Posted on 12/05/2005 3:15:43 PM PST by laney
You embarrass yourself. And in public, too.
>>>"You embarrass yourself. And in public, too."<<<
I believe it is the other way around. You are the victim of an elaborate hoax, and you keep steering me back to that hoax as if it is 'gospel' and I am the real victim of a hoax (wait, that was your position in your very first post to me). Well, anyway, let's see what your latest link reveals. Holding writes,
"I'll sum it up to begin: Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you."
Since that is the "sum" of his arguments in this particular link, then you must be claiming that I either criticized the Bible, or claimed findings of contradiction or error in the Bible. Now I must challenge you to point out when and where I have made any such criticisms or claims, sonny.
Hahahaha
I wrote: "Since that is the "sum" of his arguments in this particular link, then you must be claiming that I either criticized the Bible, or claimed findings of contradiction or error in the Bible."
And you wrote, "Hahahaha".
That is not a very convincing argument, sonny. Holding said those words were his sum, as in the paragraph that begins with, "I'll sum it up to begin: ".
Therefore, I must again challenge you to point out when and where I have made any such criticisms or claims, sonny."
I laughed, because you merely proved once again what an unserious person you are by not carefully reading what I linked you to. If you had continued to read, you would have seen your problem summed up quite accurately, to wit:
"...engaging [in] what I will call from here on "trailer park scholarship" .... Who are these people trying to kid? Their scholarship, as a whole, is reckless and pitiable; what they know, they have learned from reading a few popular books with no conception of the broader issues and fields at hand. .."
"Why did God make the Bible so hard to understand, then?" It isn't -- none of this keeps a person from grasping the message of the Bible to the extent required to be saved; where the line is to be drawn is upon those who gratuitously assume that such base knowledge allows them to be competent critics [or commentators] of the text, and make that assumption in absolute ignorance of their own lack of knowledge -- what I have elsewhere spoken of in terms of being "Unskilled and Unaware of it: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
["It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. .....Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it-be it their own or anyone else's. ..."]
If they would at least admit that it might be a possibility that they are incompetent, then it is possible for them to educate themselves so as to be able to recognize incompetence in those they look to as "Bible teachers":
For instance, they could go here: Apologetics Index, notice some alphabet letters, and click on the "L" and that will link them to the Left Behind Series (Note: Due to its faulty theology, these books are not recommended by Apologetics Index).
And they could realize that there were people promoting variations of those same sorts of ideas long before Darby, LaHaye, et.al., came along.-LOL
Origins of Millennial Heresy
The Millennium doctrine started in an ungodly heretic by the name of Cerinthus, who lived in the first century. It is true that the Jews generally believed that the Messiah would establish a literal or earthly kingdom. And even some of them believed that Messiah's reign would last a thousand years. We here give an extract from Neander's History of Christian Dogmas, Vol. 1, Page 248.
"The idea of a Millennial reign proceeded from Judaism; for among the Jews the representation was current that the Messiah would reign a thousand years upon earth. . . . Such products of Jewish imagination passed over into Christianity."
As before stated, Cerinthus was the first to attempt to introduce this doctrine under Christianity. Let history speak. In Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 28, is preserved a fragment from the writings of Caius, who lived about the close of the second century, which gives us the following account of Cerinthus's heresy:
"But Cerinthus, too, through revelations written, as he would have us believe, by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things, which he pretends were shown him by angels; alleging that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem is again to be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be space of a thousand years for marriage festivities." "One of the doctrines he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom."
This is the true origin of the Millennium theory. The reader will observe how lightly our author speaks of Cerinthus's idea of the kingdom of Christ being set up on earth after the resurrection. He says this doctrine was "something which he [Cerinthus] pretends was shown to him by angels." Caius must therefore have believed the orthodox teachings of the scriptures, that Christ's kingdom was set up at his first coming. Observe also that Caius calls Cerinthus "an enemy to the scriptures of God," and one who was "wishing to deceive men." This language he uses with special reference to the one thousand years Cerinthus claimed would be spent in sensuality. Notice also that Cerinthus believed in an earthly kingdom.
Cerinthus lived in the days of the apostle John. We will now call your attention to the attitude of the beloved apostle toward this Millennial teacher. Irenaeus, who was born about 120 A. D. and was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of John, [Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., V. 24], states that while John was at Ephesus, he entered a bath to wash and found that Cerinthus was within, and refused to bathe in the same bath house, but left the building, and exhorted those with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within." (Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., III. 28).
Let this be a rebuke to modern Millennial advocates. They claim their doctrine is well founded in the Apocalypse of John. But John called the founder of their theory "that enemy of the truth."
"Cerinthus required his followers to worship the supreme God.... He promised them a resurrection of their bodies, which would be succeeded by exquisite delights in the Millenary reign of Christ.... For Cerinthus supposed that Christ would hereafter return . . . and would reign with his followers a thousand years in Palestine." (Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Page 50)
"Cerinthus required his followers to retain part of the Mosaical law, but to regulate their lives by the example of Christ: and taught that after the resurrection Christ would reign upon earth, with his faithful disciples, a thousand years, which would be spent in the highest sensual indulgences. This mixture of Judaism and Oriental philosophy was calculated to make many converts, and this sect soon became very numerous. They admitted a part of St. Matthew's Gospel but rejected the rest, and held the epistles of St. Paul in great abhorrence." (Gregory and Ruter's Church History., Page 30)
"Even though the floods of the nations and the vain superstitions of heretics should revolt against their true faith, they are overcome, and shall be dissolved as the foam, because Christ is the rock by which, and on which, the church is founded. And thus it is overcome by no [16] traces of maddened men. Therefore they are not to be heard who assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years; who think, that is to say, with the heretic Cerinthus. For the kingdom of Christ is now eternal in his saints." (From a commentary on the Apocalypse, by Victorinus, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Thank God for the united testimony of history. Observe how closely the modern Millennium teachers cling to the doctrines of their founder. Cerinthus taught that "Christ will have an earthly kingdom." "After the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth." "The resurrection would be followed by exquisite delights in the Millenary reign of Christ." " That Christ would hereafter return, and would reign with his followers a thousand years in Palestine." The only difference is that his modern followers have dropped the idea of sensuality. But how did the early church regard the doctrine of Cerinthus? The apostle John called Cerinthus "that enemy of the truth." They taught that "they are not to be heard who assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years."
What was the doctrine of the early church according to history? "Christ is the rock on which, and by which the church is founded." "The kingdom of Christ is now eternal in his saints." "It was the universal feeling among primitive Christians that they were living in the last period of the world's history." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. VIII.. Page 534). The reason they believed this was because the New Testament was their faith, and this is the doctrine of the New Testament throughout. No wonder Cerinthus and his followers "rejected part of St. Matthew's Gospel, and held the epistles of Paul in great abhorrence." Just so do modern Millennium teachers dwell very little in the plain Gospels and Epistles to prove their doctrines, but speculate in prophecy and revelation.
Having seen that Cerinthus and his false doctrine were rejected by God's church we will now come to its next chief advocate, Papias, who lived in the first half of the second century. Eusebius, under the heading "The Writings of Papias," says of him:
"The same historian also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise some strange parables of our Lord, and of his doctrine, and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain Millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses." (Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., Book m, Chap. 39, Page 115).
Historians generally tell us that Papias was a very zealous advocate of this imaginary reign of Christ on earth. "The first distinguished opponent of this doctrine was Origen, who attacked it with great earnestness and ingenuity, and seems, in spite of some opposition to have thrown it into general discredit." (Wadington's History, Page 56).
"This obscure doctrine was probably known to but very few except the Fathers of the church, and is very sparingly mentioned by them during the first two centuries; and there is reason to believe that it scarcely attained much notoriety even among the learned Christians, until it was made a matter of controversy by Origen, and then rejected by the great majority. In fact we find Origen himself asserting that it was confined to those of the simpler sort."(Wadington's History, Page 56).
Next among the advocates of this doctrine was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt. He advocated the doctrine about A. D. 255. We here insert the following from Eusebius's History, Book VII, Chapter 23, under the heading "Nepos, and His Schism."
"He taught that the promises given to holy men in the scriptures should be understood more as the Jews understood them, and supposed that there would be a certain Millennium of sensual luxury on this earth: thinking, therefore, that he could establish his own opinion by the Revelation of John . . . He (Nepos) asserts that there will be an earthly reign of Christ." "Though Millennialism had been suppressed by the early church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by heretical sects." (Dr. Schaff's History, Page 299).
"Nowhere in the discourses of Jesus is there a hint of a limited duration of the Messianic kingdom. The apostolic epistles are equally free from any trace of Chiliasm."(Encyclopedia Brittanica--Articles on Millennium).
To sum up the uniform voice of history, the theory of a literal kingdom and reign on the earth was gathered from Jewish fabulous "apocalypse," "unwritten tradition," "carnal misapprehensions," "pretended visions," "suppositions," and "superstitious imaginations."
Its advocates were said to be "very limited in their understanding," and "of the simple sort." Millennialism had the worst heretic in the first century for its founder, and its chief advocates thereafter were rejected by the early church.
From time to time it was revived by "heretical sects."
The vain worldly expectation that the Messiah would establish a literal kingdom caused the Jews to reject him, and his spiritual kingdom. They only wanted an earthly kingdom; hence rejected and crucified the Son of God. As soon as the church began to apostatize, and lost the glory of his spiritual kingdom, vain ambitions awakened the old Jewish desire for a literal kingdom.
And so it has come to pass that we have at this time of dead formality a multitude of men teaching the same abominable lie and false hope which crucified Christ nearly nineteen hundred years ago; namely, a literal kingdom of Christ.
Source: H. M. Riggle, "History of the Millennium," The Kingdom of God, 1899. *
Justin Martyr (A.D.150) CHAP. XI.--WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.: "And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. Forif we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid."(First Apology of Justin Martyr, ch. 11)
Epiphanes (315-403): "There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St.John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense." (Heresies, 77:26.)
Robert G. Clouse: "At the Council of Ephesus in 431, belief in the millennium was condemned as superstitious." (Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium, p. 9.) J.A.W. Neander (1837): "Among the Jews the representation was growing that the messiah would reign 1000 years upon the earth. Such products of Jewish imagination passed over into Christianity. " (History of Christian Dogmas, Vol. I, pg. 248)
Richard Erdoes: "On the last day of the year 999, according to an ancient chronicle, the old basilica of St. Peter's at Rome was thronged with a mass of weeping and trembling worshippers awaiting the end of the world. This was the dreaded eve of the millennium, the Day of Wrath when the earth would dissolve into ashes. Many of those present had fiven away all of their possessions to the poor - lands, homes, and household goods - in order to assure for themselves forgiveness for their trespasses at the Last Judgment and a good place in heaven near the footstool of the Almighty. Many poor sinners - and who among them was not without sin? had entered the church in sackcloth and ashes, having already spent weeks and months doing penance and mortifying the flesh ... the last day of the year 999 and the first day of the year 1000 had come and gone. Yet still the earth stood still and people still lived." (A.D.2000: Living on the Brink of Apocalypse, 1,194.)
Joseph Hall (1574-1656): "The main grounde of all their Heterodoxie in this point, is that they put a meerly-literall construction upon the prophesies and promies of Scripture which the Holy Ghost intended onely to be spiritually understood..." (Anonymously published The Revelation Unrevealed concerning the Thousand-Yeares Reigne of the Saints with Christ upon Earth (1650)
Robert Baillie (1645): "AMONG all the Sparkles of new light wherewith our Brethren do entertain their own and the people’s fancy, there is none more pleasant than that of the thousand years; a conceit of the most Ancient and gross Heretic Cerinthus, a little purged by Papias, and by him transmitted to some of the Greek and Latin Fathers, but quickly declared, both by the Greek and Latin Church to be a great errour, if not an heresy. Since the days of Augustine unto our time, it went under no other notion, and was embraced by no Christian we hear of, till some of the Anabaptists did draw it out of its grave" (Source: A Dissuasive From the Errors of the Time - The thousand years of Christ his visible Reign upon earth, is against Scripture)
Christianity Today: "In City of God, Augustine (354-430) viewed the thousand years of Revelation 20 not as some special future time but "the period beginning with Christ's first coming," that is, the age of the Christian church. Throughout this age, the saints reign with Christnot in the fullness of the coming kingdom prepared for those blessed by God the Father, but "in some other and far inferior way." This position, often called "amillennial," became the view of most Christians in the West, including the Reformers, for almost 1,500 years."
Lorraine Boettner (1957): "So dependent is Premillennialism of the first 10 verses in Revelation 20, which it takes literally and then relies primarily on Old Testament kingdom prophecies for proof, that had it not been for this misinterpretation, the system as such probably never would have arisen." (The Millennium, rev. ed, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, [1957] 1984, p. 11)
"We call attention also to the completely disproportionate emphasis that the premillennial system places on the Book of Revelation. For according to that interpretation chapters 4 through 19, a total of 16 chapters, are used to describe the comparatively short seven year Tribulation, while only six verses in chapter 20 are used to describe the glorious one thousand year reign of Christ upon the earth, with all the great and mighty events that undoubtedly would happen during that time. Such a method of interpretation is absurd on the face of it. The order should at least be reversed." (The Millennium, rev. ed, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, [1957] 1984, p. 202)
James M. Efird (1989): "If one examines the texts carefully, however, it becomes rather obvious that John is not talking about the earth but is describing a scene in heaven. The martyrs are in heaven here and in every other place in Revelation (cf. 6:9-10). These martyrs are reigning with Christ in heaven, not for one thousand literal years but completely, totally." (Revelation for Today: An Apocalyptic Approach, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1989, p. 115)
David Chilton (1985): "One of the antichrists who afflicted the early church was Cerinthus, the leader of a first-century Judaistic cult. Regarded by the Church Fathers as "the Arch-heretic," and identified as one of the "false apostles" who opposed Paul, Cerinthus was a Jew who joined the Church and began drawing Christians away from the orthodox faith. He taught that a lesser deity, and not the true God, had created the world (holding, with the Gnostics, that God was much too "spiritual" to be concerned with material reality). Logically, this meant also a denial of the Incarnation, since God would not take to Himself a physical body and truly human personality. And Cerinthus was consistent: he declared that Jesus had merely been an ordinary man, not born of a virgin; that "the Christ" (a heavenly spirit) had descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism (enabling Him to perform miracles), but then left Him again at the crucifixion. Cerinthus also advocated a doctrine of justification by works in particular, the absolute necessity of observing the ceremonial ordinances of the Old Covenant in order to be saved."
Etc., etc., ad infinitum. bttt
>>>I laughed, because you merely proved once again what an unserious person you are by not carefully reading what I linked you to. <<<
No, you "laughed" because you could not honestly respond to my challenge. And this time you post a page or two of Holding's arrogant nonsense and pretend that to be a suffient response to my challenge? Go back and read my challenge again, sonny, and then get a clue.
You are now reduced to saying that what the Church Fathers said is "arrogant nonsense"??? Hahahahaha
Your knee-jerk reaction prevented you from noticing that I went a lot farther back than J.P. Holding this time.
As a one-armed boat-rower all you can do is go in circles. I'm hopping out of your boat now. Bye, bye.
>>>You are now reduced to saying that what the Church Fathers said is "arrogant nonsense"??? Hahahahaha<<<
Quit being so childish. You can't respond to my challenge because you have no proof whatsoever that I either criticized the Bible, or claimed findings of contradiction or error in the Bible.
>>>"Your knee-jerk reaction prevented you from noticing that I went a lot farther back than J.P. Holding this time."<<<
If you wanted me to read something besides Holding, why did you put his self-righteous babble first? Unbelievable...
>>>"As a one-armed boat-rower all you can do is go in circles. I'm hopping out of your boat now. Bye, bye."<<<
Feel free to jump back in when you have a mature response, kid.
Your entire post is based on historical bias, all stemming from the heretic Cerinthus. Historians like Neander, whom you start the string with, were Amillennialsts. Of course, they interpret the premillennial view to be an abominable heresy.
However, its not what Neander and the other Amillennialists say, its what they don't say. For instance, they never tell their readers that Cerinthus was merely doing what heretics do, blending truth with error.
Cerinthus's millennial was a syncretism of something believed by the early Apostolic church, founded by Jews - Jews who's belief in an earthly messianic kingdom as per the OT was presupposed in the NT. Cerinthus simply made a Gnostic distortion out of it.
Cerinthus made Gnostic distortions out of other true beliefs of the early church, such as the virgin birth of Christ. Because he made a heresy of Christ are you going to throw out Christ also?
Neander singles out the millennial. Of course he does, it is to his advantage to do so to discredit Chiliaism.
Here's another example of historicial honesty in your supposed "proofs." Irenaeus. He was a Chiliast himself. Irenaeus was fully aware of Cerinthus' millennial. Yet Irenaeus himself believed in a future millennial. How so? He must have viewed Cerinthus' millennial as heretical, just like his view of Christ was heretical. Yet Irenaeus believed in both...so did Justin Martyr, whom you deceptively cite as though he were an amillinnialist.
correction: concerning your treatment of Ireneaus, I meant to say DIShonesty, not honesty in the following...
Here's another example of historicial DIShonesty in your supposed "proofs."
Some premillennialists had attempted to show that premillennialism was the "pervasive view of the earliest orthodox fathers." But many scholars have shown this to be false, including Boyd, D.H. Kromminga, Ned Stonehouse, W.G.T. Shedd, Louis Berkhof, and Philip Schaff. .... The early Church fathers, e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papius, admitted that there were many other Christians who were quite orthodox and not premillennial."..."
"... nowhere in the Bible is the King of kings ever pictured without His kingdom. In the Greek New Testament the word for kingdom, basileia, is more properly understood as "reign" rather than "realm" (this distinction will help us understand verses like I Cor. 15:25).
One of the features of an pre-millennial kingdom theology is that Jesus is King now but He has not yet received His kingdom. This is simply not supported in the scripture. On the contrary, we are told in the New Testament that many significant Old Testament passages having to do with the messianic kingdom were fulfilled at Christ's first coming. ...
The idea that the long-dead Roman empire must be revived in order to usher in a future messianic kingdom seems a fanciful tale for the weak-minded, and exhibits the fleshly thinking that got a earlier generation of Jews in trouble (cf. John 18:33-38). ....
The "1000 years" of Rev. 20 has but two characteristics.
a. Satan is bound from deceiving the nations.
b. the saints are living and reigning with Christ (no physical location specified, see my comments above on "reign" vs. "realm").
The rest of the New Testament makes it clear that both of these conditions are a present reality. (Matt. 12:29; Luke 10:17,18; Acts 26:18; Rom. 16:20; John 5:24,25; Eph. 2:5,6). ...." ~ Tom Albrecht - A postmillenialist (of which I'm not one).
"TBN Suspends Hal Lindsey Show"
Was this foretold in Revelation(s)?
Not so.
"..But who is the "true Israel"? Just as the Essenes would have answered, "we are", so Jesus, by implication throughout his ministry, announced that he was. Just as some of Josephus contemporaries had reinterpreted Daniel to fit their own situation (making the fourth beast into the Romans instead of Antiochus Epiphanes), so Jesus reinterpreted the book of Daniel (chs 2 and 7) so that he was the Son of Man, the true representative of the true Israel, and that the present Jerusalem hierarchy were the "fourth beast": he would build his temple and the gates of hell would not prevail against it." This explains why... " [snip] Clink link below to continue]
"... In Romans 11:25-28, Paul is clearly offering a deliberately polemical redefinition of "Israel", parallel to that in Galatians 6:16, in which the people thus referred to are the whole company, Jew and Gentile alike, who are now (as in chapter 4 and 9:6 ff), inheriting the promises made to Abraham. ..."
"...God's plan has always been to save the world through Israel; and in Christ it becomes clear that God, when making that plan, always intended that he would come himself to represent Israel in person. He called Israel to a task that he would eventually perform himself. Isaiah (59: 15-20) says as much. ..." ~ N.T. Wright
Source: N.T. Wright Page
Scroll down on the right side of the page to: Jerusalem in the New Testament
PS: I don't ride in the boats of "unskilled and unaware of it" (see #165) one-armed boat-rowers for long, so if you don't mind - I'm outta here. bttt
Matchett, you are preaching to the choir on the Israel of God. My position is non-dispensational, post-trib, Historic Premillennialist. On the identity of the elect, I agree with Amills. However, I strongly disagree with their, convoluted and unnatural interpretation of the millennial, Rev. 20.
I am not going to get into a knock down drag out heavy duty eschatological argument with you at the end of this thread. Hardly the place for it, besides, it is quite off topic.
But, state my position and leave it at that. The natural flow of the book of Revelation has the millennial following the defeat of the beast and false prophet at Armageddon, and following the bodily resurrection of the saved at the second coming of Christ.
I've read Amill attempts in dealing with this. I've read it all. In my opinion, no amount of gerrymandering on thier part can defeat the natural reading of Revelation. Including the gerrmandering of church history as you have so ably demonstrated.
Were Amills to admit that a Christian interpretation of the millennial following the second coming (as per Historic Premill), and not a Jewish interpretation of it (as per the Dispensationalist pre-tribs - whom Amills seem to think is the only alternative to their view), it makes the data fit handsomely.
And this without an unnatural force fitting of the millennial backwards into our current church age. Not to mention the very strained (convoluted in my opinion) interpretation of an ongoing resurrection and binding of satan in our present age.
You can have your knock-down drag-out with "the Man, himself", instead:
"...Jesus reinterpreted the book of Daniel (chs 2 and 7) so that he was the Son of Man, the true representative of the true Israel, and that the present Jerusalem hierarchy were the "fourth beast"..." More in # 173 above.
"The "1000 years" of Rev. 20 has but two characteristics:
a. Satan is bound from deceiving the nations.
b. The saints are living and reigning with Christ (no physical location specified, see my comments above on "reign" vs. "realm").
The rest of the New Testament makes it clear that both of these conditions are a present reality. (Matt. 12:29; Luke 10:17,18; Acts 26:18; Rom. 16:20; John 5:24,25; Eph. 2:5,6). ...." ~ Tom Albrecht - A postmillenialist (of which I'm not one, even though I agree with him here). More in #171 above.
I like them both. Joel Osteen is great to watch.
The ones I've seen on there are Steve "Sting" Borden, Mr. T, Tom "Tiny" Lister, Kirk Cameron, Stephen Baldwin, Randy Travis, and Smokey Robinson. Just to name a few.
A few others I like to watch are Frederick K.C. Price, T.D. Jakes, and Creflo Dollar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.