The Jacob Prasch Files No.3: Prasch the “Malevolent and Breathtakingly Ungrateful Thug”

I have uncovered several rather eye-opening articles about Jacob Prasch from the late 1990s.  This is the third in the collection:

This one revolves around 2 emails Prasch sent during one week in March 1999 attacking his OWN Moriel USA volunteer Annie Rogers, and his OWN Moriel Australia volunteer and book publisher Henry Sheppard using faked information about them and an association with a teacher called Peter Michas.  It all brings to mind Prasch nearly two decades later throwing Geoff Toolehis OWN Moriel missionary to Japan, under the bus for a connection to a teacher called Peter Danzy, who oddly enough cropped up again in his 2019 attack on Bill Randles.

There are 5 emails/responses below:

  1. Lowercase Attack on Annie Rogers (by Prasch)*
  2. Defending Annie Rogers (1) (by Henry Sheppard)
  3. ALL CAPS Attack on Annie Rogers (by Prasch)
  4. Defending Annie Rogers (2) (by Henry Sheppard)
  5. Evidence of Prasch’s Mental Inbalance (by Unknown colleague of Henry)

*Note the way in 1999 Prasch was using the email address name ‘Yacov’.  This, of course, was 20 years before Treena Gisborn outed him as a pseudo-Jew.


Attack on Annie Rogers (1)


Subject: Statement from Jacob Prasch on Annie Rogers and Peter Michas
From: Jacob Prasch [yacov@Moriel.u-net.com]
Sent: 18 March 1999 19:06

(please circulate this to appropriate parties)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

It is with painful regret that we announce Annie Rogers has severed her connections with Moriel USA in support of a ministry we cannot endorse which teaches the Jehovah’s Witness heresey that the Holy Spirit is not a person but the “essence of God’s power”.

The belief system she has embraced also denies that God the Father is a person but rather an “aspect of God” which is his will. This belief is known in kabbalistic judaism as ein soph and is purely heretical.

The group also states that Jesus can only be considered a person because of the incarnation. This combines varied elements of two early Christian deceptions from the patristic era known respectively as Sabyllianism and Adoptionism, which are utterly Helenistic and not Hebraic in origin.

Moriel believes in the Trinitarian doctrine of one God in three eternally existing persons – Father , Son, and Holy Spirit. We prefer the term ‘tri-une’ to trinity (a term first used by tertullian) and we do not insist upon this truth being defined in precise Athanasian terms; but we none-the-less hold to one God in three persons.

Jesus warned that many would depart from the faith in the last days, and we painfully regret that someone who had been associated with Moriel has embraced what are essentially Jehovah’s Witness beliefs about the Holy Spirit.

One cannot blaspheme “the essence of God’s power”, one can only blaspheme God as a person. Additionally, Jesus was eternally a person of the God-head according to the scriptures. According to the Bible he was God and a Person distinct from the Father before the incarnation.

Moriel apologises.to anyone who may have concluded that Moriel or Jacob Prasch ever intended to endorse such heretical beliefs, that have nothing to do either with God’s word or a Judeo-Christian understanding of God’s word. For a biblically correct judeo-Christian understanding of the God-head we recommend “The Logos And The Rabbis” by Dr.Arnold Fruchtenbaum and “The Metatron” by J.Jacob Prasch.

Moriel and Jacob Prasch denounce the Jehovah’s Witness style beliefs about the triunity of the God head propagated by an organization Annie Rogers now subscribes to as an apostate pnuematology and a heretical Christology.

As we have noted in the past, much nonsense and even at times heresey is falsely promoted in the name of returning the church to its Hebrew root.

The organization she has joined with also teaches a number of wild speculations that border on the ridiculous and are utterly void of any biblical or scholarly foundation.

These include the hideous view that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. The book of Genesis states that this was in Mesopotamiawhere various rivers converge (there are no rivers in Jerusalem). The only places in the Middle East where this could be is ether Mesopotamia (where Abraham originated and the internal evidence of scripture places the Garden, even naming the Euphrates) or the Nile Delta. Secular anthropology and linguistic morphology both also support the biblical accounts of the origin of civilization being in Mesopotamia.

Solomon decorated the temple in Edenic images to illustrate that through the redemption man would be restored to his original state, but there is nothing in judaic studies supporting the Garden was in Jerusalem.

Secondly, the Mount Of Olives has been argued as one of three likely sites of Gogaltha. What Mrs. Rogers has embraced however seeks to support this view with a notion of a bridge connecting the Temple Mounts with the Mt. Of olives . Such a bridge spanning the Kidron would be a major structure even by modern standards, and no archaeological evidence exists to support it; only an elevated approach to the east gate from the Kidron.

Moreover, the Mishneh gives extensive descriptions of the architecture surrounding the Temple Mount during the Second Temple Period, but it mentions no such massive structure.

In “Wars Of The Jews” Josephus records in detail Titus’ assault from Mt. Scopus (the northern ridge of the Mt. Of Olives) across the Kidron. It is unthinkable if such a bridgework existed it would not have been mentioned by Josephus due to the importance such a bridge would have had strategically.

Another example of the lunacy is the claim that Jesus was not crucified on a cross, but that he and the two thieves were crucified [all together] on a tree. We do not how many were executed by the Romans that day, we only know how many interacted with Jesus from the gospels.

The Greek word for is ‘starvos’ meaning cross, not tree. Everything we know of Roman crucifixions supports that it was a cross of some kind, though scholars debate if it was a cross as we depict it or perhaps a permenant vertical pole from which the victims were suspended on a cross beam.

This would not be off-set by the reference in the Torah that “cursed is he who hangs on a tree” because the Hebrew word for tree and wood are both ‘aetz’ co equally meaning a tree or anything made from a tree.

Although an ignorance of Hebrew and Greek may account for the erroneous belief that knowing the Hebraic background would convey the idea of Jesus being nailed to a tree.

It is very sad to us that honest but naive people are taken in by such nonsense and that such complete and utter foolishness is being propagated in the name of understandi ng the Hebrew root of the Bible and the Christian faith.

Moriel urges prayer for those being taken in by such hideous nonsense. It has no scriptural or historical basis and has nothing to do with a Hebraic grasp of the Bible.

We do express our gratitude to Annie Rogers for her past friendship and help, but we cannot entertain such baselessly speculative nonsense being wrongly disseminated with the endorsement of Moriel, much less can we sanction views of the triunity of the God head which are heretical.

Had I been more aware of the full scope of this error, we would have acted sooner to distance ourselves from it. We again urge prayer for Mrs. Rogers and wish to make no further comment on this matter.

We additionally affirm our committment to highlight the need of the Body of Christ to return to the bonafide Hebrew root found in Romans 11:18.

Sincerely, James Jacob Prasch


Defending Annie Rogers


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1999 20:28:55
From: Henry [moriel@senet.com.au]
Subject: James Jacob Prasch

To whom it may concern:

My name is Henry Sheppard and I am the Moriel Representative in Australia. I am also the person who has been responsible for putting many of Jacob’s sermons in print since 1996, and for publishing his first book.

I make those additional statements to establish my credentials as one of Jacob’s strongest and most active supporters. Unfortunately, I now find myself in a position of having to correct some of Jacob’s recent statements concerning Annie Rogers, former Moriel Representative in the USA.

Since his motor accident in 1996, Jacob has become increasingly erratic in his behaviour and statements. Last year he was sued for defamation by elements of Elim in the UK for some of his more extreme statements. Now he is circulating accusations that Annie Rogers is a “heretic.”

The facts of the matter are that Jacob embarrassed himself by his behaviour in Pittsburgh last December and, on being challenged about it, has kept shouting ever more loudly and frantically whipping up a “heresy hunt” as a smoke screen, rather than humbly admit his errors and apologise for his behaviour.

His attacks on everyone who has called him to account over his behaviour last December have become intolerable, particularly for Annie, and she has resigned from Moriel.

Jacob has had the options of behaving in a gentlemanly fashion in the first instance, or politely accepting her resignation in the second, but refused either. Instead he has launched ever more destructive attacks against her.

Annie is not, in any sense, a “heretic.” Jacob claims to have unearthed concrete evidence of “heresy” by Peter Michas. No one (to my knowledge) has ever sighted his ‘evidence.’ Even assuming Jacob is correct in stating that published materials by Peter Michas reveal a flawed understanding, Jacob then comes under obligation to:
a) Carefully check his understanding of Michas’ intent in his statements, and
b) Gently point out the Scriptural basis of the correct understanding of the doctrine in question.

Should every reasonable attempt to communicate the truth to Peter Michas meet with determined rejection, then (and only then) Jacob might have some basis for screaming “heresy.” As things stand, he has no moral justification for his claims or his slanderous actions. Jacob has consistently refused to communicate with Peter Michas, contenting himself with destructive attacks from a safe distance.

The members of Moriel Australia Inc. repudiate Jacob’s current course of action. We are of the view that Jacob is suffering a stress-related loss of balance in his thinking, resulting from a combination of his injuries, constant pain, the emotional depletion brought on by the litigation against him last year, and ongoing anxiety concerning his declining physical capacities. We believe that he is in desperate need of an extended rest period.

We understand that such a rest period will bring a loss of income from speaking engagements. We have already produced Volume One of Jacob’s “Collected Papers” and will be releasing Volume Two in August. We are hopeful that these books (and others) can be printed and sold in sufficient numbers in the UK to generate a supplemental income for Jacob over the near future.

We call on all true supporters of Jacob to pray for him, to extend support and understanding toward him in a difficult time, and maintain a charitable Christian attitude toward those whom Jacob has attacked. If you haven’t seen the evidence of “heresy,” do not pass on the accusations. If you have definitive proof of “heresy,” communicate with the perpetrator and seek to gently establish the biblical basis for your understanding of the biblical doctrine.

None of us is perfect.

Shalom

Henry Sheppard
Moriel Australia Inc.
23 March 1999

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Please use discretion in circulating this e-mail.
It is designed to defend an innocent woman,
not to be used to attack an unwell man.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


Attack on Annie Rogers (2)


Subject: RE; JAMES JACOB PRASCH
From: Jacob Prasch [yacov@Moriel.u-net.com]
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:50:20 -0000

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

HAVING PRESENTED THE FACTS SURROUNDING ANNIE ROGERS UNFORTUNATE EMBRACE OF A MINISTRY WHICH PROPOUNDS A JEHOVAH’S WITNESS STYLE DENIAL OF THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT WITH THE SUPPORT OF HENRY SHEPPARD, I CONTACTED MORIEL, AUSTRALIA.

HENRY SHEPPARD DID NOT ACT ON BEHALF OF MORIEL IN AUSTRALIA NOR DID HE SPEAK FOR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE MORIEL TEAM THERE. THE MORIEL TEAM IN AUSTRALIA WERE SHOCKED BY HIS ACTIONS, ESPECIALLY AFTER THEMSELVES SEEING THE HEREITCAL TEACHINGS DIRECTLY FROM PETER MICHAS THEMSELVES WHICH ANNIE WITH HENRY’S SUPPORT HAS GONE INTO.

HENRY SHEPPARD IS NOT THE MORIEL REPRESENTATIVE IN AUSTRALIA, HE WAS A DESK TOP PUBLISHER AND INTERNET OPERATOR. MORIEL DID NOT APPOINT HENRY SHEPPARD AS A REPRENSENTATIVE AND THERE HAS BEEN A TRAIL OF HURT LEFT BY HENRY.

CONCERNING HIS ALLEGATIONS THAT THE STRESS OF MY ACCIDENT HAS RESULTED IN ME BCOMING “UNBALANCED” IS DEFAMATORY AND UNTRUE. FIRST OF ALL, THE BRITISH COURTS REQUIRE THAT SERIOUS ACCIDENT VICTIMS INVOLVED IN MAJOR LITIGATION UNDERGO ROUTINE PSYCHIATRIC TESTING TO DETERMINE POST TRAUMATIC STRESS RELATED DISTORDERS OR TO DETERMINE IF SYMPTONS CAN BE PSYCHOSOMATIC RATHER THAN PHYSIO-PATHIC. I WAS GIVEN A PERFECTLY CLEAN BILL OF MENTAL HEALTH.

MORE THAN THIS, IF I WERE “UNBALANCED” IT WOULD BE THE MORIEL TEAM IN BRITAIN WHO SEE ME EVERY DAY AND POSSIBLY NOT SOMEONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD WHO SEES ME FOR 2 DAYS EVERY 12-18 MONTHS WHO WOULD BE BETTER PLACED TO PICK IT UP.

THE SORRY FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT ANNIE AND HENRY CANNOT BIBLICALLY DEFEND THE HERETICAL TEACHING OF PETER MICHAS CONCERNING THE TRINITY. NEITHER CAN THEY ETHICALLY DEFEND HAVING MISUSED MY NAME AND THE NAME OF MORIEL TO ENDORSE SUCH A HERETICAL MINISTY. THEY WERE ASKED TO STOP AND REFUSED, AND IT IS NOW I, NOT HENRY SHEPPARD OR ANNIE ROGERS WHO IS BEING ATTACKED BY REPLACEMENTISTS FOR ENDORSING SOMETHING HERETICAL VIA INTERNET LINK.

UNABLE TO SCRIPTURALLY DEFEND THEIR SANCTION OF PETER MICHAS, OR ETHICALLY DEFEND THEIR MISUSE OF MY NAME, HENRY IS AVOIDING THE ISSUE BY TRYING TO CLAIM SOME NONSENSICAL PERSONAL OFFENSE, WHEN AS A RESULT OF THE MISUSE OF MY NAME TO ENDORSE HERESY, IT WAS I AND NOT ANNIE WHO WAS PESONALLY OFFENDED.

HENRY WAS NOT EVEN A WITNESS TO THE PITTSBURGH MEETING WHEN ANNIE ROGERS WAS OFFENDED I COULD NOT CHANGE MY VIEWS ABOUT CHURCH LEADERSHIP BEING MALE, AND ANGERED BY MY INSISTENCE THAT MY NAME AND MORIEL NOT BE LINKED WITH AN ORGANISATION THAT WITH HENRY’S SUPPORT ANNIE HAS NOW GONE WITH. HERESY IS HERESEY – THE PERSONHOOD OF GOD’S SPIRIT HAS BEEN DENIED. AGAIN, ANNIE AND HENRY CAN SUBSCRIBE TO OR SUPPORT ANY ORGANISATION WITH JW BELIEFS THEY WISH – BUT THEY MAY NOT DO IT IN MY NAME OR THE NAME OF MORIEL.

THERE WERE WITNESSES TO THIS MEETING, INCLUDING THE MORIEL USA ADMINSTRATOR, WHO DO NOT SHARE THE BASELESS FALSE REPORT CIRCULATED BY HENRY.

FINALLY, GIVEN THE FACT THAT HENRY SHEPPARD HIMSELF WAS SUED BY THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, I FAIL TO SEE THE REASON HE INTRODUCED THE LAW SUITE ELIM DROPPED AGAINST ME. WE WENT TO ARBITRATION AND ELIM WAS TOLD BY THE ARBITRATOR TO CEASE ITS PROMOTIONS OF BENNY HINN, MORIS CERULLO ETC., WHICH WAS THE SOURCE OF THE DISPUTE WITH ELIM, AND WE COUNT IT AS A VICTORY, HOW -BE-IT A COSTLY ONE.

WHEN I OR MORIEL ENTER A DISPUTE, IT IS ALWAYS BECAUSE OF A DOCTRINAL MATTER OR A COMBINATION DOCTRINAL/ETHICAL MATTER. (AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE ANNIE ROGERS SUPPORT OF AN ORGANISATION PUSHING JEHOVAH’S WITNESS HERESY AND MISUSING MORIEL TO PROMOTE IT).

THE UNBIBLICAL NOTION THAT I SHOULD HAVE GONE TO PETER MICHAS ABOUT FALSE DOCTRINE IS SILLY. MATTHEW 18 COMMANDS WE GO TO A BROTHER ABOUT A SIN AGAINST US AND NOT ABOUT HIS DOCTRINE. INDEED, IF I WERE TO PUBLICALLY CHALLENGE MR MICHAS I WOULD HAVE GONE TO HIM FIRST, BUT I DID NOT CHALLENGE HIM – I SIMPLY DID NOT WISH TO BE ASSOICATED WITH HIM BECAUSE OF HIS HERESY TEACHING. THERE IS NO BIBLICAL COMMAND THAT I SHOULD GO TO HIM ABOUT HIS DOCTRINE, PARTICULARLY WHEN I MADE IT CLEAR THAT I DID NOT EVEN INTEND TO ENTER INTO ANY DISPUTE WITH HIM ABOUT IT. I HAD NEITHER THE TIME, THE INTEREST, NOR ABOVE ALL THE THE LEADING OF THE LORD TO DO SO. ANYWAY, WHEN OTHERS IN AMERICA MORE FAMILIAR WITH HIM THAN I, TRIED TO DEAL WITH HIS WRONG TEACHING HE SIMPLY ATTACKED THEM, SO WHY SHOULD I WASTE MY TIME?

ANNIE MAY MAKE WRITE HER OWN BIBLE TO PLEASE HERSELF, BUT THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL DEMAND THAT I SHOULD GO TO PETER MICAHS PESONALLY WHEN HE DID NOT SIN AGAINST ME PERSONALLY AND WHEN I HAD NO INTENTION OF PUBLICALLY CHALLENGING HIM.

THE FACT THAT ANNIE ROGERS CAN BE SO UNDISCERNING AS TO SUBSCRIBE TO A MINISTRY THAT IS CLEARLY HERETICAL ILLUSTRATES HOW WOMEN AR VULNERABLE TO SPIRITUAL SEDUCTION ON THE AVERAGE MORE THAN MENARE AND IT IS WHEY GOD’S WORD TEACHES SPRITUAL LEADERSHIP IS MALE. THE SERPENT ALWAYS BEGUILES THE WOMAN. ANNIE IS WRONG ABOUT WOMEN PASTORS AND WRONG ABOUT THE HERETICAL BELIEF SYSTEM SHE HAS GONE INTO WHICH DENIES THE PERSONHOOL OF THE GOD-HEAD.

I AND MORIEL HOWEVER REMAIN TRINITARIAN, AND ON BEHALF OF MORIEL I WISH TO APOLOGISE TO ANYONE WHO HAS GOTTEN THE WRONG IMPRESSION THAT I OR MORIEL SUBSCRIBE TO THE JW BELIEFS NOW EFFECTIVELY SANCTIONED BY ANNIE AND HENRY. WE DO HOWEVER URGE PRAYER THAT THEY WILL DEPART FROM THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THIS APOSTACY FROMTHE FAITH AND DENIA OF THE LORD AS REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE.

ANYONE WISHING A COPY OF PETER MICHAS’S TEACHING THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT A PERSON BUT AN “ASPECT” OF GOD WHICH IS HIS “POWER”, THAT THE FATHER IS NO A PERSON, BUT AN “ASPECT AND THAT JESUS IS ONLY A PERSON BECAUSE OF THE INCARNATION MAY OBTAIN A COPY BY SENDING A STAMPED SELF ADDRESSED ENVELOPE TO MORIEL (UK).

IN JESUS

JAMES JACOB PRASCH


Defending Annie Rogers (2)


Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1989 20:28:55
From: Henry [moriel@senet.com.au]
Subject: James Jacob Prasch (2)

To whom it may concern:

I would much prefer that Moriel business was conducted “in-house,” but Jacob continues to insist that it be conducted publicly.

In responding to Jacob’s statement, I won’t bother to address his personal attack on me; anyone familiar with Moriel will recognise Jacob’s style. There are numerous things I would like to say, but will restrict myself to correcting the impression made by a statement frequently repeated by Jacob. In its narrow wording, the statement is perfectly true; but, seen in context, is wildly deceptive.

Jacob repeatedly says that Annie took a certain action **without his approval**. The reality is that Jacob appointed Annie as his Representative in the USA some 18 months ago. He provided no money and no advice on what to do next, yet since that time Annie has managed to arrange for a web site to be constructed, a mailing list to be organised, ten Newsletters to be published, audio and video tapes to be duplicated and distributed, and for several tours of the USA to take place by Jacob.

In raw commercial terms, Annie has contributed tens of thousands of dollars worth of skilled, voluntary labour. And the only person to benefit from her contribution has been James Jacob Prasch, who has rewarded her by slandering her name.

The significant fact here is that Annie did EVERYTHING without Jacob’s approval. She had no alternative. Jacob’s management style is to completely ignore his “Representatives” until he needs something from them. Then he badgers them for instant action. Few questions are ever answered by Jacob or his UK staff, no matter how reasonable or important, unless Jacob is emotionally affected by the subject in question.

Jacob gives the impression that Annie made just one, viciously destructive decision without his approval, a decision that has totally ruined his life. In fact she made hundreds of decisions without his approval, decisions that have brought him direct financial benefits in the present, and laid a foundation for substantial additional benefits in the days ahead.

Jacob has objected to my use of the term “unbalanced.” But what could be more unbalanced than his convenient forgetting of the many thousands of dollars of gain he has made from Annie doing things “without his approval,” while seeking to destroy her reputation for one action that he now doesn’t approve of?

Shalom

Henry Sheppard
Moriel Australia Inc.
24 March 1999

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Please use discretion in circulating this e-mail.
It is designed to defend an innocent woman,
not to be used to attack an unwell man.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


Loss of Balance?


Jacob Prasch has made some sensational claims about the “loss of balance” comment. The words need to be understood in their original context. Since his car accident, Jacob had:

  • Made written statements concerning the presence of an Elim minister, Eric McComb, at a funeral, statements which implied that the minister in question advocated people joining “an armed gang,” that he had taught Christians to “put down your Bible and pick up a gun,” and that he wanted people to “JOIN ELIM AND KILL FOR CHRIST.”
  • In his arbitration report on the Elim matter, David Pawson summarised Jacob’s mode of operation as involving “intemperate language, unchecked accusations and insulting innuendo.” He correctly diagnosed that “guilt by association is a prominent feature… however tenuous the connection may have been.” He mentioned Jacob’s use of “half truths” and “hasty conclusions,” and bemoaned his “apparent compulsion to lash out at those he disagrees with.” He stated that Jacob is viewed by many of his own supporters as ”dangerous, unpredictable and unaccountable,” someone who “can damage and divide the body of Christ.” David Pawson concluded with a thought that we have often expressed:
    How sad that his weaknesses are preventing his strengths from being more widely used and appreciated.”
  • Jacob followed this up by launching an attack on the internet against Dean Flanders, accusing him of being a “Branhamite.” Faced with a complete absence of factual evidence to justify his attack, Jacob was forced to place another, rather grudging, apology on the Internet.
  • Then Jacob launched an insulting attack on the Internet against Barbara Aho, calling her “a joke,” and against Victoria Dillan, calling her an “ignoramus” and a “serpent,” and sarcastically suggesting they both take up pig farming.
  • Next, at the last minute and without advising anyone here, Jacob altered the details of the flight bringing him to Australia in June 1999. He complained loudly when no one was present to meet him at the airport. Despite a long discussion about the matter, he failed to tell anyone that he had also changed the timing of his departure until the night before he was due to leave Australia.

Given this recent history of erratic and unreasonable behaviour, how was Henry going to explain Jacob’s outrageous attack on Annie Rogers (a woman who had done Jacob nothing but good) to her friends and supporters?
The options open were (1) to characterise his actions as those of a malevolent and breathtakingly ungrateful thug, or (2) to explain them away as an unfortunate consequence of the injuries which Jacob has frequently alleged he incurred in a car accident, injuries which prevented him from flying and for which he was seeking substantial damages.
Henry chose the path of kindness, and Jacob appears to have hated him for it ever since.


The Jacob Prasch Files:
No.1: David Pawson’s 1998 Report on Prasch’s Behaviour

No.2: Prasch Damns His Chosen Arbiter David Pawson!

No.3: Prasch the “Malevolent and Breathtakingly Ungrateful Thug”

No.4: Moriel Australia Inc. & Prasch’s “List of Imaginary JW Supporters and Heretics”

No.5: “Head-kicking” Benny Hinn, and “Culling” Moriel’s “Aunt Maybel” Subscribers

No.6: Prasch: Pastor or Predator?

No.7: Prasch: “Women Are Vulnerable to Spiritual Seduction More Than Men Are”

No.8: Australian Cult Information Service Places Moriel on List of Possible “Extremist Groups/Destructive and Manipulative Sects/Cults/High Pressure Groups”

2 thoughts on “The Jacob Prasch Files No.3: Prasch the “Malevolent and Breathtakingly Ungrateful Thug”

Leave a Reply to powerplaypause Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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