why Pete's theory is so dangerous

[moshe]

Pete’s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level
because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.
But Pete’s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
explain.

Pete’s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
sacrifice
to atone for Israel’s sins in a future Millennial Temple.
(That, of course, contradicts Mathew 26:28 and Hebrews 10:12-18,
along with the rest of the New Testament.)

Note these 3 Bible passages which illustrate one special reason Pete’s
theory is so dangerous:

1.
In Matthew 24:23-26, Jesus warns us to beware of false messiahs who
pretend to be Jesus or pretend to be some other messiah.

2.
Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a 7-year covenant
with Israel,
apparently allowing a Temple to be built in Jerusalem,
but in the middle of those 7 years he will suddenly betray Israel
and force the Temple sacrifices to be stopped.
That corresponds with Daniel 11:31 and with Matthew 24:15.

3.
II Thessalonians 2:3-4 gives further detail in that it shows
the anti-Christ sitting in that Temple claiming to be God,
thus committing the Abomination of Desolation .

When Pete says that Christians and everyone else
should support a Jesus who offers animal blood sacrifices
for the atonement of Israel in a future Temple,
Pete is encouraging people to accept a false Jesus
who is explicitly predicted by Scripture
and which Jesus warns us about.
That false Jesus will turn out to be the anti-Christ
who finally shows his true colors with the Abomination of Desolation.

- moshe

[Up from the Abyss]

"moshe" wrote:
>
> Pete’s theory about Ezekiel 45:17

Yet, there is a temple in heaven, complete with the
Ark of the Covenant, and an altar. What is the
current purpose of said altar?

> Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a
> 7-year covenant with Israel,

LMAO!!! Which is long past.

> apparently allowing a Temple to be built in Jerusalem,
> but in the middle of those 7 years he will suddenly
> betray Israel and force the Temple sacrifices to be stopped.
> That corresponds with Daniel 11:31 and with Matthew 24:15.

Wow!!! You mix these up?

Daniel 11:31 is clearly referring to the little horn of Daniel 8:9
who Antiochus Epiphanes.

Matthew 24:15 is with regard to Rome.

> II Thessalonians 2:3-4 gives further detail in that it shows
> the anti-Christ sitting in that Temple claiming to be God,
> thus committing the Abomination of Desolation .

Oy vey!!!

What is the falling away?

What is the mystery of iniquity?

It is referring to the little horn of Daniel 7:8, the same
one who shall think to try and change the set times and
laws. [cf Dan 7:25].

Which has been done. And you Moshe, follow after
the image to the beast. You bear the "mark", yet you
can not see it.

> Pete is encouraging people to accept a false Jesus
> who is explicitly predicted by Scripture and which
> Jesus warns us about.

OMFG!!! Moshe, you accept and promote a false
Jesus. You promote the mystery of iniquity, you
are a part of the falling away.

[moshe]

========================

People will remember Pete's theory of a returned Jesus offering animal
blood sacrifice in a Temple (per Pete's interpretation of Ezekiel
45:17).

Per Daniel 9:27, the anti-Christ and False Prophet will establish a 7-
year peace treaty which allows for the building of a new Temple in
Jerusalem.
They start offering animal blood sacrifices in that new Temple.
People familar with Pete's theory regarding Ezekiel 45:17 will say,
"That must be returned Jesus offering the animal blood sacrifices in
the Temple just as Pete said he would!"
But then 3 years later the anti-Christ and the False Prophet commit
the "Abomination of Desolation",
proving that they are really from Satan rather than from God.

So exactly what "spirit" has told Pete that Ezekiel 45:17 refers to
Jesus in violation of Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 10:12-18?

- moshe

[Up from the Abyss]

"moshe" wrote:
>
> Per Daniel 9:27, the anti-Christ and False Prophet will

> establish a 7-year peace treaty which allows for the

> building of a new Temple in Jerusalem.

That has already occurred, it is now past tense.

<snip>

> So exactly what "spirit" has told ...

I could ask the same of you. So exactly what "spirit"
tells you this? Cause it ain't the Ruakh haQodesh.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Romans 10:4

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness
to every one that believeth.

[Up from the Abyss]

jwsheffield wrote:

Which has no bearing upon the above.

Daniel 9 was fulfilled by Rome. It is no longer
a future event, it is now past tense.

[moshe]

On Mar 17, 5:18 pm, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
> "moshe" wrote:
>
> > Pete’s theory about Ezekiel 45:17
>
> Yet, there is a temple in heaven, complete with the
> Ark of the Covenant, and an altar.  What is the
> current purpose of said altar?
>
> > Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a
> > 7-year covenant with Israel,
>
> LMAO!!!  Which is long past.

=====================

Matthew 24:15 says that Daniel 11:31 is in the future,
and Daniel 11:31 corresponds with Daniel 9:27.

=====================

>
> > apparently allowing a Temple to be built in Jerusalem,
> > but in the middle of those 7 years he will suddenly
> > betray Israel and force the Temple sacrifices to be stopped.
> > That corresponds with Daniel 11:31 and with Matthew 24:15.
>
> Wow!!!  You mix these up?
>
> Daniel 11:31 is clearly referring to the little horn of Daniel 8:9
> who Antiochus Epiphanes.
>
> Matthew 24:15 is with regard to Rome.

==========================

Antiochus Epiphanes was circa 166 BC, approximately 200 years before
Jesus spoke in Matthew 24:15.

In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of Desolation spoken
of by Daniel" would happen in the *future*:

"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let
him understand),
"then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=24&v=15&t=NKJV#15

So, "Abyss" says that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by
Daniel"
happened in the *past*, 200 years *before* Jesus spoke.

But Jesus said that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by
Daniel" (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27) would happen in the *future*.

So, who are you going to believe?
Jesus?
Or "Abyss" who has renounced Jesus and is eternally cursed per Hebrews
6:4-6?

==========================

>
> > II Thessalonians 2:3-4 gives further detail in that it shows
> > the anti-Christ sitting in that Temple claiming to be God,
> > thus committing the Abomination of Desolation .
>
> Oy vey!!!
>
> What is the falling away?
>
> What is the mystery of iniquity?
>
> It is referring to the little horn of Daniel 7:8, the same
> one who shall think to try and change the set times and
> laws. [cf Dan 7:25].
>
> Which has been done.  And you Moshe, follow after
> the image to the beast.  You bear the "mark", yet you
> can not see it.

======================

And so "Abyss" claims that followers of Jesus
are the apostates of II Thessalonians chapter 2,
making our Jesus the anti-Christ.

"Abyss" has renounced Jesus exactly has "Abyss" has admitted,
and "Abyss" is now working for Satan to lead people astray.

======================

>
> > Pete is encouraging people to accept a false Jesus
> > who is explicitly predicted by Scripture and which
> > Jesus warns us about.
>
> OMFG!!!  Moshe, you accept and promote a false
> Jesus.  You promote the mystery of iniquity, you
> are a part of the falling away.

=======================

Paul wrote that passage in II Thessalonians chapter 2.

That same Paul wrote Galatians 3:23-25, which says
that we are no longer under the Law:

"But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for
the faith which would afterward be revealed.
Therefore the law was our tutor [to bring us] to Christ, that we might
be justified by faith.
But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=23&t=NKJV#23

So "Abyss" claims that Paul is a *true* prophet regarding II
Thessalonians chapter 2.
But "Abyss" says that Paul is a *false* prophet regarding Galatians
3:23-25,
because the "mystery of lawlessness" of II Thessalonains 2:7 allegedly
refers to no longer under the law of Galatians 3:23-25.

What more proof do you need that "Abyss" is working for Satan per
"Abyss" renunciation of Jesus per Hebrews 6:4-6?

- moshe

[moshe]

================

Per my detailed answer to you one minute ago elsewhere in this thread
at

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/a28a97ec72e94268

in Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of Desolation spoken
of by Daniel" will happen in the *future*.

"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let
him understand),
"then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=24&v=15&t=NKJV#15

When "Abyss" claims that the prophecy in Daniel was fulfilled 200
years *before* Jesus spoke,
"Abyss" is contradicting the explicit words of Jesus.

So who are you going to believe?
Jesus?
Or "Abyss", who officially renounced Jesus and is now eternally damned

[Up from the Abyss]

"moshe" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "moshe" wrote:
> > >

> > > Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a
> > > 7-year covenant with Israel,
> >
> > LMAO!!! Which is long past.

And here I thought you didn't love me anymore.
That you didn't read or reply to my posts.

> Matthew 24:15 says that Daniel 11:31 is in the future

LMAO!!!

Moshe, Daniel 11:31 is clearly the little horn of Daniel 8:9,
which comes from out of Greece.

Dan 11:2 And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there
shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall
be far richer than they all: and when he is waxed strong
through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.

Dan 11:3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with
great dominion, and do according to his will.

Alexander the Great.


Dan 11:4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be
broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven,
but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith
he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others
besides these.

The four horns in place of the prominent horn.


Dan 11:5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his
princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his
dominion shall be a great dominion.

The little horn of Daniel 8:9. Antiochus Epiphanes.

Thus, Daniel 11 was past tense even in Jesus' day.


That which remained, was Rome.

> and Daniel 11:31 corresponds with Daniel 9:27.

No, Daniel 9 was with regard to Rome. See Daniel 7
and the ten horns, the little horn thereof.

Which, we can trace into Revelation.

> > > apparently allowing a Temple to be built in Jerusalem,
> > > but in the middle of those 7 years he will suddenly
> > > betray Israel and force the Temple sacrifices to be stopped.
> > > That corresponds with Daniel 11:31 and with Matthew 24:15.
> >
> > Wow!!! You mix these up?
> >
> > Daniel 11:31 is clearly referring to the little horn of Daniel 8:9
> > who Antiochus Epiphanes.
> >
> > Matthew 24:15 is with regard to Rome.
>

> Antiochus Epiphanes was circa 166 BC, approximately 200 years
> before Jesus spoke in Matthew 24:15.

Exactly, under Greece, the prominent horn, Alexander the Great,
the four horns, and finally the little horn, which is Antiochus Epiphanes.

> In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of Desolation
> spoken of by Daniel" would happen in the *future*:

Yes, the occurrence of it under Rome.

> "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken
> of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads,
> let him understand), "then let those who are in Judea flee to the
> mountains."

And no fled under Rome?

No one made a stand in the mountains? Such as Har Megiddo?

> So, "Abyss" says that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> of by Daniel" happened in the *past*, 200 years *before*
> Jesus spoke.

Yes, the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under Greece, and the little
horn thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes.

> But Jesus said that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> of by Daniel" (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27) would happen
> in the *future*.

They are not the same occurrence. One was under the little horn,
the of Daniel 8:9, the other under Rome.

The little horn from out of the ten of Rome, did not occur for a
few hundred more years, but it also is now past tense.

The same little horn of Daniel 7:8 and shall think to try and
change the set times and law [cf Dan 7:25].

And yet, which you also follow after.

> So, who are you going to believe?
> Jesus?
> Or "Abyss" who has renounced Jesus and is eternally cursed
> per Hebrews 6:4-6?

How shameful, that an atheist knows this better than a "believer".

> > > II Thessalonians 2:3-4 gives further detail in that it shows
> > > the anti-Christ sitting in that Temple claiming to be God,
> > > thus committing the Abomination of Desolation .
> >
> > Oy vey!!!
> >
> > What is the falling away?
> >
> > What is the mystery of iniquity?
> >
> > It is referring to the little horn of Daniel 7:8, the same
> > one who shall think to try and change the set times and
> > laws. [cf Dan 7:25].
> >
> > Which has been done. And you Moshe, follow after
> > the image to the beast. You bear the "mark", yet you
> > can not see it.
>

> And so "Abyss" claims that followers of Jesus
> are the apostates of II Thessalonians chapter 2,
> making our Jesus the anti-Christ.

You have fallen away from the truth. You follow
after the mystery of iniquity.

> "Abyss" has renounced Jesus exactly has "Abyss" has
> admitted, and "Abyss" is now working for Satan to
> lead people astray.

Yet, it is infinitely more sad, that you can not see these
things for yourself. That you have been the recipient of
strong delusion, because you did not love the truth in
so that you might be saved.

That you can not see, that you are "satan's" emissary,
preaching that which was according to the little horn
from out of Rome, to think to change the set times and
laws.

> > > Pete is encouraging people to accept a false Jesus
> > > who is explicitly predicted by Scripture and which
> > > Jesus warns us about.
> >
> > OMFG!!! Moshe, you accept and promote a false
> > Jesus. You promote the mystery of iniquity, you
> > are a part of the falling away.
>

> Paul wrote that passage in II Thessalonians chapter 2.

Yes, the mystery of lawlessness which was already
at work.

> That same Paul wrote Galatians 3:23-25, which says
> that we are no longer under the Law:
>
> "But before faith came, we were kept under guard by
> the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be
> revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor [to bring us]
> to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Romans 3:31 Do we then nullify the law by this faith?
Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

<snip>

> So "Abyss" claims that Paul is a *true* prophet regarding
> II Thessalonians chapter 2. But "Abyss" says that Paul is
> a *false* prophet regarding Galatians 3:23-25, because
> the "mystery of lawlessness" of II Thessalonains 2:7 allegedly
> refers to no longer under the law of Galatians 3:23-25.

Rom 2:13 for not the hearers of the law are just before
God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers
only, deluding your own selves.


As has been said:

Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion.

Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they
not all those Moses led out of Egypt?

And to whom did God swear that they would never
enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed?

So we see that they were not able to enter,
because of their unbelief.

For we also have had the good news proclaimed
to us, just as they did; but the message they heard
was of no value to them, because they did not share
the faith of those who obeyed.

Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that
rest, and since those who formerly had the good news
proclaimed to them did not go in because of their
disobedience

for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from their
works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make
every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish
by following their example of disobedience.

> What more proof do you need that "Abyss" is working
> for Satan per "Abyss" renunciation of Jesus per
> Hebrews 6:4-6?

Very sad Moshe, that you do not understand Daniel
any better than that.

[Up from the Abyss]

"moshe" wrote:
>

<snip>

> Per my detailed answer to you one minute ago elsewhere

> in this thread at:

And per my response; C&P:

"moshe" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "moshe" wrote:
> > >

> > > Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a
> > > 7-year covenant with Israel,
> >

> > > apparently allowing a Temple to be built in Jerusalem,
> > > but in the middle of those 7 years he will suddenly
> > > betray Israel and force the Temple sacrifices to be stopped.
> > > That corresponds with Daniel 11:31 and with Matthew 24:15.
> >

> > Wow!!! You mix these up?
> >
> > Daniel 11:31 is clearly referring to the little horn of Daniel 8:9
> > who Antiochus Epiphanes.
> >
> > Matthew 24:15 is with regard to Rome.
>
> Antiochus Epiphanes was circa 166 BC, approximately 200 years
> before Jesus spoke in Matthew 24:15.

Exactly, under Greece, the prominent horn, Alexander the Great,
the four horns, and finally the little horn, which is Antiochus Epiphanes.


> In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of Desolation
> spoken of by Daniel" would happen in the *future*:

Yes, the occurrence of it under Rome.

> "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken
> of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads,
> let him understand), "then let those who are in Judea flee to the
> mountains."

And no fled under Rome?

No one made a stand in the mountains? Such as Har Megiddo?


> So, "Abyss" says that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> of by Daniel" happened in the *past*, 200 years *before*
> Jesus spoke.

Yes, the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under Greece, and the little
horn thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes.


> But Jesus said that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> of by Daniel" (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27) would happen
> in the *future*.

They are not the same occurrence. One was under the little horn,
the of Daniel 8:9, the other under Rome.

The little horn from out of the ten of Rome, did not occur for a
few hundred more years, but it also is now past tense.

The same little horn of Daniel 7:8 and shall think to try and
change the set times and law [cf Dan 7:25].

And yet, which you also follow after.

> So, who are you going to believe?
> Jesus?

> Or "Abyss" who has renounced Jesus and is eternally cursed
> per Hebrews 6:4-6?

How shameful, that an atheist knows this better than a "believer".

> > > II Thessalonians 2:3-4 gives further detail in that it shows
> > > the anti-Christ sitting in that Temple claiming to be God,
> > > thus committing the Abomination of Desolation .
> >

> > > Pete is encouraging people to accept a false Jesus
> > > who is explicitly predicted by Scripture and which
> > > Jesus warns us about.
> >

[moshe]

On Mar 18, 12:51 am, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
> "moshe" wrote:
> > Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > > "moshe" wrote:
>
> > > > Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a
> > > > 7-year covenant with Israel,
>
> > > LMAO!!! Which is long past.

=================

Daniel 9:24 says that the prophecy will:

"bring in everlasting righteousness"

"Abyss" claims that is "long past"?

=================

>
> And here I thought you didn't love me anymore.
> That you didn't read or reply to my posts.
>
> > Matthew 24:15 says that Daniel 11:31 is in the future
>
> LMAO!!!

============================

You contradict the explicit words of Jesus.

We'll see how much you "LMAO" when Jesus commands that you be thrown
into the eternal lake of fire.

============================

==================

In Matthew chapter 24, the disciples ask Jesus:
"What will be the sign of your coming, and the end of the age?"

Jesus then spent the next 2 chapters giving great detail in
chronological order.
Note the Abomination fo Desolation in Matthew 24:15.
Note the Great Tribulation of Matthew 24:21.
Note the 2nd Coming of Jesus in Matthew 24:29-31.
Note the Final Judgement in Matthew 25:31-46.

When "Abyss" claims that Jesus was talking about 70 AD,
"Abyss" is lying.

==================

>
> > So, "Abyss" says that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> > of by Daniel" happened in the *past*, 200 years *before*
> > Jesus spoke.
>
> Yes, the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under Greece, and the little
> horn thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes.
>
> > But Jesus said that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> > of by Daniel" (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27) would happen
> > in the *future*.
>
> They are not the same occurrence. One was under the little horn,
> the of Daniel 8:9, the other under Rome.
>
> The little horn from out of the ten of Rome, did not occur for a
> few hundred more years, but it also is now past tense.
>
> The same little horn of Daniel 7:8 and shall think to try and
> change the set times and law [cf Dan 7:25].
>
> And yet, which you also follow after.
>
> > So, who are you going to believe?
> > Jesus?
> > Or "Abyss" who has renounced Jesus and is eternally cursed
> > per Hebrews 6:4-6?
>
> How shameful, that an atheist knows this better than a "believer".

===========================

"Abyss" knows perfectly well that in Christianity
there is the doctrine of double fulfillment of prophecy.

There is the first minor fulfillement,
then there is the later major fulfillement.

Such doctrine of Double Fulfillment has been taught throughout the
2,000 years of Christianity.
Isaiah 7:14 was such a prophecy.

If "Abyss" does not believe in Double Fulfillement, that is beside the
point.
Because "Abyss" nevertheless knows about Double Fulfillment but he
deliberately ignores the doctrine just so that he can mock and lead
poeple astray.

In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of Desolation" is in
the *future*.

The exact phrase "Abomination of Desolation" appears in only 3 other
places in the Bible:

Daniel 11:31
Daniel 12:11
Mark 13:14 (which is Mark's version of the same words of Jesus)

Daniel 12:11 refers back to Daniel 11:31.

So in Matthew 24:15 Jesus was referring to Daniel 11:31.

But "Abyss" says,

"the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under Greece, and the little horn
thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes."

So "Abyss" says that Daniel 11:31 had its *only* fulfillment circa 166
BC, 200 years *before* Jesus spoke.

But Jesus said that Daniel 11:31 would be fulfilled in the *future*.

When Jesus and "Abyss" disagree, believe Jesus.

Daniel 9:27 does not contain the exact phrase "Abomination of
Desolation"
but it does use the same 2 words in one phrase:
"On the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate"

And Daniel 9:27 says that the Temple sacrifices are suddenly stopped,
just as is described in Daniel 11:31.

Daniel 11:31 leads into Daniel chapter 12, which is clearly describing
end-time events.
Daniel 12:1 shows that it is a continuation of Daniel 11:45, a
continuation of the same vision.
Daniel chapter 12 contains:
- the Resurrection and the Judgement in verse 2
- the Great Tribulation of 3-1/2 years in verses 1 and 7 (which is the
exact same length as the half-week in Daniel 9:27)
- the "Time of the End" in verse 9
- the "Abomination of Desolation in verse 11, referring back to Daniel
11:31 of the same vision
- Daniel being resurrected to his eternal inheritance in verse 13.

But "Abyss" claims that all that was fulfilled circa 166 BC under
Antiochus Epiphanes, 200 years *before* Jesus spoke.

"Abyss" is an eternally-damned liar per Hebrews 6:4-6 and Revelation
21:8.

===========================

===================

So "Abyss" confirms what he is claiming:

The Jesus of Galatians 3:23-25
is the anti-Christ of II Thessalonians 2:7

So "Abyss" confirms what he is claiming:

The author Paul of II Thessalonians 2:7
is calling the author Paul of Galatians 3:23-25
a false prophet.

What more proof do you need

to show who "Abyss" is working for?

==================

>
> Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers
> only, deluding your own selves.
>

...

>
> > What more proof do you need that "Abyss" is working
> > for Satan per "Abyss" renunciation of Jesus per
> > Hebrews 6:4-6?
>
> Very sad Moshe, that you do not understand Daniel
> any better than that.

===================

"Abyss" said:
"OMFG!!! Moshe, you accept and promote a false
Jesus. You promote the mystery of iniquity, you
are a part of the falling away."

Note the abbreviation at the beginning of that quote
and consider its implications regarding
the evil one that "Abyss" follows.

This post from "Abyss" is the most potent proof yet
that "Abyss" is working for Satan to destroy the faith of all
Christians.

When "Abyss" says that our Jesus is really the anti-Christ,
all true followers of Jesus should do as Michael the archangel
did when fighting with Satan in Jude 9.

"Abyss" the Lord rebuke you!.

- moshe

[moshe]

On Mar 18, 12:51 am, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
> "moshe" wrote:
> > Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > > "moshe" wrote:
>
> > > > Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a
> > > > 7-year covenant with Israel,
>
> > > LMAO!!! Which is long past.

=================

Daniel 9:24 says that the prophecy will:

"bring in everlasting righteousness"

"Abyss" claims that is "long past"?

=================
>

> And here I thought you didn't love me anymore.
> That you didn't read or reply to my posts.
>
> > Matthew 24:15 says that Daniel 11:31 is in the future
>
> LMAO!!!

============================

You contradict the explicit words of Jesus.

We'll see how much you "LMAO" when Jesus commands that you be thrown
into the eternal lake of fire.

============================
>

==================

In Matthew chapter 24, the disciples ask Jesus:
"What will be the sign of your coming, and the end of the age?"

Jesus then spent the next 2 chapters giving great detail in
chronological order.
Note the Abomination fo Desolation in Matthew 24:15.
Note the Great Tribulation of Matthew 24:21.
Note the 2nd Coming of Jesus in Matthew 24:29-31.
Note the Final Judgement in Matthew 25:31-46.

When "Abyss" claims that Jesus was talking about 70 AD,
"Abyss" is lying.

==================
>

> > So, "Abyss" says that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> > of by Daniel" happened in the *past*, 200 years *before*
> > Jesus spoke.
>
> Yes, the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under Greece, and the little
> horn thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes.
>
> > But Jesus said that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> > of by Daniel" (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27) would happen
> > in the *future*.
>
> They are not the same occurrence. One was under the little horn,
> the of Daniel 8:9, the other under Rome.
>
> The little horn from out of the ten of Rome, did not occur for a
> few hundred more years, but it also is now past tense.
>
> The same little horn of Daniel 7:8 and shall think to try and
> change the set times and law [cf Dan 7:25].
>
> And yet, which you also follow after.
>
> > So, who are you going to believe?
> > Jesus?
> > Or "Abyss" who has renounced Jesus and is eternally cursed
> > per Hebrews 6:4-6?
>
> How shameful, that an atheist knows this better than a "believer".

===========================

"Abyss" knows perfectly well that in Christianity
there is the doctrine of double fulfillment of prophecy.

There is the first minor fulfillement,
then there is the later major fulfillement.

Such doctrine of Double Fulfillment has been taught throughout the
2,000 years of Christianity.
Isaiah 7:14 was such a prophecy.

If "Abyss" does not believe in Double Fulfillement, that is beside the
point.
Because "Abyss" nevertheless knows about Double Fulfillment but he
deliberately ignores the doctrine just so that he can mock and lead
poeple astray.

In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of Desolation" is in
the *future*.

The exact phrase "Abomination of Desolation" appears in only 3 other
places in the Bible:

Daniel 11:31
Daniel 12:11
Mark 13:14 (which is Mark's version of the same words of Jesus)

Daniel 12:11 refers back to Daniel 11:31.

So in Matthew 24:15 Jesus was referring to Daniel 11:31.

But "Abyss" says,

"the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under Greece, and the little horn
thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes."

===================

So "Abyss" confirms what he is claiming:

The Jesus of Galatians 3:23-25
is the anti-Christ of II Thessalonians 2:7

So "Abyss" confirms what he is claiming:

The author Paul of II Thessalonians 2:7
is calling the author Paul of Galatians 3:23-25
a false prophet.

What more proof do you need

to show who "Abyss" is working for?

==================
>

> Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers
> only, deluding your own selves.
>

...

>
> > What more proof do you need that "Abyss" is working
> > for Satan per "Abyss" renunciation of Jesus per
> > Hebrews 6:4-6?
>
> Very sad Moshe, that you do not understand Daniel
> any better than that.

===================

"Abyss" said:
"OMFG!!! Moshe, you accept and promote a false
Jesus. You promote the mystery of iniquity, you
are a part of the falling away."

[duke]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Pete’s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level
>because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.
>But Pete’s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>explain.
>
>Pete’s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>sacrifice
>to atone for Israel’s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[moshe]

On Mar 18, 4:53 pm, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:

> > On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Pete’s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level
> >>because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.
> >>But Pete’s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
> >>explain.
>
> >>Pete’s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
> >>sacrifice
> >>to atone for Israel’s sins in a future Millennial Temple.
>
> > With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>

> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>
> Plus, mushe does not quote properly, he plays fast and loose with words.

=====================

"Plus, mushe does not quote properly, he plays fast and loose with
words."

Show where.

- moshe

[Up from the Abyss]

"moshe" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "moshe" wrote:
> > > Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > > > "moshe" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a
> > > > > 7-year covenant with Israel,
> > > >
> > > > LMAO!!! Which is long past.
>

> Daniel 9:24 says that the prophecy will:
> "bring in everlasting righteousness"
>
> "Abyss" claims that is "long past"?

So, are you claiming that Jesus did not bring in
"everlasting righteousness"?

That Jesus did not make "reconciliation for iniquity"?

If Jesus did not make "reconciliation for iniquity",
then you are still dead in your dead in your sin.

Are you claiming that the "most holy" has not yet
been "anointed"?

So yes, it is long past.

The people of the "prince" that shall come, did
indeed destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Are you advocating the building of the third temple
and sacrifice for sin to once again be done?

> > And here I thought you didn't love me anymore.
> > That you didn't read or reply to my posts.

I knew Moshe couldn't resist my fatal charms.

And yesterday I was thinking of drawing my time
here to a close. And surprise, along comes Moshe,
with a reply and an invitation to stay. LMAO!

> > > Matthew 24:15 says that Daniel 11:31 is in the future
> >
> > LMAO!!!
>

> You contradict the explicit words of Jesus.

So you claim. I claim that you also contradict the
explicit words of Jesus. Only yours are far more
deadly. You are a "believer", I am simply an
ignorant atheist nudnik, who only has 1/100th
of the brain power that you do while on vicodine,
and only 1/1000th your normal capacity.

> We'll see how much you "LMAO" when Jesus commands
> that you be thrown into the eternal lake of fire.

LMAO!!! Yet, *IF* such exists, I have knowingly chosen
my fate. You OTOH, are in for a shock.

> > Moshe, Daniel 11:31 is clearly the little horn of Daniel 8:9,
> > which comes from out of Greece.
> >
> > Dan 11:2 And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there
> > shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall
> > be far richer than they all: and when he is waxed strong
> > through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.
> >
> > Dan 11:3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with
> > great dominion, and do according to his will.
> >
> > Alexander the Great.
> >
> > Dan 11:4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be
> > broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven,
> > but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith
> > he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others
> > besides these.
> >
> > The four horns in place of the prominent horn.
> >
> > Dan 11:5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his
> > princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his
> > dominion shall be a great dominion.
> >
> > The little horn of Daniel 8:9. Antiochus Epiphanes.
> >
> > Thus, Daniel 11 was past tense even in Jesus' day.
> >
> > That which remained, was Rome.

No comment Moshe? I am indeed disappointed in that
one of God's elect could not refute the above.

<snip>

> > > Antiochus Epiphanes was circa 166 BC, approximately 200 years
> > > before Jesus spoke in Matthew 24:15.
> >
> > Exactly, under Greece, the prominent horn, Alexander the Great,
> > the four horns, and finally the little horn, which is Antiochus
Epiphanes.

Thus, that is true.

> > > In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of Desolation
> > > spoken of by Daniel" would happen in the *future*:
> >
> > Yes, the occurrence of it under Rome.

Which also, stands as true.

> > > "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken
> > > of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads,
> > > let him understand), "then let those who are in Judea flee to the
> > > mountains."
> >

> > And no [one] fled under Rome?

> >
> > No one made a stand in the mountains? Such as Har Megiddo?
>

> In Matthew chapter 24, the disciples ask Jesus:
> "What will be the sign of your coming, and the end
> of the age?"

Mat 24:8 But all these things are the beginning of travail.
9 Then shall they deliver **you** up unto tribulation ...

> Jesus then spent the next 2 chapters giving great detail in
> chronological order.
> Note the Abomination fo Desolation in Matthew 24:15.

Which, had to occur ***BEFORE*** the destruction
of the temple LMAO!!!

And, it *did* occur. To deny it, is to prove oneself
a fool.

> Note the Great Tribulation of Matthew 24:21.

Yet, just before that:

Mat 24:20 And pray ye that your flight be not in the
winter, neither on a sabbath:

Why not on a shabat Moshe?

> Note the 2nd Coming of Jesus in Matthew 24:29-31.

Which, was to be *immediately* after the tribulation
of those days. I have read accounts that this has
allegedly occurred, though I do not believe them.

> Note the Final Judgement in Matthew 25:31-46.

LMAO!

> When "Abyss" claims that Jesus was talking about
> 70 AD, "Abyss" is lying.

So, you are openly claiming that an "abomination of
desolation" did not occur before the destruction of
the temple?

Or, how about an equestrian statute being erected
upon the site by Hadrain?

The beast which represents Rome in Daniel had
ten horns. Like wise in Revelation, the beast which
is Rome had ten horns, and seven kings
[cf / cp Rev 13:1-7 ; 17:7-12].

Of which, at the time of John the Revelator's writing,
five had fallen, one is, and the other yet to come.

Thus, the beast that was Rome, was clearly already
in action, and the "woman" who rode the beast.

Yet, you continue to abide by and within the sin of
the "woman", who continue to pay homage unto
that beast.

> > > So, "Abyss" says that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> > > of by Daniel" happened in the *past*, 200 years *before*
> > > Jesus spoke.
> >
> > Yes, the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under Greece, and the little
> > horn thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes.
> >
> > > But Jesus said that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> > > of by Daniel" (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27) would happen
> > > in the *future*.
> >
> > They are not the same occurrence. One was under the little horn,
> > the of Daniel 8:9, the other under Rome.
> >
> > The little horn from out of the ten of Rome, did not occur for a
> > few hundred more years, but it also is now past tense.
> >
> > The same little horn of Daniel 7:8 and shall think to try and
> > change the set times and law [cf Dan 7:25].

No comment? No rebuttal?

Can one of God's elect not refute an atheist?

> > > So, who are you going to believe?
> > > Jesus?
> > > Or "Abyss" who has renounced Jesus and is eternally cursed
> > > per Hebrews 6:4-6?
> >
> > How shameful, that an atheist knows this better than a "believer".
>

> "Abyss" knows perfectly well that in Christianity
> there is the doctrine of double fulfillment of prophecy.

Actually, no, I do not. Thus, you are bearing false witness.

Some preach a triune fulfillment.
Some preach a dual fulfillment.
Yet others, only a singular fulfillment.

I am of the singular persuasion, and have as of yet,
seen no justification for anything other than that.

Thus your "doctrine", is as naught. Nor, can you justify
such a doctrine. In Revelation 17:10, is there a dual
fulfillment in that 5 are fallen, one is, and one is yet to be?

No.

> There is the first minor fulfillement,
> then there is the later major fulfillement.

I am glad you introduced this.

But now we have another problem, for it makes it
appear as though you are double-minded and unstable.

In Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and discern, that from the
going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem unto the anointed one ... it shall be built again,
with street and moat, even in troublous times.

Yet you have clearly stated, that this could not and was
not fulfilled as the walls did not remain standing.

I can quote-mine if you wish and provide quotes of
your statements since they are no longer in my local
archive.

You have stated this, even though it was contrary, that
Koresh was anointed to build His house.

I have repeatedly asked of you: So when IYO did the
70 weeks actually start. Of which, you have offered
no response.

Since you are once again reading and replying to my
posts, as is self-evident by your reply here, I ask you
again:

So when IYO did the seventy weeks begin?

Yes, I have seen your other cites. That you fully
expected the culmination of the seventy weeks to
occur in your lifetime is self-evident from your posts.

For you yourself expected to martyred.

Thus, you orginally denied a "minor fulfillment" and
made it all a future "major fulfillment".

> Such doctrine of Double Fulfillment has been taught
> throughout the 2,000 years of Christianity.

LMFAO!!! Bullshit.

> Isaiah 7:14 was such a prophecy.

Isaiah was a "sign".

And, you are lacking a "second witness" with regard
to it in Jesus' day. And we know the import you
place upon a "second witness", for you incessantly
post a "second witness" of your own words.

> If "Abyss" does not believe in Double Fulfillement,
> that is beside the point.
> Because "Abyss" nevertheless knows about Double
> Fulfillment but he deliberately ignores the doctrine
> just so that he can mock and lead poeple astray.

Yet, there are those who preach a triune fulfillment, and
those who preach a singular fulfillment.

Personally, I think your so-called "double fulfillment"
doctrine is bullshit, and is used to continue to lead
people astray and away from truth. To continue to
get them to cow down in fear of some imminent
arrival.

> In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of
> Desolation" is in the *future*.

Which it *was*, but occurred prior to the destruction
of the temple. And, to add insult to injury, there was
an equestrian statue erected.

The "abomination of desolation" can not occur absent
a temple. The temple was destroyed, there is no
current temple.

To build another temple, means that sacrifice for sin
will once again be done. That which you also state
is an abomination.

The "abomination of desolation" occurred as Jesus
said it would, and the temple was destroyed.

> The exact phrase "Abomination of Desolation" appears
> in only 3 other places in the Bible:
>
> Daniel 11:31

Which occurred under the little horn of Daniel 8:9, the one
out of Greece. Who fell, or was broken, in the manner in
which Daniel 8:25 describes:

but he shall be broken without hand.

Which is clearly to be seen within Macabbees, and the
writings of Josephus.

<snip>

> Daniel 12:11 refers back to Daniel 11:31.

And in Daniel 8, it is 2,300 evenings and morning until
the sanctuary shall be cleansed. Which is clearly under
the little horn out of Greece.

> So in Matthew 24:15 Jesus was referring to Daniel 11:31.

LMAO! Yet, you did not refute that which I stated above
regarding Greece being the subject of Daniel 11. Daniel
11 is clearly referring to all that which occurred from
Alexander the Great, the split into four kingdoms, and the
little horn [cf Daniel 8:7-14]

> But "Abyss" says, "the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under
> Greece, and the little horn thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes."

Hey, take it up with Gabriel!

Dan 8:16b Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.

Dan 8:20 The ram which thou sawest, that had the two horns,
they are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the rough
he-goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is
between his eyes is the first king. 22 And as for that which
was broken, in the place whereof four stood up, four kingdoms
shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power.
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the
transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance,
and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24 And his
power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall
destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper and do his pleasure;
and he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people.
25 And through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his
hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in their
security shall he destroy many: he shall also stand up against
the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

> So "Abyss" says that Daniel 11:31 had its *only* fulfillment
> circa 166 BC, 200 years *before* Jesus spoke.

It was that spoken of in Daniel 9, which was still future.
Yet, did come to pass, and is now past tense.

> But Jesus said that Daniel 11:31 would be fulfilled in the
> *future*.

No, Jesus did not state that "Daniel 11:31" was future.

But, it is undeniable, that Daniel 11:31 was fulfilled
in the "beast" that was Greece. Which was the third
of the four beasts from out of the sea [cf Dan 7:3]

Rome, was the four beast from out of the sea, having
ten horns [cf Dan 7:7] which correlates to the beast
out of the sea in Revelation 13. Of which, Revelation
17 makes abundantly clear was already in power, was
currently in power, and shall continue for a while in power.

A beast upon which rode a woman. By which John
was astonished [cf Rev 17:6].

> When Jesus and "Abyss" disagree, believe Jesus.

LMAO!!! You mean, your interpretation / understanding
of what Jesus said.

Perhaps we should believe Moshe, that temple was
destroyed and an abomination which makes desolate
never occurred, for it is yet future. LMAO!

> Daniel 9:27 does not contain the exact phrase
> "Abomination of Desolation"
> but it does use the same 2 words in one phrase:
> "On the wing of abominations shall be one who makes
> desolate"

Which, is in relation to that which occurred under Rome,
which John the Revelator makes abundantly clear that
five had fallen, ones is, and one is yet to be. Of which,
the ten horns, were still to be, but would only be for a
one hour.

The second beast of Revelation 13, the two horned
beast out of the land, as opposed to those out of the
sea, would come next. That beast also has come to
pass, and you Moshe, follow after the image to the
first beast that was set up.

> And Daniel 9:27 says that the Temple sacrifices are
> suddenly stopped

Which they were, under Rome.

> just as is described in Daniel 11:31.

Which they also were, under Greece.

> Daniel 11:31 leads into Daniel chapter 12, which is
> clearly describing end-time events.

LMAO!!! Which, those of Jesus day also thought
they were imminent, just you also do. They have
been imminent to every generation.

> Daniel 12:1 shows that it is a continuation of Daniel
> 11:45, a continuation of the same vision.

Actually, Daniel 11:45 speaks that he shall come to
his end, and none shall help him, which is also an
accurate description of Antiochus Epiphanes.

> Daniel chapter 12 contains: - the Resurrection and the
> Judgement in verse 2

Yet, Daniel describes one resurrection. In which some
are to everlasting life, some to everlasting contempt.

Revelation is clear that there are two resurrections, one
unto everlasting life, and a *thousand* years later, one
unto everlasting contempt.

So which is accurate?

You clearly believe Revelation is the accurate account.
Daniel's account, is completely absent of that thousand
year gap between the two.

> - the Great Tribulation of 3-1/2 years in verses 1 and 7
> (which is the exact same length as the half-week in Daniel
> 9:27)

LMAO!!

And yet. you have also claimed that Daniel 9:24-27 have
not yet been fulfilled. That they could not have, as the
walls did not remain standing the whole time.

So again, when IYO did it start? From what "command"
did it commence? For it is clear, that you expected this
within your lifetime.

> - the "Time of the End" in verse 9
> - the "Abomination of Desolation in verse 11, referring
> back to Daniel 11:31 of the same vision

Yet, there is no denying that Daniel 11 is speaking of Greece.

> - Daniel being resurrected to his eternal inheritance in verse 13.

And, those who shall also awake to everlasting contempt
without a thousand year gap.

> But "Abyss" claims that all that was fulfilled circa 166 BC
> under Antiochus Epiphanes, 200 years *before* Jesus spoke.

"Abyss" claims <click>
"Abyss" claims <click>
"Abyss" claims <click>

LMAO!!!

Moshe, do you deny that an "abomination of desolation"
occurred under Antiochus Epiphanes?


Let's see, you are now preaching a triune fulfillment.
Once under Antiochus, the second under Rome,
and a third that is yet future LMAO!!!

> "Abyss" is an eternally-damned liar per Hebrews 6:4-6
> and Revelation 21:8.

Moshe wrote: <click>
Moshe wrote: <click>
Moshe wrote: <click>

LMAO!!!

Only, it ain't that funny. For, I have chosen my fate.

What shall you do when you also discover and have
to face that you also are assigned amoung the goats?

And what of all those whom you have taught to follow
after the image of the beast?

To walk in the way of the mystery of iniquity.


I think it may go easier for me, than it shall for you.

<snip of no response>

> > > "But before faith came, we were kept under guard by
> > > the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be
> > > revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor [to bring us]
> > > to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
> >
> > Romans 3:31 Do we then nullify the law by this faith?
> > Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > So "Abyss" claims that Paul is a *true* prophet regarding
> > > II Thessalonians chapter 2. But "Abyss" says that Paul is
> > > a *false* prophet regarding Galatians 3:23-25, because
> > > the "mystery of lawlessness" of II Thessalonains 2:7 allegedly
> > > refers to no longer under the law of Galatians 3:23-25.
> >
> > Rom 2:13 for not the hearers of the law are just before
> > God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
>

> So "Abyss" confirms what he is claiming:

Yet, Paul affirms that we do not nullify the law by this faith.
Heaven forbid! Rather, we uphold the tutor.

> The Jesus of Galatians 3:23-25
> is the anti-Christ of II Thessalonians 2:7

LMFAO!!!

Yet, the mystery of lawlessness was already at work.

And God, sends strong delusion upon those who refuse
to love the truth in so that they might be saved.

Jesus also states: away from me, I never knew you,
you who practiced lawlessness.

> So "Abyss" confirms what he is claiming:
>
> The author Paul of II Thessalonians 2:7
> is calling the author Paul of Galatians 3:23-25
> a false prophet.

Yet, it is Paul who also wrote:

Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the law by this faith?

Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Rom 2:13 for not the hearers of the law are just before
God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

Thus, the mystery of lawlessness is made clear.

> What more proof do you need
> to show who "Abyss" is working for?

LMFAO!!!

I do not uphold the law, thus it is indeed clear that I am
not walking according to the ways of YHVH.

Yet, you also by faith do not uphold the law.
So, who are you following after?


From Hebrews 3 and 4

So we see that they were not able to enter,
because of their unbelief.

For we also have had the good news proclaimed
to us, just as they did; but the message they heard
was of no value to them, because they did not share
the faith of those who obeyed.

What a shame for you Moshe.

Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that
rest, and since those who formerly had the good news
proclaimed to them did not go in because of their
disobedience

for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from their
works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make
every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish
by following their example of disobedience.

And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither
on a sabbath:

> > Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers
> > only, deluding your own selves.
>
> ...

Quite the response there.

> > > What more proof do you need that "Abyss" is working
> > > for Satan per "Abyss" renunciation of Jesus per
> > > Hebrews 6:4-6?
> >
> > Very sad Moshe, that you do not understand Daniel
> > any better than that.
>

> "Abyss" said:
> "OMFG!!! Moshe, you accept and promote a false
> Jesus. You promote the mystery of iniquity, you
> are a part of the falling away."
>
> Note the abbreviation at the beginning of that quote
> and consider its implications regarding the evil one
> that "Abyss" follows.

I was kind. Usually I follow OMG or OMFG with:

Oh f*ck, I meant OMA[llah].

> This post from "Abyss" is the most potent proof yet that
> "Abyss" is working for Satan to destroy the faith of all
> Christians.

And yet, it also goes to show that you Moshe, also do
not work for YHVH, for you promote that very mystery
for which Jesus said:

Away from me, I never knew you, you who practice
lawlessness.

> When "Abyss" says that our Jesus is really the anti-Christ,

No, I say that you preach and promote a false Jesus,
another Jesus, one which was not the Jesus sent of YHVH.

For you preach iniquity, you preach lawlessness, which was
clearly proven, and of which, only one Christian spoke
against. When you attempted to teach that it was "theoretically"
permissible in your liberty in Jesus to eat blood, as long as
you cause no one to stumble.

You clearly teach and promote lawlessness. That Moshe,
comes from the spirit of the antichrist. You deny both the
Father and the son, in that you teach that which is contrary
to that which they both have spoken of.

> all true followers of Jesus should do as Michael the archangel
> did when fighting with Satan in Jude 9.
>
> "Abyss" the Lord rebuke you!.

LMFAO!!!

You are powerless and impotent Moshe.

[Up from the Abyss]

C&P response to Moshe's C&P so-called "second witness".

"moshe" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "moshe" wrote:
> > > Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > > > "moshe" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a
> > > > > 7-year covenant with Israel,
> > > >
> > > > LMAO!!! Which is long past.
>

> Daniel 9:24 says that the prophecy will:
> "bring in everlasting righteousness"
>
> "Abyss" claims that is "long past"?

So, are you claiming that Jesus did not bring in
"everlasting righteousness"?

That Jesus did not make "reconciliation for iniquity"?

If Jesus did not make "reconciliation for iniquity",
then you are still dead in your dead in your sin.

Are you claiming that the "most holy" has not yet
been "anointed"?

So yes, it is long past.

The people of the "prince" that shall come, did
indeed destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Are you advocating the building of the third temple
and sacrifice for sin to once again be done?

> > And here I thought you didn't love me anymore.
> > That you didn't read or reply to my posts.

I knew Moshe couldn't resist my fatal charms.

And yesterday I was thinking of drawing my time
here to a close. And surprise, along comes Moshe,
with a reply and an invitation to stay. LMAO!

> > > Matthew 24:15 says that Daniel 11:31 is in the future
> >
> > LMAO!!!
>

> You contradict the explicit words of Jesus.

So you claim. I claim that you also contradict the
explicit words of Jesus. Only yours are far more
deadly. You are a "believer", I am simply an
ignorant atheist nudnik, who only has 1/100th
of the brain power that you do while on vicodine,
and only 1/1000th your normal capacity.

> We'll see how much you "LMAO" when Jesus commands
> that you be thrown into the eternal lake of fire.

LMAO!!! Yet, *IF* such exists, I have knowingly chosen
my fate. You OTOH, are in for a shock.

> > Moshe, Daniel 11:31 is clearly the little horn of Daniel 8:9,
> > which comes from out of Greece.
> >
> > Dan 11:2 And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there
> > shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall
> > be far richer than they all: and when he is waxed strong
> > through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.
> >
> > Dan 11:3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with
> > great dominion, and do according to his will.
> >
> > Alexander the Great.
> >
> > Dan 11:4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be
> > broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven,
> > but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith
> > he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others
> > besides these.
> >
> > The four horns in place of the prominent horn.
> >
> > Dan 11:5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his
> > princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his
> > dominion shall be a great dominion.
> >
> > The little horn of Daniel 8:9. Antiochus Epiphanes.
> >
> > Thus, Daniel 11 was past tense even in Jesus' day.
> >
> > That which remained, was Rome.

No comment Moshe? I am indeed disappointed in that
one of God's elect could not refute the above.

<snip>

> > > Antiochus Epiphanes was circa 166 BC, approximately 200 years
> > > before Jesus spoke in Matthew 24:15.
> >
> > Exactly, under Greece, the prominent horn, Alexander the Great,
> > the four horns, and finally the little horn, which is Antiochus
Epiphanes.

Thus, that is true.

> > > In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of Desolation
> > > spoken of by Daniel" would happen in the *future*:
> >
> > Yes, the occurrence of it under Rome.

Which also, stands as true.

> > > "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken
> > > of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads,
> > > let him understand), "then let those who are in Judea flee to the
> > > mountains."
> >

> > And no [one] fled under Rome?

> >
> > No one made a stand in the mountains? Such as Har Megiddo?
>

> In Matthew chapter 24, the disciples ask Jesus:
> "What will be the sign of your coming, and the end
> of the age?"

Mat 24:8 But all these things are the beginning of travail.
9 Then shall they deliver **you** up unto tribulation ...

> Jesus then spent the next 2 chapters giving great detail in
> chronological order.
> Note the Abomination fo Desolation in Matthew 24:15.

Which, had to occur ***BEFORE*** the destruction
of the temple LMAO!!!

And, it *did* occur. To deny it, is to prove oneself
a fool.

> Note the Great Tribulation of Matthew 24:21.

Yet, just before that:

Mat 24:20 And pray ye that your flight be not in the
winter, neither on a sabbath:

Why not on a shabat Moshe?

> Note the 2nd Coming of Jesus in Matthew 24:29-31.

Which, was to be *immediately* after the tribulation
of those days. I have read accounts that this has
allegedly occurred, though I do not believe them.

> Note the Final Judgement in Matthew 25:31-46.

LMAO!

> When "Abyss" claims that Jesus was talking about
> 70 AD, "Abyss" is lying.

So, you are openly claiming that an "abomination of
desolation" did not occur before the destruction of
the temple?

Or, how about an equestrian statute being erected
upon the site by Hadrain?

The beast which represents Rome in Daniel had
ten horns. Like wise in Revelation, the beast which
is Rome had ten horns, and seven kings
[cf / cp Rev 13:1-7 ; 17:7-12].

Of which, at the time of John the Revelator's writing,
five had fallen, one is, and the other yet to come.

Thus, the beast that was Rome, was clearly already
in action, and the "woman" who rode the beast.

Yet, you continue to abide by and within the sin of
the "woman", who continue to pay homage unto
that beast.

> > > So, "Abyss" says that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> > > of by Daniel" happened in the *past*, 200 years *before*
> > > Jesus spoke.
> >
> > Yes, the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under Greece, and the little
> > horn thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes.
> >
> > > But Jesus said that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
> > > of by Daniel" (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27) would happen
> > > in the *future*.
> >
> > They are not the same occurrence. One was under the little horn,
> > the of Daniel 8:9, the other under Rome.
> >
> > The little horn from out of the ten of Rome, did not occur for a
> > few hundred more years, but it also is now past tense.
> >
> > The same little horn of Daniel 7:8 and shall think to try and
> > change the set times and law [cf Dan 7:25].

No comment? No rebuttal?

Can one of God's elect not refute an atheist?

> > > So, who are you going to believe?
> > > Jesus?
> > > Or "Abyss" who has renounced Jesus and is eternally cursed
> > > per Hebrews 6:4-6?
> >
> > How shameful, that an atheist knows this better than a "believer".
>

> "Abyss" knows perfectly well that in Christianity
> there is the doctrine of double fulfillment of prophecy.

Actually, no, I do not. Thus, you are bearing false witness.

Some preach a triune fulfillment.
Some preach a dual fulfillment.
Yet others, only a singular fulfillment.

I am of the singular persuasion, and have as of yet,
seen no justification for anything other than that.

Thus your "doctrine", is as naught. Nor, can you justify
such a doctrine. In Revelation 17:10, is there a dual
fulfillment in that 5 are fallen, one is, and one is yet to be?

No.

> There is the first minor fulfillement,
> then there is the later major fulfillement.

> Such doctrine of Double Fulfillment has been taught
> throughout the 2,000 years of Christianity.

LMFAO!!! Bullshit.

> Isaiah 7:14 was such a prophecy.

Isaiah was a "sign".

And, you are lacking a "second witness" with regard
to it in Jesus' day. And we know the import you
place upon a "second witness", for you incessantly
post a "second witness" of your own words.

> If "Abyss" does not believe in Double Fulfillement,
> that is beside the point.
> Because "Abyss" nevertheless knows about Double
> Fulfillment but he deliberately ignores the doctrine
> just so that he can mock and lead poeple astray.

Yet, there are those who preach a triune fulfillment, and
those who preach a singular fulfillment.

Personally, I think your so-called "double fulfillment"
doctrine is bullshit, and is used to continue to lead
people astray and away from truth. To continue to
get them to cow down in fear of some imminent
arrival.

> In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of
> Desolation" is in the *future*.

Which it *was*, but occurred prior to the destruction
of the temple. And, to add insult to injury, there was
an equestrian statue erected.

The "abomination of desolation" can not occur absent
a temple. The temple was destroyed, there is no
current temple.

To build another temple, means that sacrifice for sin
will once again be done. That which you also state
is an abomination.

The "abomination of desolation" occurred as Jesus
said it would, and the temple was destroyed.

> The exact phrase "Abomination of Desolation" appears
> in only 3 other places in the Bible:
>
> Daniel 11:31

Which occurred under the little horn of Daniel 8:9, the one
out of Greece. Who fell, or was broken, in the manner in
which Daniel 8:25 describes:

but he shall be broken without hand.

Which is clearly to be seen within Macabbees, and the
writings of Josephus.

<snip>

> Daniel 12:11 refers back to Daniel 11:31.

And in Daniel 8, it is 2,300 evenings and morning until
the sanctuary shall be cleansed. Which is clearly under
the little horn out of Greece.

> So in Matthew 24:15 Jesus was referring to Daniel 11:31.

LMAO! Yet, you did not refute that which I stated above
regarding Greece being the subject of Daniel 11. Daniel
11 is clearly referring to all that which occurred from
Alexander the Great, the split into four kingdoms, and the
little horn [cf Daniel 8:7-14]

> But "Abyss" says, "the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under
> Greece, and the little horn thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes."

Hey, take it up with Gabriel!

Dan 8:16b Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.

Dan 8:20 The ram which thou sawest, that had the two horns,
they are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the rough
he-goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is
between his eyes is the first king. 22 And as for that which
was broken, in the place whereof four stood up, four kingdoms
shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power.
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the
transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance,
and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24 And his
power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall
destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper and do his pleasure;
and he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people.
25 And through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his
hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in their
security shall he destroy many: he shall also stand up against
the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

> So "Abyss" says that Daniel 11:31 had its *only* fulfillment
> circa 166 BC, 200 years *before* Jesus spoke.

It was that spoken of in Daniel 9, which was still future.
Yet, did come to pass, and is now past tense.

> But Jesus said that Daniel 11:31 would be fulfilled in the
> *future*.

No, Jesus did not state that "Daniel 11:31" was future.

But, it is undeniable, that Daniel 11:31 was fulfilled
in the "beast" that was Greece. Which was the third
of the four beasts from out of the sea [cf Dan 7:3]

Rome, was the four beast from out of the sea, having
ten horns [cf Dan 7:7] which correlates to the beast
out of the sea in Revelation 13. Of which, Revelation
17 makes abundantly clear was already in power, was
currently in power, and shall continue for a while in power.

A beast upon which rode a woman. By which John
was astonished [cf Rev 17:6].

> When Jesus and "Abyss" disagree, believe Jesus.

LMAO!!! You mean, your interpretation / understanding
of what Jesus said.

Perhaps we should believe Moshe, that temple was
destroyed and an abomination which makes desolate
never occurred, for it is yet future. LMAO!

> Daniel 9:27 does not contain the exact phrase
> "Abomination of Desolation"
> but it does use the same 2 words in one phrase:
> "On the wing of abominations shall be one who makes
> desolate"

Which, is in relation to that which occurred under Rome,
which John the Revelator makes abundantly clear that
five had fallen, ones is, and one is yet to be. Of which,
the ten horns, were still to be, but would only be for a
one hour.

The second beast of Revelation 13, the two horned
beast out of the land, as opposed to those out of the
sea, would come next. That beast also has come to
pass, and you Moshe, follow after the image to the
first beast that was set up.

> And Daniel 9:27 says that the Temple sacrifices are

> suddenly stopped

Which they were, under Rome.

> just as is described in Daniel 11:31.

Which they also were, under Greece.

> Daniel 11:31 leads into Daniel chapter 12, which is
> clearly describing end-time events.

LMAO!!! Which, those of Jesus day also thought
they were imminent, just you also do. They have
been imminent to every generation.

> Daniel 12:1 shows that it is a continuation of Daniel
> 11:45, a continuation of the same vision.

Actually, Daniel 11:45 speaks that he shall come to
his end, and none shall help him, which is also an
accurate description of Antiochus Epiphanes.

> Daniel chapter 12 contains: - the Resurrection and the
> Judgement in verse 2

Yet, Daniel describes one resurrection. In which some
are to everlasting life, some to everlasting contempt.

Revelation is clear that there are two resurrections, one
unto everlasting life, and a *thousand* years later, one
unto everlasting contempt.

So which is accurate?

You clearly believe Revelation is the accurate account.
Daniel's account, is completely absent of that thousand
year gap between the two.

> - the Great Tribulation of 3-1/2 years in verses 1 and 7
> (which is the exact same length as the half-week in Daniel
> 9:27)

LMAO!!

And yet. you have also claimed that Daniel 9:24-27 have
not yet been fulfilled. That they could not have, as the
walls did not remain standing the whole time.

So again, when IYO did it start? From what "command"
did it commence? For it is clear, that you expected this
within your lifetime.

> - the "Time of the End" in verse 9
> - the "Abomination of Desolation in verse 11, referring
> back to Daniel 11:31 of the same vision

Yet, there is no denying that Daniel 11 is speaking of Greece.

> - Daniel being resurrected to his eternal inheritance in verse 13.

And, those who shall also awake to everlasting contempt
without a thousand year gap.

> But "Abyss" claims that all that was fulfilled circa 166 BC
> under Antiochus Epiphanes, 200 years *before* Jesus spoke.

"Abyss" claims <click>
"Abyss" claims <click>
"Abyss" claims <click>

LMAO!!!

Moshe, do you deny that an "abomination of desolation"
occurred under Antiochus Epiphanes?


Let's see, you are now preaching a triune fulfillment.
Once under Antiochus, the second under Rome,
and a third that is yet future LMAO!!!

> "Abyss" is an eternally-damned liar per Hebrews 6:4-6
> and Revelation 21:8.

Moshe wrote: <click>
Moshe wrote: <click>
Moshe wrote: <click>

LMAO!!!

Only, it ain't that funny. For, I have chosen my fate.

What shall you do when you also discover and have
to face that you also are assigned amoung the goats?

And what of all those whom you have taught to follow
after the image of the beast?

To walk in the way of the mystery of iniquity.


I think it may go easier for me, than it shall for you.

<snip of no response>

> > > "But before faith came, we were kept under guard by
> > > the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be
> > > revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor [to bring us]
> > > to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
> >
> > Romans 3:31 Do we then nullify the law by this faith?
> > Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > So "Abyss" claims that Paul is a *true* prophet regarding
> > > II Thessalonians chapter 2. But "Abyss" says that Paul is
> > > a *false* prophet regarding Galatians 3:23-25, because
> > > the "mystery of lawlessness" of II Thessalonains 2:7 allegedly
> > > refers to no longer under the law of Galatians 3:23-25.
> >
> > Rom 2:13 for not the hearers of the law are just before
> > God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
>

> So "Abyss" confirms what he is claiming:

Yet, Paul affirms that we do not nullify the law by this faith.
Heaven forbid! Rather, we uphold the tutor.

> The Jesus of Galatians 3:23-25
> is the anti-Christ of II Thessalonians 2:7

LMFAO!!!

Yet, the mystery of lawlessness was already at work.

And God, sends strong delusion upon those who refuse
to love the truth in so that they might be saved.

Jesus also states: away from me, I never knew you,
you who practiced lawlessness.

> So "Abyss" confirms what he is claiming:
>
> The author Paul of II Thessalonians 2:7
> is calling the author Paul of Galatians 3:23-25
> a false prophet.

Yet, it is Paul who also wrote:

Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the law by this faith?

Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Rom 2:13 for not the hearers of the law are just before
God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

Thus, the mystery of lawlessness is made clear.

> What more proof do you need
> to show who "Abyss" is working for?

LMFAO!!!

I do not uphold the law, thus it is indeed clear that I am
not walking according to the ways of YHVH.

Yet, you also by faith do not uphold the law.
So, who are you following after?


From Hebrews 3 and 4

So we see that they were not able to enter,
because of their unbelief.

For we also have had the good news proclaimed
to us, just as they did; but the message they heard
was of no value to them, because they did not share
the faith of those who obeyed.

What a shame for you Moshe.

Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that
rest, and since those who formerly had the good news
proclaimed to them did not go in because of their
disobedience

for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from their
works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make
every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish
by following their example of disobedience.

And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither
on a sabbath:

> > Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers
> > only, deluding your own selves.
>
> ...

Quite the response there.

> > > What more proof do you need that "Abyss" is working
> > > for Satan per "Abyss" renunciation of Jesus per
> > > Hebrews 6:4-6?
> >
> > Very sad Moshe, that you do not understand Daniel
> > any better than that.
>

> "Abyss" said:
> "OMFG!!! Moshe, you accept and promote a false
> Jesus. You promote the mystery of iniquity, you
> are a part of the falling away."
>
> Note the abbreviation at the beginning of that quote
> and consider its implications regarding the evil one
> that "Abyss" follows.

I was kind. Usually I follow OMG or OMFG with:

Oh f*ck, I meant OMA[llah].

> This post from "Abyss" is the most potent proof yet that
> "Abyss" is working for Satan to destroy the faith of all
> Christians.

And yet, it also goes to show that you Moshe, also do
not work for YHVH, for you promote that very mystery
for which Jesus said:

Away from me, I never knew you, you who practice
lawlessness.

> When "Abyss" says that our Jesus is really the anti-Christ,

No, I say that you preach and promote a false Jesus,
another Jesus, one which was not the Jesus sent of YHVH.

For you preach iniquity, you preach lawlessness, which was
clearly proven, and of which, only one Christian spoke
against. When you attempted to teach that it was "theoretically"
permissible in your liberty in Jesus to eat blood, as long as
you cause no one to stumble.

You clearly teach and promote lawlessness. That Moshe,
comes from the spirit of the antichrist. You deny both the
Father and the son, in that you teach that which is contrary
to that which they both have spoken of.

> all true followers of Jesus should do as Michael the archangel
> did when fighting with Satan in Jude 9.
>
> "Abyss" the Lord rebuke you!.

[Terry Cross]

Almost everywhere, Moshe, where you want someone to say something they
have not said. The Moshe Quote is infamous. You do it even to Jesus.

TCross

[moshe]

On Mar 19, 1:08 am, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:

...
LMAO!!!
...
LMAO!
...
LMAO!!!
...
LMAO!!!
...
LMAO!!!
...
LMAO!
...
LMFAO!!!  Bullshit.
...
bullshit
...
LMAO!
...
LMAO!!!
...
LMAO!!!
...
LMAO!!
...
LMAO!!!
...
LMAO!!!
...
LMFAO!!!
...
LMFAO!!!
...
OMFG!!!
...
Oh f*ck
...
LMFAO!!!
...

You are powerless and impotent Moshe.

====================================

I spent more than an hour typing detailed answers to "Abyss",
but by the time I got halfway through the lengthy post
I finally realized just how much abusive language
that he was throwing at me.

Since "Abyss" insists on acting like a pig,
Matthew 7:6 applies.

- moshe

[Up from the Abyss]

"moshe" <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:71ed1f1d-a0d5-4e8d...@r13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

[Up from the Abyss]

"moshe" wrote:

> I spent more than an hour typing detailed answers to
> "Abyss", but by the time I got halfway through the
> lengthy post I finally realized just how much abusive
> language that he was throwing at me.

Did you not bother to take the time to read the post
before you started to reply?

After having spent more than an hour, that is the best
that you have in response?

ROTFHLMFAO!!!

So, why not post that which you have prepared.

> Since "Abyss" insists on acting like a pig,
> Matthew 7:6 applies.

LMAO!!! Cop out.

I think you realized, that you were about to bite off
more than you could chew.

[duke]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>

>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Pete’s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level
>>>because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.
>>>But Pete’s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>explain.
>>>
>>>Pete’s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>sacrifice
>>>to atone for Israel’s sins in a future Millennial Temple.
>>
>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.

>Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.

Flesh is born again in baptism.

We become disciples of Christ in baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit.

[Ike]

On 3/17/2013 2:04 PM, moshe wrote:
> Pete’s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level
> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.
> But Pete’s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
> explain.
>
> Pete’s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
> sacrifice
> to atone for Israel’s sins in a future Millennial Temple.
> (That, of course, contradicts Mathew 26:28 and Hebrews 10:12-18,
> along with the rest of the New Testament.)

Precisely right.

> Note these 3 Bible passages which illustrate one special reason Pete’s
> theory is so dangerous:
>
> 1.
> In Matthew 24:23-26, Jesus warns us to beware of false messiahs who
> pretend to be Jesus or pretend to be some other messiah.

Precisely right.

> 2.
> Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a 7-year covenant
> with Israel,

Wrong. Daniel says that a deceitful person will CONFIRM a covenant that
already exists for seven years.

The false covenant AND the evil temple will be in place LONG before we
get to the whole unholy trinity thing.

> apparently allowing a Temple to be built in Jerusalem,

False.

Daniel is written based on the assumption that the Temple already exists.

In fact, the first part of Daniel, which goofy people keep cutting off,
is ABOUT the rebuilding of the temple, in the first 62 "weeks" of the
prophecy (next time, as years).

> but in the middle of those 7 years he will suddenly betray Israel
> and force the Temple sacrifices to be stopped.

It doesn't say "middle;" it says "midst."

And, as with the first fulfillment of this prophecy, Antiochus IV
Epiphanes attacked the temple at the BEGINNING of the last seven years,
and the Temple was cleansed in the MIDDLE of them.

> That corresponds with Daniel 11:31 and with Matthew 24:15.

Not the way you're reading it.

> 3.
> II Thessalonians 2:3-4 gives further detail in that it shows
> the anti-Christ sitting in that Temple claiming to be God,
> thus committing the Abomination of Desolation .

Yes; the third of three.

The first was by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
The second was by Emperor Hadrian.
The third will be by "antichrist."

> When Pete says that Christians and everyone else
> should support a Jesus who offers animal blood sacrifices
> for the atonement of Israel in a future Temple,
> Pete is encouraging people to accept a false Jesus
> who is explicitly predicted by Scripture
> and which Jesus warns us about.

Exactly right.

In fact, supporting the rebuilding of the Temple AT ALL is a tribute to
Satan, as Jesus said HIS BODY is the Temple, and the believers are His
"holy city," and condemned the Temple then, AND in the future.

> That false Jesus will turn out to be the anti-Christ
> who finally shows his true colors with the Abomination of Desolation.

Yes, but that's long after the antichristians and "Jews who are not
Jews" get together to build their monument to foolishness.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/17/2013 6:18 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:

> OMFG!!! Moshe, you accept and promote a false
> Jesus. You promote the mystery of iniquity, you
> are a part of the falling away.

No, he's pretty close to getting it right.

You, on the other hand, don't have a clue.

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

I have already read your reply to Moshe.

I look forward to watching the exchange
between the two of you.

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >
> > OMFG!!! Moshe, you accept and promote a false
> > Jesus. You promote the mystery of iniquity, you
> > are a part of the falling away.
>
> No, he's pretty close to getting it right.

OTOH: And endorsement from you Ike, is almost
like receiving a death sentence.

[Ike]

False.

The temple is built LONG before the unholy trinity shows up.

In fact, that's documented in the FIRST part of Daniel's timing
prophecy, a fact which goofballs keep overlooking.

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of
the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the
Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street
shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

And why do goofballs keep leaving the first (and second) part of
Daniel's timing prophecy out?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THIS HAPPENS TO THE BELIEVERS, AND THEY CAN'T DEAL
WITH IT!

Lk 21:
7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be?
and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come
in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not
therefore after them.
9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for
these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and
kingdom against kingdom:
11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and
pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and
persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons,
being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake.
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye
shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries
shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and
kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

> They start offering animal blood sacrifices in that new Temple.
> People familar with Pete's theory regarding Ezekiel 45:17 will say,
> "That must be returned Jesus offering the animal blood sacrifices in
> the Temple just as Pete said he would!"
> But then 3 years later the anti-Christ and the False Prophet commit
> the "Abomination of Desolation",
> proving that they are really from Satan rather than from God.
>
> So exactly what "spirit" has told Pete that Ezekiel 45:17 refers to
> Jesus in violation of Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 10:12-18?

The same one that that teaches lies like the "rapture" myth, and the
false front-loaded Gospel.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/17/2013 11:34 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> "moshe" wrote:
>>
>> Per Daniel 9:27, the anti-Christ and False Prophet will
>> establish a 7-year peace treaty which allows for the
>> building of a new Temple in Jerusalem.
>
> That has already occurred, it is now past tense.

..said the ignorant sot, never mind that it has occurred, did occur, and
is about to occur again.

That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become,
and God requires that which is past. Ecc 3:15

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/17/2013 11:55 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:

> Daniel 9 was fulfilled by Rome.

LOL

No, Daniel 9 was fulfilled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Seleucids.

Then Daniel 9 was fulfilled again by Emperor Hadrian and the Romans.

Now Daniel 9 will be fulfilled for the third and final time in the End
of the Age.

> It is no longer
> a future event, it is now past tense.

...said the ignorant sot.

Jesus: "For the time is coming, and is now..." (or vice versa).

SINGULAR prophecies already fulfilled one way in history which were
fulfilled another way in His time (is now), with a third yet to come (is
coming).

Let me know when you get a clue that you don't have a clue.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/18/2013 12:03 AM, moshe wrote:
> On Mar 17, 5:18 pm, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
>> "moshe" wrote:
>>

>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17

>>
>> Yet, there is a temple in heaven, complete with the
>> Ark of the Covenant, and an altar. What is the
>> current purpose of said altar?
>>
>>> Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a
>>> 7-year covenant with Israel,
>>
>> LMAO!!! Which is long past.
>
> =====================
>
> Matthew 24:15 says that Daniel 11:31 is in the future,
> and Daniel 11:31 corresponds with Daniel 9:27.

Matthew says no such thing.

Jesus says "whoever has an ear to hear, listen to what the Spirit says."

And the thing that has to be "heard" is the triune nature of prophecy,
as Jesus handled it.

>>> apparently allowing a Temple to be built in Jerusalem,
>>> but in the middle of those 7 years he will suddenly
>>> betray Israel and force the Temple sacrifices to be stopped.
>>> That corresponds with Daniel 11:31 and with Matthew 24:15.
>>
>> Wow!!! You mix these up?
>>
>> Daniel 11:31 is clearly referring to the little horn of Daniel 8:9
>> who Antiochus Epiphanes.
>>
>> Matthew 24:15 is with regard to Rome.
>
> ==========================
>
> Antiochus Epiphanes was circa 166 BC, approximately 200 years before
> Jesus spoke in Matthew 24:15.

And he fulfilled Daniel's prophecies the first time around.

> In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of Desolation spoken
> of by Daniel" would happen in the *future*:

With the way Jesus handled prophecy, the statement has two contexts--1)
what the Romans were about to do, as when Hadrian erected the SECOND
Abomination of Desolation on the temple mount, and 3) what the
antichrist will do in the third round.

> "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by
> Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let
> him understand),
> "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Yep. And the thing that has to be understood is the triune nature of
prophecy, as Jesus Himself confirmed the first interpretation of Daniel
by observing Hanukkah, with the second and third applications implied by
the way Jesus handled prophecy.

> So, "Abyss" says that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by
> Daniel"
> happened in the *past*, 200 years *before* Jesus spoke.

It did.
And then it did again.
And now it will for the third time.

> But Jesus said that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by
> Daniel" (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27) would happen in the *future*.

Which "future?" The "now" or the "coming;" "an end" or "the end?"

'cause that's how Jesus and the prophets said prophecy works.

> So, who are you going to believe?
> Jesus?
> Or "Abyss" who has renounced Jesus and is eternally cursed per Hebrews
> 6:4-6?

Jesus--but not the way you misinterpret Him.

[snippeth]

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

Yes, I know your "understanding" of it.

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >
> > Daniel 9 was fulfilled by Rome.
>
> LOL
>
> No, Daniel 9 was fulfilled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Seleucids.

So, they destroyed the city and the sanctuary? Huh! Seems
Daniel 8, clearly speaking of Greece, states that it will cleansed.

> Then Daniel 9 was fulfilled again by Emperor Hadrian and the Romans.

The city and sanctuary were destroyed.

> Now Daniel 9 will be fulfilled for the third and final time in the End
> of the Age.

LMAO!

[Ike]

On 3/18/2013 12:51 AM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> "moshe" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>> "moshe" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Daniel 9:27 says that a deceitful person will make a
>>>> 7-year covenant with Israel,
>>>
>>> LMAO!!! Which is long past.
>
> And here I thought you didn't love me anymore.
> That you didn't read or reply to my posts.
>
>
>> Matthew 24:15 says that Daniel 11:31 is in the future
>
> LMAO!!!
>
> Moshe, Daniel 11:31 is clearly the little horn of Daniel 8:9,
> which comes from out of Greece.

That was Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

> Dan 11:2 And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there
> shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall
> be far richer than they all: and when he is waxed strong
> through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.

That was Darius III.

> Dan 11:3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with
> great dominion, and do according to his will.
>
> Alexander the Great.
>
>
> Dan 11:4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be
> broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven,
> but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith
> he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others
> besides these.

That was the diodoche.

> The four horns in place of the prominent horn.
>
>
> Dan 11:5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his
> princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his
> dominion shall be a great dominion.
>
> The little horn of Daniel 8:9. Antiochus Epiphanes.

Yep.

> Thus, Daniel 11 was past tense even in Jesus' day.

Nope.

Daniel, like all prophecies, has THREE applications.

> That which remained, was Rome.

Rome had nothing to do with the first fulfillment of Daniel.

That's why John said "FIVE are fallen, and one is..."

1) Babylon
2) Medo-Persia
3) Alexander
4) The Ptolemys
5) The Seleucids.

END OF ROUND 1.

Then came Rome in the reversal that was the second iteration of Daniel.

>> and Daniel 11:31 corresponds with Daniel 9:27.
>
> No, Daniel 9 was with regard to Rome.

Rome has nothing to do with the historical fulfillment of Daniel.

> See Daniel 7
> and the ten horns, the little horn thereof.

To Daniel, the ten horns were the satraps of the combined
Ptolemaic/Seleucid Empires.

To John, the ten horns were the ten regions of the Roman Empire.

End the end of the age, they'll be something altogether related but
different.

> Which, we can trace into Revelation.

No, Revelation PROVES YOU WRONG.

"FIVE are fallen, and ONE is..."

>>>> apparently allowing a Temple to be built in Jerusalem,
>>>> but in the middle of those 7 years he will suddenly
>>>> betray Israel and force the Temple sacrifices to be stopped.
>>>> That corresponds with Daniel 11:31 and with Matthew 24:15.
>>>
>>> Wow!!! You mix these up?
>>>
>>> Daniel 11:31 is clearly referring to the little horn of Daniel 8:9
>>> who Antiochus Epiphanes.
>>>
>>> Matthew 24:15 is with regard to Rome.
>>
>> Antiochus Epiphanes was circa 166 BC, approximately 200 years
>> before Jesus spoke in Matthew 24:15.
>
> Exactly, under Greece, the prominent horn, Alexander the Great,
> the four horns, and finally the little horn, which is Antiochus Epiphanes.

And the last "week" of Daniel was fulfilled in the events of the
Maccabean Revolt, setting up the SECOND fulfillment of Daniel.

>> In Matthew 24:15 Jesus said that the "Abomination of Desolation
>> spoken of by Daniel" would happen in the *future*:
>
> Yes, the occurrence of it under Rome.

Which was the second of three.

>> "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken
>> of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads,
>> let him understand), "then let those who are in Judea flee to the
>> mountains."
>
> And no fled under Rome?
>
> No one made a stand in the mountains? Such as Har Megiddo?

All part of the hazer, quisedreh, and shalem of prophecy.

>> So, "Abyss" says that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
>> of by Daniel" happened in the *past*, 200 years *before*
>> Jesus spoke.
>
> Yes, the occurrence in Daniel 11 was under Greece, and the little
> horn thereof, Antiochus Epiphanes.
>
>
>> But Jesus said that "the Abomination of Desolation spoken
>> of by Daniel" (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27) would happen
>> in the *future*.
>
> They are not the same occurrence. One was under the little horn,
> the of Daniel 8:9, the other under Rome.

With the third yet to come.

> The little horn from out of the ten of Rome, did not occur for a
> few hundred more years, but it also is now past tense.

Yes, because the SECOND (of three) iteration is now past.

> The same little horn of Daniel 7:8 and shall think to try and
> change the set times and law [cf Dan 7:25].
>
> And yet, which you also follow after.

...said the antichristian.

>> So, who are you going to believe?
>> Jesus?
>> Or "Abyss" who has renounced Jesus and is eternally cursed
>> per Hebrews 6:4-6?
>
> How shameful, that an atheist knows this better than a "believer".

You don't have a clue.

>>>> II Thessalonians 2:3-4 gives further detail in that it shows
>>>> the anti-Christ sitting in that Temple claiming to be God,
>>>> thus committing the Abomination of Desolation .
>>>
>>> Oy vey!!!
>>>
>>> What is the falling away?
>>>
>>> What is the mystery of iniquity?
>>>
>>> It is referring to the little horn of Daniel 7:8, the same
>>> one who shall think to try and change the set times and
>>> laws. [cf Dan 7:25].
>>>
>>> Which has been done. And you Moshe, follow after
>>> the image to the beast. You bear the "mark", yet you
>>> can not see it.
>>
>> And so "Abyss" claims that followers of Jesus
>> are the apostates of II Thessalonians chapter 2,
>> making our Jesus the anti-Christ.
>
> You have fallen away from the truth. You follow
> after the mystery of iniquity.

...said the antichristian.

>> "Abyss" has renounced Jesus exactly has "Abyss" has
>> admitted, and "Abyss" is now working for Satan to
>> lead people astray.
>
> Yet, it is infinitely more sad, that you can not see these
> things for yourself.

He sees far more than you do, antichrist.

[snip the rest of Satan's ignorant prattle]

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >
> > That which remained, was Rome.
>
> Rome had nothing to do with the first fulfillment
> of Daniel.

And yet below, you claimed it was the
second of the three. And, you mentioned
Hadrian in another post.

> That's why John said "FIVE are fallen, and one is..."
>
> 1) Babylon
> 2) Medo-Persia
> 3) Alexander
> 4) The Ptolemys
> 5) The Seleucids.
>
> END OF ROUND 1.

LMFAO!!!

But, since we have been over this, there is no point
in going over it again. You can take it up with Moshe.
I know he will appreciate your acknowledgement
of him.

<snip>

> > Yes, the occurrence of it under Rome.
>
> Which was the second of three.

And just above, you said that Rome had nothing
to do with it. <crosses his eyes>

<snip>

> He sees far more than you do, antichrist.

That's fine with me. For the acknowledgement of
Ike as to the veracity of one's beliefs is death
sentence enough IMO.

[Terry Cross]

What is up is down
What is wrong is right
When I say I won't
Then I mean I might
-- Hymn of the Prophet Eickleberry

[Up from the Abyss]

"Terry Cross" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >
> > OTOH: And endorsement from you Ike, is almost
> > like receiving a death sentence.
>
> What is up is down
> What is wrong is right
> When I say I won't
> Then I mean I might
> -- Hymn of the Prophet Eickleberry

LMAO! It actually captures the "essense".

[Michael Christ]

All for nothing because it is not about how awesome the information is
in your head is, Icabod.


Michael Christ

[Ike]

On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>> But Pete�s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>> explain.
>>>>
>>>> Pete�s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>> sacrifice
>>>> to atone for Israel�s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>
>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>
>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>
> Flesh is born again in baptism.

Bullshit.

There are three levels to Jesus' use of the "birth" concept.

The first is literal birth.

The second is spiritual rebirth, i.e. epiphany.

The third is the resurrection, when the believers will REALLY be "reborn."

This sinful flesh can NEVER be "born again;" we have to shed it in the
resurrection.

1Co 15:
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption;
it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in
weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a
natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the
last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is
natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord
from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the
heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the
image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Your statement was just plain dumb, not to mention ANTI-CATHOLIC.

Ike

[Ike]

...said the moron who doesn't have the first clue as to what he's
talking about.

Ike

[Ike]

No, you don't, or you would get it instead of wallowing in your ignorance.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/20/2013 2:18 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> "Ike" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel 9 was fulfilled by Rome.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> No, Daniel 9 was fulfilled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Seleucids.
>
> So, they destroyed the city and the sanctuary?

It's not "destroyed;" it's "corrupt, mar, defile," etc, etc.

> Huh! Seems
> Daniel 8, clearly speaking of Greece, states that it will cleansed.

It was cleansed.

It's called "Hanukkah."

>> Then Daniel 9 was fulfilled again by Emperor Hadrian and the Romans.
>
> The city and sanctuary were destroyed.

It's not "destroyed;" that's a misinterpretation.

It's "defiled," which is what the abominations of desolation are all about.

>> Now Daniel 9 will be fulfilled for the third and final time in the End
>> of the Age.
>
> LMAO!

...cackled the fool.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/20/2013 2:35 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> "Ike" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>
>>> That which remained, was Rome.
>>
>> Rome had nothing to do with the first fulfillment
>> of Daniel.
>
> And yet below, you claimed it was the
> second of the three.

Read it again, moron.

> And, you mentioned
> Hadrian in another post.

That I did--as part of the SECOND iteration.

>> That's why John said "FIVE are fallen, and one is..."
>>
>> 1) Babylon
>> 2) Medo-Persia
>> 3) Alexander
>> 4) The Ptolemys
>> 5) The Seleucids.
>>
>> END OF ROUND 1.
>
> LMFAO!!!

...cackled the fool.

> But, since we have been over this, there is no point
> in going over it again.

Yes, because you were too stupid and obstinate to get it the first time.

[snippeth]

>>> Yes, the occurrence of it under Rome.
>>
>> Which was the second of three.
>
> And just above, you said that Rome had nothing
> to do with it. <crosses his eyes>

READ IT AGAIN, moron.

>> Rome had nothing to do with the FIRST fulfillment
>> of Daniel.

Rome was part of the SECOND fulfillment of Daniel; not the first.

> <snip>
>
>> He sees far more than you do, antichrist.
>
> That's fine with me.

The moron is digging his way to hell with a backhoe, and he says "that's
fine with me."

You're so ignorant you don't know how ignorant you are.

[snip the satanic tap-dance, complete with the false accusation curtain
call]

Ike

[Ike]

Actually, you have no sense.

Ike

[Ike]

"My people perish for LACK OF KNOWLEDGE."

You're first in the perishing line, antichristian.

Ike

[Michael Christ]

Shut up please, Ike, you do not speak in the name of the Lord...as
well you know.

Theology isn't and hasn't saved you, you silly hermeneutic. Repent of
what you are and in the process find out God's will in your life, and
surrender to it totally, then you can add 'deed' to your many
relentless waffling words.





Michael Christ

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >
> > OTOH: And endorsement from you Ike, is almost
> > like receiving a death sentence.
>
> ...said the moron who doesn't have the first clue as to
> what he's talking about.

Whew!!! Thank you.

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:

> > "Ike" wrote:
> >>
> >> That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already
> >> become, and God requires that which is past. Ecc 3:15
> >
> > Yes, I know your "understanding" of it.
>
> No, you don't, or you would get it instead of wallowing
> in your ignorance.

LMAO! Same shpil, different day.

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:

> > "Ike" wrote:
> >>
> >> No, Daniel 9 was fulfilled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Seleucids.
> >
> > So, they destroyed the city and the sanctuary?
>
> It's not "destroyed;" it's "corrupt, mar, defile," etc, etc.

Greece / AE were spoken of in chapters 8 and 11.
There was no destruction of the temple nor the city
spoken of with regard to Greece. The continual
burnt offering was taken away, an abomination
of desolation was committed, yet, the sanctuary
would be cleansed ... not destroyed.

> > Huh! Seems
> > Daniel 8, clearly speaking of Greece, states that it will cleansed.
>
> It was cleansed.
>
> It's called "Hanukkah."

Exactly. It was not destroyed.

> >> Then Daniel 9 was fulfilled again by Emperor Hadrian and the Romans.
> >
> > The city and sanctuary were destroyed.
>
> It's not "destroyed;" that's a misinterpretation.
>
> It's "defiled," which is what the abominations of desolation are all
about.

So, where is that temple? What happened to the city?

In Bere'shit 6:13, mashkhitam, what did God do?
6:17 leshakhet, what was done?
13:10 shakhet, what happened?

Daniel 9:26 yashkhit.
Cp Psalm 78:38 yashkhit

We went over this ad infinitum Ike.

[duke]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:03:40 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> Pete’s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>>> But Pete’s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>>> explain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pete’s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>>> sacrifice
>>>>> to atone for Israel’s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>>
>>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>>
>>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>>
>> Flesh is born again in baptism.
>Bullshit.

Flesh was born into sin, and then flesh is reborn spiritually in baptism.

It won't hurt but for an eternity, ike.

>There are three levels to Jesus' use of the "birth" concept.
>The first is literal birth.

That's what I said. Physical birth.

>The second is spiritual rebirth

That's what I said.

>The third is the resurrection, when the believers will REALLY be "reborn."

You might refer to that as the purging of the sin nature and the effects caused
by actual sins while in the flesh. I guess it might be ok to call that rebirth.
We Catholics call that purgatory.

>This sinful flesh can NEVER be "born again;" we have to shed it in the
>resurrection.

It's destroyed in the purging, again in purgatory..

>1Co 15:
>42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption;
>it is raised in incorruption:
>43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in
>weakness; it is raised in power:
>44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a
>natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
>45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the
>last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
>46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is
>natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
>47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord
>from heaven.
>48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the
>heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
>49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the
>image of the heavenly.
>50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
>kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Right off the bat, I thinks we are saying the same thing for scripture well says
that only the pure will stand face to face with God. It's clear to say that
physical birth and life after spiritual rebirth are filled with personal sin.

>Your statement was just plain dumb, not to mention ANTI-CATHOLIC.

Choice of words. And no Catholic EVER referred to it as "rebirth", but instead
"purged".


The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:03:40 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>>> But Pete�s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>>> explain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pete�s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>>> sacrifice
>>>>> to atone for Israel�s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>>
>>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>>
>>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>>
>> Flesh is born again in baptism.
>
>Bullshit.

John 10:37-39 (New International Version)


37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them,
even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and
understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.�

[Ike]

...says the antichurch, antichristian blasphemer, never mind that
everything stated above is correct, which is why Satan here wants me to
shut up.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/21/2013 12:24 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> "Ike" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>> "Ike" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, Daniel 9 was fulfilled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Seleucids.
>>>
>>> So, they destroyed the city and the sanctuary?
>>
>> It's not "destroyed;" it's "corrupt, mar, defile," etc, etc.
>
> Greece / AE were spoken of in chapters 8 and 11.
> There was no destruction of the temple nor the city
> spoken of with regard to Greece.

What a moron.

The subject of ALL of Daniel's prophecies is JERUSALEM and THE JEWS,
under the auspices of various Gentile rulers, a concept which John
segmented into three groups (was, is, is to come) and extended (five
were, one is, one yet to come leading to an eighth).

And it's not "destroyed," moron (although it can mean so in it's perfect
form, as a consumption of evil)--it's "defiled," "marred," "polluted,"
etc, etc.

> The continual
> burnt offering was taken away, an abomination
> of desolation was committed, yet, the sanctuary
> would be cleansed ... not destroyed.

No, while in the past the temple was "cleansed," in it's perfect
interpretation, the sanctuary will be totally "consumed" (perfectly
cleansed), and Jesus will set up shop there.

>>> Huh! Seems
>>> Daniel 8, clearly speaking of Greece, states that it will cleansed.
>>
>> It was cleansed.
>>
>> It's called "Hanukkah."
>
> Exactly. It was not destroyed.

IT NEVER SAID "DESTROYED," moron.

>>>> Then Daniel 9 was fulfilled again by Emperor Hadrian and the Romans.
>>>
>>> The city and sanctuary were destroyed.
>>
>> It's not "destroyed;" that's a misinterpretation.
>>
>> It's "defiled," which is what the abominations of desolation are all
> about.
>
> So, where is that temple? What happened to the city?

Wait for it--Round 3 is coming.

[snippeth]

[Ike]

On 3/21/2013 12:39 PM, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:03:40 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>>>> But Pete�s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>>>> explain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pete�s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>>>> sacrifice
>>>>>> to atone for Israel�s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>>>
>>>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>>>
>>>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>>>
>>> Flesh is born again in baptism.
>> Bullshit.
>
> Flesh was born into sin, and then flesh is reborn spiritually in baptism.
>
> It won't hurt but for an eternity, ike.

...said the blaspheming heretic.

>> There are three levels to Jesus' use of the "birth" concept.
>> The first is literal birth.
>
> That's what I said. Physical birth.
>
>> The second is spiritual rebirth
>
> That's what I said.

THE SPIRITUAL BIRTH DOESN'T CHANGE THE FLESH, HERETIC--THAT DOESN'T
HAPPEN UNTIL THE RESURRECTION.

>> The third is the resurrection, when the believers will REALLY be "reborn."
>
> You might refer to that as the purging of the sin nature and the effects caused
> by actual sins while in the flesh. I guess it might be ok to call that rebirth.
> We Catholics call that purgatory.

There is no "purgatory," moron.

>> This sinful flesh can NEVER be "born again;" we have to shed it in the
>> resurrection.
>
> It's destroyed in the purging, again in purgatory..

Man-made bullshit.

This is what the Word says, moron...

>> 1Co 15:
>> 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption;
>> it is raised in incorruption:
>> 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in
>> weakness; it is raised in power:
>> 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a
>> natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
>> 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the
>> last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
>> 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is
>> natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
>> 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord
>>from heaven.
>> 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the
>> heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
>> 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the
>> image of the heavenly.
>> 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
>> kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
>
> Right off the bat, I thinks we are saying the same thing

Not even close.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/22/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:03:40 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>>>> But Pete�s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>>>> explain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pete�s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>>>> sacrifice
>>>>>> to atone for Israel�s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>>>
>>>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>>>
>>>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>>>
>>> Flesh is born again in baptism.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> John 10:37-39 (New International Version)
>
>
> 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them,
> even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and

> understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.�

That quote has nothing to do with the subject, moron.

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >
> > Greece / AE were spoken of in chapters 8 and 11.
> > There was no destruction of the temple nor the city
> > spoken of with regard to Greece.
>
> What a moron.
>
> The subject of ALL of Daniel's prophecies is JERUSALEM
> and THE JEWS, under the auspices of various Gentile rulers,
> a concept which John segmented into three groups (was, is,
> is to come) and extended (five were, one is, one yet to come
> leading to an eighth).
>
> And it's not "destroyed," moron (although it can mean so in it's
> perfect form, as a consumption of evil)--it's "defiled," "marred,"
> "polluted," etc, etc.

What is the "perfect" form of shakhat?

> IT NEVER SAID "DESTROYED," moron.

Daniel 9:26 yashkhit.
Psalm 78:38 yashkhit

Gen 6:13; mashkhitam
Gen 6:17; leshakhet
Gen 13:10; shakhet

[duke]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:08:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/22/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:03:40 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>>>>> But Pete�s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>>>>> explain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pete�s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>>>>> sacrifice
>>>>>>> to atone for Israel�s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>>>>
>>>>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>>>>
>>>> Flesh is born again in baptism.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> John 10:37-39 (New International Version)

>> 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them,
>> even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and

>> understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.�

>
>That quote has nothing to do with the subject, moron.
>Ike

Jesus was not "born again".

[Ike]

On 3/23/2013 2:34 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
>
> "Ike" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>
>>> Greece / AE were spoken of in chapters 8 and 11.
>>> There was no destruction of the temple nor the city
>>> spoken of with regard to Greece.
>>
>> What a moron.
>>
>> The subject of ALL of Daniel's prophecies is JERUSALEM
>> and THE JEWS, under the auspices of various Gentile rulers,
>> a concept which John segmented into three groups (was, is,
>> is to come) and extended (five were, one is, one yet to come
>> leading to an eighth).
>>
>> And it's not "destroyed," moron (although it can mean so in it's
>> perfect form, as a consumption of evil)--it's "defiled," "marred,"
>> "polluted," etc, etc.
>
> What is the "perfect" form of shakhat?
>
>
>> IT NEVER SAID "DESTROYED," moron.

And, as usual, the moron wants to engage in his vain dispute about words
while missing the forest for the trees.

07843 תחשׁ shachath shaw-khath’

a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 2370 }

AV-destroy 96, corrupt 22, mar 7, destroyer 3, corrupters 2, waster 2,
spoilers 2, battered 1, corruptly 1, misc 11; 147

1) to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay
1a) (Niphal) to be marred, be spoiled, be corrupted, be corrupt, be
injured, be ruined, be rotted
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to spoil, ruin
1b2) to pervert, corrupt, deal corruptly (morally)
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to spoil, ruin, destroy
1c2) to pervert, corrupt (morally)
1c3) destroyer (participle)
1d) (Hophal) spoiled, ruined (participle)

In the first iteration, the temple was raised from destruction, then
"corrupted" by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, not "destroyed," then it was
cleansed, as prophesied.

In the second iteration (the reversal), the temple was "corrupted" by
Pompey entering therein; but then it was destroyed by the Romans, and
yet still "corrupted" by Hadrian erecting another "abomination of
desolation" on the site.

In the third iteration, it will be a combination of the previous two
iterations.

Thus, like most things in prophecy, the prophet is PLAYING ON LAYERS OF
MEANING, toggling between perfect and imperfect meanings of words (like
"virgin" versus "maiden").

Unfortunately, the single-digit mental midget here can't comprehend that.

Come back when you actually know what you're talking about, moron.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/23/2013 3:12 PM, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:08:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:03:40 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>>>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>>>>>> But Pete�s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>>>>>> explain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pete�s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>>>>>> sacrifice
>>>>>>>> to atone for Israel�s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Flesh is born again in baptism.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> John 10:37-39 (New International Version)
>
>>> 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them,
>>> even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and

>>> understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.�

>>
>> That quote has nothing to do with the subject, moron.
>> Ike
>
> Jesus was not "born again".

Ah, yes he was.

He put off temporarily, and took up eternity; He put off mortality, and
put on immortality; He put off flesh, and put on Spirit.

And thus He says "and the third day I will be perfected," which is not a
moral statement, but a metaphysical one.

[duke]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:31:32 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/23/2013 3:12 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:08:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/22/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:03:40 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>>>>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>>>>>>> But Pete�s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>>>>>>> explain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pete�s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>>>>>>> sacrifice
>>>>>>>>> to atone for Israel�s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flesh is born again in baptism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> John 10:37-39 (New International Version)
>>
>>>> 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them,
>>>> even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and

>>>> understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.�

>>>
>>> That quote has nothing to do with the subject, moron.
>>> Ike

>> Jesus was not "born again".

>Ah, yes he was.
>He put off temporarily, and took up eternity; He put off mortality, and
>put on immortality; He put off flesh, and put on Spirit.

He was fully man and fully divine and free of sin. Thus he had no need for
baptism. God does not get baptized, or "born again" as you might say.

What he did was demonstrate to us, in his flesh, the value of baptism which
results in the coming of the Holy Spirit.

>And thus He says "and the third day I will be perfected," which is not a
>moral statement, but a metaphysical one.
>Come back when you actually know what you're talking about, moron.

You get a new lesson every time you post to me. On the 3rd, he came back in his
resurrected body of flesh.

>Ike

[pyotr filipivich]

moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

>Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level
>because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

But then again, The Petes (et alia) don't have any doctrine
themselves, and in fact reject all doctrine (other than theirs, that
is, if they had any) as a creation of other men.
Having relegated all that came before them to the bit bucket, as
pagan influences, the traditions of men, or irrelevant, they are thus
free to interpret the Christian's Sacred Text according to their own
assumptions.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr
After the war two Army Chaplains were mustering out. The one said to
the other "Chaplain, it has been a real pleasure serving God with you.
You in your way, and I in His."

[Rod]

I'll bet you are a real joy to be around 24/7...

--

[Ike]

On 3/25/2013 8:29 AM, duke wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:31:32 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/23/2013 3:12 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:08:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/22/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:03:40 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>>>>>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>>>>>>>> But Pete�s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>>>>>>>> explain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pete�s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice
>>>>>>>>>> to atone for Israel�s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Flesh is born again in baptism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> John 10:37-39 (New International Version)
>>>
>>>>> 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them,
>>>>> even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and

>>>>> understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.�

>>>>
>>>> That quote has nothing to do with the subject, moron.
>>>> Ike
>
>>> Jesus was not "born again".
>
>> Ah, yes he was.
>> He put off temporarily, and took up eternity; He put off mortality, and
>> put on immortality; He put off flesh, and put on Spirit.
>
> He was fully man and fully divine and free of sin.

...and then He BECAME SIN on our behalf, REQUIRING HIM TO BE "BORN AGAIN."

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech
you by us: we pray you in Christ�s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Stop play theologian; you suck at it.

> Thus he had no need for
> baptism.

He was baptized, you moron, and yes, he NEEDED to be baptism to make it
the way from the believers.

> God does not get baptized, or "born again" as you might say.

Jesus is God. Jesus was baptized. Jesus was born again. God DID get
baptized, and God WAS born again.

(not that you have an inkling what any of this means.)

> What he did was demonstrate to us, in his flesh, the value of baptism which
> results in the coming of the Holy Spirit.

"You say."

The Word says different.

>> And thus He says "and the third day I will be perfected," which is not a
>> moral statement, but a metaphysical one.
>> Come back when you actually know what you're talking about, moron.
>
> You get a new lesson every time you post to me.

Dupe, you couldn't the fact that water is wet straight.

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:

> > "Ike" wrote:
> >>
> >> IT NEVER SAID "DESTROYED," moron.
>
> And, as usual, the moron wants to engage in his vain
> dispute about words while missing the forest for the trees.

LMAO!


> 07843 ??? shachath shaw-khath'
>
> a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 2370?}

>
> AV-destroy 96, corrupt 22, mar 7, destroyer 3, corrupters 2,
> waster 2, spoilers 2, battered 1, corruptly 1, misc 11; 147

You do realize that you are presenting with the above that
shakhat is rendered as "destroy" more often than any other.

> 1) to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay
> 1a) (Niphal) to be marred, be spoiled, be corrupted, be corrupt, be
> injured, be ruined, be rotted
> 1b) (Piel)
> 1b1) to spoil, ruin
> 1b2) to pervert, corrupt, deal corruptly (morally)
> 1c) (Hiphil)
> 1c1) to spoil, ruin, destroy
> 1c2) to pervert, corrupt (morally)
> 1c3) destroyer (participle)
> 1d) (Hophal) spoiled, ruined (participle)

Oh good, you can C&P an e-version of what looks like
the BDB.

So Ike, what binyan is yishkhit? Would you care to parse
the verb and demonstrate the conjugation of it?

Daniel 9:26 yashkhit.
Psalm 78:38 yashkhit

Come on Ike, show us all your mastery of Ivrit.

Or, are you Hebrewless Herman?

<snip>

[Ike]

Most folks think so.

But they're not as stupid as goofballs like you, so go figure.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/26/2013 6:04 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
>
> "Ike" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>> "Ike" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IT NEVER SAID "DESTROYED," moron.
>>
>> And, as usual, the moron wants to engage in his vain
>> dispute about words while missing the forest for the trees.
>
> LMAO!
>
>
>> 07843 ??? shachath shaw-khath'
>>
>> a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 2370?}
>>
>> AV-destroy 96, corrupt 22, mar 7, destroyer 3, corrupters 2,
>> waster 2, spoilers 2, battered 1, corruptly 1, misc 11; 147
>
> You do realize that you are presenting with the above that
> shakhat is rendered as "destroy" more often than any other.

You do realize that the point went completely over your head, right moron?

There are PERFECT and LESSER applications of words, which is what
Niphal, Piel, Hiphil, and Hophal referred to below.

Daniel's word play is BASED on shifts between these layers of meaning
over MULTIPLE ITERATIONS, just as I laid out previously (but has since
disappeared from the post).

>> 1) to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay
>> 1a) (Niphal) to be marred, be spoiled, be corrupted, be corrupt, be
>> injured, be ruined, be rotted
>> 1b) (Piel)
>> 1b1) to spoil, ruin
>> 1b2) to pervert, corrupt, deal corruptly (morally)
>> 1c) (Hiphil)
>> 1c1) to spoil, ruin, destroy
>> 1c2) to pervert, corrupt (morally)
>> 1c3) destroyer (participle)
>> 1d) (Hophal) spoiled, ruined (participle)

[snip the attempt by the fool to try and sound intelligent]

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "Ike" wrote:
> >>
> >> AV-destroy 96, corrupt 22, mar 7, destroyer 3, corrupters 2,
> >> waster 2, spoilers 2, battered 1, corruptly 1, misc 11; 147
> >
> > You do realize that you are presenting with the above that
> > shakhat is rendered as "destroy" more often than any other.
>
> You do realize that the point went completely over your head,
> right moron?
>
> There are PERFECT and LESSER applications of words,
> which is what Niphal, Piel, Hiphil, and Hophal referred to
> below.

So, as I asked last in my last reply, what binyan is yishkhit?

IOW: In Daniel 9:26, which of the four binyan that are
mentioned above is yishkhit?

<snip>

[Ike]

Ah, the moron STILL doesn't get it.

Prophecy is an interplay and layering of words and meanings, SHIFTING
between iterations.

Hence, THERE ISN'T "ONE," MORON.

For instance, Daniel says Messiah would be "cut off." The ambiguous
terms was deliberately chosen as the MEANING shifts between the absolute
and the colloquial.

In terms of Judas Maccabeus as the messiah figure, he was literally "cut
off" when he fell in battle on the eve of the Jews victory over the
Seleucids.

In terms of Jesus in the First Advent, He, too, was literally "cut off"
from the living by crucifixion.

But in terms of Jesus in His Second Advent, He will be figuratively "cut
off" when He is rejected by his own churches (the Great Apostasy) and
another will be named in His place (Antichrist).

Same thing with the mistranslated term "destroy" in Daniel, which can
mean "defiled" or, in the perfect sense, "destroyed."

Now, the moron here lost the argument a long time ago, but, being the
egotistical bastard that he is, he just can't confess that he blew it
and move on, 'caused that would mean I was right all along, which I was.

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

So, all that, and you still did not answer the simple question.

What binyan is yishkhit?

[pyotr filipivich]

Pete <m...@ham.mer> on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:08:05 -0700 typed in
alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:40:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
>> moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
>> typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>>>Pete’s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level
>>>because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.
>>
>> But then again, The Petes (et alia) don't have any doctrine
>> themselves, and in fact reject all doctrine (other than theirs, that
>> is, if they had any) as a creation of other men.
>

>There you are not telling the truth, at all. I have always said I stand
>with the doctrines in the Bible for the times they were committed too.

Two things.

1) you keep saying "I stand with the doctrines in the Bible" yet
you seem quite incapable of stating what those teaching might be, at
the same time being opposed to "doctrine" in general.
2) you seem quite willing to tell others what they believe,
continuing long after you have been told that your beliefs about their
beliefs are in error. So do not be astonished when you are judged by
the same judgment whereby you judge others.
>
>I do not stand by any concoction of doctrine, nor dogma, by either you or
>your church, not any other church unless their doctrine was taken from the
>Bible and meant exactly the same thing that is in the word of God.

In other words, you reject all doctrine not of your own devising
as a creation of men. That's what I said.

>
>
>> Having relegated all that came before them to the bit bucket, as
>> pagan influences, the traditions of men, or irrelevant, they are thus
>> free to interpret the Christian's Sacred Text according to their own
>> assumptions.
>

>LOL, You never do get things right. You sometimes come close, but always
>muck it up with something.

It might be enlightening if you were able to expound in a little
more detail what exactly it is which you feel you got correct, and I
didn't. Because you are on record as saying you reject all statements
of beliefs, all teachings, and all sets of identifying principles -
other than your own.

[Ike]

On 3/28/2013 11:42 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Pete <m...@ham.mer> on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:08:05 -0700 typed in
> alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:40:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>
>>> moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
>>> typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

You don't understand what you're dealing with, Peter (as usual).

Pyotr is Orthodox.

Orthodoxy condemned and prohibited predictive interpretations of
prophecy all the way back in the Fourth Century (if not earlier). This
was one of the major arguments that raged between the Latin (Western)
and Greek (Eastern) writers that eventually led to the Great East-West
Schism of 1050 AD.

So his comments above are perfectly in line with Orthodox doctrine. He's
not trying to be vague; THAT'S ORTHODOX DOCTRINE. They don't believe
that the Bible can be interpreted until after it is fulfilled--and
they're partly right.

Meanwhile, we have the other extreme in which goofballs forward all
manner of wild speculation devoid of any supporting facts (like the
rapturists).

The line on the highway goes down the middle.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/28/2013 5:52 PM, Pete wrote:

[snippeth]

> The Bible is an open book, you have access to the same God if you were born
> again, feel free to quote scripture which I have need of.

How would you know, antichristian?

It's a closed to you today as it was when you went off on your own
antichristian tangent.

[snippeth]

> Incorrect. How hard is it for you to believe the simple truth

Antichristian, you don't even KNOW what the simple truth is.

Yeesh, you are one arrogant and deluded fool.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/28/2013 6:10 PM, Pete wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:03:07 -0400, Ike wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/2013 11:42 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>> Pete <m...@ham.mer> on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:08:05 -0700 typed in
>>> alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:40:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

>>>>>> PeteοΏ½s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

> The real line to follow is that of salvation through Jesus Christ...

And the point went right over the moron's head, as usual.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/29/2013 5:40 AM, Pete wrote:

> not much sense in commenting, is there.
> The Lord is coming soon and when He does it will be quickly.

Not that soon; and in the meantime, we have to suffer through the rise
of the Great Apostasy thanks to antichristian buffoons like you.

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Pete wrote:
> >
<snip>

>
> Not that soon; and in the meantime, we have to suffer
> through the rise of the Great Apostasy thanks to
> antichristian buffoons like you.

Ike, if you truly understood what the "Great Apostasy"
really was, you would also understand that it has been
here for a long time now. And, that even now, you
yourself are a part of it.

[Ike]

On 3/29/2013 5:43 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> "Ike" wrote:
>> Pete wrote:
>>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Not that soon; and in the meantime, we have to suffer
>> through the rise of the Great Apostasy thanks to
>> antichristian buffoons like you.
>
> Ike, if you truly understood what the "Great Apostasy"

> really was...

First, it's "will be," not "was," moron.

Second, I do understand what the Great Apostasy will be, as Jesus lays
out the first six types in the Seven Letters, to be followed by the
seventh and eighth.

1) Legalism
2) Universalism
3) Religiosity
4) Liberalism
5) Presumption
6) Marginalism.

Then comes this...

Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me
the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken
cisterns, that can hold no water.

As always, you don't have a CLUE at to what you're talking about.

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "Ike" wrote:
> >>
> >> Not that soon; and in the meantime, we have to suffer
> >> through the rise of the Great Apostasy thanks to
> >> antichristian buffoons like you.
> >
> > Ike, if you truly understood what the "Great Apostasy"
> > really was...
>
> First, it's "will be," not "was," moron.

It's "was" and "is" and "shall" continue.

> Second, I do understand what the Great Apostasy will be,
> as Jesus lays out the first six types in the Seven Letters, to
> be followed by the seventh and eighth.
>
> 1) Legalism
> 2) Universalism
> 3) Religiosity
> 4) Liberalism
> 5) Presumption
> 6) Marginalism.
>
> Then comes this...
>
> Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have
> forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out
> cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

So Ike, how does that not also fit *any* and *all* of the above
which you also mention.

> As always, you don't have a CLUE at to what you're talking about.

Ulay, ulay lo'. The "Great Apostasy" is simple, it does not require
all that which you attempt to lay out above. Thus, if you really
grasped it's simplicity, you would know that it "was", "is" and
"shall" continue. And, that you are indeed a part of it.

[pyotr filipivich]

Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> on Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:03:07 -0400

typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>On 3/28/2013 11:42 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> Pete <m...@ham.mer> on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:08:05 -0700 typed in
>> alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:40:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>
>>>> moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

>>>>> Pete’s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

That might have something to do with the fact that St Paul wrote
that interpretation of scriptures is not a matter for personal
interpretation.

>prophecy all the way back in the Fourth Century (if not earlier). This
>was one of the major arguments that raged between the Latin (Western)
>and Greek (Eastern) writers that eventually led to the Great East-West
>Schism of 1050 AD.

Much of that had to do with the Patriarch of the West (a position
now open) claiming that he had authority over all Christians
everywhere. An innovative teaching dating to approximately the 8th
century.

>
>So his comments above are perfectly in line with Orthodox doctrine. He's
>not trying to be vague; THAT'S ORTHODOX DOCTRINE. They don't believe
>that the Bible can be interpreted until after it is fulfilled--and
>they're partly right.

We do? News to me.

After all, did not the Ethiopian Eunuch lament to Philip that he
was unable to understand the passage in Isaiah, unless someone
explained it to him?
And had not Our Lord "opened up the scriptures" to the disciples
after Passover, explaining all of it to them?

It still comes down to this: Christianity is a Revealed Religion.
That is, at some point, some one said "Thus it has been revealed to
me." For the Orthodox, it begins with Genesis, when Abram left Hadran
for Caanan, because "God told him", with Moses leading the tribes of
Abraham's descendents out of Egypt, through the judges and prophets,
to the coming of John the Baptizer, and the Lord Jesus himself. Our
"mission" is to make sure we know what was revealed by those sent of
God, from Abram, Moses and the prophets through to Jesus of Nazareth
and what He taught his disciples.
And it wasn't to write a book and left people decide for
themselves what they wanted to believe.

>
>Meanwhile, we have the other extreme in which goofballs forward all
>manner of wild speculation devoid of any supporting facts (like the
>rapturists).
>
>The line on the highway goes down the middle.
>
>Ike

--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.

[Ike]

On 3/29/2013 6:00 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> "Ike" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>> "Ike" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not that soon; and in the meantime, we have to suffer
>>>> through the rise of the Great Apostasy thanks to
>>>> antichristian buffoons like you.
>>>
>>> Ike, if you truly understood what the "Great Apostasy"
>>> really was...
>>
>> First, it's "will be," not "was," moron.
>
> It's "was" and "is" and "shall" continue.

That's almost right, as the Great Apostasy is a shift from most
Christians being Christians with a few antichrists (like Judas) thrown
in to mostly antichristians with a few Christians left, a.k.a. the
"Remnant."

>> Second, I do understand what the Great Apostasy will be,
>> as Jesus lays out the first six types in the Seven Letters, to
>> be followed by the seventh and eighth.
>>
>> 1) Legalism
>> 2) Universalism
>> 3) Religiosity
>> 4) Liberalism
>> 5) Presumption
>> 6) Marginalism.
>>
>> Then comes this...
>>
>> Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have
>> forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out
>> cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
>
> So Ike, how does that not also fit *any* and *all* of the above
> which you also mention.

Thanks for demonstrating that you can't read the Bible with any
comprehension.

The final straws (seven and eight) will be when the churches 1) reject
Jesus as the sole Messiah ("they have forsaken me, the fountain of
living waters"), and 2) accept others and another as Messiah ("and hewed
them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water"), a.k.a.
Antichrist. Same thing that happened when the Jews originally rejected
Jesus as Messiah, but followed the false messiah, Simon bar Kochba,
right to their deaths, beginning the Diaspora.

>> As always, you don't have a CLUE at to what you're talking about.
>

> Ulay, ulay lo'. The "Great Apostasy" is simple...

Moron, you don't have the foggiest notion of what you're talking about,
as usual.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/29/2013 5:17 PM, Pete wrote:

> He is coming soon, regardless.

Not that soon; and if He did, you would be wishing He hadn't.

[snip the rest of the pointless prattle from the antitrinitarian,
antichurch antichrist who proves what I wrote above true]

Ike

[duke]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:41:20 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/25/2013 8:29 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:31:32 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/23/2013 3:12 PM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:08:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/22/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:03:40 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>>>>>>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>>>>>>>>> But Pete�s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>>>>>>>>> explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pete�s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice
>>>>>>>>>>> to atone for Israel�s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Flesh is born again in baptism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John 10:37-39 (New International Version)
>>>>
>>>>>> 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them,
>>>>>> even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and

>>>>>> understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.�

>>>>>
>>>>> That quote has nothing to do with the subject, moron.
>>>>> Ike
>>
>>>> Jesus was not "born again".
>>
>>> Ah, yes he was.
>>> He put off temporarily, and took up eternity; He put off mortality, and
>>> put on immortality; He put off flesh, and put on Spirit.
>>
>> He was fully man and fully divine and free of sin.

>...and then He BECAME SIN on our behalf, REQUIRING HIM TO BE "BORN AGAIN."

But he underwent John's baptism before the cross. He had no sin of ours at the
time.

>20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech

>you by us: we pray you in Christ�s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

>21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
>might be made the righteousness of God in him.
>Stop play theologian; you suck at it.

See, your own words condemn you - he knew no sin.

Did you know that baptism is only for sins committed under the old covenant?
Heeheehee.

>> Thus he had no need for
>> baptism.

>He was baptized, you moron, and yes, he NEEDED to be baptism to make it
>the way from the believers.

No, he showed us the value of baptism to wash away sins committed only under the
old covenant.

>> God does not get baptized, or "born again" as you might say.
>Jesus is God. Jesus was baptized. Jesus was born again. God DID get
>baptized, and God WAS born again.

God became flesh to show flesh how obedience and love result in resurrection.

>(not that you have an inkling what any of this means.)

>> What he did was demonstrate to us, in his flesh, the value of baptism which
>> results in the coming of the Holy Spirit.
>"You say."

That's exactly what happened with him in the Jordan.

>The Word says different.

That's exactly what the Word says.

>>> And thus He says "and the third day I will be perfected," which is not a
>>> moral statement, but a metaphysical one.
>>> Come back when you actually know what you're talking about, moron.

>> You get a new lesson every time you post to me.

>Dupe, you couldn't the fact that water is wet straight.

He was perfected at his resurrection on the 3rd day. Welcome to your own
future.

>Ike

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "Ike" wrote:
> >> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ike, if you truly understood what the "Great Apostasy"
> >>> really was...
> >>
> >> First, it's "will be," not "was," moron.
> >
> > It's "was" and "is" and "shall" continue.
>
> That's almost right, as the Great Apostasy is a shift from
> most Christians being Christians with a few antichrists
> (like Judas) thrown in to mostly antichristians with a few
> Christians left, a.k.a. the "Remnant."

Ike, the "Great Apostasy" as you call it, began long ago.

So Ike, what verse, or verses is the "Great Apostasy"
spoken of primarily?

> >> Second, I do understand what the Great Apostasy will be,
> >> as Jesus lays out the first six types in the Seven Letters, to
> >> be followed by the seventh and eighth.
> >>
> >> 1) Legalism
> >> 2) Universalism
> >> 3) Religiosity
> >> 4) Liberalism
> >> 5) Presumption
> >> 6) Marginalism.
> >>
> >> Then comes this...
> >>
> >> Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have
> >> forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out
> >> cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
> >
> > So Ike, how does that not also fit *any* and *all* of the above
> > which you also mention.
>
> Thanks for demonstrating that you can't read the Bible with any
> comprehension.

IOW: No answer.

> The final straws (seven and eight) will be when the churches
> 1) reject Jesus as the sole Messiah ("they have forsaken me,
> the fountain of living waters"), and 2) accept others and
> another as Messiah ("and hewed them out cisterns, broken
> cisterns, that can hold no water"), a.k.a. Antichrist. Same
> thing that happened when the Jews originally rejected
> Jesus as Messiah, but followed the false messiah, Simon
> bar Kochba, right to their deaths, beginning the Diaspora.

Ike, where have you been? The churches en main have
forsaken God for over 1500 years. They have followed
a false Messiah, another Jesus. They have rejected the
Jesus of the Gospels.

> >> As always, you don't have a CLUE at to what you're
> >> talking about.
> >
> > Ulay, ulay lo'. The "Great Apostasy" is simple...
>
> Moron, you don't have the foggiest notion of what you're
> talking about, as usual.

So you claim.

[pyotr filipivich]

Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:46:39 -0400

typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>

>>>> Ike, if you truly understood what the "Great Apostasy"
>>>> really was...
>>>
>>> First, it's "will be," not "was," moron.
>>>
>>> Second, I do understand what the Great Apostasy will be, as Jesus lays
>>> out the first six types in the Seven Letters, to be followed by the
>>> seventh and eighth.
>>>
>>> 1) Legalism
>>> 2) Universalism
>>> 3) Religiosity
>>> 4) Liberalism
>>> 5) Presumption
>>> 6) Marginalism.
>>>
>>> Then comes this...
>>>
>>> Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me
>>> the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken
>>> cisterns, that can hold no water.
>>>
>>> As always, you don't have a CLUE at to what you're talking about.
>>>
>>> Ike
>>
>> He is coming soon, regardless.
>
>Not that soon; and if He did, you would be wishing He hadn't.
>
>[snip the rest of the pointless prattle from the antitrinitarian,
>antichurch antichrist who proves what I wrote above true]
>

I am less "apocalyptic" in my theology. The Great Apostasy, like
the Anti-Christ - is not going to be a sudden reversal of all
Christian dogma. Just a change in emphasis - to be relevant, to be
contemporary, "seeker friendly", more loving, inclusive, accepting and
diverse. As it is said in the shooting circles - a miss is a miss, by
an inch or by a mile.


There is an old joke (not so old really) of the visit of the
Episcopalian Bishop to a local parish.
It was the Bishop's Pastoral visit. A big deal if you are
Anglican. As the Bishop's procession enters the church, the acolytes
are carrying a statue of The Buddha, there are girls performing
"liturgical dance", the Choir is chanting Sufi poetry, while the
Bishop tosses candies and beads into the congregation. Once reaching
the alter, there is an invocation of the four spirits, and a hymn to
Gaia. At this point, one of the older parishioners leans over to
their neighbor and whispers "One more innovation, and I'm out of
here."

Yep, just one more ....

Oh, and the antichrist will come, not as someone who wants you to
worship him instead of Christ, but as someone caring, compassionate,
loving all and hating none, telling people that they to can have it
all.
Or as someone willing to share the secrets of the Scriptures,
suppressed all these centuries by an Institutional "Church" run by
pagans.
All depends on what the person really wants.

[Terry Cross]

On Mar 30, 11:54 am, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:46:39 -0400

The Great Apostasy will be ushered in by folks like Ike and Linda, who
have divined through scriptural analysis which side Jesus buttoned his
sandals, and they will burn you at the stake if you don't wear yours
the same.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

Matthew 11:25 - I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast
revealed them unto babes.

TCross

[Ike]

On 3/29/2013 5:42 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> on Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:03:07 -0400
> typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>> On 3/28/2013 11:42 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>> Pete <m...@ham.mer> on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:08:05 -0700 typed in
>>> alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:40:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

>>>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

And yet Paul wrote predictive interpretations of scripture all the time,
as did Jesus and John, et al.

>> prophecy all the way back in the Fourth Century (if not earlier). This
>> was one of the major arguments that raged between the Latin (Western)
>> and Greek (Eastern) writers that eventually led to the Great East-West
>> Schism of 1050 AD.
>
> Much of that had to do with the Patriarch of the West (a position
> now open) claiming that he had authority over all Christians
> everywhere. An innovative teaching dating to approximately the 8th
> century.

Go back and read what I wrote, goofball: "ONE of the major arguments
that raged between the Latin (Western) and Greek (Eastern) writers...

>> So his comments above are perfectly in line with Orthodox doctrine. He's
>> not trying to be vague; THAT'S ORTHODOX DOCTRINE. They don't believe
>> that the Bible can be interpreted until after it is fulfilled--and
>> they're partly right.
>
> We do? News to me.

Start reading your own literature, goofball.

> After all, did not the Ethiopian Eunuch lament to Philip that he
> was unable to understand the passage in Isaiah, unless someone
> explained it to him?
> And had not Our Lord "opened up the scriptures" to the disciples
> after Passover, explaining all of it to them?

???

This was AFTER the fact, goofball--Jesus had already come and gone.

> It still comes down to this: Christianity is a Revealed Religion.

[snip the usual pointless Orthodox yadi, yadi, yadi]

>> Meanwhile, we have the other extreme in which goofballs forward all
>> manner of wild speculation devoid of any supporting facts (like the
>> rapturists).
>>
>> The line on the highway goes down the middle.

But thanks for helping me show folks where the extremes lie.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/29/2013 11:29 PM, Pete wrote:

> I have never been anti-Church when defined as the body of Christ.

And now comes the self-substantiation two-step.

Christians believe in the Trinity; you don't.

That pits you against the churches, antichristian, and all of you're
two-stepping revision of the meanings of words won't change that.

> I have never been anti-Christ at any point in my life, even when I did not
> follow him.

...said the antichurch antichristian.

> I became to recognize the falsehood of the Trinity

Everything in the Word revolves around trinities, antichristian.

in recent years after
> studying it. It is not in the Bible, never has been and nothing there
> points to it either.

It's all over the Bible, antichristian from Genesis to Revelation.

> I gave you several months to come up with the definition of "One". You
> never did.

I have many time, oh, ignorant one.

> I also gave you the chance to define trinity as spoken of
> originally, you didn't and you could not.

I've done that many times, too, oh, ignorant one.

> I believe that God is "one" as defined by the Bible, not by man as you do.
>
> Here is a free clue for you. Jesus Christ and millions of His believers are
> "One".

AND YET ALWAYS DIVIDED TRIUNELY, i.e. the "kings," the "priests," and
the "judges."

> The body is part of the head. The Head part of the body. And we are
> in Jesus as He is in the Father. What is "One"?

"You" aren't in anything, Antichristian.

One is the many who are One, BUT ALWAYS DIVIDED INTO THREE.

The nuclear family--father of righteousness and mother of compassion
rearing children with sound judgment--is a microcosm of the triune
assembly of God--Israel, Christianity, and "man-child" of both yet to
come--which is a microcosm of the Triune God--Father, Holy Spirit, and
Son--which is a macrocosm of a "holy" person, with righteousness and
compassion balanced with true judgment.

As such, THE TRINITY ALWAYS STANDS.

So the churches had it right all along (albeit their understanding is
immature) AND YOU'RE ON THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN, antichristian.

Ike

[Ike]

On 3/30/2013 10:04 AM, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:41:20 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/25/2013 8:29 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:31:32 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/23/2013 3:12 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:08:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:03:40 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2013 12:53 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:38 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:26:21 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), moshe <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete�s theory about Ezekiel 45:17 is dangerous on the general level

>>>>>>>>>>>> because it corrupts Biblical doctrine.

>>>>>>>>>>>> But Pete�s theory is also dangerous in a very specific way that I will
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete�s theory is that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrifice
>>>>>>>>>>>> to atone for Israel�s sins in a future Millennial Temple.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With the cross, the Temple is now in our hearts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only if one is born again. And that is for this time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Flesh is born again in baptism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John 10:37-39 (New International Version)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them,
>>>>>>> even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and

>>>>>>> understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.�

>>>>>>
>>>>>> That quote has nothing to do with the subject, moron.
>>>>>> Ike
>>>
>>>>> Jesus was not "born again".
>>>
>>>> Ah, yes he was.
>>>> He put off temporarily, and took up eternity; He put off mortality, and
>>>> put on immortality; He put off flesh, and put on Spirit.
>>>
>>> He was fully man and fully divine and free of sin.
>
>> ...and then He BECAME SIN on our behalf, REQUIRING HIM TO BE "BORN AGAIN."
>
> But he underwent John's baptism before the cross. He had no sin of ours at the
> time.

Notice how the point totally went over the moron's head.

JESUS BECAME SIN ON OUR BEHALF; THEREFORE, HE HAD TO BE "BORN AGAIN," TOO.

[snip the rest of the idiot's attempt to be a theologian]

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

"Pete" wrote:
> Ike wrote:
> >

<snip>

> So what? It isn't biblical, and the truth is. Those that
> believe a lie limit their understandings but it does not
> stop them from being saved.

Well... that would depend upon the lie.
[cf 2 Thess 2:10-12]


But overall, for those sincere, I do not think to have some
minor errors in belief is a problem. Unless of course, they
judge others according to the standard of their error ...

Like, to insist that someone is condemned and can not
possibly be a believer / Christian unless they accept the
Trinity.

[Up from the Abyss]

"Pete" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:

> > "Pete" wrote:
> >>
> >> So what? It isn't biblical, and the truth is. Those that
> >> believe a lie limit their understandings but it does not
> >> stop them from being saved.
> >
> > Well... that would depend upon the lie.
> > [cf 2 Thess 2:10-12]
>

> Shame on me. I would have thought that point to be self
> evident, but you are absolutely correct. Many, like the
> Pharisee seeks to find loopholes for self serving natures.

Your point was self-evident. I just had to stick my finger
in the pie. Wouldn't want you to later be quote mined
upon it.

> > But overall, for those sincere, I do not think to have some
> > minor errors in belief is a problem. Unless of course, they
> > judge others according to the standard of their error ...
> >
> > Like, to insist that someone is condemned and can not
> > possibly be a believer / Christian unless they accept the
> > Trinity.
>

> Yes, and for years I to defended it, unknowingly, after my
> search on church histories and in conjunction with the word,
> and especially reading Paul who stated that even as he spoke
> there were those who sought to divert the Gospel, especially
> the philosophers.

I also started off as a trinitarian.

[moshe]

On Apr 1, 7:19 pm, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 13:15:57 -0800, Up from the Abyss wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Pete" wrote:
> >> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >>> "Pete" wrote:
>
> >>>> So what? It isn't biblical, and the truth is. Those that
> >>>> believe a lie limit their understandings but it does not
> >>>> stop them from being saved.
>
> >>> Well...   that would depend upon the lie.
> >>> [cf 2 Thess 2:10-12]
>
> >> Shame on me. I would have thought that point to be self
> >> evident, but you are absolutely correct. Many, like the
> >> Pharisee seeks to find loopholes for self serving natures.
>
> > Your point was self-evident.  I just had to stick my finger
> > in the pie.  Wouldn't want you to later be quote mined
> > upon it.
>

> Thanks.

>
> >>> But overall, for those sincere, I do not think to have some
> >>> minor errors in belief is a problem.  Unless of course, they
> >>> judge others according to the standard of their error ...
>
> >>> Like, to insist that someone is condemned and can not
> >>> possibly be a believer / Christian unless they accept the
> >>> Trinity.
>
> >> Yes, and for years I to defended it, unknowingly, after my
> >> search on church histories and in conjunction with the word,
> >> and especially reading Paul who stated that even as he spoke
> >> there were those who sought to divert the Gospel, especially
> >> the philosophers.
>
> > I also started off as a trinitarian.
>

> Glad you caught it, for some reason I did not close by thoughts by saying I
> came to a far different conclusion.
>
> Learning or seeing this has taught me to consider doctrines with a
> jaundiced eye unless it is fully confirmed in the Bible.

========================

"Learning or seeing this has taught me to consider doctrines with a
jaundiced eye unless it is fully confirmed in the Bible."

Pete believes many things that are not in the Bible.

Such as claiming that he knows who the 2 witnesses are in Revelation
chapter 11.

Such as claiming that people will flee to Petra, a city which is not
even mentioned in the Bible.

Such as claiming that the Great Tribulation is the same as the Wrath
of God.

Such as believing in a Rapture before the Great Tribulation, even
though passages such as Matthew chapter 24 clearly show the Rapture
after the Great Tribulation.

Such as claiming that Ezekiel 45:17 shows Jesus offering animal blood
sacrifices for the atonement of Israel's sins in a Temple during the
future Millennium.

But the beam in Pete's eye is so big that Pete cannot see his own
false doctrines.
So that Pete's arrogance is added to his false doctrines.

- moshe