"Christian" Mystic Bill Subritzky Dies in New Zealand

Subritzky was certainly a deceiver who did much harm in NZ (and in the UK via Ellel Grange deliverance centre which he was a co-founder of along with Peter Horrobin, who, with no valid scriptural grounds,(such as unrepentant adultery on her part) divorced his Christian wife and married another woman.

From his ecumenism to his promotion of Toronto to the clairvoyance he called revelation, to his promotion of the pseudo Christian witchdoctor TB Joshua, Subritzky now knows it was all a big lie that he swallowed and then regurgitated for the consumption of others. I did actually know Bill Subritsky (and his son Paul) through Barry Smith. Truth Watch, Moriel, and Philip Powell all warned him,(or tried to) but no one could ever tell such a man anything. If he would not listen to The Word of God, there was no one he would listen to. He was the commensurate mystic, conned into thinking he was hearing from The Holy Ghost. He deceived many, but in the end he now knows that he chiefly deceived himself. Ethical issues of finance were another dimension of the Bill Subritszky debacle.

We all have horror stories. I recall a young Kiwi believer named Colin who after being saved for only 7 weeks was taken by a friend to a Subritzky meeting in Palmerston North. Subritzky claimed a 'word of knowledge' that Colin's father was a homosexual pedophile who molested him as a baby and that Subritzky needed to cast 7 demons out of Colin. In actual fact, when Colin was a baby his dad was in a body cast and physically and sexually non-functional. The damage such counterfeit spirituality could do to a new believer, including destroying his relationship with his father, is stupendous. The damage done to so many young believers by Subritzky must be incalculable except to God.

Jacob Prasch

CORRECTION & APOLOGETIC REGRETS

MORIEL ISRAEL·WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2015

Some months ago an incorrect statement was made by Jacob Prasch on the April 2015 Prophecy Update on Moriel's Face Book page.

Following an itinerary in the UK by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, whose ministry Ariel  Moriel & Jacob Prasch strongly endorse, the phraseology used by  Arnold on one of his teachings led to a misunderstanding among several  people that Arnold had altered his position on the timing of the Rapture.  This however was not the case and what was reported by us was a  mistake for which we expressed our apologetic regrets both to Arnold and  to our readers.

Arnold's view is indeed  unusual and unlike most pretrib brethren known to us, he holds that  the Great Tribulation, and not necessarily the Rapture, cannot take  place until the church knows the identity of the Antichrist. He does not believe the Rapture cannot take place until the Antichrist is  revealed , and this is what led to the confusion in the UK, as most British  Pretrib advocates equate the identification of the Antichrist with the  onset of the Great Tribulation; as do many in the USA and elsewhere.  Thus, a variation of the belief in imminency is held by Arnold who is Pretribulational, although his particular position on the Antichrist needing to be identified before the Great Tribulation lent itself to  being misconstrued. His position as explained in his book is in fact  clearer.

Jacob instructed that the clip be  removed once we were made aware of the error by the Ariel office in  Texas. Unfortunately, somehow the former team member suffering from  multiple sclerosis took ill and had to be replaced for medical reasons  when she was hospitalized. Her replacement, not familiar with the  situation, may have rebooted the entire page inadvertently reposting it.  As it stood, without  anyone realizing it - the corrected version ("A  House Divided") was removed, and the original clip containing the error  was re-posted! It has only come to our attention today and will be  corrected again immediately.

We once again can only yet again express our apologetic regrets for this embarrassing mishap.
Moriel  & Jacob  continue our  endorsement of Dr. Fruchtenbaum's  ministry and we suggest our  readers visit his Ariel website as a  recommended link. His books are indeed well worth reading, most  especially 'Israelology'. While Arnold's rather unique perspective on  the timing of the Rapture appears to be found somewhere between what  most Pretribulationists believe and our own Intra-Seal position, he  does nonetheless remain in the Prettribulational camp and we regret any misunderstandings to the contrary. It was an error and the  responsibility for the error is primarily ours although we were unaware  of it. We were sure it was redressed in April of 2015, not knowing it  became re-posted in the change of personnel.

Jacob has been on  medical leave since September, only able to do short spurts of work and  had no idea of  the error as neither did the new Facebook maintainer.

An updated version of "A HOUSE DIVIDED" will be re-filmed in the near future.
Sincerely in Christ,

Moriel

War is Declared

In a strange parallel to the departure of peace from Europe and the US; it has now also gone from the Premillennial and pro-Israel community as well. Few can be unaware by now, that the disagreement over timing of the Rapture went nuclear at the recent Berean Call Conference. Dr Paul Wilkinson of Prophetic Word Ministries International dropped the "H-Bomb" during his rebuttal of the Left Behind or Led Astray DVD, stating that those who do not agree with his Pretribulational Rapture position are holding to "terrible heresy". I know Jacob and others have addressed some of the points raised by Dr Wilkinson, but no one as yet seems to have covered this one, so I thought it good to include it in this bulletin.

It is not wrong to state one's position with passion, but laying aside the personal accusations made there, which are a separate issue; I am not sure that Dr Wilkinson, (who stands by and will not withdraw his heresy accusation) truly understands biblically what the term heresy means, or its implications, or he would not have used it in such an uninformed and offhand manner.

1. What actually is Heresy anyway?

Heresy has been defined in three main ways:

Denial of the fundamentals of the faith as laid down in the the Creeds. The wording of the historic Creeds is very specific, they were formulated as a standard of orthodoxy in response to heresy. Such a definition, however, is inadequate, as it only holds good in the areas covered by the Creeds, and because some later confessions of faith such as the Westminster Confession contain calvinistic elements that many would regard as defective or seriously erroneous at best and the logical implications of which are even blasphemous, as they impugn God's holy character.

Denial of prevailing orthodoxy. This is how most dictionaries would define it, but such a definition only holds good as long as the Church is in good shape doctrinally. Particularly in the Dark Ages and the Inquisition, the prevailing orthodoxy was actually anti-Scriptural, as Christianity had became Christendom and drifted away from any biblical moorings. After all, what kind of orthodoxy bans you from translating or reading the Bible on pain of death?

Denial of what is explicitly taught in Scripture. Of the three definitions, of course this is the most important. Scripture is our ultimate and final authority and the basis for any and all doctrine.

2. Heresy Doesn't Happen By Accident.

Heresy is not a difference of opinion on some subject or even merely possessing erroneous ideas about something: all of us have had at one time or another some wonky notions, particularly when we were young in the Lord, thankfully most of these are ironed out as we mature in our knowledge of the Scriptures and of the faith; however, heresy is not these. Heresy involves the will and is about a choice:--it involves demonstrably false doctrine, wilfully and persistently held to, in defiance and rejection of admonition from the clear teaching of the Scriptures. Consequently, heresy is not something that happens to a Christian by accident; it is a way that one has chosen to follow, therefore, someone who is teaching heresy, is by definition a heretic; thus, by his employment of the term heresy, Dr Wilkinson has implicated all who do not hold to his Secret Pretribulational Rapture Theory as heretics.

Scripture teaches us to shun heretics and keep our distance, because they are uncorrectable.

"A man that is an heretic (or factious) after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

Heresy is the stock-in-trade of false teachers, who no longer love the Lord Jesus and whose end is destruction.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

In actual fact Dr Wilkinson is not the first in the Pretribulational Rapture Theorist Camp to make this kind of accusation, he is merely imitating, in a more emotionally-charged manner, what Tim LaHaye, the guru of Leftbehindism stated in his 1999 book Revelation Unveiled:

This promise, however is to the church of Philadelphia: she will be raptured before the Tribulation begins. It seems difficult to understand why some false teachers suggest that the Church must go through the Tribulation in view of this clear-cut statement of our Lord.

Be that as it may, we can see from the book of Acts that this does not refer to someone who has merely preached something a bit "off" once in a while, or whose understanding or grasp of something is immature.

Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures.  This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately. 

Apollos hadn't got everything perfectly right, so Priscilla and Aquila took him aside and straightened things up. They didn't label him a a false teacher or heretic because his understanding of the Gospel was incomplete. A real false teacher or heretic on the other hand, is someone who is persistently promulgating demonstrably unbiblical and destructive false doctrine, and who refuses to be corrected. It is someone who has gone "off the rails" altogether; which is why Paul counsels Titus to reject (shun or avoid) such people after they have refused two admonitions. This effectively means disfellowshipping or excommunication.

Scripture also defines false teachers as wolves:

Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.  I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock;  and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.  

In the Old Testament, when used of people, wolves depicts those who mercilessly exploit or plunder others for their own gain or advantage. It is used particularly in two excoriating condemnatory addresses against Israel's national and religious leadership (Eze. 22:23-31 & Zep. 3:1-4.).

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.  By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.  Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

When we take heresy in its biblical definition; Dr Wilkinson, by his declaration of all eschatological views other than his own to be terrible heresy; has in actual fact labelled all who do not teach the Pretribulational Rapture Theory as heretics, false teachers and wolves, exploiters of the Body, workers of iniquity, who await only the Lord's judgement and destruction, fit only to be shunned and avoided by other believers.

Heresy is not something about which believers can ever remain neutral, Scripture commands us to separate from heresy, and shun those who wilfully propagate false teaching: thus, biblically speaking, Dr Wilkinson's heresy charge, if taken seriously, is also a call to Pretribulational Rapturists to excommunicate those who do not endorse their eschatological theory.

3. Is Non-Pretrib Actually Heresy?

Can Dr Wilkinson demonstrate that Post-tribulationism or Prewrath contradict any of the historic creeds, Apostolic, Athanasian, Nicene? Absolutely not.

Can Dr Wilkinson demonstrate that Pretribulationism was ever part of the orthodoxy of the Church, particularly the immediate Post-Apostolic Church? I am sure like other Pretribulation Rapture theorists he would love to be able to do that, but he is confronted by a deeply embarrassing silence for the first 1800 years of Church history in regards to anything that could be taken as as serious evidence of a Pretribulation Rapture. They proclaim Pretrib as a "lost" doctrine rediscovered by John Nelson Darby, but for something to be rediscovered, it has to be proved to have previously existed as part of the Apostolic deposit of faith once delivered to the saints, which they can not do. Without Scofield's (a convicted felon and con-man) insertion of Darby's errors into the very pages of Scripture itself, Pretrib would have remained the crank teaching of a tiny self-excommunicating cult-group. So the "rediscovery" claim is, on their part, wishful thinking at best, and downright deceit at worst, because they have no basis for such a pronouncement. Pretribulational teachers that are claiming definitive Pretrib support from Early Church history or that it is an orthodox doctrine that was "lost" are selling their listeners timeshares on Mars.

Can Dr Wilkinson demonstrate by sound exegetical process that Pretribulationism is clearly and unambiguously taught in Scripture? The fact that he could not do so in either his video or written rebuttal is very telling indeed.

The grounds of his accusation of "terrible heresy" are that non-Pretrib eschatologies place the Church in the Seventieth Week of Daniel, because the Seventieth Week is decreed for Israel and the city of Jerusalem, but his reasoning here is a non-sequitor. Yes, indeed, the Seventieth Week is decreed upon Jerusalem and the Jewish people, but it does not follow that it does not affect the Church, for a great number of very important reasons, just one of which I will list below.

Dr Wilkinson's position makes the assumption that God can not deal with Israel and the Church at the same time.

Firstly this concept is nowhere found in Scripture; it is one of those vaporous presuppositions upon which Pretribulational Rapture theorists build their castles in the air. Secondly God was dealing with Israel after the New Covenant was inaugurated and after Pentecost, (which is assumed by dispensationalist to be the birthday of the Church) and even more so now after 1948, Israel is a nation once more and the Church is still here. Thirdly it could even be argued that God has never stopped dealing with Israel, that the very fact of their judicial hardening and exile among the nations and the preservation of the Jewish Remnant is evidence of that.

Things decreed or ordained explicitly for Israel actually have massive relevance for the Church.

Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

Nowhere will you find in Scripture that the New Covenant was made with the nations or the "Church". It is made specifically with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. According to Dr Wilkinson's rigid and over-realised demarcation, the New Covenant should have no relevance to the Church because it is "Jewish" and appointed to the nation of Israel. The fact is however, Scripture records that the Gentiles are graciously included in this promise given to the Jewish people.

Secondly the Apostle Paul makes it quite clear in Ephesians that Gentile believers now occupy the following position:

Joined with the Jewish Messiah,

Of the commonwealth of Israel,

Partakers in the covenants of the promise, sharing in the hope of Israel.

Made nigh in the blood of the Messiah.

Part of the one new man created from Jew and Gentile.

Reconciled along with Jewish believers unto God.

Sharing a common access [with Jewish believers) through the Spirit to the Father

No more strangers and sojourners,¹ but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,

Built upon the foundation of the [Jewish] apostles and prophets,

Fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

Dr Wilkinson's eschatology is wrong, because his ecclesiology is wrong. Though it is beyond the scope of this article to enter into great details on the doctrine of the Church, very briefly it could be said thus: that the "Church" is really nothing other than an expansion and development of the saved remnant of Israel. Paul makes it absolutely clear that when a Gentile comes to faith he is plugged into the wonderful promises and destiny that God has intended for Israel; he comes to share in what Paul calls the commonwealth of Israel, thus as part of the remnant he shares in its relationship to the nation of Israel as a whole. So, like the remnant which he has now joined, he is distinct from unbelieving Israel, but not separated from it, he shares the same connection with it as does the rest of the Remnant. He does not become a Jew, or cease to be a Gentile, but he is now of the seed of Abraham by faith (Gal. 3:29). If then, a Gentile believer is part and parcel of the commonwealth of Israel, of Abraham's seed, a fellow-heir of the promise, and of one body with the Remnant of Israel and part of the nation that would render the vineyard's fruit in its season, then it stands to reason that he must also share in what befalls that Remnant also, for example in Revelation 12:

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

So then we see on all three counts, the Ancient Creeds, Historic Orthodoxy and faithfulness to Biblical Truth, Dr Wilkinson's charge of heresy is all flurry and fluff, without substance, an ill-advised and emotional venting, which while it played to the pretribulational gallery at Berean Call, does not correspond to any biblical definition of the term heresy at all.

4. Dr Wilkinson's Controversial Remarks on the Trinity.

I am making no accusations and have no desire to; if however, Dr Wilkinson had pointed the finger at himself instead of accusing others, he might have found more grounds for his accusations, because he is certainly encroaching on the areas covered by two of the definitions.

In regards to Historic Orthodoxy; his castigation of the Post-Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers for their faults in order to discredit their eschatological testimony, was in itself, a tacit admission of the fact that they were post-tribulational to a man, and that a post-tribulational eschatology was actually stated to be part of Christian orthodoxy in that period; and Dr Wilkinson brought forth no evidence to demonstrate Pretribulational Rapturism was ever widely accepted among Evangelical Orthodoxy until very recently (and even that mostly geographically isolated to the USA). Rest assured, could he have done so, he most certainly would have.

In regards to Biblical Support, the most important category of all; in place of an exegetical argument, Dr Wilkinson presented us with this:

Well yes, I would agree that there is not one verse of Scripture to prove the Pretrib Rapture Theory", as he put it, . . . doctrine. Erm . . . I don’t believe he should have said that, had no need to say that. It's a none argument. Are you going to give me one verse of Scripture that proves that God the Father, that the Father is God and the Son of God and the Spirit is God, is that what we are about, proof-texting like the Jehovah's Witnesses? No we have the full counsel of God the progressive revealed Word of God to our hearts and so when you are talking about like the Rapture or the Trinity or whatever it is, you pull in lots of Scriptures.

The doctrine of the Trinity, so fundamental to biblical Christianity, cannot be proved by quoting a single verse of Scripture! Joe Schimmel is making a non-argument. We are not Jehovah’s Witnesses hanging our theology on proof-texts, but Evangelical Christians seeking to show ourselves approved by studying the whole counsel of God, from Genesis to Revelation. As we do so, we discover that many of the precious truths of the Christian faith, including the doctrine of the Trinity and the Rapture of the Church, are progressively revealed.

I am convinced that Dr Wilkinson was not paying any attention to what was said on the Left Behind or Led Astray video he was rebutting. Pastor Joe Schimmel was not asking for merely one isolated proof-verse to support Pretrib. It was clear throughout the presentation that what was required was more broadly defined:

We had offered 10,000 USD to anyone who could show just one clear teaching proving that Jesus returns in a Pretrib Rapture . . . . Can you show us one scripture that clearly teaches Jesus Christ comes before the Tribulation to rapture the Church? It was not just average believers who could not give us clear Scripture teaching the Pretrib Theory . . . . to ask Colin LeNoury if there was one clear verse or passage of Scripture that taught the Pretrib Rapture . . . . When we asked Colin for one verse or passage . . . .

Dr Wilkinson is trying to eat his cake and have it here. He rails on proof-texting, but then actually uses parts of Daniel as proof-texts for his claim that those who teach that the Church is present on earth during the Tribulation are teaching "terrible heresy"! The fact is, that there is nothing wrong with a proof-text, providing it is in context. He also seems to misunderstand the term "progressively revealed," as being akin to non-contextual, or inferential, something which it absolutely does not mean.

And this is really what lies at the heart of this matter of the Trinity and why Dr Wilkinson is so in error to equate the doctrine of the Trinity with that of the Pretribulational Rapture Theory. The doctrine of the Trinity rests on passages of Scripture which in context either explicitly state or unavoidably imply, to any honest mind, one or more of the propositions underlying the doctrine.

For example, Jesus explicitly states his divinity on a number of occasions in John's Gospel and it is clear from the response of the Jewish authorities that he was making such a claim. He is worshipped as God, seen as co-equal with the Father and one with the Father, the Father, Son and Spirit share the same one name, the Holy Spirit is revealed to be divine and personal not a mere force, etc. There is no need to read presuppositions into these texts to make them say this; these passages, in context, speak for themselves. We could fill a small book with them to exegetically demonstrate the undergirdings of this precious truth of Scripture.

Pretribulationism on the other hand can offer nothing like this, as was so vividly illustrated by Pretrib gurus own admissions in "Left Behind or Led Astray," and their constant scrabbling for pretexts, be they ever so slim, on which to hang their theory, a pastime which frequently involves outrageous historical revisionism (to try and read Pretrib into Early Church history) and the adoption of a thoroughly dishonest hermeneutical methodology that is completely at variance with any and all of their claim to "literal interpretation".

5. Something More Than a Spat.

Consequently Dr Wilkinson's response to Left Behind or Led Astray's reporting of these Pretrib Leader's admissions (that the Scriptures do not, as such, teach Pretrib, and that it is a doctrine derived solely from inference); --was not to present us with clear biblical teaching for the Pretribulational Rapture Theory, but instead to hermeneutically downgrade the precious doctrine of the Trinity; to claim it has the same wretched basis and paucity of scriptural support as their beloved theory; and thus effectively to debase the Trinity doctrine, as Jacob puts it,--to the status of mere opinion. This is why this issue is no mere "strife about words" or a spat between preachers, but an extremely serious one. Dr Wilkinson's remarks about the Trinity are so dangerous, not because he himself actually denies the doctrine, (it is clear from his written rebuttal that he does not) but because they are a wide open door to those who do and will; because to put the Trinity on the same basis as Pretrib, is to, in effect, assert that the Scriptures do not actually teach it, thus undermining it altogether.

The same downgrading is being applied to the scriptural and historic testimony of the Body to other doctrines as well, as leading Pretribulational Rapture theorists labour to degrade hermeneutical standards to make their theory sound acceptable. We may remember the reckless remarks of Thomas Ice who on the December 2014 Berean Call Radio Show, not only said the same thing; (and was endorsed in it by T.A. MacMahon) but also threw in some historically inaccurate and wildly irresponsible utterances about Justification by Faith and the Atonement as well², all while plugging the lethal "Apostasy equals Rapture" doctrine with which certain Pretrib Rapture theorists are currently intoxicated, and which, sadly, Dr Wilkinson includes in his book "Understanding Christian Zionism".

The Rebuttal Fiasco, the Berean Call endorsement of the Trinity Doctrine Downgrade, Apostasy Equals Rapture, undermining of other core doctrines, etc. all these are unsettling individually, but taken together they are an alarming indicator of the underlying rot and putrefaction within Pretrib.

6. The Core of the Matter

Dr Wilkinson's claims about the doctrine of the Trinity, have exposed very publicly the real contention between the Pretrib Camp and the Post-Trib or Prewrath teachings, which is actually not about the timing of the Rapture at all, but is everything to do with the tortuous and unsound hermeneutical methods by which Pretrib theorists arrive at their position. Though by no means perfect, the Post-Trib, Intra-Trib and Pre-Wrath, are at least attempts to work out an eschatology based on clear and in context or explicit statements of Scripture. Leaders from these three camps would stress that there is much that we "see through a glass darkly;" but the basic premise that the Church will go through the Tribulation is based on a literal exegesis, backed up also by nearly 2000 years of Church history. The Pretrib doctrine on the other hand, has to resort to a handling of the Scriptures kith and kin with cult-groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, including denial of what Paul and Jesus explicitly state. Small wonder that one of the commentators in Left Behind or Led Astray described Pretrib as a doctrine "characterised by deceit". These kind of violations of the Scripture text and the manifest errors it engenders, are what the early opponents of Darby, like B. W. Newton, S. P. Tregelles and others raised their cry against, and they, in an interesting parallel to our own times, were also castigated as heretics, and relentlessly hounded and demonised by Darby for standing up to his unbiblical novelties; but they stuck to the Word, as one of their number, the famous George Muller put it:

"My brother, I am a constant reader of my Bible, and I soon found that what I was taught to believe did not always agree with what my Bible said. I came to see that I must either part company with John Darby, or my precious Bible, and I chose to cling to my Bible and part from Mr. Darby." 

Sadly, recent events show us, that within the Pretrib Camp, some are, at present, making the opposite choice.

1 The phrase strangers and sojourners corresponds to the O.T. Hebrew words "gerim" and "toshavim," non-Jews who while dwelling among the children of Israel, were not permitted to eat the Passover or partake of the holy things or enter the inner Temple courts. Paul is basically saying that Gentile believers do not have second-class standing, but are on an equal basis with a full pass into all the benefits and privileges promised to Israel.

2 See "Theological Propanganda" in Mar. 2015 Moriel Bulletin or go to http://morielisrael.blogspot.co.il/2015/03/theological-propaganda-introduction-to.html