prophet, religious affiliation, denominational church, or any particular teacher or teaching that is not aligned with what is contained within the teachings of God's Holy Bible.   My allegiance is solely to God, Christ Jesus, and His written Word.  Now, if there are some who are in agreement with that Holy Bible, then I will choose to fellow travel with them; but if, and at the precise moment, that they stray from those Scriptures, whether intentionally or unawares, and teach anything that contradicts what is contained in God's Word, I shall instantly part company with them on the matter till they return to the truth as found in that Bible.  I believe the Bible to be the holy Word of God in print, never disproven, though so many have tried for so long; and I believe every verse of it to be inspired of God—God-breathed. 

     Furthermore, I do not consider all who are wrong here and there to necessarily be "false teachers," for I feel that the term "false teacher" implies intent.  Nor does one mistake ruin a man's reputation or negate the value of his other works; nor do I claim infallibility for myself; nor do I presume to be the judge of others or the judge of what is and what is not sound doctrine; nor do I endeavor to engage in "heretic hunting" either.  However, I cannot stand in agreement with them if I feel that they are in error.  And that goes for honest error as well as any other error.  I myself am also willing to be corrected by the Scriptures should anyone produce one to show me wrong on any given matter Biblical.

     OK?  God's Word is the principle thing regarding doctrinal understanding, all else is of varying lesser import.  And there shall be no respect of persons here, other than common courtesy and benefit of the doubt for those who have proven themselves over time to be honestly seeking the truth and endeavoring to teach the same.  Pastor Murray falls into this category.  I truly believe that the man means well, but he is simply wrong on his Millennium teachings.  I also hasten to add that this error does not destroy the value of all his work.  For, even pastor Murray, who so admires Dr. Bullinger's work, finds himself in disagreement in several key areas with the good Doctor (not least of all, the Rapture theory).  Would pastor Murray demand any less for me regarding himself.  I think not.  After all, he is the one who is always saying "check me out."  OK, I did, and that is why we are here today with this.  Let's allow the Scriptures to decide, shall we not?

Now to the work

You ask me:

"For a serious bible student, your "study" fell short of explaining--IF the Millennial reign of Christ will not be a time of teaching--just WHAT then, will the purpose of it be (why not just go immediately to the Great White Throne judgment following the 7th trump?)"

     You ask me the "why's."  The "why's" of why did God do this or why does God do that.  I cannot know.  Can you? We cannot fully understand God's ways, any who claim to are only fooling themselves.  Even Apostle Paul, who certainly was closer to understanding our Lord than we, humbly admitted to as much: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!  For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" (Rom 11:33-34).  And again, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor 13:12).

     You ask me: "IF the Millennial reign of Christ will not be a time of teaching--just WHAT then, will the purpose of it be...?" I could turn it around and ask you a question that you likewise cannot answer: "If the Millennium is a second chance, then why are we even here in this flesh world—what is the purpose of this place if our decisions here can be reversed in the Millennium after we pass on from this flesh life?"

     The problem is that you are attempting to understand God by your own understanding.  You cannot understand God based upon how you reason here in this flesh world.  We are much too small to fully understand Him.  Once again, Paul in the above Scripture told you as much.  So, instead of speculating, let us examine the Scriptures which bear upon this topic.  We shall do this momentarily, but first:

     Nevertheless, I can answer your question, even though you cannot answer mine:

Q:  "IF the Millennial reign of Christ will not be a time of teaching--just WHAT then, will the purpose of it be...?"

A: To reward the martyrs and those who resisted the beast until the end:

Revelation 20:4-6
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and [i.e., because of this] they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such [also because of what they did in verse 4] the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.  KJV

     I'm sorry, but I read the above over and over again, and I still can't help but miss the part about them "teaching salvation to the Elect's loved ones who died in an unsaved state."

     First let's set strait what your position is, and the position of those whom believe as you do.  I know that right about now you are biting your tongue because I said that you believe in second chances.  I know that you will say that you do not believe in second chances—yet, your whole doctrine screams SECOND CHANCE!  Pastor M. also says that he isn't teaching second chances, then he goes on to teach a second chance.  You can't have it both ways, either you believe in a second chance or you do not.  And saying that you do not believe in second chances does not mean that you don't.  Let's examine this doctrine and observe that it is nothing other than a second chance, no matter how much certain people don't like it being called "a second chance" doctrine.

     In my, Is there a second chance for the unsaved in the Millennium...? study (which also referenced my The State Of The Dead study), I addressed why the Millennium can't be a second chance or a time of teaching salvation to those who died unsaved.  I listed Scriptures that document that every man is judged for what he does here, and that once we pass on, we have made our choice.  Three of those Scriptures from the first above mentioned study are:

     How anyone can place a "Millennium second chance" in there, I don't understand.  Now, let's visit the doctrine in question and determine for ourselves if it is implying a second chance or not.  Many pastor M. students study here at WBSG and can attest that I am below laying out pastor M.'s doctrine as he teaches it.  This doctrine states that after we die, and when some of "us" die in an unsaved state (don't believe upon Jesus Christ) that other fellow people, who have also passed into the heavenly realm (the Elect), can in the Millennium "go to" these who died in an unsaved state and preach Jesus Christ to them.  Then they may accept Jesus Christ at that time (after they had already died) and go from the lost to the found category, the unsaved to the saved category.  That is a second chance, friend; I don't care how you slice it.  And all the denying in the world that it isn't a second chance does make it to not be a second chance.

     And all the qualifiers in the world of "I am not teaching a second chance because many never had a first chance to begin with" does not make it okay.  If one dies an Atheist, then he is preached to in the hereafter, and allowed to change from being an Atheist to being a Christian before Judgement Day, thereby saving his eternal soul; then he has had a second chance.  And to say that he never had a first chance in this world is to lay the blame not upon the unsaved, but upon God Himself (we shall document this later). 

     Speaking of "qualifiers," this is just like when at P.O. 2006, a certain pastor started out with "Now, I'm not setting any dates, but..." then he spent the next hour doing nothing but setting dates (which conclusions I am in total disagreement with, by the way).  It's kind of like me saying "Now, I'm not saying that you are wrong, but..." then spending the next ten minutes showing how they were wrong.  In other words, I'd just be "covering my butt."  Either you are saying that they are wrong, or you are not.  Either you are setting dates, or you are not.  Either you are teaching a second chance, or you are not.  Let the matter be determined by the evidence of the conversation or teaching, and not upon denials and qualifiers and prefaces.

     You and those who believe as you do, do not like the term "second chance."  And I don't blame you!  For, you are obviously cognizant that there are no second chances—that much you gleaned from the Bible itself.  However, what you believe in is nothing other than a second chance!

     If it would make you happy we could change the term from "second chance" to "a chance to change your mind after you die."  Does that taste better to you?  But, isn't it really implying a second chance?  Of course it is, and you know it; you just don't like the way it sounds, because you can sense the folly in it.  And I would respect you more if instead of playing all this verbal Judo, you just came out and honestly admitted that you believe that people have a chance to change their mind, to change what they shall be judged upon, and thereby change their very fate even, AFTER they die and return to our Lord.

     One more point on why you feel the need to believe in this doctrine, then we shall get the Scriptures that you inquired of.   A necessary note is needful here:  While I know that it probably isn't possible that some won't misunderstand me with what I am about to say, I nevertheless shall try to be o-so-clear.  Please understand that what I am about to say is not an indictment of anyone.  I do not in my heart feel that the below is WHY this pastor teaches the Millennium doctrine as he does; but regardless of his intent, the below is why people hang on to this teaching tooth and nail.

     Okay, clear your mind please; pretend that you are an outside observer, that you are not a pastor M. student, that you are not one of these Elect people that he speaks so often about; pretend that you have never so much as heard of any Millennium.  Now, with that frame of mind let me explain to you a doctrine, and let's see if it appeals to you.  In this doctrine, you are this Elect person simply because you believe the teaching; it makes sense to you, you understand it; therefore, you are Elect.  Now, being an Elect person places you in a very special club.  For one, you are guaranteed salvation, you are guaranteed that you can no longer ever be deceived, you are also guaranteed that no harm shall come to you in the Tribulation.  Not only shall you not be hurt, but you won't even be discomforted whilst this word goes mad for antichrist.  You are also one of God's special people, His favorites, ranking not far below the Bible greats, even. 

     You have also reserved a seat for yourself in the choicest heavenly positions; you are a somebody!  Both in this world and in the world to come.  All that is required of you to join this club is that you believe what a certain pastor teaches; for, the evidence that you are Elect is that you agree with that pastor's teachings, that they make sense to you, that they are true to you, that you "get it."

     Appealing, is it not?  But it gets much better than this!  Also, as a reward for membership in this elite corps of the Elect, you have another ability; you can go back to your loved ones who died in an unsaved state, and you can convert them postmortem (after death).  No longer need you agonize over whether your Atheist deceased husband is hell bound, no longer need you worry about your Gay brother living in California denying God; for, you can save them!  All by merit of the very fact that you are one of God's Elect.  And you are God's Elect if you say that you are.  You are God's Elect, with all these privileges, simply because you believe that you are.  Because you "get it" when a certain pastor teaches it to you this way.

     This is a very powerful draw into any doctrine.  There isn't a soul on Earth, who this doctrine, if it be true, wouldn't draw them into it and hold them there.  Naturally, one who wants to believe this doctrine would vehemently oppose anyone who countered what that certain pastor (and now his son) teach regarding the doctrine in question.  Today, that would be me.  It is my unenviable task here to debunk the good pastor's Millennium teaching.  I know that that does make me popular in certain circles who feel that pastor M. is nigh unto inspired.

     But, what if he is wrong?

     I am sure that it isn't lost on you that when a fellow like me comes along and says that the good pastor is wrong on this one, that this fellow isn't going to exactly be your most favorite guy.  He is taking away a security blanket from you.  If he is right then you can't save your lost deceased relatives, if he is right then you may not be all that you think that you are.  You now will have to look at the Tribulation as something other than a treat.  Let us examine the Scriptures and see if we can find our answer in the Word of God to this matter, and let all lips be silent that contradict sound Scripturally documented doctrine, one way or the other, either yours or mine.

     Allow me to answer based upon your very own questions.  From the top; you said:

"For a serious bible student, your "study" fell short of explaining--IF the Millennial reign of Christ will not be a time of teaching--just WHAT then, will the purpose of it be"

    Okay, what do the Scriptures say that the purpose of the Millennium will be?  That is what we really want to know here.

The Millennium

Revelation 20:1-6
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.  KJV

   What does that mean?  The fact that so little is written of the time (the Millennium) indicates that we aren't to know too much about it.  As to why?  Well, let's just agree that it is God's purposes, or He would have written more in-depth on the matter.  But there are several facts that can be extracted from the above Scripture.  One is that these martyrs (Vs. 4a [all martyrs from all times]) are greatly rewarded for laying down their lives, as also are those who weren't martyred, didn't die, but who also did not worship the beast and all that goes with it (Vs. 4b [starting at "and which had not..."]). 

     One glaring fact is that all those who are operating during this thousand years (the Millennium) are guaranteed eternal life; for, as it is written of them, "on such the second death hath no power" (verse 4), which means that they cannot go into the Lake of Fire, which church folk often refer to as "going to Hell."  That all who are operating during this Millennium are already at that time (prior to Judgement Day) saved eternally is evidenced by the above statement in our verse four that we just mentioned: "on such the second death hath no power".  This "second death" is explained to us later in this chapter:  "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:14-15).   Therefore we learn here that the second death, the death of a soul, is carried out in the Lake of Fire, not in some eternal torture chamber.  And also, we learn that all martyrs of God are guaranteed salvation.  Life for life, I suppose.  It seems fair.  And for giving their very lives, and cutting short their time on the Earth, they are granted a thousand years with Christ that others will never see.  Once again, sounds fair.

     However, equally evident is that all those who are not operating during this Millennium may or may not eventually go into this Lake of Fire.  Their fate shall be determined by God at Judgement Day later in this Millennium chapter.  For, the Scripture states that "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" (vs. 5), and that they did not participate in "the first resurrection"; therefore, there needs be another resurrection later on.  We see that other resurrection just prior to Judgement Day, AFTER the thousand years, "when the thousand years are expired" (Rev 20:7), at "until the thousand years were finished" (Rev 20:5), where they are resurrected for Judgement (after one final assault attempt against God's people, which God Himself puts down), either "good" Judgement to eternal life or "bad" Judgement to eternal perdition in the Lake of Fire.  Daniel spoke of this resurrection; or better stated, the angel of the Lord spoke to Daniel of this resurrection, and Daniel wrote it down for us to read:

Daniel 12:1-2
12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.  KJV

     There are two specific prophesies in the above Scripture.  Regarding verse one above, Christ spoke on this matter: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." (Mat 24:21), and below is the New Testament fulfillment of Daniel's Old Testament prophecy contained in his verse two above:

Judgement Day

Revelation 20:11-15
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.  KJV

     Let's work with our original Rev 20:1-6 Scripture a little more; for, there is more information contained within it that shall preclude any possibility that this Millennium is "a time of teaching the lost". 

     In verse four we read, "...I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

     We also read in verse five, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished."

    And that what transpired in verse four was: "This is the first resurrection." (vs.5).

     Therefore, those operating in the Millennium are all saved eternally, and any who are not saved eternally (at that time) are not operating during this thousand years (the Millennium).  Therefore, it is not possible that those who have died in an unsaved state could be present in this Millennium at this time being taught anything by anybody; for, if they are in this part of the Millennium, then they are already eternally saved and have no chance of hazarding the Lake of Fire; for, the Scriptures states quite clearly "on such [those of the Millennium first-resurrection] the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Vs.6).

     "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" (vs. 5) is taken by those who believe in this doctrine to mean that they just aren't "saved yet."  However, what it really is saying is that they do not operate in this Millennium at that time, until we see them here immediately AFTER the thousand years: "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,  And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea." (Vss 7-8).

     Some will say that in the above that it is just satan who is at that time allowed to operate in the millennium (actually, technically, immediately after the thousand years), and that those who he goes out to "deceive" in the "four quarters of the Earth" were always there.  This is not possible, as evidenced by the internal evidence within the Scriptures themselves.  Observe: 

The Resurrections  

Compare the Revelation chapter twenty verses:

"...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded . . . . and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." (Vs. 4),

with:

"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." (Vs 5),

with:

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. " (Vs. 7-8),

of:

Revelation 20:2-8
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired [i.e., the time of the "second" resurrection, see vs. 5], Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.  KJV

     In other words, how could satan find so many to lead into a final assault on the camp of God's people if they had already been here being taught by the Elect for a thousand years?  Surely God's Elect, if they were here "teaching" as this doctrine claims, would have mentioned that one more testing is going to come upon them, that satan is going to be loosed for a short season to temp them into doing what shall amount to their destruction by God before they can ever reach the camp of the saints to battle against them.  They would be prepared for satan and would not be able to be deceived by him. 

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. " (Vs. 7-8)

    Also, there could not be so many ("the number of whom is as the sand of the sea") who were here with Christ for the thousand blissful years before satan is released, then turn on Christ, God, and God's people, and attack them with satan leading the charge.  No, what happened is that in the below, these above multitudes arrived at the same time that satan was cast back to the earth (released from the bottomless pit).  How did they "arrive"?  They were resurrected.  To "live again" IS TO "resurrect."  The terms are synonymous in the book of Revelation.  And as it was written of them: "But the rest of the dead [deceased ones] lived not again [resurrected] until the thousand years were finished." (Vs. 5).  In other words:

"And when the thousand years are expired [there is another resurrection], Satan shall be loosed out of his prison," (Vs 7),

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are [then] in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. " (Vs. 8)"

     Only the damned would use the end of the Millennium to try to attack God's saints.  Only those who know in their heart that Judgement Day for them is simply a stop along the way to the Lake of Fire would attack God's saints in the Millennium.  Did not the rich man in Luke chapter 16 (of Lazarus and the rich man fame) know that he was damned?  So too shall those of the later resurrection, those "the rest of the dead" who "lived not again until the thousand years were finished" (Rev 20:5) know their lot when they are resurrected (lived again).

     We shall deal more specifically with the term "deceive" used in the above (Rev 20:8) shortly.  But let us now pause, and allow me to ask you, after having heard my argument, after seeing my Scriptural witness: what Scripture do you base your premise on that the unsaved shall be taught salvation in this Millennium?  What Scripture do you base your position upon that anyone will be taught anything by anybody in the Millennium?  You have none.  Search in vain, it is not there.  You challenge me to produce Scripture, and I do; yet, you produce no Scripture for your position.  All you bank on is that "Nick's wrong and pastor Murray's right," without proving one iota of your case through Scripture.  I congratulate your loyalty to pastor, but chasten your infidelity to Scripture.

     IF Ezekiel chapters 40-48 were about the Millennium, which they are not, then that still wouldn't allow for any teaching in the Millennium; for, we see no teaching even in the below, which is just prior (supposedly) to this Millennium; but rather, we read that "So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel." (Vs.7).  Observe that even at that early time, prior to when some people say the Millennium commences, the people already knew the truth; even "the heathen".  So where is there any need to teach it again in the Millennium to those who already know it prior to that Millennium, but reject it?  How can you teach somebody something that they already knew by witnessing it themselves?   

     Also observe that what is being described in verses11-13 cannot be in any Millennium; for, in the Millennium we are in spiritual bodies—there is no flesh to bury.  Nor, I might point out, is there any mention of the below "seven years" of burning weapons (vs. 9 below) and "seven months" of burying corpses (vs. 12 below) in the Millennium chapter of Revelation (Rev 20).  And if you would say that the below happens just prior to the Millennium, I would point out that none of the below is mentioned in the book of Revelation, especially not where one would expect to find it in Revelation chapter nineteen which immediately precedes the Millennium of Revelation chapter twenty.

Ezekiel 39:6-13
6 And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD.
7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.
8 Behold, it is come, and it is done, saith the Lord GOD; this is the day whereof I have spoken.
9 And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves, and the spears, and they shall burn them with fire seven years:
10 So that they shall take no wood out of the field, neither cut down any out of the forests; for they shall burn the weapons with fire: and they shall spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord GOD.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call it The valley of Hamon-gog.
12 And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land.
13 Yea, all the people of the land shall bury them; and it shall be to them a renown the day that I shall be glorified, saith the Lord GOD.  KJV

     I placed the above Scripture here to illustrate and to document my position as laid out in our study at Is there a second chance for the unsaved in the Millennium...?, that Ezekiel chapters 40-48 are not what shall happen during the coming Millennium of Revelation chapter twenty, but rather are what WOULD have happened had not man rejected and killed the Messiah.  But they did reject Him, thereby forfeiting the promises of Ezekiel 40-48.  Ezekiel 40-48 will not happen, ever.  Revelation twenty represents the new promise, the new way.  Revelation chapter twenty supersedes Ezekiel chapters 40 etc. because we (as in mankind) rejected and killed the King, thereby placing His Kingdom in abeyance (i.e., not yet).

   Another Scripture that certain people confuse is the below one.  "They" suppose that the below is speaking of the Millennium.  Now, oddly, IF it were speaking of the Millennium, which it is not, it would disprove their "Millennium teaching time" theory; for, it states that, "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me".  Observe:

Jeremiah 31:34
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.  KJV

     However, it is not at all speaking of the Millennium, it is rather speaking of the First Advent of the Messiah Jesus Christ.  Observe the above verse thirty-four in context to the verses leading up to it:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant [the New Testament/New Covenant in Christ] with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant [the Old Testament/Old Covenant by Moses] that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant [the New Covenant through Christ] that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [This happened after the First Advent for all those who believed and received the Holy Spirit within them]
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.  KJV

     This covenant they also brake (broke); for, they reject it when they rejected Christ and killed Him.  Had they not killed Christ this would have led to the above Ezekiel 39 Scripture and into the Ezekiel 40-48 Scriptures.  But they broke that covenant when they broke Jesus Christ on the cross.  Nevertheless, God knew that they would reject the Messiah, and in His dying He made a way of escape for those who believe upon Him—even unto today.  That way of escape is outlined in the New Testament of our Bible.  However, Christ needn't have died to save them; you will remember that Christ even forgave sin BEFORE He died on the cross "And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee." (Lk 5:20).

     And had they worshipped Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords, and had they not murdered Him on false witness, and had they accepted Him when He came at the First Advent, they could have offered animal sacrifices to God for the redemption of their sins (as the Ezekiel 40-48 Scriptures outline to have been done).  But God was not well pleased with the blood of animals, as Paul states in his epistles.

     Therefore, at the first, though God knew that they would do so, it was not intended that they kill Messiah, that is to say that this is not what God had instructed them to do.  They were to listen to Him (Jesus) as God said from heaven: "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." (Mat 17:5).  But they didn't "hear ye Him" (listen to him); they killed Him instead.

     But had they not killed Him, we would be in the Ezekiel 40-48 Scriptures forever, Christ reigning over His people; there never would have been a New Testament of the Bible.  But, since having broken the covenant and killing the Messiah, God changed the final outcome of this world—that change can be read of in the book of Revelation. 

   And now there shall be no more flesh after the Second Advent, but at the first there was to be flesh forever.  That is why Ezekiel 40-48 describes everything in flesh terms: flesh bodies (Ezek 44:18 & 20), marriage, divorce, virginity, widows (Ezek 44:22), animal sacrifice (Ezek 44:11 &15), flesh death (Ezek 44:25), sin offerings (Ezek 44:27), etc.  These things can not be future to us, they cannot be in the Millennium; for, we know that offering animal sacrifice for sin after Christ was once offered on the cross would be an insult to Jesus Christ and a grave sin; we know that per Jesus Christ we do not marry in the resurrection (Mat 22:30), we know that there shall be no more tears or pain or dying in the eternity (Rev 21:4); we know that there shall be no more flesh after the Second Advent (1st Cor 15:47-55).  Ergo (therefore), Ezekiel 40-48 is absolutely NOT speaking of the coming Millennium which is spoken of in Revelation chapter twenty.  They (Rev and Ezek) speak of two outcomes, the one (Ezek) is what should have happened had they not rejected the Kingdom by killing the King Jesus Christ, and the other (Rev) what shall happen because they did.

     I know that this is difficult to understand, and even more difficult to explain; but, yes, God knew that Messiah would be rejected, that is why He wrote of it in the Old Testament, but it was hidden to the people; for, did not the disciples of Christ even not know that Christ would be crucified?  No, they did not know it, that is why they had the following exchange with Jesus:

Matthew 17:9-12
9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.  KJV

     Then, after His crucifixion and resurrection, they asked Him what we all basically are asking:

Acts 1:6-9
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.  KJV

     Likewise did God also know of the rise of antichrist, which is why we find Daniel speaking of it in the Old Testament; however, that was not what He had wanted to happen.  But He allowed Christ to be crucified and He shall allow antichrist to rise.  Why?  Because of the choices that "we" have made.  Man broke the covenant, not God.  It was because of man that Ezekiel 40-48 shall not happen.  It is because of man that the book of Revelation  shall happen.

     And as to your question of: why we don't "just go immediately to the Great White Throne judgment following the 7th trump?", you would have to ask God this when you meet Him.  I do not know.  But as I illustrated earlier, I too can ask you impossible questions.  One that immediately comes to mind is that if there is a chance in this Millennium (call it a first, a second, or another chance, if you wish; it matters not) for the unsaved to change their minds and to change their final lot, then "why did God bother to send us here through this flesh world anyways?"  If one can deny Christ in this flesh world, then die, then accept Christ when they see Him whilst they are in their angelic bodies (who wouldn't believe then?!?), then why are they tasked to come through this flesh world and make a choice in the first place?

     And really, is this Millennium doctrine that we are debunking presently really all that fair?  I mean, here you have two people, two souls who died while being a state of denial regarding Jesus Christ; one was lucky enough that their husband or father was one of these Elect of God people so that they can change their mind after death and before Judgement Day, but the other one didn't have any such advocate and is doomed to stand Judgement Day as a denier of Jesus Christ.    Does that sound like something that God would do?  Does that fit in with any Scripture in the Bible?  No, not one.  Not any New Testament Scripture, anyway.

     And further more, we have only ONE advocate, and that is Jesus Christ.  "God's Elect" are not advocates for any soul:

1 Timothy 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;  KJV

     You may be saying right about now that you don't consider yourself to be any mediator.  Oh, really?  What do you call someone who can "go back to lost deceased loved ones and convert them to Christ during the Millennium"?  If they could do this, which they cannot, then that would make them advocates, mediators.  This doctrine is insidious when fully examined!  And I refuse to apologize for stating that.  "Let the chips fall where they may," as some have said.  Do you realize that stripped of its clothing, this doctrine means that we can save souls?  This is very dangerous thought, friend.  Though I know that it isn't what you intend to be saying, and it certainly isn't anything that I have ever heard the good pastor state.  But the doctrine says nothing other than that when fully examined in the bright light. 

     And if you want to be angry with me for pointing it out; so be it, be angry with me.  But do examine the Scriptures and make your own mind up based upon what God says on the matter, not on what I or the good pastor say on the matter.  Did not even the beloved Paul state: "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Gal 4:16).

You said:

"Also, you seemed to overlook REV 20:7-9 as to WHY "after the 1000 years are expired, satan shall be loosed"!  If EVERYONE'S eternal fate was already settled going into the Millennium, and there was no "chance" for ANY souls to overcome at the Second Resurrection, then there would be no need for the devil to "go out to deceive the nations"....would there?"

     Well, first of all, nobody's "eternal fate was already settled" (save for satan and those certain fallen angels from Genesis 6) until Judgement Day.  And secondly, you confuse "the second resurrection" to mean some kind of eternal salvation.  That is not at all what it means.  To be resurrected is to once again participate in the affairs written of in the Bible, in this case, participate in the Millennium; as we illustarted earlier, it is to "live again."  All are resurrected, but some go on to be destroyed in the Lake of Fire afterwards.  

     It is at Judgement Day when God by Christ shall judge the world, and it is then alone that fates are set and sentences carried out.  Some may "make it" that you think not, and some may not make it that you think shall.  Let God do the judging, please.  I am not saying who is and who is not going to be spending the eternity in Heaven with God and who is and who is not going into the Lake of Fire.  That is not any man's place to state.  But we can read what the Scriptures which speak on this matter say and get a pretty good idea as to who is going where, but we cannot now know the love of God and His mercy at that time.  You really can't be sure that a passed-on loved one "didn't make it."  And if I may be be a little callus here: you really won't be as bothered by that then as you are now; for, in the resurrection we are all one big family, not small individual families like we are here today.  We are brethren, not husbands, children, mothers, fathers, and wives, etc.  In heaven we are all children, God being our Father.  "And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." (Rev 21:3).

     Or, if you understand that there are no separate genders in Heaven, all souls (including those of flesh females today) being called simply "the sons of God," then you will benefit from this deeper explanation several verses down from the above one:

Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.  KJV

     I'm happy that God stated it both ways, "...they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God" (Vs. 3), and, "...I will be his God, and he shall be my son" (Vs. 7), so that women today can know and be confident that they are not left out, that they, their souls, was (and is) included in the below.  It's just that in this flesh age you (women) were formed in a female gender to give birth to the other "sons of God" who must pass through this flesh life:

Job 2:1
2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.  KJV

Job 38:7
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?  KJV

John 1:12
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:  KJV

Romans 8:14
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.  KJV

Romans 8:19
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.  KJV

Philippians 2:15
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;  KJV

1 John 3:1-2
3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.  KJV

     Moving on....

     I also know what is giving you some trouble here.  It is the use of the word "deceive" in verses 8 & 10 in the below Scripture to which you referred to in your E-mail. 

Revelation 20:5-10
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.  KJV

deceive, decived: Greek word #4105  planao (plan-ah'-o); from NT:4106; to (properly, cause to) roam (from safety, truth, or virtue):  KJV - go astray, deceive, err, seduce, wander, be out of the way.

     I know that you read the word "deceive" in the above to mean, "teach falsely, lie to them to make them worship satan over God."  But by the definition (supplied above) it could just as easily mean here "to cause them to gather themselves 'together to battle' and to 'compassed [encircle] the camp of the saints'.  You basically base your whole "Millennium teaching time" theory on the the above interpretation of "deceive" as it is used in the above Scripture.  For, you suppose, who would satan be "deceiving" if there weren't people there that could change their minds.  This is where you err.  And then you add to your error by presuming (incorrectly) that since satan can change minds, so too can we.  So that you create a whole new conflict in the Millennium between God and satan and between true and false doctrine that isn't there in the Scriptures, and that was resolved at the Second Advent.  the only conflict between God's and satan's people in the Millennium is when satan and his people circle God's people preparing to attack them—and God abruptly sets upon them, casting satan into the Lake of Fire and sending the others to Judgement Day which is held one verse later.

     Nobody can change their minds in the Millennium, not one way or the other.  All shall know God and Jesus are very real at that time.  Remember, these people (souls) have by then already seen the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, they experienced, many of them, firsthand the book of Revelation chapters 1-19.  And they are now at that time in spiritual bodies have total recall of the world that was and what happened both therein and in our (by then destroyed) world.

     What, pray tell, shall you be teaching to anyone in the Millennium?  That God is real and it is He whom created them?  They know that by then.  That Christianity is the only religion that God inspired after the Old Testament religion of the Hebrews became corrupted (by the priests) and replaced (by God)?  They already realize this by then.  That Jesus Christ is real, and that He is the only Mediator and Savior and the only way to eternal life?  They woefully realized that when they watched Him return at the Second Advent and beat this world with a rod, killing them after casting their antichrist into the pit.

    What is there for you to teach?  Pastor M., when asked that very question on a Q & A segment of his television Bible study program, answered by saying: "Discipline, they will be taught discipline in the Millennium."  I'm sorry, but what does that mean?  I mean, what does that really mean?  We are going to "teach discipline" to people (souls) whom rejected Christ and thereby rejected eternal life?  Or, could it be that you feel that we shall "teach them discipline to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ who they had denied until their last breath whilst still on this Earth?"  Is that, my friend, not a second chance?

   Of course it isn't a second chance, because you don't believe in second chances after death, do you?  Oh, but you do, my friend, now don't you?  You just don't like the way it smacks.

1 chance while in the flesh
+
1 chance while in the spirit
=
2 chances.

     Oh, but you will say that many didn't have a "real" chance on this Earth, so this teaching on your part in the Millennium will really only equal one chance.  And you believe this, huh?

     What did Christ say regarding seeking the lost and saving souls on this Earth?  I mentioned earlier that I would document that to say that "some didn't have a chance in this life" was to blame God.  The below Scripture documents just that.  Please take the time to read the whole below Scripture, for in it is your answer.  Also observe that the decision is made while we are still here on this Earth, nothing of any "Millennium teaching time" after death is mentioned here by our Lord.  Also observe that it is God who chooses out and calls out those to salvation:

John 6:35-51
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.  KJV

     Do you understand that if there are some in the Millennium that were not saved while on this earth, because "they didn't have a fair chance," to which you (presumably [on your part]) must then "go back to" to teach salvation or discipline or whatever—then that means that God failed!  Which of course is not possible.  I know that you don't believe that.  But can't you see that your doctrine of a "Millennium teaching time" screams nothing but that?

    The rest of letter I believe I have already covered earlier in this Q & A; if not, please send me a rebuttal reply, pointing out where I was remiss.  I speak of the closing paragraphs of your letter, as below:

    " Come on, Nick, play fair!  You know that a "certain pastor from
Arkansas" doesn't really teach or believe in "second chances" either, as
he's always qualified his answer on this subject by stating that most
"never had a prayer of a chance" anyway, with what's been taught in most
so-called churches.  Right?

     No, we're going to be working our butts off during the
Mill....surely you don't believe the priests will get to "party hearty"
for 1000 years?  Perhaps you could follow-up with more scriptural
documentation on this one, lest we think you were merely trying to pick
a topic (EZE 40-48 does not refer to the Mill!) that you and Lance
Knight can both agree on. :)

Yours in Christ,
[Xxxxxxxxxxx]

P.S.  You do realize that Pastor Knight of the now-defunct King's Chapel
also believed and taught that on this same subject "a certain pastor
from Arkansas"  was in error."

In closing

     What is the danger in this "Millennium second chance" doctrine?  The danger is that it causes us to not try so hard to reach others with the Gospel of Jesus Christ; because, if we feel that we can "have a shot at them" in the Millennium when they are unencumbered by the flesh and the weaknesses and doubtings of the flesh mind, we may just wait.  That would be a tragic mistake.  I cringe whenever I hear any pastor say, "don't worry about it, don't push it; we'll teach them in the Millennium."  Sadly, we shall not be able to teach them in the Millennium; and the only chance that we had to teach them here we spent idly, waiting for another day that doesn't come.  Could that be why Jesus implored us to:

Mark 16:15-16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  KJV

     Surely Jesus didn't see a day in the Millennium when we could play catch-up with men's souls.

     Reach your unsaved loved-ones now, today; pray for them, pray for them hard; for, tomorrow may be too late, one day too late.

     Peace to you in Christ Jesus.
________________________________________________________________________
[P.S. Are you on our E-mail Mailing List yet? Join our MAILING LIST]

God bless the study of His Word; in Jesus Christ's Precious and powerful name!
Nick Goggin

Back to list of questions at top of page

Question #4

| Back To Top |

Propaganda movie designed to discredit the Protocols of...Zion and all who believe in their Judaic authorship and execution

A reader writes:

Hey Nick, I was just curious as to your opinion on this new documentary movie called "Protocols of Zion". It's a new movie (2005) and is described as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a century-old document (proved to be a forgery, yet still believed by millions) describing a Jewish master plan to take over the world. This documentary explores anti-Semitism, hate, bigotry and religious intolerance in America."

I was just wondering if you were going to make any replies or references or maybe pick apart what's true and false in this film, perhaps so many of us that are new to the game don't get pulled astray but some false doctrine or misleading garbage on TV, etc...

Thanks for you time, and good work on the recently added material!

-[Xxxxxx]

And follows-up:

I apologize, forgot all about the link, here are a few:

http://www.protocolsofzionmovie.com/

http://movies.go.com/movies/movie?name=protocols-of-zion_2005&genre=documentary&studio=ThinkFilm

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436686/

Yeah even the cover photo has something to say.

We find it no great surprise that this film claims the protocols to be "proven a forgery", matter of fact we would be surprised if it didn't say such things. I haven't watched this film because I can't sit through it. It sounds like all lies and propaganda to me. Pure garbage.

I just can't believe the crap going on these days. Last night on the History Channel they were teaching Revelations completely wrong, I couldn't understand why they were just butchering scripture, until it happened... John Hagee pops up on the screen talking about rapture. We don't need to go into the details, we know how much of a false preacher he is. I'm not a fan of the History Channel anyhow, with it's Gospels of Judas, DaVinci Code, and other completely inaccurate and ill-portrayals of Christ. Unfortunately many people will see those things and believe them without question. It's ridiculous hearing family and friends talking about crap like the DaVinci Code garbage, especially when they call themselves Christians. Thanks for your research on these topics, it's hard to find people these days that will speak the truth and speak it accurately.

Anyways sorry to ramble, I just wanted to bring that film to your attention and all, thanks for taking the time to read and reply to my email, I know you're a busy guy.

God Bless
-[Xxxxx]

Answer:

Dissecting The Propaganda

The Propaganda Masters: Judaic Director Marc Levin and his Judaic "documentary" cast.  Below is the (lying) film's description: "PROTOCOLS OF ZION FACTS The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a century-old document (proved to be a forgery, yet still believed by millions) describing a Jewish master plan to take over the world. This documentary explores anti-Semitism, hate, bigotry and religious intolerance in America. Cast: Marc Levin, Al Levin, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Abraham Foxman [of ADL infamy], Lionel Ziprin, Walid Rabah" — Source: Movies.com

Note NAZI flag being purposely held up in camera view in the above photo, and bald headed "White guy."  These are silent triggers that influence the viewer's mind to reject anything that these "Skin-heads" believe in. The message:  "Don't believe that the Protocols are true or you are also an AntiSemite, Skinhead, and NAZI."  Is it working?  Are you scared-off?

The intention in this photo is equate belief in the Protocols to being incarcerated criminals.  In other words, "don't you believe it unless you are one of these types!", is the subconscious message.  Is it working on you?

All photos from Buena Vista     Link to "Documentary" trailer

    What can we say?  They are trying to make the Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion AntiSemitic, and anyone who believes them into being so-called AntiSemites.  They picked some idiots and extremists to interview, which was designed to give all of us a bad name.  It's propaganda—but the average person won't see it as propaganda, they will see it as rooting-out nasty AntiSemites.... 

1. "The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish planning and Jewish dissatisfaction. Our plan is to have a new world order. What worked so wonderfully in Russia, is going to become reality for the whole world." — The American Hebrew Magazine, 10, Sept. 1920.
    

2. "There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews." — Winston Churchill [himself a Crypto-Jew], Illustrated Sunday Herald, Feb. 8, 1920.
    

3. "This reminds me of what Mentor writing in the Jewish Chronicle in the time of the Russian Revolution said on the same subject: Indeed, in effect, it was the same as what Mr. Cox now says. After showing that Bolshevism by reason of the ruthless tyranny of its adherents was a serious menace to civilization Mentor observed: 'Yet none the less, in essence it is the revolt of peoples against the social state, against the evil, the iniquities that were crowned by the cataclysm of the war under which the world groaned for four years.' And he continued: 'there is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism..." —"The Ideals of Bolshevism", Jewish World, January 20, 1929, No. 2912; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 127.