Hi, Yeehaah.

I am curious to know of any reasons why (some?) RF members believe that the current queen (Elizabeth II) will be the last one before the return of Jesus. Likely as not because the RF, in common with all the Revivalist sects, believes the world will end anytime now. I understand basic core teaching of British Israel, but I fail to see how it addresses the issue above, but if it does then please enlighten me. It doesn't. BI is naught but a poorly cobbled together fable.

I remember when Dianna died it was big news through the church.  I remember someone saying that she had no right to the throne. But Charles does, and she was divorced from Charles when she died anyway, so I don't see what the big deal is. Indeed.

Is there some other prophecy which supports the theory of Elizabeth II being the last? Nope. There's nothing scriptural, historical, geneaological or factual that supports any of the BI nonsense. I have also heard of the theory she is the 143 monarch, with Jesus to be no. 144 with the whole '144' perfect government thing - but even if this is true it seems hardly enough to base doctrine on. It's not (either true, or sufficient grounds for any sort of defensible doctrine).

Blessings,

Ian

 .... BI has absolutely NO BASIS in fact whatsoever ...

                   What is appalling is that ALL RF and RCI overseer wannabees have to agree to this nonsense in order to become an overseer. And I am embarrassed that I once swallowed it myself without going the extra mile and doing my own reference  and research of the facts. What a goose I was..


blessings

Eric ..

Hi Eric,

Revivalists by and large allow themselves to be led into accepting such as BI purely on the Pastors' say so Simple as that. 

Revivalists are told to read their bible but few do their own reference and research for fear of "getting it wrong" or risk the disapproval of the pastor if they do and the conclusion drawn is outside the parameters of Revivalist beliefs.

So BI is swallowed the same as references to (got the) Spirit has to equil tongues.  Verses with words such as voice, sound, wind, stammering, groanings etc are, where possible, twisted to add extra support/evidence to the Spirit/tongues stand.  Even the man without the wedding robe in Matthew 22 has been said to be the one who didn't speak in tongues.

I notice BI is still going strong in both RCI and RF sites.  The RCI features the British Coat of Arms with the question "Does its heraldry resonate with Bible identifications"  The RF give more BI detail and they include an anti racism statement.

Regards

Epi

Hi Again,

Spelling correction - should read 'equal'.

Epi

Good morning, Epi.

It beggars belief that certain otherwise sane Revivalist pastors brook faith in the British Israel faerytale. Their fascination with 'tongues' is almost understandable, it being something that is subjectively apprehended. But 'BI' claims to being objective historical fact, and then despite being decidedly a-historical, and completely devoid of any correspondence with past reality!

The GRC is probably the sect that's most public in voicing the position that 'BI' is central to God's plan of 'salvation'. However, as Drew Dixon once pointed out to me 'British Israel is the glue that binds all Revivalist doctrine together', and this remains true whether one is considering Hollins' theological lunacy or Longfield's. Finally, whilst the '1-2-3' step, tongues-based nonsense is the most cherished belief among lay members, 'BI' probably functions as the beating heart for a majority of the Oversight ;)

Blessings,

Ian