Clarifying a difficult situation…Jacob P and David N

I would like to clarify a few misconceptions about my position on the dispute which has arisen over the issue of David Nathan’s teachings and Moriel ministry.

  • It has been erroniously reported that the reason I backed out of the Moriel Scotland conference that I was graciously invited to, was because of the way David Nathan has been treated by Moriel.  This is not true.  I backed out for personal reasons which had nothing to do with the controversy.
  • I do not agree with David’s teaching on the sacrifices in the Millenium. I have always objected to them, and was hopeful that David would clearly repudiate them, especially the two statements, “The Blood of Jesus will not profit anyone in the Millenium” and perhaps even worse, his teaching that blood sacrifices will be offered in the Millenium which are by no means memorial! David is emphatic on that point. In my view that is a very clear heresy.
  • I did ask David to clear this up, challenging him to do a point by point clarification of his doctrine.
  • I have tried to keep my involvement in this affair limited, in a loving and professional way.But I do percieve I must now speak out.
  • This is a tragedy, I consider David and his family as dear friends, and of course my friendship with Jacob is longstanding. None of this is about friendships or personal relationships.David my prayers are going up for you, and have done what I have done to help, I thought you could easily clear this up.
  • But this has to be objectivley approached, the doctrine of Salvation and of the blood of Jesus is more important than any of us. I see why Jacob had to distance himself and Moriel from David’s teaching and sincerely wished we would have vetted a lot more thoroughly.
  • I have also tried to avoid descending into the name calling, rancor and outright division which have been displayed by many on either side of this debate.It is not a problem to me that Christian ministers have differences in doctrine and even that they argue over doctrine. This is healthy and in my view very productive. It is only the party spirit and rancor which is unseemly which is objectionable.
  • I hurt for the many who have come out of heretical churches, and thought they were utterly safe in the circle of teachers who have offered a critique of the modern church and its errors. Perhaps this is the main lesson we can glean from this….we can never rely on anyone or any group of ministries, we all must maintain the posture of the Bereans until Jesus comes back.
  • Thank God for these ministries God has provided us in this time of Spiritual Famine, but never ever let down your guard. We are all still pilgrims, and have here no permanent resting place.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Clarifying a difficult situation…Jacob P and David N

  1. Amber simpson says:

    👍

  2. God bless you my brother for holding together a love for truth and a love for brethren with integrity. This is something I pray the Lord work in me. I do not think I am alone in saying that, without putting you on any pedestal and making an idol of you, you have been a great example to the body to seek to emulate in these perilous times where both truth and love of the brethren are under attack. God bless you my brother and the Lord bless your ministry.

  3. DMarie says:

    “Perhaps this is the main lesson we can glean from this….we can never rely on anyone or any group of ministries, we all must maintain the posture of the Bereans until Jesus comes back.”

    So true!! We must remain “sober and alert” as Jesus warned us many times… our enemy is prowling around seeking whom he may devour. None of us are above falling for his schemes from time to time. May we all keep humble hearts – and the love of the Truth! Until the end!!

    Jesus MUST remain our first love, or we will be deceived.

    (So good to hear from you again 🙂

  4. Treena Gisborn says:

    WORK or WALK?

    Moriel Scottish Conference title: Work while you have the light… “for night is coming when no one can work.” The verse: “WALK while you have the light..” (John 12:35).

    So Jesus said to them, “For a little while longer the Light is among you. Walk (περιπατέω) while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. (John 12:35).

    περιπατέω = I walk, hence Hebraistically (in an ethical sense): I conduct my life, live.

    Half of verse John 9:4 –

    “for night is coming when no one can work.” . John 9:4 the “works” Jesus refers to are his miracles? i.e. the miracle of healing the man born blind:

    1As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” 6Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud 7and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing. (John 9:1-6 cf. John 4:34).

    This is what we are up against with Prasch… he cleverly replaces just one word scripture and tags on half a verse – he then integrates it in within his demonic end time teaching!

    Prasch systematically denies the gospel and the ministry of the Holy Spirit during the 70th week of Daniel with his intra-seal deception. Intra-seal is just as much heresy as David Nathan’s teaching about the blood of Jesus during the millennium.

    We have two different accounts about what actually happened at the beginning of this problem when Moriel ditched David Nathan. One of these accounts is obviously not true! Having read the emails between them, it seems doubtful that Prasch communicated with Nathan in clear terms, hence David Nathan’s continual requests for a meeting.

    Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. (Galatians 6:7 cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7)

    • RLV says:

      My thoughts are that the conference title was referencing John 9:4 and that as disciples of Christ we should be doing the same, i.e. working while we have the light.

    • Jeannette Parry says:

      Who are the actual deceived ones here?

      Maybe all of us. “Smoke and mirrors” are favourite enemy tactics (2 Cor 2:10-11)

  5. Lisa says:

    I confess I don’t see what all the fuss is about. I think I agree with David on this issue, for a few reasons. The first being that Jesus will rule with iron in the Milennium. That to me says the Millenium will be different from grace.

    The second being what Paul teaches in Romans. That the Gentiles were grafted in because of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews and we are grafted in to make the Jews jealous…which I think we have made them jealous and also annoyed them.

    But I also think about the church age ending, this seems to be a very definite time period when people can be saved by the blood of Jesus. That when the last person believes then God turns again to deal with His chosen people the Jews. I don’t believe that the period of grace was intended to last forever because of that.

    I think that this issue has been blown out of proportion by Mr. Prasch but then again he seems like the kind of person who only knows how to blow things out of proportion…

  6. Mark Robins says:

    Well said Bill, I think that the problem is one of humility, nobody takes the lectern in our fellowship unless they agree to be challenged/corrected on any doctrinal point that falls outside of the pail; and I believe that David Nathan’s teaching on the blood is outside of recognized orthodoxy, we should all have the mind of Christ and be willing to submit to the Word, a person who repents of something that he has said/taught; to me, speaks volumes about their character; and is nothing to be ashamed of. There’s not many of us who can say that we haven’t changed our positions on certain doctrinal points over the years, surely we are not arrogant enough to say that any individual has become the harbor of all truth, yes we are fixed in the fundamentals; but there are many fringe things we can debate/discuss in an attitude of brotherly love, and repenting when we see that we have slipped up must be the way forward.
    Blessings to all at the B.I.G. fellowship
    Mark Robins
    Elder/Pastor
    Berean Christian Fellowship
    South Wales

  7. I’m afraid many (newer) Christians today have been fed only milk and not the meat of the word of God; they have not been taught to become lovers of the Truth instead of lovers of men. This means they are offended when their favourite minister/teacher are, rightly, taken to task for aberrant teachings. Unfortunately our Western culture makes it more and more unacceptable to speak out strongly about anything and the Church seems to be following suit!
    It fills me with hope and joy to hear faithful (to the word of God) ministers speaking out boldly when it’s needed and necessary, in the face of much opposition and criticism; So Pastor Bill and Jacob keep on being bold and brave!

  8. G J says:

    Proverbs 12
    15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. 16 A fool’s wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame.

    Ecclesiastes 10
    2 A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left. 3 Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.

    12 The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself.

  9. Mark H says:

    I have no brief for David Nathan, I had never previously purveyed any of his teachings or been led to, but on the question of the millennium only, I think a lot of unnecessary damage has been caused.

    If no-one can be saved in the millennium due to a lessened consciousness of sin and the utterly different edenic conditions without satan (Prasch teaches this in his utube video on the matter), and therefore salvation has to wait until the end of the 1,000 years, it must be obvious to anyone that the eternally efficacious blood of our Lord Jesus cannot be applied until then. Therefore the statement “The blood of Jesus will not profit anyone in the millennium” would be a perfectly logical and correct statement to make. I see nothing theologically wrong with this, and it does not conflict in any way with the eternal efficaciousness of the blood of Jesus. It simply means that His eternal blood cannot be applied with any real meaning during the millennium, so the statement is true. What is the problem?

    But then, Bill Randles descends into hysterics, calling anyone who doesn’t think the millennial blood sacrifices are only a memorial, heretics! Wolves! False teachers! Like somehow they’ve desecrated the blood of Jesus!

    Calm down Bill. No-one has denigrated the wonderful everlasting blood of Jesus, since the animal blood is for temporary ‘covering’, not ‘saving’. Only the blood of Jesus can save, and in the time of Moses the animal blood was not for salvation, but for temporary atonement covering. The blood of animals could never save anyway, even in the time of Moses, so I see no conflict here with the blood of Jesus. If salvation in the millennium is not possible, then how do you think sin is temporarily atoned for during that period?

    As for the blood sacrifices being just a memorial, I find this hard to swallow. There is no scripture anyone can point to that states this, it is a neat, safe, non-controversial position that I think people take because they are afraid they are denigrating the blood of Jesus in some way if they don’t. But as I have shown above, there is no conflict with the everlasting efficaciousness of the blood of Jesus at all, because the blood of animals is not about ‘saving’ (and never has been), it is about a temporary covering, and in my view this temporary atonement covering will be needed again just for the period of the millennium.

    There is also the question of the fact that circumcision is also re-introduced (Ezekiel 44:9) and that would go against the gospel just as much as people think animal blood would. Then add to that the return of the Levitical priesthood (Ezekiel 44:10-16) which is also diametrically opposed to the gospel.

    It seems a great waste to me to go to all the massive effort of re-instituting the sacrificial system with priests, circumcision, and phenomenally huge amounts of blood shed over a thousand years, just for the sake of a reminder!

    But here’s something else to consider: whilst there is no verse stating the animal blood sacrifices are a memorial, there is a verse which states they are to do with acceptance by God – Ezekiel 43:26,27. “Seven days they shall MAKE ATONEMENT for the altar and purify it, and so consecrate it. When these days are over it shall be, on the eighth day and thereafter, that the priests shall offer your burnt offerings and your peace offerings on the altar; AND I WILL ACCEPT YOU, says the Lord God.”

    So it certainly seems from this that the altar, at the very least, was atoned for by the sprinkling of animal blood, and that God’s acceptance of the people was linked to this. Again, this is not salvific, animal blood can never do that, so could it be a non-salvific atonement to cover temporarily for millennial sins until satan is released, and the salvific can be applied once more?

    I am not presenting these thoughts as settled doctrine, I am simply pointing out a few things that need to be discussed calmly, and we should use scriptures to correct each other without going into a hysterical meltdown due to a false fear that the blood of Jesus is somehow being belittled. It isn’t. Which brings me to my final point.

    A man has had his life, ministry, family, and reputation severely damaged over this. I realise that there are other teachings of Mr Nathan that are questionable, but it was this particular issue that kicked everything off, and I think it is shameful of Jacob Prasch and Bill Randles to use it to brand a man a heretic and destroy him, when as I hope I have shown above, no heresy has actually been committed on this issue. You should hang your heads in shame, the body of Christ has been damaged and I for one prefer to walk away from all of you egos parading as so-called ‘teachers’ and follow 1 Thess 4:11.

    • billrandles says:

      Mark, I would like to answer to your criticisms of my position.First of all though I object to the sarcastic and disrespectful way you are addressing me and my readers. I am not hysterical nor do I need to be calmed down.I have treated David Nathan with respect and you have lied when you accused me of calling my friend David a wolf and a false teacher. You owe me and my readers an apology. Then perhaps we can talk.

      • Mark H says:

        Bill, thank you for your reply, I am sorry if you felt I was being sarcastic, such a sentiment was not in my thinking. You did say “In my view that is a very clear heresy” so it genuinely seemed to me you were in effect calling David a heretic. So I was not being sarcastic nor was I intentionally lying (not something I would consciously do).

        However, I do offer my apologies if you were offended and if I inadvertently misrepresented anything between you and David. I am glad you are dialoging with David. We are brethren in Christ and I pray the Lord will smooth the way forward and give wisdom in this affair.

        I look forward to hearing your own position explained, as I said in my post I’m not taking a fixed doctrinal position, we are all here to learn, discuss and question. One thing we can all agree on is that none of us would be anywhere without the precious sacrifice of our Lord Messiah Jesus on our behalf! Praise Jesus!

      • billrandles says:

        I accept your apology, altho it is hard to believe that telling a minister of God he is being “hysterical” and needs to calm down, when discussing serious issues, isn’t being sarcastic. I will answer your points soon Mark,but I pray you get real about the way you talk to others, you don’t even know me and neither do i know you.

  10. kim segar says:

    There is so much apostasy going on. and now anyone looking and staying in G-ds word can see it in many ways. I also remember how G-ds word says that some pulpits will get double punishment. If they would just quit taking scripture out of context and end up with pretext, but probably wont. so I just pray and thank G-d for you bill Randel’s.. so many just won’t listen and many are joining the cults, heartbreaking.. G-d bless you

  11. Stuart mills says:

    Thank you for your blogs I have recently removed all my prosperity books,tapes,dvds!been reading and listening to Jacob parish teachings
    I’m glad I came across you and Jacob
    And recently David hunt David Nathan I heard Jacob message on him on u tube and Just reading your response help me understand what was going on

  12. davidhnathan says:

    15th October 2018
    Dear Pastor Bill
    Thank you for the spirit in which your open letter has been written and the grace extended to me, to publically express my position and understanding of animal sacrifices and the Blood of Christ in the Millennium which has caused much unwanted consternation and strife amongst the brethren. This was never my intention and if I could, I would turn the clock back and do things very differently. I also want to apologise publicly if I appeared to come across in the teachings as arrogant and prideful as I certainly never intended be, for my desire is to reflect Jesus at all times although I am aware I often fall short.

    Sadly this unpleasant circumstance has exposed the hearts of numerous believers and many have brought a serious indictment against the Church of Jesus because of their conduct and responses, I do not exclude myself.
    For this, I cannot take the blame exclusively as there is a correct and biblical way to deal with disagreement and error which was not followed. I do not write this as a justification or a defence but rather as a warning that what has transpired between myself and Moriel must never be repeated again for sake of our testimony to the world and those of the flock who have been badly shaken.

    To begin with, I want to acknowledge that I made some very dogmatic statements which instead of giving emphasis to what I was try to explain, had the complete opposite effect and misconstrued what I was trying to convey. For this, I want to unreservedly and wholeheartedly apologise for.
    I am extremely grateful that you acknowledge that I do not teach that there is salvation except through the shed blood of Jesus and that the whole concern is regarding the Blood of Jesus and salvation in the Millennium alone.

    The statement which I should not have made but rather should have sought to express myself very differently and that folk have objected to is, “The Blood of Jesus will not profit anyone, anything in the Millennium.”
    In using this phrase, which I regret, I was not stating that the Blood of Jesus does not cleanse in all ages as this would be a clear violation of scripture. His blood alone can take away sin and every sacrifice from Genesis 3:21, when the Lord clothed Adam and Eve in tunics of skin to the sacrifices of the Millennium all point to Jesus. In the teaching I kept using the word atone to describe the purpose of the millennial sacrifices in the sense that they do not remove sin but cover sin. I reiterate again that I do not teach nor believe that the sin of an animal or animals can ever remove sin. Not under the Old Testament, not now nor in the age to come. Only the Blood of Jesus can remove sin both now and forever, including the millennium. This is and has always been what I have believed though I did not express it succinctly in the series on Eschatology.

    I only offer the above as an explanation of why I used the phrase and not as an excuse for trying to justify using it. I was wrong to use it as it does not, nor ever did convey what I actually believe regarding the eternal cleansing power of the Blood of Jesus which alone removes sin for all ages.
    I sincerely apologise for misrepresenting my beliefs and using a phrase that instead of explaining what I believed rather distorted them and led to confusion among believers and dissension between myself and Moriel Ministries. Moriel TV very unfortunately produced a highly edited video that took various statements that I had made out of context which only exasperated the issue. (They have done this on more than one occasion since Tim Wirth was replaced)
    The motive for this remains unclear as in response to my meeting with Jacob in May, Jacob Prasch himself admitted in an email dated 22 July 2018, and I quote, “The best I could gauge the situation personally was that he partially misrepresented his own actual beliefs in the manner he addressed an important theological issue and was to some degree misunderstood. David Nathan does subscribe to the Moriel statement of Faith that The Blood of Christ cleanses from all Sin.”
    I add this not as an excuse for poorly communicating my beliefs as already mentioned but rather to evidence that for reasons never disclosed, Moriel TV sought fit to produce a biased video that exaggerated the error out of context.

    I have already and will continue to re-edit these teachings to remove anything that contradicts what I have conveyed above.

    Regarding Moriel’s video comparing me to Benny Hinn in an old teaching I did in 2009. I want to state that I no longer believe what I taught and berate myself for still even believing that in 2009.
    I can categorically state that I absolutely do not teach this anymore and I have edited the video in question to reflect this and will go through old teachings to make sure that this does not appear. I have issued an apology already for this and gladly do it again.

    I do hope that this letter serves to remind us all that none of us is above correction nor do any one of us know all truth as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:12 but we are all to be teachable and be willing to learn. Where we err we must repent and apologise where necessary.

    Thank you Pastor Bill for making this platform available.

    May the Lord continue to mature us and keep us by His grace until we all come to the knowledge of the truth.

    Blessings in Jesus who alone bore our sins and purchased eternal life for them that will believe,

    David Nathan.

  13. Mark H says:

    Thank you David, an excellent letter that has blessed and helped me, and thanks to Bill for facilitating. I pray the for the peace of the Prince of Peace to continue to permeate this affair and guard our hearts, and apologise unreservedly if any of my own contributions here were unhelpful.

    • Issue was taken with David Nathan denying that Jesus blood will atone for millennial Jews and that the age of grace will have ended for them. Hence the idea that Jesus’ blood cleanses for all people of all dispensations is a Gentile invention. It is not the word of God. The issue was taken to task by Bill and Jacob that Millennial Jews must be saved and atoned for by Jesus’ blood. And now people are being told to accept that David Nathan never taught such a thing? That this is all taken out of context? I don’t think so. And I don’t believe that this must be a Jacob vs David Nathan issue. As we posted on a Facebook group I am part of:

      Even before Jacob became aware of these doctrinal issues with David Nathan’s teachings, others who are outside of Moriel had come across issues that were troubling. Someone had already started to reach out to David Nathan concerning one of those doctrinal issues in a brotherly and gracious way at the beginning of this year. He did not want to go down the line of accusing David Nathan of heresy but rather wanted to win him as a brother. (2 Timothy 2:24-25) (All to no avail.)

      It is regrettable that this argument has been framed as a Moriel vs David Nathan issue.

      We must always give credit to where credit is due and we rejoice that David Nathan’s retraction has sought to remove offending teachings from the internet and expressed a regret at unintentionally seeming arrogant. We feel that this has not been acknowledged sufficiently.

      However, with the exception of the notion that the anointing can be transferred through material (praise the Lord this has been retracted), it has failed to confess and correct the other false teachings. The retraction has made it explicit that David Nathan has always believed that Jesus’ blood saves eternally but has fallen short of confessing that he explicitly taught that Millennial Jews will not be saved by Jesus’ blood and new birth, (he still highlighted that this was the context of his original question to Jacob and Bill, stating this in his retraction) when David Nathan’s teaching was clearly unscriptural. (Deuteronomy 30:1-6; Zechariah 12:10; Jeremiah 31:31-35; Ezekiel 36:24-27; Romans 11:20-27). David Nathan clearly taught this and it would be disingenuous to try and argue that was a simple misunderstanding that only needed clarification. Neither has he, in his retraction, unequivocally affirmed that millennial Jews will be saved by Faith and Grace, by the blood of Christ and new birth, in the Millennium. He has also failed to reject his agreement with and promotion of the “slain in the spirit” phenomenon as something valid. Nor has he corrected his understanding that Satan was given a six thousand year lease by Adam and therefore it is illegal for God to step into the world except by man’s invitation, with the exception of a few things that God keeps to His sovereignty. This last point is word of faith doctrine, first promulgated by EW Kenyon and made popular by Kenneth Hagin in his book, “The Believer’s Authority”, even though we emphasize that David Nathan is AGAINST most of what word of faith teaches.

  14. Tom says:

    Hi Bill I agree with what you say. Thanks for saying it. I wish to say we all need to trust in Jesus in every way. God has given us teachers to teach but a teacher teaches so those who are taught can grow into to a people that can learn on their own with the Holy Spirit guiding them.To often we get lazy and let others do the all the work and all of a sudden we are led down the path of error. We are not all scholars but we are all filled with the Holy Spirit and He can give us understanding. This whole mess is something we can learn and grow from.

  15. Jeannette Parry says:

    Dear Brother Bill

    This is a grievous thing that has happened, and enormous damage has been done – especially to those young in faith or not fully grounded in Christ.

    But we can take comfort from Isaiah 40:10-11, 26 and Ezekiel 34:11-16. In the end, the Good Shepherd will gather in ALL His scattered sheep and care for them.

    The word that comes to mind is “An enemy has done this”. There is a lot more to this situation than meets the eye.

    Instead of taking sides let us ask the Lord to reveal what the REAL Enemy is up to and intercede accordingly.

  16. Anonymous. says:

    I’m trying incredibly hard to understand what is really going on here because it’s not making any sense at all.

    We are told that it’s not true that David Nathan believes that God the Father was not the creator and that any claims to the contrary are false and malicious in nature.

    Yet, there is actual audio of DN saying “Jesus Christ was the Creator. God the Father created nothing”.

    How many ways can that statement actually be understood by the average lay person?

    Can “God the Father created nothing” really mean “God the Father created everything” If it can, then how many people (given an honest hearing of that audio) would genuinely derive that meaning from those words?

    What did David Nathan intend for us to understand from those words when he said them?

    If David Nathan once believed his statement but now does not why not just say that? That would clear it up for most people.

    If he spoke in error and misrepresented himself why not just say? (We would all understand that, we all are 100% human and all make serious mistakes).

    Why say that his own audio is misleading when those are words he spoke himself?I

    It makes no sense.

    To make a mistake makes sense..to evolve in ones doctrine and change makes sense..but to say that you said something that didn’t actually mean what the clear meaning of the words dictates and to say that others are maliciously misrepresenting you for taking those words at face value is nonsensical.

    Please. Clear up what you believe. Tell us what you meant for those words to really mean. Then people would have a chance of understanding and perhaps this could be put to bed once and for all.

  17. Elaine Holm says:

    Have you noticed that this is what the false teachers often do? This is their tacitc to avoid detection. They say something strange and unbiblical (without realizing it themselves how shocking their unbiblical assertions sound to the believers who know the Word of God and who can not be so easily fooled) and when the false teachers get caught, they always try to either minimize the heresy and pretend “this was taken out of context” to change the meaning of what they “really” meant to say, or they were simply “misunderstood” by malicious critics or “they never really said it, somebody is making it up by editing their videoes” etc. They start explaining AWAY the plain meaning of their own words (spoken in full and clear sentences) to make us believe they did not really say what everybody else hears and understands they are saying and it is recorded in context.

    What they really do by using this tactic: They are playing with our minds (“mind games”, “crazymaking” etc.) and try to make us doubt our own judgment and perception. In this way they try to cover up their tracks. They want us to believe that something must be wrong with us – they are not heretics/false teachers, we are just “too critical” and unwilling to understand that what they say is right if only understood “in the right context”. In this way they can always play a role of a misunderstood victim, instead of owning up to the heretical teachings.

    Another tacitc used by them is simply not replying to specific accusations and not addressing the issues raised (the ones that are diffcult to explain away) or just talking in circles around them, never touching on the real point of contention in an honest manner. They will not admit to the charge of heresy even if what they said and repeated many times clearly was heretical.

  18. Kate Stevens says:

    Anonymous, your confusion will be a thing of the past if you read the new Open Letter that has been sent to David Nathan. It was definitely ordained of God. See: cambrjohn.wixsite.com/nathan

  19. madeleine says:

    Why have no one adressed the horrible way Jacob P attacked David N and Louis Erasmus?
    I LOVE both Jacob P and David N and think that they are both wonderful teachers. There is some stuff David said that I don’t agree with. But what Jacob (and Josh C) did in their videos and comments against David N and Louis Erasmus is very, very disturbing. Very disturbing

  20. Dear Bill – could we please just sort out this weird statement that keeps popping up for once and for all – if it really happened at all. I say that because neither I nor anybody else originally involved in hosting Moriel in Scotland EVER – not once – EVER confirmed you were even coming to Scotland, you told me early on that you weren’t coming – before it was ever even announced, and you told me the reasons.
    We all knew that David Noakes was speaking.

    So WHO has been causing mischief by bringing David Nathan’s name into it? None of us have ever heard the statement you refer to.
    It therefore leaves me no alternative other than to say that whoever told you such a thing is a liar. I would therefore like you to confirm (1) that it was James Prasch and (2) that he would therefore have brought my name into it somehow.
    For the last time, I know of NOBODY in Scotland who thought that or said that.

    • billrandles says:

      Thanks Deborah, It is a weird statement, so much has happened since then the has been so outrageous, that I cannot remember who told me that, but it wasn’t Jacob, because His was the Scottish conference I backed out of. Jacob had invited me to speak but I backed out of it. It was people who support David Nathan who said I backed out in protest of Jacob, I will try to remember who.

      • So sorry Bill but I’ve been informed that it was indeed Jacob who said that in an early video attacking us, saying it was on Global Vision TV at Gv247.tv .
        Which it wasn’t of course.
        It looks like more mischief making to bring division between us. Very sad…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s