Vaylism: Difference between revisions

Line 29: Line 29:
==The Parousia==
==The Parousia==


Now in '''2 Thessalonians 1:7''', It says, "Those who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels." ('''That has taken place already in 1963'''.) <ref>Lee Vayle, Rapture, #10 Rapture, November 16th, 1983</ref>
William Branham stated:


:''As a minister of the Gospel, I can't see one thing left but the going of the Bride.<ref>William Branham, 64-0726M, Recognizing Your Day And Its Message, para, 66</ref>


Which so many people don't understand where we stand here in this ministry of Bro. Branham's, on the Presence, which is the Appearing. Every single one of those words has started, and is moving, and moving, and moving--as '''Christ started to appear, and move into His Church, in 1933'''! But it was in 1963, that we saw Rev 10:1 join with Rev 10:7, you see, bringing forth the Seals and all. And at that time Bro. Branham said he had to decrease, so that Christ would come more and more, and God would take Headship--God in the form of the Holy Spirit in a Pillar of Fire.
:''It's at the end time. There is not another thing that I know to happen but the Rapture, the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It's all ready.<ref>William Branham, 65-0427, Does God Change His Mind?, para, 124</ref>
 
These quotes present a problem for people in the message and it certainly did for Lee Vayle.  With William Branham gone, why had the rapture not happened?  To explain this, Lee Vayle borrowed a heretical teaching straight from the Watchtower Society, the Jehovah's Witnesses - the parousia doctrine.
 
One of the more remarkable phenomena of human religious behavior generally is the apparent willingness with which religious movements shake off the disappointment of failed prophecies. Indeed, some of the more vibrant religious movements, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses,  have their roots in end-time predictions that went unfulfilled.<ref>David Fergusson and Marcel Sarot, The Future as God’s Gift: Explorations in Christian Eschatology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 81.</ref>
 
According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Lord has already returned.  A fundamental tenet of Watchtower theology is the claim that Christ returned invisibly around October 4 or 5 in the year 1914. Instead of the early disciples asking Christ “when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming … ” the '''New World Translation''' has them asking, “When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence … ?” (Matthew 24:3) The Watchtower Society interprets this alternative rendering as meaning an invisible return.<ref>David A. Reed, Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses: Subject by Subject, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997).</ref>
 
Lee Vayle "borrowed" this false teaching from the JW's and applied it to William Branham.  Vayle even quotes the New World Translation, the Jehovah's Witness terribly flawed translation of the Bible.  Lee Vayle clearly taught that Jesus Christ returned in 1933. 
 
Here are some excerpts from Lee Vayle's sermons on the subject of the Parousia:
 
:''Now in '''2 Thessalonians 1:7''', It says, "Those who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels." ('''That has taken place already in 1963'''.) <ref>Lee Vayle, Rapture, #10 Rapture, November 16th, 1983</ref>
 
 
:''Which so many people don't understand where we stand here in this ministry of Bro. Branham's, on the Presence, which is the Appearing. Every single one of those words has started, and is moving, and moving, and moving--as '''Christ started to appear, and move into His Church, in 1933! But it was in 1963, that we saw Rev 10:1 join with Rev 10:7, you see, bringing forth the Seals and all.''' And at that time Bro. Branham said he had to decrease, so that Christ would come more and more, and God would take Headship--God in the form of the Holy Spirit in a Pillar of Fire.


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 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>
Line 43: Line 59:
...
...
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>
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>