A religious cult has taken control of our Congress, and is attracting the votes of Orthodox Jews. Tonight I will be having dinner with my good friend, Mark Gall, who is a Jew. I used to take Mark’s mother to synagogue when she lived in Eugene. I may be the only Gentile at this dinner. Mark is in the bottom photo sitting next to our good friend, Ed Corbin, who married a Jew who was married to a member of the Rockefeller family. Ed and Mark attended Harvard at the same time, along with Tom Jones who was married to a Schlumberger. Ed’s ancestors on his mother’s side were important members of the Plymouth Brethren who gave birth the Evangelical cult who want to control the world.
Ed’s father suspected his daughter-in-law was a Cohen. If true, this would make Ed’s three sons, descendants of the priests of Israel. We are attending the showing of Cosmos Corbin’s film at the Hult Center with Bohemian types, some who were the Corbin’s homestead neighbors.
The Plymouth Brethren, John Darby & Francis Cavenagh
Three years ago I found the genealogy of Edward Corbin, the son of
Dr. Randal B. Corbin the head of the Mayo clinic. It was lying in a
decrepit box I had pulled from his storage room I was helping my
friend organize. Ed’s mother had sent it to him after his father
died. Ed’s mother’s maiden name was Wallace, she a descendant of this
famous and rebellious Scotsman.
As I glanced at it the name Plymouth Brethren caught my eye.
Engrossed I was reading about the Cavenagh family who were original
members of the Plymouth Brethren. This information was compiled by
Francis Cavenagh. I asked Ed if he knew what he had here? Being an
atheist he paid no attention to my excitement as I explained how
important this document was in regards to the founding of the
evangelical religion – and establishing a evangelical hegemony!
I told him Tim Lahaye was looking for all lost material on Plymouth
Brethren, and thus this might be a very valuable religious document –
especially when you know the evangelical took control of the
Congress, Senate, and White House. This is equivalent to a lost
Vatican document, a genealogy pf the founders of the Catholic church.
I told Ed;
“The Davinci Code is fiction, this is the real thing!”
I then tried to explain to him because his ex-wife was a Cohen, then
Ed’s three sons – who are Jewish – are candidates to serve in the
third temple the evangelicals say the Jews must rebuild so the
Rapture and End Times can take place. This is the teaching of John
Darby who was a Plymouth Brethren, and a good friend of John G.
When I got home I googled Cavanagh and Darby, and found a letter John
Darby addressed “My dear F Cavenagh,” I called up my good friend of
many years and told him about this letter Darby wrote that could make
his genealogy very valuable. Ed knew the nature of the book I was
authoring, that I claimed was “The real Davinci Code”. I asked him if
I could used this genealogy in my novel, and he said yes. Three days
later when I went to his house he said he could not find the
genealogy. I insisted he make a good search of his home – fearing he
might have thrown it out. When I returned several days later he told
me he may have given it one of his kids, or his ex-wife, Catrine. –
who as fate would have re-married a man who comes from a lineage of
Today, October 27, 2007, I came upon my blog that discussed this
genealogy that was posted, and re-googled F. Cavenagh, and found gold
when this incredible information was revealed. Francis Cavenagh and
her husband were very close to J.B. Bellet and his niece who complied
the letters of her uncle, who tells of an incident he had just before
his death. Apparently Bellet had a vision of Satan with Francis
Cavenagh in the room;
“‘Soon after Francis Cavenagh and I were left alone for the night, a
mist seemed to come round me like the mist of hell, and one was sent
to me. I thought I had known him before, he was clothed in white. He
denied the truth of Scripture. I took the Word in my hand, and bolted
one passage after another at him, but still he held his ground. “The
moral glories of Scripture a lie!” I said; “they are as true as
heaven and earth.” The temptation still continued; and I felt weak.
But I cried to the Lord for help; and gradually I rose out of the
mist into a calm atmosphere; and I was with my Evangelists again. But
it was dreadful while it lasted, That is a plain, unvarnished tale.’
The Dispensational Origins of Modern Premillennialism and John Nelson Darby
By Jack Van Deventer
The twentieth century has seen a dramatic paradigm shift in prophetic perspectives, first away from and now back toward its historic roots. This shift away from historic Christianity stemmed from a novel approach to Bible interpretation called dispensationalism which was developed in the 1830s and popularized with the 1909 publication of the Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensationalism, with its unique brand of premillennialism, has been thoroughly pervasive, being prominent in many churches, in bookstores, and among radio Bible teachers.
The distinguishing features of dispensationalism are a rigidly applied literalism in the interpretation of Scripture, a compartmentalization of Scripture into “dispensations,” and a dichotomy between Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists believe “this present world system . . . is now controlled by Satan” (not by God) and will end in failure and apostasy.
Dispensational premillennialists claim that their unique doctrines have been held since the early church, but these claims have been soundly refuted. Far from being the historic position of the church, premillennialism was described in 1813 by David Bogue as an oddity of Church history. Postmillennialism was the dominant eschatology from the Reformation until at least 1859.
The doctrine of a secret rapture was first conceived by John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren in 1827. Darby, known as the father of dispensationalism, invented the doctrine claiming there were not one, but two “second comings.” This teaching was immediately challenged as unbiblical by other members of the Brethren. Samuel P. Tregelles, a noted biblical scholar, rejected Darby’s new interpretation as the “height of speculative nonsense.” So tenuous was Darby’s rapture theory that he had lingering doubts about it as late as 1843, and possibly 1845. Another member of the Plymouth Brethren, B.W. Newton, disputed Darby’s new doctrine claiming such a conclusion was only possible if one declared certain passages to be “renounced as not properly ours.”
Sandeen writes, “this is precisely what Darby was prepared to do. Too traditional to admit that biblical authors might have contradicted each other, and too rationalist to admit that the prophetic maze defied penetration, Darby attempted a resolution of his exegetical dilemma by distinguishing between Scripture intended for the Church and Scripture intended for Israel. . . . Darby’s difficulty was solved by assuming that the Gospels were addressed partly to Jews and partly to Christians.”
Thus, the doctrine of the separation of Israel and the Church, the foundation of dispensationalism, was born out of Darby’s attempt to justify his newly fabricated rapture theory with the Bible. Dispensationalists believed justification for carving up the Scriptures came from 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) “rightly dividing the word of truth.” Subsequent dispensationalists divided the Scriptures in terms of categories of people: Jew, Gentile, and Christian. Chafer taught that the only Scriptures addressed specifically to Christians were the gospel of John, Acts, and the Epistles! Pettengill taught that the Great Commission was for the Jews only.
Scofield taught that the Lord’s prayer was a Jewish prayer and ought not be recited by Christians. Along with much of the New Testament, the Old Testament was described as “not for today.” Ryrie dismissed the validity of the Old Testament commands to non-Jews because “the law was never given to Gentiles and is expressly done away for the Christian.” Christians were even mocked as legalists for believing in the Ten Commandments! As other critics have observed, this segmentation of the Bible makes dispensationalism a Christianized version of cultural relativism.
Snowden and others traced the rise of modern premillennialism to a variety of religious splinter groups: the Plymouth Brethren (developed dispensationalism), the Millerites (became the Adventists), Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Pentecostals. Dispensational premillennialism was marketed the same way as the cultic groups.
First, historic Christianity was discredited by the claim that all the prominent commentaries, all the church fathers, and even the Reformers were deluded by “man-made doctrines.” Second, new revelation was claimed. Darby claimed to have received “new truth” or at other times “rediscovered truth” that had been lost since the apostles. Third, enthusiasm was whipped up on the pretense that Christ’s coming was imminent. Frequent false predictions did not seem to deter this enthusiasm.
Snowden cited increasing prophetic fervor in the early 1900’s rising from (1) a “fresh interest and zeal” in interpreting the “signs of the times,” (2) the Great War (WWI) which started a wave of prophetic speculation, and (3) “the fall of Jerusalem out of Mohammedan into Christian hands [which] has whipped the millennarian imagination up to its highest pitch of foresight and prognostication.” This background explains the widespread popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909, which had a dramatic influence in spreading dispensationalism. Many well-known scholars warned that the teachings of dispensationalism were “unscriptural” (Spurgeon), “heterodox” (Dabney), “bizarre doctrine” and “grievous error” (Warfield), but the warnings went largely unheeded.
Today, dispensationalism is in a theological turmoil, having declined sharply since the 1970’s because of mounting criticism. Grenz notes, “Dispensationalism today is in a state of fluidity. No longer are the rigid distinctives of the past held to with unswerving certainty. Many progressive dispensationalists are no longer certain as to exactly what are the defining tenets of the system that commands their allegiance.” [Permission Graciously Given by The Foundation for Biblical Studies]