Vaylism: Difference between revisions

Now this running of the... looking as though the Millennium and the New Jerusalem are run together, so you can't differentiate--you can. This only appears so, because time and eternity have blended. And New Jerusalem is, actually, only a continuation of what we are about to enter into by way of the Resurrection and Rapture, as '''Christ started coming into the church, through His Appearing in June 11, 1933, and finally took Headship, in about 1963''', right when He came down. See? That's the idea. He's got to come down to take Headship in order to raise the dead, finish off that Shout.<ref>Future Home, #2 One Plan For All, May 1st, 1988</ref>

Now God left him. The body was raised up and put behind the throne on the mercy seat. But '''in March 1963, He left the mercy seat''', went to the Father's throne, took the Book of Redemption out of the Father's hand, ripped off the Seals, put the Book back in the Father's hands, the Father vacated the throne, and that one climbed upon the throne. Now that's what the Bible teaches according to Bro. Branham. And that's "THUS SAITH THE LORD", because he is a vindicated prophet. All right. <ref>Lee Vayle, Shalom, #10 Peace: Revelation Of God, April 9th, 1989</ref>

In these places '''the New World Translation''' renders Paramia as ‘be present’ or ‘present himself’ from the contrast that is made between the presence and the absence of Paul, both in 2 Cor 10:10, 11 and Phil 2:12.  

...

The terms Paramia and Parousia are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh. And Parousia never has the sense of ‘return’. I think it’s the word ‘Parousia.’ Because its put in the Greek there. Let me see if it does? Yeah. I’m not a Greek student. The idea of more than one Parousia is first found only in the latter church not before Justin a basic prerequisite for understanding the world of thought of primitive Christianity is that we should fully free ourselves from the notion of more than one Parousia. I tell you; it’s just one and that’s it.<ref>Lee Vayle, Does God Change His Mind, #11 Complete and Perfect Revelation, 5 Jan 1992</ref>

''Let’s read you some more about this presence here. The Greek parousia, means ‘along side’. The expression being drawn from the preposition power along side and ...?... a being. Cursed twenty four times in the New Testament, rendered presence in the '''New World translation'''. The verb paramya (??) literally means being along side, cursed twenty four times. And then it tells you the place that it’s all found. It means presence or Himself present or present Himself.  

''It quotes Mt 24:37-39, “As it was in the days of Noah,” see? That word is a literal presence. The word parousia, presence is different from the Greek word, ‘il-li-ci-ous’(??) meaning coming, which occurs in the Greet text, that’s what Rotherham said. The words parousia and illicious are not used interchangeably, they mustn’t be. For the terms ‘paramya’ and parousia are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, parousia never has the sense of return, never has the sense of return. So whenever it happens it’s over with. See? That’s according to the Scripture here.<ref>Lee Vayle, Questions and Answers, #4 Declaration on the Parousia, 17 May 1992</ref>

I found within the Message today there appears to be a split in some of the fundamental teaching, most of you predict the fact that some feel 1963 mark the dispensation of change which precipitated the coming the Parousia of the Lord.  

...

That's not true. What '''1963 was Rev 22:10''', and it's not so much a dispensation, it's a winding up of all the mysteries and those things; which started under the Seven Seals, back in the Garden of Eden. Adam could not go to the Tree of Life and live forever.

...

So therefore, He's coming quickly at this particular time when the Word divides the people from the non Word. Matthew 24, into those who are now in the Rapture of Luke 17. So therefore this is not of something concerning the Parousia, '''He's already here. He came in 1933.''' But he never set Himself the head of the church until the church was set in order by the Word; coming more and more into the church. No problem, just the same as you're going from Israel. If they would of gone on and on, the kingdom... God that was in the holy temple that left the tabernacle, would have been right there to go to the Millennium and right to the New Jerusalem. The coming God, the becoming God, moving on, moving on.<ref>Lee Vayle, Questions and Answers, #11 The Seventh Seal and Third Pull, August 1st, 1992</ref>