Re: Why does Seeker lie about talking the name of god Jesus in vain?
THE LORD
> Uneducated "Peter B." wrote:
>> > No joke? Gee, I thought that was what we were speaking about.
>> Peter B uses the name of his god Jesus in vain in contradiction of the
>> commandment.
>
> You have failed to support your accusation.
Nope.
Gee is a euphemism for Jesus
See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gee
> Peter has left you alone for days.
I've been away for days. DOH!
> Exodus 20: 7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your
> God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
>
> Deuteronomy 5: 11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord
> your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
> And where did Peter do that?
IF Jesus is his god THEN with the word "Gee", a euphemism for Jesus an he
has taken Jesus' name in vain in "No joke? Gee, I thought that was what we
were speaking about."
seeker
wrote:
> "seeker" wrote:
> > Uneducated "Peter B." wrote:
> >> > No joke? Gee, I thought that was what we were speaking about.
> >> Peter B uses the name of his god Jesus in vain in contradiction of the
> >> commandment.
>
> > You have failed to support your accusation.
>
> Nope.
You have failed to demonstrate Peter using the name "Jesus" in vain.
Why would you lie about a euphemism being the name Jesus?
> Gee is a euphemism for Jesus
Are you kidding? You have failed to demonstrate Peter used the name
"Jesus" in vain. You lied.
> Seehttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gee
Probably? Back in 1851? The fact remains that Peter did not use the
name "Jesus" even though you stated he did.
> > Peter has left you alone for days.
>
> I've been away for days. DOH!
So why don't you leave him alone? He isn't bothering you. He has the
right to have religion.
> > Exodus 20: 7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your
> > God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
>
> > Deuteronomy 5: 11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord
> > your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
> > And where did Peter do that?
>
> IF Jesus is his god THEN with the word "Gee", a euphemism for Jesus an he
> has taken Jesus' name in vain in "No joke? Gee, I thought that was what we
> were speaking about."
Wrong. You make many assumptions there. Your own sources don't
assert it as a guaranteed euphemism. They say probably. You have
been dishonest. Your accusations have gaps in their support. Why do
you attack Peter so much?
THE LORD
<whatever>
Maybe seeker is turning into a stalker and troll like Vera Six.
seeker
wrote:
> "seeker" wrote:
>
> <whatever>
>
> Maybe seeker is turning into a stalker and troll like . . .
Not at all. When you leave people alone others don't talk about your
misdeeds. Hey don't do the misdeeds and then there won't be anything
to talk about. However you were caught telling lies. So expect
people to talk about that when you lie. Now find out what stalker
means so that you do not misuse the term again. Also find out what
troll means. Find out what obsessed means. Try not to misuse those
terms any more. While you are at it look up "gee" and figure out that
is is not actually the name "Jesus".
THE LORD
<whatever>
Maybe Seeker is turning into a stalker and troll like Vera sux ... er ...
Six.
seeker
wrote:
> "seeker" wrote:
>
> <whatever>
>
> Maybe Seeker is turning into a stalker and troll like . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/1b20c9efa01a8854
Nobody makes you post here.
Jude Alexander
> On Jan 8, 10:24 pm, "THE LORD" <VeraSixmystalker&tr...@home00150.com>
> wrote:
>> "seeker" wrote:
>>> Uneducated "Peter B." wrote:
>>>>> No joke? Gee, I thought that was what we were speaking about.
>>>> Peter B uses the name of his god Jesus in vain in contradiction of
>>>> the commandment.
>>
>>> You have failed to support your accusation.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> You have failed to demonstrate Peter using the name "Jesus" in vain.
> Why would you lie about a euphemism being the name Jesus?
>
>
>> Gee is a euphemism for Jesus
>
> Are you kidding? You have failed to demonstrate Peter used the name
> "Jesus" in vain. You lied.
I'm not getting into all this between you and Mark but Geez and Gee IS a
contraction of Jesus.
seeker
[...]
>
> > You have failed to demonstrate Peter using the name "Jesus" in vain.
> > Why would you lie about a euphemism being the name Jesus?
>
> >> Gee is a euphemism for Jesus
>
> > Are you kidding? You have failed to demonstrate Peter used the name
> > "Jesus" in vain. You lied.
>
> I'm not getting into all this between you and Mark but Geez and Gee IS a
> contraction of Jesus.
Therefore it is not "Jesus". "Gee" is not the name of God.
QED
"Jesus" was not used. Claiming that "Jesus" was used when "Jesus" was
not used is a lie.
The "all of this" is that Mark hates people who have a certain creed.
Creed based hate is just as bad as race based hate, gender based hate,
orientation based hate and other forms of hate. You don't have to get
into it.
Little Blue Smurf
In a factual kind of way, someone is forcing him to post here,
and that would be Mark himself. There seems to be a purpose in
it.
A question seeker: do you consider yourself to be a Christian,
by that I mean to you believe in Christianities basic precepts ?
seeker
[...]
> > Nobody makes you post here.
>
> In a factual kind of way, someone is forcing him to post here,
> and that would be Mark himself. There seems to be a purpose in
> it.
Are you by chance Rod, Baba or some other ACC regular under a new
name? It helps me to keep track.
> A question seeker: do you consider yourself to be a Christian,
> by that I mean to you believe in Christianities basic precepts ?
I have given up nearly all Christian theology. I still consider
myself to be connected to Christianity because in my opinion God has
not changed. It's intangible. I'm coming to realize that my position
is more of an agnostic Christianity. Typically the follow up question
is why do I post to ACC. If that doesn't interest you then I will
answer for the next person who might want to know. I'm on a spiritual
journey that started in ACC. I don't know where it will lead or when
it will end. So far I have learned to not be the militant sectarian
that I was so many years ago and also to not be like Mark. Here I can
see perspectives from all walks of life and there is no chance for me
to disrupt a Bible service by asking the wrong questions.
So I'm an agnostic Christian who does not hold to what most Christians
would call the basic precepts. I believe (but can't prove) there is a
God. I believe (b.c.p.) that God is good. The same for an
afterlife. The same for injustice here being made right in the next
life. I know that I cannot explain how. No chance of that. I value
orthopraxy. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is better
than doing the wrong thing. However doing the right thing only for
the sake of doing right is better than doing good for the wrong
reasons. I pray. I call God "Jesus" just like I have for as long as
I can remember. I don't think God minds if I am wrong about the
name. If a real God exists then God's attributes do not change based
on our wrong beliefs. I also see the Bible as the word of men.
Beyond that I'm still working on it.
Little Blue Smurf
> On Jan 9, 10:38 am, Little Blue Smurf<smurf78...@mufon.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Nobody makes you post here.
>>
>> In a factual kind of way, someone is forcing him to post here,
>> and that would be Mark himself. There seems to be a purpose in
>> it.
>
> Are you by chance Rod, Baba or some other ACC regular under a new
> name? It helps me to keep track.
I'm Rod. My grand niece was teasing me about looking just
like her stuffed smurf, so I adopted it. She is a little
sweetheart. Kids are the greatest!
>
>> A question seeker: do you consider yourself to be a Christian,
>> by that I mean to you believe in Christianities basic precepts ?
>
> I have given up nearly all Christian theology. I still consider
> myself to be connected to Christianity because in my opinion God has
> not changed. It's intangible. I'm coming to realize that my position
> is more of an agnostic Christianity. Typically the follow up question
> is why do I post to ACC.
No, not from me. Your reasons are your own, and like you I also seek
something.
If that doesn't interest you then I will
> answer for the next person who might want to know. I'm on a spiritual
> journey that started in ACC. I don't know where it will lead or when
> it will end. So far I have learned to not be the militant sectarian
> that I was so many years ago and also to not be like Mark. Here I can
> see perspectives from all walks of life and there is no chance for me
> to disrupt a Bible service by asking the wrong questions.
>
> So I'm an agnostic Christian who does not hold to what most Christians
> would call the basic precepts. I believe (but can't prove) there is a
> God. I believe (b.c.p.) that God is good. The same for an
> afterlife.
There is proof of an afterlife, but it isn't seen as evidence
by everyone, atheists and fundy's are equally adverse to it
as well. It isn't anything like the Fundy's speak of.
> The same for injustice here being made right in the next
> life.
It won't happen seeker, justice in this world is an illusion
only, and if you wait for it to happen in the afterlife, then
all you have done is to submit to those in control here without
a fight, which is what they hope to achieve. Do this, and you
make yourself their victim.
I know that I cannot explain how. No chance of that. I value
> orthopraxy. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is better
> than doing the wrong thing. However doing the right thing only for
> the sake of doing right is better than doing good for the wrong
> reasons. I pray. I call God "Jesus" just like I have for as long as
> I can remember. I don't think God minds if I am wrong about the
> name. If a real God exists then God's attributes do not change based
> on our wrong beliefs. I also see the Bible as the word of men.
Myself as well.
> Beyond that I'm still working on it.
>
You have not been alone..
THE LORD
> Geez and Gee IS a contraction of Jesus.
BINGO!
Peter B wrote: "No joke? Gee, I thought that was what we were speaking
about."
Peter B uses the name of his god Jesus in vain in contradiction of the
commandment.
Exodus 20: 7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your
God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
Deuteronomy 5: 11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord
your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gee
exclamation of surprise, 1895, probably euphemistic for Jesus. Form gee whiz
is attested from 1871; gee whillikens (1851) seems to be the oldest form.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
seeker
Cool screen name.
> My grand niece was teasing me about looking just
> like her stuffed smurf, so I adopted it. She is a little
> sweetheart. Kids are the greatest!
They sure are. The joy of kids is one thing that strikes me as from
God.
[...]
> There is proof of an afterlife, but it isn't seen as evidence
> by everyone, atheists and fundy's are equally adverse to it
> as well. It isn't anything like the Fundy's speak of.
NDE's are interesting but not conclusive. Unfortunately we only know
what the person near death choose to share. Whatever they are they
certainly happen often enough to be part of the human experience.
Even if they are only a dream then it's still awesome that some people
experience a perfect dream where time has no meaning. If they are not
a dream then there is more going on.
> > The same for injustice here being made right in the next
> > life.
>
> It won't happen seeker, justice in this world is an illusion
> only, and if you wait for it to happen in the afterlife, then
> all you have done is to submit to those in control here without
> a fight, which is what they hope to achieve. Do this, and you
> make yourself their victim.
Interesting advise. I will ponder this. Thanks.
seeker
wrote:
> "Jude Alexander" wrote:
> > Geez and Gee IS a contraction of Jesus.
>
> BINGO!
That isn't what your source says. "Probably" becomes "is" in your
leap. You also take a casual real-world usage and project on that an
origin from 150 years ago.
[...]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> gee
>
> exclamation of surprise, 1895, probably euphemistic for Jesus. Form gee whiz
> is attested from 1871; gee whillikens (1851) seems to be the oldest form.
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gee
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Probably?
Euphemistic?
In other words you lied.
Little Blue Smurf
> On Jan 9, 2:10 pm, Little Blue Smurf<smurf78...@mufon.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> I'm Rod.
>
> Cool screen name.
>
>> My grand niece was teasing me about looking just
>> like her stuffed smurf, so I adopted it. She is a little
>> sweetheart. Kids are the greatest!
>
> They sure are. The joy of kids is one thing that strikes me as from
> God.
>
> [...]
>> There is proof of an afterlife, but it isn't seen as evidence
>> by everyone, atheists and fundy's are equally adverse to it
>> as well. It isn't anything like the Fundy's speak of.
>
> NDE's are interesting but not conclusive.
It isn't by way of an NDE, but by way of one who has already
passed beyond this life.
> Unfortunately we only know
> what the person near death choose to share.
This may be true for a great many people, not myself.
> Whatever they are they
> certainly happen often enough to be part of the human experience.
> Even if they are only a dream then it's still awesome that some people
> experience a perfect dream where time has no meaning.
I was thinking so to the first time, but my wife was present and
saw as much as i did. It was no dream then nor has it been a
dream the last three times.
> If they are not
> a dream then there is more going on.
She is no dream, she is my deceased grandmother, and she is
very real, I know because she hugged us both and held me for
quite a while. She died during childbirth, giving my Dad life
in June of 1931.
>
>
>>> The same for injustice here being made right in the next
>>> life.
>>
>> It won't happen seeker, justice in this world is an illusion
>> only, and if you wait for it to happen in the afterlife, then
>> all you have done is to submit to those in control here without
>> a fight, which is what they hope to achieve. Do this, and you
>> make yourself their victim.
>
> Interesting advise. I will ponder this. Thanks.
>
This is a cruel world man has made, seeker, very cruel and it cares
little for it's own, Be careful out there.
Jude Alexander
> On Jan 9, 7:48 am, "Jude Alexander" <Jude@de_swamp.net> wrote:
> [...]
>>
>>> You have failed to demonstrate Peter using the name "Jesus" in vain.
>>> Why would you lie about a euphemism being the name Jesus?
>>
>>>> Gee is a euphemism for Jesus
>>
>>> Are you kidding? You have failed to demonstrate Peter used the name
>>> "Jesus" in vain. You lied.
>>
>> I'm not getting into all this between you and Mark but Geez and Gee
>> IS a contraction of Jesus.
>
> Therefore it is not "Jesus". "Gee" is not the name of God.
Don't most Christians believe that Jesus is God?
>
> QED
>
> "Jesus" was not used. Claiming that "Jesus" was used when "Jesus" was
> not used is a lie.
>
> The "all of this" is that Mark hates people who have a certain creed.
> Creed based hate is just as bad as race based hate, gender based hate,
> orientation based hate and other forms of hate. You don't have to get
> into it.
He doesn't hate them. They hated him. They wanted complete control.
That's the core of the problem. Mark just decided he won't stop until they
do. SO, if you really want peace on ACC, talk to Vera and anybody that
stands with her.
Little Blue Smurf
> seeker wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 7:48 am, "Jude Alexander"<Jude@de_swamp.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>>> You have failed to demonstrate Peter using the name "Jesus" in vain.
>>>> Why would you lie about a euphemism being the name Jesus?
>>>
>>>>> Gee is a euphemism for Jesus
>>>
>>>> Are you kidding? You have failed to demonstrate Peter used the name
>>>> "Jesus" in vain. You lied.
>>>
>>> I'm not getting into all this between you and Mark but Geez and Gee
>>> IS a contraction of Jesus.
>>
>> Therefore it is not "Jesus". "Gee" is not the name of God.
>
> Don't most Christians believe that Jesus is God?
Not all of them, me included.
seeker
Yes that is the trend. It wouldn't have been a lie if Mark said Peter
had used a euphemism that probably stood for Jesus. That would have
been the truth. When I say "symbol" I am not calling Mark's name.
Substitution doesn't work that way.
[...]
> > The "all of this" is that Mark hates people who have a certain creed.
> > Creed based hate is just as bad as race based hate, gender based hate,
> > orientation based hate and other forms of hate. You don't have to get
> > into it.
>
> He doesn't hate them. They hated him. They wanted complete control.
That explanation worked when it was Griz and Vera years ago. Now Mark
is going after new people who were minding their own business and
being decend. Claire and Peter did nothing like that. So why Is Mark
after them? If he wants to pester Chung I have no problem with that.
Chung has tried to control. Peter has not.
> That's the core of the problem. Mark just decided he won't stop until they
> do.
Every last conservative Christian on the planet? He is going to hunt
them all down and be rude to them until what? It doesn't make sense.
The ACC war is over. Vera has backed off. But Mark has not backed
off so why is he still fighting it?
> SO, if you really want peace on ACC, talk to Vera and anybody that
> stands with her.
Nobody stands with her. Vera doesn't even stand with Vera anymore.
She will go weeks at a time without saying anything while Mark keeps
bad mouthing her and keeps the blog bad mouthing her up. Do you get
it? Mark is the only one fighting. Griz is gone. Stover is resting
in peace. Vera is moving on. Chuck gave up. Baba retired. Tom
left. That other girl visits once a year have we haven't seen her.
Many of the old fundamentalists gave up fundamentalism.
Only Mark can't let it go. Why is he still fighting? Why is he
looking for new fundamentalists? If Mark can't provoke Vera into
fighting anymore then what will Mark do?
Ike E 1/1/11
news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
You're either a Christian, or one of those who "pull back unto perdition."
Oh, and prophecy is triune, which is why you can't figure out what
Revelation is about.
First it meant one thing one way, then it meant another thing another way,
but both the past sequences foreshadowed the future.
Ike
seeker
[...]
> being decend.
decent
Silly me. I must be more careful when I select words off the
spellchecker list.
[..]
seeker
wrote:
> "seeker" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>
> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
> You're either a Christian, or one of those who "pull back unto perdition."
I won't leave Christ so I am Christian. I've learned that I do not
know the things that men fed to me as if we know. So I am agnostic.
Thus I am agnostic and Christian. Maybe you would prefer the terms
the other way around - a Christian agnostic?
> Oh, and prophecy is triune, which is why you can't figure out what
> Revelation is about.
Revelation makes far better sense to me now then it did when I was
telling myself that I know things I didn't know.
> First it meant one thing one way, then it meant another thing another way,
> but both the past sequences foreshadowed the future.
The author used vague writing. It's a bit like poetry.
Ike E 1/1/11
> On Jan 10, 6:41 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "seeker" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>> [snip]
>
>>> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>
>> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
> If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
I didn't say you didn't exist. I said there is no such thing as an "agnostic
Christian." You're either a heretic or a Christian--there is nothing in
between.
>> You're either a Christian, or one of those who "pull back unto
>> perdition."
> I won't leave Christ so I am Christian.
You've already left Christ.
> I've learned that I do not
> know the things that men fed to me as if we know. So I am agnostic.
> Thus I am agnostic and Christian. Maybe you would prefer the terms
> the other way around - a Christian agnostic?
Doesn't work either way--you're either an agnostic and you've quit the faith
undefiled, or your a Christian.
There is NO "in between."
>> Oh, and prophecy is triune, which is why you can't figure out what
>> Revelation is about.
> Revelation makes far better sense to me now then it did when I was
> telling myself that I know things I didn't know.
You don't have the foggiest notion what Revelation says. If you did, you
would KNOW that there is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian:" THAT'S
what the letter to LAODICEA is about--MARGINALIZING JESUS CHRIST.
>> First it meant one thing one way, then it meant another thing another
>> way,
>> but both the past sequences foreshadowed the future.
> The author used vague writing. It's a bit like poetry.
It's not vague if you know what the author was doing: John was detailing
Jesus' Olivet Discourse, based on Daniel's three-part prophecy, which "was"
true between the destruction of the First Temple and the end of the
Maccabean Revolt, "is" true (reversed) from the time the Romans entered
Jerusalem in 63 BC to the End of the Simon bar Koseba Revolt (where the Jews
would up right back where they started), and "will be" true in the End of
the Age, in its entirety.
In other words, the basis of Revelation is "what is past is prologue."
And you've gone the opposite direction of the one that Revelation points
to--you've joined the apostates instead of keeping the faith, undefiled, as
directed.
Ike
--
********
Which of the following is the correct way to read Bible prophecy?
A. Immediacy
B. Historicism
C. Dispensationalism
D. Preterism (Full or Partial)
E. Idealism
F. Realized/Sapiential Eschatology
G. All of the above
H. None of the above
Based on an examination of how (not just what) Jesus and the prophets
prophesied, "The Triune Hypothesis" is a guide to reading the Bible
prophetically in all three dimensions of interpretation-the horizontal axis
in time (what was, is, and/or is to come), the perpendicular axis in
application (literal, figurative, and/or spiritual), and the vertical axis
in context (thesis, generality, and/or antithesis).
Topics of discussion include the resurrections, the triune "Last Days," the
Pentecosts, the one-baptism-in-three-parts, the triple application of the
Elijah prophecies, the Temples in Jerusalem, the Abominations of Desolation,
the Triune Israel, the devolution of prophecy, and much more.
Kindle Version:
Print Version:
Facebook: (discussions enabled)
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Triune-Hypothesis/102657386473773
Web: (filtered blog comments enabled)
http://thetriunist.weebly.com/index.html
seeker
wrote:
> "seeker" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:052e4ecd-94bc-4181...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 10, 6:41 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "seeker" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >>> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>
> >> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
> > If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
>
> I didn't say you didn't exist. I said there is no such thing as an "agnostic
> Christian."
And yet you are corresponding with one right now.
> You're either a heretic or a Christian--there is nothing in
> between.
That didn't work during the Dark Ages.
> >> You're either a Christian, or one of those who "pull back unto
> >> perdition."
> > I won't leave Christ so I am Christian.
>
> You've already left Christ.
That you believe that doesn't mean I do.
>
> > I've learned that I do not
> > know the things that men fed to me as if we know. So I am agnostic.
> > Thus I am agnostic and Christian. Maybe you would prefer the terms
> > the other way around - a Christian agnostic?
>
> Doesn't work either way--you're either an agnostic and you've quit the faith
> undefiled, or your a Christian.
>
> There is NO "in between."
Yet here I am. Maybe you shouldn't talk about things you have not
explored.
> >> Oh, and prophecy is triune, which is why you can't figure out what
> >> Revelation is about.
> > Revelation makes far better sense to me now then it did when I was
> > telling myself that I know things I didn't know.
>
> You don't have the foggiest notion what Revelation says.
I can read.
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Triune-Hypothesis-ebook/dp/B0049P231G/ref=s...
>
> Print Version:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Triune-Hypothesis-Mr-Eickleberry-Jr/dp/14563220...
>
> Facebook: (discussions enabled)
>
> http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Triune-Hypothesis/102657...
Jude Alexander
You should see my typos! lol
Little Blue Smurf
> On Jan 10, 6:41 am, "Ike E 1/1/11"<xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "seeker"<hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>>
>> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
>
> If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
I've seen a lot of this kind of thing here; authoritarian
believers attempting to exercise control over other people,
attempting to force compliance to their christian standards
that have less to do with faith than with control. They have
been doing this since the time of Constantine; what doctrine
a person accepts as of Christ determines who retains control
of that persons salvation.
It's a sad truth of modern Christianity; it's as if they murdered
Christ to assume His authority.
>
>
>> You're either a Christian, or one of those who "pull back unto perdition."
>
> I won't leave Christ so I am Christian. I've learned that I do not
> know the things that men fed to me as if we know. So I am agnostic.
> Thus I am agnostic and Christian. Maybe you would prefer the terms
> the other way around - a Christian agnostic?
He would prefer control over you. This only comes when he
has convinced you that he has the answers YOU seek. He doesn't,
he offers a nightmare of a religion, whose followers don't pretend
to adhere to it's basic principles.
It does no good to follow Christ if one doesn't know the truth about
His beliefs, what they were and how to apply them. You won't receive
this from men...they struggle solely for control of salvation.
seeker
> On 1/10/2011 8:52 AM, seeker wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 6:41 am, "Ike E 1/1/11"<xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "seeker"<hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >>> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>
> >> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
>
> > If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
>
> I've seen a lot of this kind of thing here; authoritarian
> believers attempting to exercise control over other people,
> attempting to force compliance to their christian standards
> that have less to do with faith than with control. They have
> been doing this since the time of Constantine; what doctrine
> a person accepts as of Christ determines who retains control
> of that persons salvation.
I think Ike is trying to say that he believes I am not saved and not
going to heaven. The problem is that isn't what "Christian" means.
> It's a sad truth of modern Christianity; it's as if they murdered
> Christ to assume His authority.
No but Christians sects have murdered thousands of opposing and
competing Christian sects. The was plenty of bloodshed. Thousands
and thousands died.
[...]
Linda Lee
In the 1600's gee meant to go to the right; in the late 1800's it
became a euphemism for Jesus because of its definition i.e. those on
Jesus' right hand are his sheep and are saved.
Gee
interjection, verb, geed, gee·ing.
–interjection
1. (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
directing it to turn to the right.)
–verb (used without object)
2. to turn to the right.
–verb (used with object)
3. to turn (something) to the right.
4. to evade. Compare haw3
—Verb phrase
5. gee up, (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
directing it to go faster.)
Origin:
1620–30; orig. uncert.
Little Blue Smurf
> On Jan 10, 7:57 am, Little Blue Smurf<smurf78...@mufon.com> wrote:
>> On 1/10/2011 8:52 AM, seeker wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 6:41 am, "Ike E 1/1/11"<xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "seeker"<hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>>
>>>> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
>>
>>> If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
>>
>> I've seen a lot of this kind of thing here; authoritarian
>> believers attempting to exercise control over other people,
>> attempting to force compliance to their christian standards
>> that have less to do with faith than with control. They have
>> been doing this since the time of Constantine; what doctrine
>> a person accepts as of Christ determines who retains control
>> of that persons salvation.
>
> I think Ike is trying to say that he believes I am not saved and not
> going to heaven. The problem is that isn't what "Christian" means.
>
>> It's a sad truth of modern Christianity; it's as if they murdered
>> Christ to assume His authority.
>
> No
Yes..
but Christians sects have murdered thousands of opposing and
> competing Christian sects. The was plenty of bloodshed. Thousands
> and thousands died.
Yes.
>
> [...]
>
THE LORD
<whatever>
Concern Troll = "Yes, I'm just concerned about the way you're acting. I
think you need to do XYZ, or not do ABC, whichever my opinion would
indicate." ... I ignore concern trolling.
THE LORD
>> The "all of this" is that Mark hates people who have a certain creed.
...
> He doesn't hate them. They hated him. They wanted complete control.
> That's the core of the problem. Mark just decided he won't stop until
> they
> do. SO, if you really want peace on ACC, talk to Vera and anybody that
> stands with her.
BINGO!
THE LORD
> In the 1600's gee meant to go to the right; in the late 1800's it
> became a euphemism for Jesus because of its definition i.e. those on
> Jesus' right hand are his sheep and are saved.
Says WHO?????????????????????????????????
> Gee
> interjection, verb, geed, gee·ing.
> –interjection
> 1. (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
> directing it to turn to the right.)
> –verb (used without object)
> 2. to turn to the right.
> –verb (used with object)
> 3. to turn (something) to the right.
> 4. to evade. Compare haw3
>—Verb phrase
> 5. gee up, (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
> directing it to go faster.)
> Origin:
> 1620–30; orig. uncert.
The origin of the word for THIS meaning steering a horse is 1620-30
according to this text from God knows where as Linda le hasn't supplied a
link. It does not reference ALL meanings of Gee.
Compare with http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gee ..................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gee
...
Origin:
1890–95, Americanism ; euphemism for Jesus
....
— interj
informal ( US ), ( Canadian ) Also: gee whizz a mild exclamation of
surprise, admiration, etc
[C20: euphemism for Jesus ]
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~Word Origin & History
gee
exclamation of surprise, 1895, euphemistic for Jesus. Form gee whiz is
attested from 1885. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE LORD
> I've seen a lot of this kind of thing here; authoritarian
> believers attempting to exercise control over other people,
> attempting to force compliance to their christian standards
> that have less to do with faith than with control. They have
> been doing this since the time of Constantine; what doctrine
> a person accepts as of Christ determines who retains control
> of that persons salvation.
>
> It's a sad truth of modern Christianity; it's as if they murdered
> Christ to assume His authority.
BINGO!
seeker
wrote:
Document where Peter B. "stood with" Vera. It didn't happen just like
your claim that Peter B used the name "Jesus" in vain never happened.
Your accusations are lies. Earlier this month Vera has made a few
posts but in the last few days she has been quiet. How is this not
enough for you? What more do you expect her to do?
seeker
wrote:
You delete facts and argument that oppose your agenda and misrepresent
them to fit your needs.
Doug
> On Jan 10, 7:57 am, Little Blue Smurf<smurf78...@mufon.com> wrote:
>> On 1/10/2011 8:52 AM, seeker wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 6:41 am, "Ike E 1/1/11"<xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "seeker"<hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>>
>>>> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
>>
>>> If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
>>
>> I've seen a lot of this kind of thing here; authoritarian
>> believers attempting to exercise control over other people,
>> attempting to force compliance to their christian standards
>> that have less to do with faith than with control. They have
>> been doing this since the time of Constantine; what doctrine
>> a person accepts as of Christ determines who retains control
>> of that persons salvation.
>
> I think Ike is trying to say that he believes I am not saved and not
> going to heaven. The problem is that isn't what "Christian" means.
In the story of Balaam, in Numbers 22, there is an interesting
parallel to abusive religious leaders, and cults. Balaam was
interested in getting a reward for his prophesies. People who are
dominated by religious teachers or dogmas that are abusive to others,
who are unbelievers (such as the doctrine of infernal torment) are
like Balaam's ass.
In Psalm 32:9, horses and mules are compared to people with no
understanding.
Balaam used his ass to help him get where he was going, and to
hopefully obtain his reward from Balak the king of the Moabites. On
the way, Balaam tried to force his ass to put himself in a dangerous
position; an angel with a drawn sword was standing in the way. Balaam
could not see the angel, but the ass saw him. When the ass baulked,
Balaam was abusive to the animal. This is often the case with
religious teachers who seek power over others with threats, of
disfellowship, hell, etc. They are abusive towards their followers.
Finally the ass spoke to Balaam, and asked him, "Have I ever been
abusive to you?" Balaam admitted that he had not. The Lord then said
to Balaam, "thy way is perverse before me."
>
>> It's a sad truth of modern Christianity; it's as if they murdered
>> Christ to assume His authority.
>
> No but Christians sects have murdered thousands of opposing and
> competing Christian sects. The was plenty of bloodshed. Thousands
> and thousands died.
>
> [...]
>
--
Doug
seeker
wrote:
[...]
> Compare withhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gee..................
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Gee
>
> ...
>
> Origin:
> 1890 95, Americanism ; euphemism for Jesus
>
> ....
>
> interj
> informal ( US ), ( Canadian ) Also: gee whizz a mild exclamation of
> surprise, admiration, etc
>
> [C20: euphemism for Jesus ]
>
> Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
> 2009 William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins
> Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~Word Origin & History
>
> gee
>
> exclamation of surprise, 1895, euphemistic for Jesus. Form gee whiz is
> attested from 1885. Online Etymology Dictionary, 2010 Douglas Harper
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thus the euphemism is not the name it replaces. Thus when you said
someone used the name you were lying.
THE LORD
seeker
wrote:
Dude you personify it.
You are concerned about all the fundamentalists and all the
conservative Christians and you don't want them to have that religious
creed. You are the very embodiment of what you call "Concern Troll"
<sic>.
THE LORD
seeker
wrote:
> "seeker" wrote:
>
> <whatever>
>
Tindale = "Yes, I'm just concerned about the way you're acting. I
THE LORD
<whatever>
Concern Troll = "Yes, I'm just concerned about the way you're acting. I
think you need to do XYZ, or not do ABC, whichever my opinion would
seeker
wrote:
Yet you do not ignore me. So did you lie about me "concern trolling",
did you lie about how you ignore concern trolling or did you lie about
both?
Let's remember you claimed Peter B. used a name when in fact Peter
only used a possible euphemism. That was what your own source called
it - a possible euphemism. Your accusations were lies. Do you admit
your error? No you run from your error even though you were caught
red handed. Hey lie some more.
THE LORD
Ike E 1/1/11
> On Jan 10, 7:23 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "seeker" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> news:052e4ecd-94bc-4181...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> On Jan 10, 6:41 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "seeker" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>>>news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> [snip]
>
>>>>> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>
>>>> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
>>> If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
>
>> I didn't say you didn't exist. I said there is no such thing as an
>> "agnostic
>> Christian."
> And yet you are corresponding with one right now.
No, I'm not; I'm corresponding with one who is pulling back unto perdition,
i.e. has quit the faith.
>> You're either a heretic or a Christian--there is nothing in
>> between.
> That didn't work during the Dark Ages.
There were a lot of problems during the Dark Ages; that STILL doesn't change
the fact that one cannot be an "agnostic Christian."
>>>> You're either a Christian, or one of those who "pull back unto
>>>> perdition."
>>> I won't leave Christ so I am Christian.
>
>> You've already left Christ.
> That you believe that doesn't mean I do.
Ah, no, that you've stated it does.
>>> I've learned that I do not
>>> know the things that men fed to me as if we know. So I am agnostic.
>>> Thus I am agnostic and Christian. Maybe you would prefer the terms
>>> the other way around - a Christian agnostic?
>
>> Doesn't work either way--you're either an agnostic and you've quit the
>> faith
>> undefiled, or your a Christian.
>
>> There is NO "in between."
> Yet here I am. Maybe you shouldn't talk about things you have not
> explored.
Yes, there you are as a modern example of those who have left the faith. And
you have no idea how much I've "explored."
>>>> Oh, and prophecy is triune, which is why you can't figure out what
>>>> Revelation is about.
>>> Revelation makes far better sense to me now then it did when I was
>>> telling myself that I know things I didn't know.
>
>> You don't have the foggiest notion what Revelation says.
> I can read.
Ah, but can you "hear" and "keep."
Apparently not, as you are not "keeping" it, hence, you've never "heard" it.
>> If you did, you
>> would KNOW that there is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian:" THAT'S
>> what the letter to LAODICEA is about--MARGINALIZING JESUS CHRIST.
The lack of response noted.
The letter to Laodicea addresses the problem of those who are not "hot" or
"cold," that is, they have nothing against Jesus, but they don't BELIEVE in
Jesus, either--He's just a nice guy. Not Divine. Not omnipresent. Not
omniscient. No miracles. No resurrection. And so on, and so forth.
In other words, they have no faith in Jesus, and don't hold to orthodox
doctrines--they (like you) turn Jesus into a question mark rather than an
exclamation point.
>>>> First it meant one thing one way, then it meant another thing another
>>>> way,
>>>> but both the past sequences foreshadowed the future.
>>> The author used vague writing. It's a bit like poetry.
>
>> It's not vague if you know what the author was doing: John was detailing
>> Jesus' Olivet Discourse, based on Daniel's three-part prophecy, which
>> "was"
>> true between the destruction of the First Temple and the end of the
>> Maccabean Revolt, "is" true (reversed) from the time the Romans entered
>> Jerusalem in 63 BC to the End of the Simon bar Koseba Revolt (where the
>> Jews
>> would up right back where they started), and "will be" true in the End of
>> the Age, in its entirety.
>
>> In other words, the basis of Revelation is "what is past is prologue."
>
>> And you've gone the opposite direction of the one that Revelation points
>> to--you've joined the apostates instead of keeping the faith, undefiled,
>> as
>> directed.
Again, no response to the pertinent information presented.
Ike E 1/1/11
news:igfa9t$6f8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 1/10/2011 8:52 AM, seeker wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 6:41 am, "Ike E 1/1/11"<xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "seeker"<hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
>>
>> If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
>
>
> I've seen a lot of this kind of thing here; authoritarian
> believers attempting to exercise control over other people,
> attempting to force compliance to their christian standards
> that have less to do with faith than with control. They have
> been doing this since the time of Constantine; what doctrine
> a person accepts as of Christ determines who retains control
> of that persons salvation.
>
> It's a sad truth of modern Christianity; it's as if they murdered
> Christ to assume His authority.
What a bunch of rhetorical bullshit.
No one said anything about "controlling" anyone; no one said anything about
"compliance." And so on, and so forth.
The boy was confused about Revelation and how it worked, and I set out to
straighten him out.
You didn't even read or respond to what I wrote, "genius."
John--like every other prophet--prophesied of the future by taking example
prophecies from the past and applying them to his present as a model for the
future.
And that's PRECISELY how Jesus approached prophecy, as in His "Elias"
prophecy (Elias shall truly come [future, literal]; but Elias has come
already [present, figurative, in John the Baptist].
Same thing with His three-resurrection prophecy, and His "scattering of the
sheep" prophecy, and His split deliveries between the Sanhedrin and the
Disciples, etc, etc.
You're just stumping for your antichristian position, without regard for the
discussion at hand, looking for an opportunity to make an ass of yourself.
Take off, hoser.
Ike
seeker
wrote:
[...]
> >>>>> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>
> >>>> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
> >>> If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
>
> >> I didn't say you didn't exist. I said there is no such thing as an
> >> "agnostic
> >> Christian."
> > And yet you are corresponding with one right now.
>
> No, I'm not; I'm corresponding with one who is pulling back unto perdition,
> i.e. has quit the faith.
Yet I do have faith. Why else do I continue to believe despite
evidence against and a lack of evidence for? Why do I continue to
believe in the face of mockery, peer pressure, scorn and various other
troubles?
> >> You're either a heretic or a Christian--there is nothing in
> >> between.
> > That didn't work during the Dark Ages.
>
> There were a lot of problems during the Dark Ages; that STILL doesn't change
> the fact that one cannot be an "agnostic Christian."
You have not demonstrated that it is fact. Meanwhile thousands of
people find that they are both agnostic and Christian. Don't you
think it's silly for you to assert what they know is not true? It
would make as much sense for me to declare as fact that there was
never anybody named Ike - ever. It's impossible for anybody to ever
be named Ike. Agnostic Christian is just a position. Agnostic means
you don't know. Christian means you believe. How are the two in
conflict?
> >>>> You're either a Christian, or one of those who "pull back unto
> >>>> perdition."
> >>> I won't leave Christ so I am Christian.
>
> >> You've already left Christ.
> > That you believe that doesn't mean I do.
>
> Ah, no, that you've stated it does.
Where did I state that I left Christ?
[...]
> >> You don't have the foggiest notion what Revelation says.
> > I can read.
>
> Ah, but can you "hear" and "keep."
>
> Apparently not, as you are not "keeping" it, hence, you've never "heard" it.
So Revelation means whatever you need it to mean and those who see it
any other way don't hear, keep or understand it.
> >> If you did, you
> >> would KNOW that there is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian:" THAT'S
> >> what the letter to LAODICEA is about--MARGINALIZING JESUS CHRIST.
>
> The lack of response noted.
I don't see how anything in that passage relates to agnostic
Christians in any way.
> The letter to Laodicea addresses the problem of those who are not "hot" or
> "cold," that is, they have nothing against Jesus, but they don't BELIEVE in
> Jesus, either--He's just a nice guy.
Hello? What does that have to do with me?
> Not Divine. Not omnipresent. Not
> omniscient. No miracles. No resurrection. And so on, and so forth.
That is how the apostles knew Yeshua the Nazarene. Were the apostles
agnostic? Where they neither hot nor cold?
> In other words, they have no faith in Jesus,
Yet I do. It takes more than a proclamation from you in order for me
to not have faith in Jesus.
> . . . and don't hold to orthodox
> doctrines--
The apostles didn't hold most orthodox doctrines. They were formed
later. Sometimes hundreds of years later.
> . . . they (like you) turn Jesus into a question mark rather than an
> exclamation point.
I don't turn Jesus into anything. Reality has left us with evidence.
If you don't like the picture the evidence paints then you need to
take that up with reality. Don't blame people who notice the
evidence.
[...]
> >>>> First it meant one thing one way, then it meant another thing another
> >>>> way,
> >>>> but both the past sequences foreshadowed the future.
> >>> The author used vague writing. It's a bit like poetry.
>
> >> It's not vague if you know what the author was doing:
He was writing poetry in response to all the suffering caused by the
Roman-Jewish war. The survivors wanted to know that God would work
things out in the end. They needed the memories of their dead loved
ones honored.
> >> John was detailing
> >> Jesus' Olivet Discourse, based on Daniel's three-part prophecy, which
> >> "was"
> >> true between the destruction of the First Temple and the end of the
> >> Maccabean Revolt, "is" true (reversed) from the time the Romans entered
> >> Jerusalem in 63 BC to the End of the Simon bar Koseba Revolt (where the
> >> Jews
> >> would up right back where they started), and "will be" true in the End of
> >> the Age, in its entirety.
>
> >> In other words, the basis of Revelation is "what is past is prologue."
>
> >> And you've gone the opposite direction of the one that Revelation points
> >> to--you've joined the apostates instead of keeping the faith, undefiled,
> >> as
> >> directed.
>
> Again, no response to the pertinent information presented.
What pertinent information? You asserted a lot of opinion. That
isn't information. And I don't see how it was pertinent.
[...]
> > Which of the following is the correct way to read Bible prophecy?
>
> > A. Immediacy
> > B. Historicism
> > C. Dispensationalism
> > D. Preterism (Full or Partial)
> > E. Idealism
> > F. Realized/Sapiential Eschatology
> > G. All of the above
> > H. None of the above
H
Bible prophesy is the word of men.
[...]
seeker
wrote:
[...]
> The boy was confused about Revelation and how it worked, and I set out to
> straighten him out.
You must be talking about someone else. Most of Revelation is poetry
written in response to the Roman-Jewish war. Of course the first
three chapters are devoted to the churches John of Patmos had
visited. It's not confusing once one realizes that the Bible is the
word of men. That takes the confusion right out of it.
> You didn't even read or respond to what I wrote, "genius."
>
> John--like every other prophet--prophesied of the future by taking example
> prophecies from the past and applying them to his present as a model for the
> future.
>
> And that's PRECISELY how Jesus approached prophecy, as in His "Elias"
> prophecy (Elias shall truly come [future, literal]; but Elias has come
> already [present, figurative, in John the Baptist].
>
> Same thing with His three-resurrection prophecy, and His "scattering of the
> sheep" prophecy, and His split deliveries between the Sanhedrin and the
> Disciples, etc, etc.
If you want to believe that then that is fine with me. If you want to
believe that I am not saved an not going to heaven then go right ahead
and think that too. However that is not what Christian means. If you
are going to assert that it is fact that I do not believe in things I
do believe then I will set that strait. If you claim I said things I
did not then I will clear that up as well.
Ike E 1/1/11
"Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:c-udndmaR4aDO7bQ...@sentex.net...
[snip]
> In the story of Balaam, in Numbers 22, there is an interesting parallel to
> abusive religious leaders, and cults.
YOU are "THEY."
[snippeth]
Ike
--
********
Which of the following is the correct way to read Bible prophecy?
A. Immediacy
B. Historicism
C. Dispensationalism
D. Preterism (Full or Partial)
E. Idealism
F. Realized/Sapiential Eschatology
G. All of the above
H. None of the above
Based on an examination of how (not just what) Jesus and the prophets
prophesied, "The Triune Hypothesis" is a guide to reading the Bible
prophetically in all three dimensions of interpretation-the horizontal axis
in time (what was, is, and/or is to come), the perpendicular axis in
application (literal, figurative, and/or spiritual), and the vertical axis
in context (thesis, generality, and/or antithesis).
Topics of discussion include the resurrections, the triune "Last Days," the
Pentecosts, the one-baptism-in-three-parts, the triple application of the
Elijah prophecies, the Temples in Jerusalem, the Abominations of Desolation,
the Triune Israel, the devolution of prophecy, and much more.
Kindle Version:
Print Version:
Facebook: (discussions enabled)
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Triune-Hypothesis/102657386473773
Ike E 1/1/11
> On Jan 10, 11:14 pm, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
>> The boy was confused about Revelation and how it worked, and I set out to
>> straighten him out.
> You must be talking about someone else. Most of Revelation is poetry
> written in response to the Roman-Jewish war.
Bullshit.
Revelation is a construct of constructs derived from John bringing up
previous prophecies, and applying them to his present to describe the
future.
EXACT same technique that Jesus and the rest of the prophets used (knowingly
or unknowingly).
> Of course the first
> three chapters are devoted to the churches John of Patmos had
> visited.
Only as archetypes to establish a grid of successes and failures, as encoded
in the seven letters.
>> It's not confusing once one realizes that the Bible is the
>> word of men. That takes the confusion right out of it.
You're a fool--there are items in Revelation that John COULDN'T have created
himself.
>> You didn't even read or respond to what I wrote, "genius."
>
>> John--like every other prophet--prophesied of the future by taking
>> example
>> prophecies from the past and applying them to his present as a model for
>> the
>> future.
>
>> And that's PRECISELY how Jesus approached prophecy, as in His "Elias"
>> prophecy (Elias shall truly come [future, literal]; but Elias has come
>> already [present, figurative, in John the Baptist].
>
>> Same thing with His three-resurrection prophecy, and His "scattering of
>> the
>> sheep" prophecy, and His split deliveries between the Sanhedrin and the
>> Disciples, etc, etc.
> If you want to believe that then that is fine with me.
There's no "belief" to it--it's historical fact. In fact, I've just
published a book detailing example-after-example of Jesus taking singular
prophecies and re-interpreting them multiplistically, in different
contextual settings.
> If you want to
> believe that I am not saved an not going to heaven then go right ahead
> and think that too.
There's no "belief" to it--you're of the modern "Laodicaeans" who think
you've arrived, and you have no idea how far from home you are.
> However that is not what Christian means.
A Christian is one who believes and follows Christ.
You HAVE no belief in Christ. He's just "a nice guy" to you.
Nevermind that Jesus described three-dimensional time 2,000 years before
scientists did, and that every one of the Gospels, and Revelation, has at
least one of Jesus' time based stories in it.
> If you
> are going to assert...
I never "assert;" I prove.
> that it is fact that I do not believe in things I
> do believe then I will set that strait.
You don't believe in Christ; you've MARGINALIZED Him, attempting to reduce
Him to what YOU can perceive, NOT what He is.
> If you claim I said things I
> did not then I will clear that up as well.
You've already said plenty to reveal your apostasy.
Ike E 1/1/11
[snip]
> The apostles didn't hold most orthodox doctrines. They were formed
> later. Sometimes hundreds of years later.
Here is an example of you adopting the modernist apostasy.
Let's go backward.
John wrote Revelation is c. 96 AD, during the reign of Domitian. (This is an
established historical fact that even the "higher critics" recognize.)
John was thoroughly familiar with Paul's writings and the Gospels.
1) John quotes Matthew (modified) in the first chapter.
2) John uses the Olivet Discourse as the outline of his chronological
"scroll."
3) John uses Matthew's infancy narrative as the basis of Chapter 14.
4) John even works the fulfillment of the Beatitudes into Revelation TWICE.
5) John encodes a reference to Romans 11 in chapter 10.
Now, John's opening vision of Jesus is based on the split dichotomy between
Jesus as the Son of Man and Jesus as the Son of God.
John also works the three titles for Jesus from the Old Testament into
Revelation--King of kings, Lord of lords, and the hidden reference that
never appears alone, but never appears all together, God of gods.
And so on, and so forth.
And this was BEFORE the end of the First Century.
John used Matthew, so the canonical Matthew (not Matthew's log) existed
BEFORE that.
Matthew is based on parts of Mark, Luke, and the original Matthew's log, so
THOSE had to be written before that, too.
Luke uses Mark and Matthew's log.
Mark was DEAD before the destruction of the Temple, having been killed by
the Ethiopians about three years before the destruction of the Temple.
John also used Paul's writings, as did Luke, so THOSE existed before the end
of the First Century, too.
The ONLY Gospel written after Revelation was John's (based on his Revelation
experience).
Now, WHAT "orthodox doctrine" DIDN'T exist BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST
CENTURY, "expert?"
>> . . . they (like you) turn Jesus into a question mark rather than an
>> exclamation point.
> I don't turn Jesus into anything.
YES, you do--you MARGINALIZE Him, just like the rest of the modern
"Laodiceans."
> Reality has left us with evidence.
LOL
You have no idea how much "evidence" there is in the Bible that Jesus was
from BEYOND "reality," like the fact that He described curved time 2,000
years before WE did.
Or the fact that all four Gospels and Revelation have Jesus stating that He
was somewhere in time where He shouldn't have been (like "before Abraham
was, I Am") a MILLENNIUM before it occurred anywhere else in human
literature!
> If you don't like the picture the evidence paints then you need to
> take that up with reality.
LOL
The higher critics don't have any "evidence;" all they have is speculation
run amok.
> Don't blame people who notice the
> evidence.
WHAT "evidence?"
The "evidence" that they're lying through their teeth when they late-date
the books of the New Testament based on RAMPANT SPECULATION?
[snippeth]
> He was writing poetry in response to all the suffering caused by the
> Roman-Jewish war.
You have no idea what John was doing, oh, clueless one.
Tell me--in Revelation 10, what did the seven thunders say, and what did the
angel say?
>>> John was detailing
>>> Jesus' Olivet Discourse, based on Daniel's three-part prophecy, which
>>> "was"
>>> true between the destruction of the First Temple and the end of the
>>> Maccabean Revolt, "is" true (reversed) from the time the Romans entered
>>> Jerusalem in 63 BC to the End of the Simon bar Koseba Revolt (where the
>>> Jews
>>> would up right back where they started), and "will be" true in the End
>>> of
>>> the Age, in its entirety.
>
>>> In other words, the basis of Revelation is "what is past is prologue."
>
>>> And you've gone the opposite direction of the one that Revelation points
>>> to--you've joined the apostates instead of keeping the faith, undefiled,
>>> as
>>> directed.
>
>> Again, no response to the pertinent information presented.
> What pertinent information? You asserted a lot of opinion. That
> isn't information. And I don't see how it was pertinent.
There's no "assertion" to it at all.
John rotated the "was," "is," and "is to come" statements into every
conceivable combination, even hiding statements of it in Revelation.
John got this concept (like most of the rest of Revelation) from an Old
Testament book--Ecclesiastes 3:15.
"That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become, and
God requires that which is past."
Just as John utilizes the concept in Revelation, "was" sets up "is," "is"
sets up "is to come," and "is to come" derives from what God already
established in the "was" and "is."
Now, you didn't have a CLUE that this construct was in Revelation, so the
question is, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL ANYONE WHAT REVELATION IS OR
ISN'T, "expert?"
[snip]
> Bible prophesy is the word of men.
Said the ignorant ass who doesn't even know what's IN Bible prophecy.
Come back when you can explain all of the little details in Revelation,
where they came from, how they work together, and why John used them, oh,
arrogant pissant who thinks he knows anything.
Ike
Linda Lee
wrote:
> Ignorant "Linda Lee" barely wrote in a message:
>
> > In the 1600's gee meant to go to the right; in the late 1800's it
> > became a euphemism for Jesus because of its definition i.e. those on
> > Jesus' right hand are his sheep and are saved.
>
> Says WHO?????????????????????????????????
If you knew your NT Scriptures at all, you'd know salvation is
associated with being on the right hand of the Messiah (Matt. 25:33),
and the earliest definition, in the 1600's, of 'gee' was to turn to
the right; thus, the association with "Jesus" whose name begins with
the same sound - gee. Of course you haven't a clue why it came to be a
euphemism for "Jesus".
>
> > Gee
> > interjection, verb, geed, gee ing.
> > interjection
> > 1. (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
> > directing it to turn to the right.)
> > verb (used without object)
> > 2. to turn to the right.
> > verb (used with object)
> > 3. to turn (something) to the right.
> > 4. to evade. Compare haw3
> > Verb phrase
> > 5. gee up, (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
> > directing it to go faster.)
> > Origin:
> > 1620 30; orig. uncert.
>
>
> Compare withhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gee..................
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Gee
>
> ...
>
> Origin:
> 1890 95, Americanism ; euphemism for Jesus
That's right, and that is the second definition from Random House
Dictionary, as are all of the following definitions of 'gee',
including the original one I already gave from the 1600's.
And since you found the same link I used, you already saw the
definition I provided was the FIRST DEFINITION AT THE TOP OF THAT
PAGE, AND THE EARLIEST DEFINITION GIVEN at that link, so you can quit
acting like you don't know where it came from.
THIS WAS THE FIRST DEFINITION:
gee
1 /dʒi/ Show Spelled [jee] Show IPA interjection, verb, geed,
gee·ing.
–interjection
1. (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
directing it to turn to the right.)
–verb (used without object)
2. to turn to the right.
–verb (used with object)
3. to turn (something) to the right.
4. to evade. Compare haw3
—Verb phrase
5. gee up, (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
directing it to go faster.)
Origin:
1620–30; orig. uncert.
Following are four more definitions from Random House Dictionary:
gee
2 /dʒi/ Show Spelled[jee] Show IPA
–interjection Informal .
(used to express surprise, disappointment, enthusiasm, or simple
emphasis): Gee, that's great! Gee, I can't remember the book's title.
Origin:
1890–95, Americanism ; euphemism for Jesus
gee
3 /dʒi/ Show Spelled[jee] Show IPA
–verb (used without object), geed, gee·ing. Informal .
to agree; get along.
Origin:
1690–1700; orig. uncert.
gee
4 /dʒi/ Show Spelled[jee] Show IPA
–noun Slang .
a sum of one thousand dollars: a fancy car costing twenty-five gees.
Compare G.
Origin:
1925–30; sp. of G, abbr. for grand (a thousand dollars)
gee
5 /dʒi/ Show Spelled[jee] Show IPA
–noun
a radio navigational system by which a fix can be obtained by
comparing the pulse repetition rates of high-frequency ground waves
from two separate stations.
Origin:
1940–45; orig. abbr. for ground electronics engineering
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.
see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gee
Linda Lee
>
> > In the 1600's gee meant to go to the right; in the late 1800's it
> > became a euphemism for Jesus because of its definition i.e. those on
> > Jesus' right hand are his sheep and are saved.
Mark T. (who now having lost it
completely posts as "THE LORD") says:
>
> Says WHO?????????????????????????????????
>
If you knew your NT Scriptures at all you'd know salvation is
associated with being on the right hand of the Messiah (Matt. 25:33),
and the earliest definition, in the 1600's, of 'gee' was to turn to
the right; thus, the association with "Jesus" whose name begins with
the same sound - gee. Of course you haven't a clue why it came to be a
euphemism for "Jesus".
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > Gee
> > interjection, verb, geed, gee ing.
> > interjection
> > 1. (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
> > directing it to turn to the right.)
> > verb (used without object)
> > 2. to turn to the right.
> > verb (used with object)
> > 3. to turn (something) to the right.
> > 4. to evade. Compare haw3
> > Verb phrase
> > 5. gee up, (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
> > directing it to go faster.)
> > Origin:
> > 1620 30; orig. uncert.
> Compare withhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gee..................
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Gee
> ...
> Origin:
> 1890 95, Americanism ; euphemism for Jesus
That's right, and that is the second definition from Random House
Dictionary, as are all of the following definitions of 'gee',
including the original one I already gave from the 1600's.
And since you found the same link I used, you already saw the
definition I provided was the FIRST DEFINITION AT THE TOP OF THAT
PAGE, AND THE EARLIEST DEFINITION GIVEN at that link, so you can quit
acting like you don't know where it came from.
THIS WAS THE FIRST DEFINITION (WHICH YOU IGNORED):
gee
1 /dʒi/ Show Spelled [jee] Show IPA interjection, verb, geed,
gee·ing.
–interjection
1. (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
directing it to turn to the right.)
–verb (used without object)
2. to turn to the right.
–verb (used with object)
3. to turn (something) to the right.
4. to evade. Compare haw3
—Verb phrase
5. gee up, (used as a word of command to a horse or other draft animal
directing it to go faster.)
Origin:
1620–30; orig. uncert.
Following are four more definitions from Random House Dictionary:
gee
2 /dʒi/ Show Spelled[jee] Show IPA
–interjection Informal .
(used to express surprise, disappointment, enthusiasm, or simple
emphasis): Gee, that's great! Gee, I can't remember the book's title.
Origin:
1890–95, Americanism ; euphemism for Jesus
gee
3 /dʒi/ Show Spelled[jee] Show IPA
–verb (used without object), geed, gee·ing. Informal .
to agree; get along.
Origin:
1690–1700; orig. uncert.
gee
4 /dʒi/ Show Spelled[jee] Show IPA
–noun Slang .
a sum of one thousand dollars: a fancy car costing twenty-five gees.
Compare G.
Origin:
1925–30; sp. of G, abbr. for grand (a thousand dollars)
gee
5 /dʒi/ Show Spelled[jee] Show IPA
–noun
a radio navigational system by which a fix can be obtained by
comparing the pulse repetition rates of high-frequency ground waves
from two separate stations.
Origin:
1940–45; orig. abbr. for ground electronics engineering
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.
see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gee
Linda Lee
The following is now my sign-off.
The WORKS OF THE DEVIL on the Christian Newsgroups: 8-Step Plan
(aka 'DEVIL in DISGUISE')
# 1.) Lie and level slanderous accusations against Christian
believers. Say poster 'so-and-so' agrees with you; it will cause
division, and makes you look more credible. (It is wise to choose
someone like yourself that isn't likely to contradict you.)
Alternatively, say "everyone" agrees with you. Don't forget to
occasionally say how you hate "ignorant Christians" (especially those
saying the Gospel teaches the truth that the Messiah was God incarnate
as our Saviour), or "ignorant pagan Christians", or "ignorant
idolatrous Christians", or "ignorant lawless Christians", or "ignorant
evangelical Christians" (those who preach the Gospel of Christ), or
"dangerous and/or delusional religious fanatics", or "ignorant
Fundamentalists" ("Fundamentalists" being redefined by some anti-
Christian posters as any Christian who has ever appeared angry about
anything, i.e. they're "militant Christians"), whatever is appropriate
to the situation, or is your favorite method of operation.
# 2.) Falsely claim others are lying and leveling slanderous
accusations against you to add some confusion for the benefit of any
readers.
# 3.) Claim they don't really follow Christ, that Satan speaks
through them, that they don't really believe the Bible, that they
aren't led by the Holy Spirit, and that their Scriptures have been
hopelessly corrupted and are wholly untrustworthy; then pretend to be
a "true believer" yourself while throwing out various sections of the
Scriptures at will. Appeal to their pride; build them up before you
tear them down off their pedestal. Tell them they're becoming a great
writer, or they're "intelligent"; everyone falls for that (and it's
even technically true; anyone who isn't entirely brain-dead has some
intelligence). Call them "brother" or "sister", if you can stomach it.
Throw in a "God bless you" occasionally, or an "Amen, brother" – that
is really convincing. (Females fall for the "God bless you"; males
seem to like "Amen, brother" the best, because not only are you
calling them brother, but you're saying they're RIGHT.)
# 4.) Harass relentlessly, interrupting every thread with accusations
and obscenities against your current target. Be persistent; it will
pay off eventually. Falsely accuse, judge, condemn; you know the
routine; it's as easy as 1, 2, 3. Say your motives are altruistic;
you're only doing this for their benefit or the benefit of others. If
all else fails; vaguely threaten them or their loved ones in some way,
and then say they're delusional if they call you on it.
# 5.) Always remember to straighten your halo, pretend innocence, and
deny doing anything wrong, because after all, you're more enlightened
and/or visionary, and/or a Male, and/or someone prophesied in the
Scriptures, and/or are the only living person obedient to the 613
statutes of the Law of Moses (whatever might work), and they should
have already known they should bow to your authority and believe as
you tell them to believe. If your work is threatened with exposure,
try saying they're paranoid or mentally ill; if that fails, say you
were "just having a bad day" and have "grown since then" (even if
"then" was only an hour ago). Never apologize - remember, you're
entirely innocent, altruistic, and wise, and are "just trying to help
them understand and grow".
# 6.) When those Christians you're harassing eventually become angry,
or mock you, or dare to say anything to others about your behavior
(i.e. GOSSIP!), condemn them as "hypocrites", and/or "unforgiving",
and/or "ungodly", and/or "unChristian", and/or as failing to 'love
their enemies' (or failing to love their brothers/sisters, that's
really better, since you're a pretend-believer, and saying "enemies"
implies an admission of what you're doing to them). Say, "Feel the
Christian love!"; that's a good one. The irony of your own obvious
hatred of them and your hypocrisy will make it even more aggravating.
# 7.) After it's apparent your bad behavior has succeeded in making
them angry and you've self-righteously condemned them, Chuckle! - to
make sure they know you're rubbing in your victory of stealing their
peace (the part that fills your evil heart with glee)! These
hypocritical fools who think they're better than you deserve to feel
just as lousy as you do. They 'asked for it'; you're justified and oh-
so-righteous now. Be certain to remember to add, "Shame on you!" (That
works very well on anyone with a conscience, something a sociopath
like you doesn't have to worry about.)
# 8) For those especially devious and desperate posters to Internet
newsgroups - change your "nic" repeatedly, using a different e-mail
address, so your new "nic" can agree that all the false accusations
you've produced are indeed accurate.
The list I provided here contains some of the same methods all evil
people use (lying, false accusations, etc.); they know it
intrinsically, having learned it from the real spirit that guides them
- the Devil. Any adult has encountered numerous people using these or
similar methods, and there are many on these newsgroups, using various
nics, whose sole purpose for being here is to oppose Christianity. So
be aware.
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" - William Shakespeare.
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye
therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Yahashua` the
Messiah - Matt. 10:16).
seeker
wrote:
[...]
> >> It's not confusing once one realizes that the Bible is the
> >> word of men. That takes the confusion right out of it.
>
> You're a fool--there are items in Revelation that John COULDN'T have created
> himself.
Okay I'm listening.
[...]
> > However that is not what Christian means.
>
> A Christian is one who believes and follows Christ.
Then there must be no Christians for we have no idea what Yeshua the
Nazare taught and we have no teachings from God. Yeshua's teachings
have been filtered through decades of word of mouth, decades of hind
sight, and then centuries of human theology.
> You HAVE no belief in Christ. He's just "a nice guy" to you.
How is God "a nice guy"? A nice guy who created our universe? But
hey you got me all figured out so don't bother talking to me about
what I believe.
> Nevermind that Jesus described three-dimensional time 2,000 years before
> scientists did, and that every one of the Gospels, and Revelation, has at
> least one of Jesus' time based stories in it.
>
> > If you
> > are going to assert...
>
> I never "assert;" I prove.
Okay let's see you do that.
> > that it is fact that I do not believe in things I
> > do believe then I will set that strait.
>
> You don't believe in Christ;
Prove it. So far you've only asserted it.
> you've MARGINALIZED Him,
Prove it. So far you've only asserted it.
> attempting to reduce Him to what YOU can perceive,
Prove it. So far you've only asserted it.
> NOT what He is.
Prove Christ is what you claim God is. So far you've only asserted
it.
seeker
wrote:
> "seeker" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:314d3706-454a-47f3...@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > The apostles didn't hold most orthodox doctrines. They were formed
> > later. Sometimes hundreds of years later.
>
> Here is an example of you adopting the modernist apostasy.
That you don't like ideas doesn't make people who hold them not
Christian.
> Let's go backward.
>
> John wrote Revelation is c. 96 AD, during the reign of Domitian. (This is an
> established historical fact that even the "higher critics" recognize.)
>
> John was thoroughly familiar with Paul's writings and the Gospels.
You don't know that John of Patmos was familiar with the Gospel of
John. The ink was still we if the Gospel of John was written first.
It's quote possible that the Gospel of John didn't even exist.
However it is reasonable to assume that John of Patmos was familiar
with whatever sources went into the Gospel of John, plus all the first
century gospels that were later rejected as Bible books by the
Catholic church.
> 1) John quotes Matthew (modified) in the first chapter.
Modified . . . or how Matthew looked back then. Matthew has been
heavily edited.
> 2) John uses the Olivet Discourse as the outline of his chronological
> "scroll."
> 3) John uses Matthew's infancy narrative as the basis of Chapter 14.
> 4) John even works the fulfillment of the Beatitudes into Revelation TWICE.
> 5) John encodes a reference to Romans 11 in chapter 10.
>
> Now, John's opening vision of Jesus is based on the split dichotomy between
> Jesus as the Son of Man and Jesus as the Son of God.
>
> John also works the three titles for Jesus from the Old Testament into
> Revelation--King of kings, Lord of lords, and the hidden reference that
> never appears alone, but never appears all together, God of gods.
>
> And so on, and so forth.
>
> And this was BEFORE the end of the First Century.
Perhaps you mean before the second century. Before the first Century
is known as before Christ or before the common era.
> John used Matthew, so the canonical Matthew (not Matthew's log) existed
> BEFORE that.
>
> Matthew is based on parts of Mark, Luke, and the original Matthew's log, so
> THOSE had to be written before that, too.
>
> Luke uses Mark and Matthew's log.
>
> Mark was DEAD before the destruction of the Temple, having been killed by
> the Ethiopians about three years before the destruction of the Temple.
You don't even know who wrote the Gospel of Mark. You don't know when
he died or how. All the gospels are anonymous works.
> John also used Paul's writings, as did Luke, so THOSE existed before the end
> of the First Century, too.
>
> The ONLY Gospel written after Revelation was John's (based on his Revelation
> experience).
Why do you assume that the same man wrote both?
> Now, WHAT "orthodox doctrine" DIDN'T exist BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST
> CENTURY, "expert?"
Trinity to name a big one.
> >> . . . they (like you) turn Jesus into a question mark rather than an
> >> exclamation point.
> > I don't turn Jesus into anything.
>
> YES, you do--you MARGINALIZE Him, just like the rest of the modern
> "Laodiceans."
That isn't actually what the passage says.
> > Reality has left us with evidence.
>
> LOL
>
> You have no idea how much "evidence" there is in the Bible that Jesus was
> from BEYOND "reality," like the fact that He described curved time 2,000
> years before WE did.
You keep asserting it. Where is the proof?
> Or the fact that all four Gospels and Revelation have Jesus stating that He
> was somewhere in time where He shouldn't have been (like "before Abraham
> was, I Am") a MILLENNIUM before it occurred anywhere else in human
> literature!
How would that be relevant? I don't dispute that the text says that.
But why is it relevant?
[...]
> The higher critics don't have any "evidence;" all they have is speculation
> run amok.
So why don't you prove something?
> > Don't blame people who notice the
> > evidence.
>
> WHAT "evidence?"
Contradictions in the text.
> The "evidence" that they're lying through their teeth when they late-date
> the books of the New Testament based on RAMPANT SPECULATION?
No, facts in the text, facts found in anthropology, facts found in
archeology, facts found in history.
>
> [snippeth]
>
> > He was writing poetry in response to all the suffering caused by the
> > Roman-Jewish war.
>
> You have no idea what John was doing, oh, clueless one.
>
> Tell me--in Revelation 10, what did the seven thunders say, and what did the
> angel say?
The author didn't say. Like I said poetry. Hey make something up.
You can even convince yourself that you know. But it won't change the
fact that you can't know for the author didn't say.
[...]
>
> >>> In other words, the basis of Revelation is "what is past is prologue."
>
> >>> And you've gone the opposite direction of the one that Revelation points
> >>> to--you've joined the apostates instead of keeping the faith, undefiled,
> >>> as
> >>> directed.
>
> >> Again, no response to the pertinent information presented.
> > What pertinent information? You asserted a lot of opinion. That
> > isn't information. And I don't see how it was pertinent.
>
> There's no "assertion" to it at all.
You haven't demonstrated the things you claim about Revelation. You
are welcome to love the book and believe you understand it on a higher
level if you wish.
> John rotated the "was," "is," and "is to come" statements into every
> conceivable combination, even hiding statements of it in Revelation.
And that is relevant how? I could use the same technique in my posts
just like you could.
> John got this concept (like most of the rest of Revelation) from an Old
> Testament book--Ecclesiastes 3:15.
Which he had read. Okay so?
> "That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become, and
> God requires that which is past."
>
> Just as John utilizes the concept in Revelation, "was" sets up "is," "is"
> sets up "is to come," and "is to come" derives from what God already
> established in the "was" and "is."
Okay. What about the fantastic things you claim regarding Revelation?
> Now, you didn't have a CLUE that this construct was in Revelation, so the
> question is, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL ANYONE WHAT REVELATION IS OR
> ISN'T, "expert?"
Anybody can read these things.
> [snip]
>
> > Bible prophesy is the word of men.
>
> Said the ignorant ass who doesn't even know what's IN Bible prophecy.
I've read Revelation so many times I've lost count.
> Come back when you can explain all of the little details in Revelation,
I explained the words of the thunders. The author failed to state
what they said.
> where they came from, how they work together, and why John used them, oh,
> arrogant pissant who thinks he knows anything.
Yet I call myself agnostic. Think about that. Think about what that
means. By the way you still have not proved any of the fantastic
claims you made.
seeker
[...]
> > And this was BEFORE the end of the First Century.
>
My bad. I misread that section.
Little Blue Smurf
> "Little Blue Smurf"<smurf...@mufon.com> wrote in message
> news:igfa9t$6f8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 1/10/2011 8:52 AM, seeker wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 6:41 am, "Ike E 1/1/11"<xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "seeker"<hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:df097206-0ae8-46fa...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> So I'm an agnostic Christian...
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian."
>>>
>>> If I don't exist then are you just imagining me? =)
>>
>>
>> I've seen a lot of this kind of thing here; authoritarian
>> believers attempting to exercise control over other people,
>> attempting to force compliance to their christian standards
>> that have less to do with faith than with control. They have
>> been doing this since the time of Constantine; what doctrine
>> a person accepts as of Christ determines who retains control
>> of that persons salvation.
>>
>> It's a sad truth of modern Christianity; it's as if they murdered
>> Christ to assume His authority.
>
> What a bunch of rhetorical bullshit.
It's right in front of you and haven't noticed it.
>
> No one said anything about "controlling" anyone; no one said anything about
> "compliance." And so on, and so forth.
Really ? And you think that intent has to be publicized to be
effective, eh ? He he he, fool..
>
> The boy was confused about Revelation and how it worked, and I set out to
> straighten him out.
>
> You didn't even read or respond to what I wrote, "genius."
Nevertheless I seem to have gotten your attention. Now, how did I do
this and why is that exactly, Ike ?
>
> John--like every other prophet--prophesied of the future by taking example
> prophecies from the past and applying them to his present as a model for the
> future.
>
> And that's PRECISELY how Jesus approached prophecy, as in His "Elias"
> prophecy (Elias shall truly come [future, literal]; but Elias has come
> already [present, figurative, in John the Baptist].
>
> Same thing with His three-resurrection prophecy, and His "scattering of the
> sheep" prophecy, and His split deliveries between the Sanhedrin and the
> Disciples, etc, etc.
>
> You're just stumping for your antichristian position, without regard for the
> discussion at hand, looking for an opportunity to make an ass of yourself.
>
> Take off, hoser.
It won't be that easy for you Ike.
>
> Ike
>
>
--
"If I want anything outta you, I'll shove my arm
up your ass and work your mouth like a puppet!!"
Samuel L. Jackson
Ike E 1/1/11
> On Jan 11, 1:17 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> It's not confusing once one realizes that the Bible is the
>>>> word of men. That takes the confusion right out of it.
>
>> You're a fool--there are items in Revelation that John COULDN'T have
>> created
>> himself.
> Okay I'm listening.
> [...]
>>> However that is not what Christian means.
>
>> A Christian is one who believes and follows Christ.
> Then there must be no Christians for we have no idea what Yeshua the
> Nazare taught and we have no teachings from God.
We know precisely what Jesus taught...it's in the Gospels, the authentic
epistles, and Revelation.
0h, and Jesus IS God.
That you don't believe it is your problem
> Yeshua's teachings
> have been filtered through decades of word of mouth, decades of hind
> sight, and then centuries of human theology.
Ah, no, Jesus teachings have been distorted six ways (with two yet to come),
but all one has to do is go back to the Word and they'll find the authentic
ones.
The six distortions:
Legalism [Ephesus]
Universalism [Smyrna]
Religiosity [Pergamos]
Liberalism [Thyatira]
Presumption [Sardis]
Marginalism [Laodicea] (which is your heresy)
>> You HAVE no belief in Christ. He's just "a nice guy" to you.
> How is God "a nice guy"? A nice guy who created our universe? But
> hey you got me all figured out so don't bother talking to me about
> what I believe.
I already know what you believe--you believe the modern day "scholars" who
are really politicians in disguise.
>> Nevermind that Jesus described three-dimensional time 2,000 years before
>> scientists did, and that every one of the Gospels, and Revelation, has at
>> least one of Jesus' time based stories in it.
>
>>> If you
>>> are going to assert...
>
>> I never "assert;" I prove.
> Okay let's see you do that.
No prob:
"Before Abraham was, I Am."
"I Am the root AND offspring of David."
"If Christ is David's son, how is it that he calleth Him 'Lord?'"
All of the statements rely on singularity, and to have a singularity, you
have to have three-dimensional time.
And that's precisely what Jesus described in Revelation:
Beginning and Ending = time in a line.
First and Last = time in cycles.
Alpha and Omega = non-linear access to time.
>>> that it is fact that I do not believe in things I
>>> do believe then I will set that strait.
>
>> You don't believe in Christ;
> Prove it. So far you've only asserted it.
No, YOU asserted it.
>> you've MARGINALIZED Him,
> Prove it. So far you've only asserted it.
No, YOU asserted it.
>> attempting to reduce Him to what YOU can perceive,
> Prove it. So far you've only asserted it.
No, YOU asserted it.
>> NOT what He is.
> Prove Christ is what you claim God is. So far you've only asserted
> it.
Already have. Jesus was speaking in terms of three-dimensional time and His
function in it 2,000 years before scientist could even prove it was
possible.
At NO TIME in human literature up that point had anyone been "crazy" enough
to say that he or she had been to another time before Jesus did it (as
recorded in all four Gospels and Revelation). Oh, there were soothsayers,
and prognosticators, and astrologers, and such; but NO ONE had ever implied
they had been to another time.
The next time anyone did it was in a rewrite of part of the Hindu Vedas in
about 700 AD (because of the New Testament claims of Jesus).
Next was a Japanese book in 900 AD (because the Hindus did it).
The first SERIOUS look at time travel was in the 19th century, starting with
works by Lord Abbott and H.G. Wells.
Only now have scientists seen evidence of curved space-time.
But JESUS was talking about it 2,000 years ago, when there WASN'T any means
of doing such a thing.
So how did the New Testament writers via Jesus know these things if He
WASN'T who and what people said he was, i.e. the living embodiment of God
Himself?
Ike
seeker
wrote:
> "seeker" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:85891d5e-6d8b-4a3a...@p38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 1:17 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>> It's not confusing once one realizes that the Bible is the
> >>>> word of men. That takes the confusion right out of it.
>
> >> You're a fool--there are items in Revelation that John COULDN'T have
> >> created
> >> himself.
> > Okay I'm listening.
> > [...]
> >>> However that is not what Christian means.
>
> >> A Christian is one who believes and follows Christ.
> > Then there must be no Christians for we have no idea what Yeshua the
> > Nazare taught and we have no teachings from God.
>
> We know precisely what Jesus taught...it's in the Gospels, the authentic
> epistles, and Revelation.
You assert without proving.
> 0h, and Jesus IS God.
By the way, I call God "Jesus".
[...]
> > Yeshua's teachings
> > have been filtered through decades of word of mouth, decades of hind
> > sight, and then centuries of human theology.
>
> Ah, no . . .
You assert without proving.
> . . . Jesus teachings have been distorted six ways (with two yet to come),
> but all one has to do is go back to the Word and they'll find the authentic
> ones.
>
> The six distortions:
>
> Legalism [Ephesus]
> Universalism [Smyrna]
> Religiosity [Pergamos]
> Liberalism [Thyatira]
> Presumption [Sardis]
> Marginalism [Laodicea] (which is your heresy)
All asserted without proof.
> >> You HAVE no belief in Christ. He's just "a nice guy" to you.
> > How is God "a nice guy"? A nice guy who created our universe? But
> > hey you got me all figured out so don't bother talking to me about
> > what I believe.
>
> I already know what you believe--you believe the modern day "scholars" who
> are really politicians in disguise.
More things asserted without proof.
> >> Nevermind that Jesus described three-dimensional time 2,000 years before
> >> scientists did, and that every one of the Gospels, and Revelation, has at
> >> least one of Jesus' time based stories in it.
>
> >>> If you
> >>> are going to assert...
>
> >> I never "assert;" I prove.
Clearly you do assert as demonstrated above. You also often fail to
provide proof.
> > Okay let's see you do that.
>
> No prob:
>
> "Before Abraham was, I Am."
>
> "I Am the root AND offspring of David."
>
> "If Christ is David's son, how is it that he calleth Him 'Lord?'"
>
> All of the statements rely on singularity, and to have a singularity, you
> have to have three-dimensional time.
>
> And that's precisely what Jesus described in Revelation:
>
> Beginning and Ending = time in a line.
> First and Last = time in cycles.
> Alpha and Omega = non-linear access to time.
When are you going to prove something? You said you never assert you
prove. Yet when you set out to prove you assert rather than prove.
> >>> that it is fact that I do not believe in things I
> >>> do believe then I will set that strait.
>
> >> You don't believe in Christ;
> > Prove it. So far you've only asserted it.
>
> No, YOU asserted it.
Where?
> >> you've MARGINALIZED Him,
> > Prove it. So far you've only asserted it.
>
> No, YOU asserted it.
Where?
> >> attempting to reduce Him to what YOU can perceive,
> > Prove it. So far you've only asserted it.
>
> No, YOU asserted it.
Where?
> >> NOT what He is.
> > Prove Christ is what you claim God is. So far you've only asserted
> > it.
>
> Already have.
Where?
> Jesus was speaking in terms of three-dimensional time and His
> function in it 2,000 years before scientist could even prove it was
> possible.
You can't even show Jesus was speaking about anything let alone multi
dimensional time. Maybe you don't understand the difference between
assert and prove.
> At NO TIME in human literature up that point had anyone been "crazy" enough
> to say that he or she had been to another time before Jesus did it (as
> recorded in all four Gospels and Revelation).
What are you talking about?
> Oh, there were soothsayers,
> and prognosticators, and astrologers, and such; but NO ONE had ever implied
> they had been to another time.
What if they had? People can claim anything they want. That is
called asserting.
> The next time anyone did it was in a rewrite of part of the Hindu Vedas in
> about 700 AD (because of the New Testament claims of Jesus).
So?
> Next was a Japanese book in 900 AD (because the Hindus did it).
>
> The first SERIOUS look at time travel was in the 19th century, starting with
> works by Lord Abbott and H.G. Wells.
>
> Only now have scientists seen evidence of curved space-time.
That isn't a reference to time travel from literature.
> But JESUS was talking about it 2,000 years ago, when there WASN'T any means
> of doing such a thing.
Jesus didn't mention space time.
> So how did the New Testament writers via Jesus know these things if He
> WASN'T who and what people said he was, i.e. the living embodiment of God
> Himself?
What things?
So far you have proved nothing. Not even close. I have proven that
you do at times assert things without providing proof. You may say
"never" in reality that is not the case as demonstrated above.
Ike E 1/1/11
> On Jan 11, 1:38 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "seeker" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> news:314d3706-454a-47f3...@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>> [snip]
>
>>> The apostles didn't hold most orthodox doctrines. They were formed
>>> later. Sometimes hundreds of years later.
>
>> Here is an example of you adopting the modernist apostasy.
> That you don't like ideas doesn't make people who hold them not
> Christian.
This isn't about "ideas," heretic; it's about biblical and historical facts.
>> Let's go backward.
>
>> John wrote Revelation is c. 96 AD, during the reign of Domitian. (This is
>> an
>> established historical fact that even the "higher critics" recognize.)
>
>> John was thoroughly familiar with Paul's writings and the Gospels.
> You don't know that John of Patmos was familiar with the Gospel of
> John.
Sorry. Should have said "the synoptic Gospels." Yes, John wrote his Gospel
after having received Revelation, as it is full of statements and theology
derived from his Revelation experience.
Nevertheless...
[snip the irrelevant discussion of the Gospel of John]
>> 1) John quotes Matthew (modified) in the first chapter.
> Modified . . . or how Matthew looked back then. Matthew has been
> heavily edited.
An, no, modified, but since you DIDN'T EVEN ASK WHAT THE REFERENCE WAS, you
started in with speculative bullshit.
Back to the point: John QUOTED a modified verse from Matthew in the
introduction to Revelation, adding "even those who pierced him" (since he
was writing about things AFTER the crucifixion, whereas Matthew was writing
about things before).
>> 2) John uses the Olivet Discourse as the outline of his chronological
>> "scroll."
Notice no comment.
John's "scroll" is a detailed version of Jesus' Olivet Discourse from the
Gospel of Matthew, POINT-FOR-POINT.
Seven seals = Beginning of Sorrows
Seven trumpets = the rise and rule of the unholy ones
Seven vials = the rebuke of God and the Second Coming.
Just as Jesus laid out.
>> 3) John uses Matthew's infancy narrative as the basis of Chapter 14.
Notice no comment.
John USED Matthew's infancy narrative in Revelation 14, and that narrative
is ONLY found in the CANONICAL MATTHEW.
So John KNEW of Matthew's Gospel, which means Matthew could NOT have been
written after Revelation, which means THE HIGHER CRITICS ARE FULL OF SHIT.
>> 4) John even works the fulfillment of the Beatitudes into Revelation
>> TWICE.
Notice no comment.
>> 5) John encodes a reference to Romans 11 in chapter 10.
Notice no comment. There is a secret there that you're not even aware of, so
WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE THE MERITS OR MEANING OF REVELATION, asshole?
>> Now, John's opening vision of Jesus is based on the split dichotomy
>> between
>> Jesus as the Son of Man and Jesus as the Son of God.
AGAIN, no comment.
>> John also works the three titles for Jesus from the Old Testament into
>> Revelation--King of kings, Lord of lords, and the hidden reference that
>> never appears alone, but never appears all together, God of gods.
STILL no comment.
>> And so on, and so forth.
>
>> And this was BEFORE the end of the First Century.
> Perhaps you mean before the second century.
NO, BEFORE the end of the FIRST Century.
John wrote Revelation in 96 AD. That's BEFORE the end of the FIRST CENTURY.
Are you daft?
> Before the first Century
> is known as before Christ or before the common era.
???
96 AD is BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY, goofball.
1-99 AD = First Century.
100-199 AD = Second Century.
And so on, and so forth.
>> John used Matthew, so the canonical Matthew (not Matthew's log) existed
>> BEFORE that.
Still no argument.
> Matthew is based on parts of Mark, Luke, and the original Matthew's log,
> so
> THOSE had to be written before that, too.
Still no argument.
> Luke uses Mark and Matthew's log.
Still no argument.
> Mark was DEAD before the destruction of the Temple, having been killed by
> the Ethiopians about three years before the destruction of the Temple.
> You don't even know who wrote the Gospel of Mark.
Notice how the asshole failed to comment on any point along the way, KNOWING
that I was right, but the minute he thought he found a weak point, he jumps
in.
Later, he'll say "I'm only asserting."
Nevertheless, we DO who wrote Mark, as attested to by the church fathers
(who were a helova lot closer to the situation than your fraudulent "higher
critics."
> You don't know when
> he died or how.
Yes, we do. Mark was killed in Ethiopia on Easter, 67 AD, BEFORE the Temple
was destroyed.
Mark was a scribe for Peter, and, later, a traveling companion of Paul.
There's no great mystery here, except where the frauds try to introduce
ambiguity where there ISN'T any, 'cause the historical facts disprove their
false assertions.
> All the gospels are anonymous works.
Bullshit.
Mark was known.
Luke was known.
John was known.
The only ambiguity is that between Matthew's Log and the later Canonical
Matthew.
>> John also used Paul's writings, as did Luke, so THOSE existed before the
>> end
>> of the First Century, too.
Notice no comment.
>> The ONLY Gospel written after Revelation was John's (based on his
>> Revelation
>> experience).
> Why do you assume that the same man wrote both?
I already told you, I don't "assume;" I prove.
The THEOLOGY of Revelation and John's Gospel are exactly the same. John even
works a backward reference to Revelation into the Gospel.
The syntax is different because the books were written down by different
scribes, both of whom introduce themselves over the course of the books.
>> Now, WHAT "orthodox doctrine" DIDN'T exist BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST
>> CENTURY, "expert?"
> Trinity to name a big one.
Bullshit.
John's Revelation and Gospel are FULL of Trinitarian concepts.
In fact, the very BASIS of Revelation is trinities, in all three dimensions.
"...who wrote the Word of God, the testimony of Jesus Christ, and all the
things he saw."
Trinitarian concept:
Word of God = the scroll.
Testimony of Jesus Christ = the letters.
All the things John saw = the seven supplemental visions scattered
throughout the book.
And they ALL have their own markers to distinguish one from another.
Trinitarian concept:
Blessed is he who reads, and those who hear and keep the book.
You gotta' read (study), HEAR (perceive), and KEEP (do) the book to receive
the blessing.
Trinitarian Concept:
John refers to Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords, but deliberately
avoids the third phrase, leaving it to the reader to figure out.
But these three phrases, said in reference to God, NEVER appear alone, but
NEVER appear together in the Old Testament:
1) King of kings.
2) Lord of lords.
3) GOD of gods.
The TRINITY DOCTRINE was FULLY DEVELOPED BY THE TIME JOHN WROTE REVELATION,
AND THAT BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY.
You have GOT to stop listen to the bullshit artists who don't know what
they're talking about.
>>>> . . . they (like you) turn Jesus into a question mark rather than an
>>>> exclamation point.
>>> I don't turn Jesus into anything.
>
>> YES, you do--you MARGINALIZE Him, just like the rest of the modern
>> "Laodiceans."
> That isn't actually what the passage says.
Oh, yes it is--you just don't have the foggiest notion of how to read
prophecy.
>>> Reality has left us with evidence.
>
>> LOL
>
>> You have no idea how much "evidence" there is in the Bible that Jesus was
>> from BEYOND "reality," like the fact that He described curved time 2,000
>> years before WE did.
> You keep asserting it. Where is the proof?
Already done.
In fact, I've already written two books on the subject, with (God willing)
more on the way.
>> Or the fact that all four Gospels and Revelation have Jesus stating that
>> He
>> was somewhere in time where He shouldn't have been (like "before Abraham
>> was, I Am") a MILLENNIUM before it occurred anywhere else in human
>> literature!
> How would that be relevant? I don't dispute that the text says that.
> But why is it relevant?
Because the Gospel writers were doing something that had NEVER HAPPENED IN
HUMAN LITERATURE BEFORE.
And it WOULDN'T happen for almost a millennium after, and then only because
the BIBLE did it, and Hinduism and Shintoism began to copy ideas from THE
BIBLE.
Now, if Jesus wasn't who and what everyone SAID He was, HOW DID MULTIPLE
PEOPLE SUDDENLY KNOW ABOUT THREE-DIMENSIONAL TIME and the possibility of
TIME DISPLACEMENT.
We've only just now discovered that through science and "gravity wells,"
where our view of stars is distorted by hours and days due to time
"warping."
Astronomers have found dozens of stars now that they thought were binary
stars, but turned out to be the SAME star in two different places in the
sky. They figured out that they're the same stars because when one's
luminosity changes, the other changes exactly the same amount in the exact
same amount of time, i.e. one changes, then 14 days later the other changes,
EVERY TIME.
Now, how did Jesus know that time was three-dimensional (i.e. it has
"curves" and "dimensionality") 2,000 YEARS BEFORE ANY HUMAN SCIENTIST DID?!?
>> The higher critics don't have any "evidence;" all they have is
>> speculation
>> run amok.
> So why don't you prove something?
I already have.
>> Don't blame people who notice the
>> evidence.
>
>> WHAT "evidence?"
> Contradictions in the text.
First, most of those are NOT "contradictions;" they're "paradoxes" caused by
three-dimensionality.
Second, the others are insignificant. In fact, if there WEREN'T
discrepancies, THEN one would be suspicious of a conspiracy.
>> The "evidence" that they're lying through their teeth when they late-date
>> the books of the New Testament based on RAMPANT SPECULATION?
> No, facts in the text, facts found in anthropology, facts found in
> archeology, facts found in history.
Bullshit. The vast majority of the crap coming from the Jesus Seminar, et
al, is PURE SPECULATION, most of it based on ignorance.
>> [snippeth]
>
>>> He was writing poetry in response to all the suffering caused by the
>>> Roman-Jewish war.
>
>> You have no idea what John was doing, oh, clueless one.
>
>> Tell me--in Revelation 10, what did the seven thunders say, and what did
>> the
>> angel say?
> The author didn't say.
OH, yes he did.
> You can even convince yourself that you know. But it won't change the
> fact that you can't know for the author didn't say.
The author DID say, and I DO know.
The question is do YOU know, and if you DON'T know, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to
judge the merits or meaning of the book?!?
[snip the rest of the dawdle]
Ike
seeker
wrote:
[...]
> This isn't about "ideas," heretic; . . .
The main difference between us is that when I can't prove something I
honestly admit I can't prove it. When you can't prove something
regarding your religion you falsely assert that you can prove it and
that you have proven it.
> . . . it's about biblical and historical facts.
Okay document the facts.
[...]
> >> 1) John quotes Matthew (modified) in the first chapter.
> > Modified . . . or how Matthew looked back then. Matthew has been
> > heavily edited.
>
> An, no, modified, but since you DIDN'T EVEN ASK WHAT THE REFERENCE WAS, you
> started in with speculative bullshit.
I figure if you want me to know the specific verses then you would
state them. Feel free to do so.
> Back to the point: John QUOTED a modified verse from Matthew in the
> introduction to Revelation, adding "even those who pierced him" (since he
> was writing about things AFTER the crucifixion, whereas Matthew was writing
> about things before).
That Matthew was written before Revelation is not disputed.
>
> >> 2) John uses the Olivet Discourse as the outline of his chronological
> >> "scroll."
>
> Notice no comment.
Comment to what? You mention a lot of things that are not disputed.
What do you expect me to do with them?
> John's "scroll" is a detailed version of Jesus' Olivet Discourse from the
> Gospel of Matthew, POINT-FOR-POINT.
>
> Seven seals = Beginning of Sorrows
> Seven trumpets = the rise and rule of the unholy ones
> Seven vials = the rebuke of God and the Second Coming.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Want to tighten it up?
> Just as Jesus laid out.
>
> >> 3) John uses Matthew's infancy narrative as the basis of Chapter 14.
>
> Notice no comment.
What about it? I don't see the point to this. What comment were you
expecting?
> John USED Matthew's infancy narrative in Revelation 14, and that narrative
> is ONLY found in the CANONICAL MATTHEW.
>
> So John KNEW of Matthew's Gospel,
That Matthew was written before Revelation was not disputed. What
more would you like me to say?
> which means Matthew could NOT have been
> written after Revelation, which means THE HIGHER CRITICS ARE FULL OF SHIT.
Maybe you should take that up with someone who thinks Matthew was
written after Revelation.
Part 1
seeker
wrote:
[...]
[Snip of a bunch of stuff aimed at someone who thinks Matthew was
written after Revelation - no idea why someone would think I hold that
position]
> There is a secret there that you're not even aware of, so
> WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE THE MERITS OR MEANING OF REVELATION, asshole?
I don't recall judging the merits of revelation.
> >> Now, John's opening vision of Jesus is based on the split dichotomy
> >> between
> >> Jesus as the Son of Man and Jesus as the Son of God.
>
> AGAIN, no comment.
What comment were you expecting?
> >> John also works the three titles for Jesus from the Old Testament into
> >> Revelation--King of kings, Lord of lords, and the hidden reference that
> >> never appears alone, but never appears all together, God of gods.
>
> STILL no comment.
Was one required?
> >> And so on, and so forth.
>
> >> And this was BEFORE the end of the First Century.
> > Perhaps you mean before the second century.
>
> NO, BEFORE the end of the FIRST Century.
I did read this wrong and stated so in a follow up.
> John wrote Revelation in 96 AD. That's BEFORE the end of the FIRST CENTURY.
>
> Are you daft?
It was a mistake. I corrected it six hours ago in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/808777c588d40f54
I misread.
> > Before the first Century
> > is known as before Christ or before the common era.
>
> ???
>
> 96 AD is BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY, goofball.
Yes, I misread. That was why I posted a follow up post this morning
to correct my mistake.
[...]
> > Mark was DEAD before the destruction of the Temple, having been killed by
> > the Ethiopians about three years before the destruction of the Temple.
> > You don't even know who wrote the Gospel of Mark.
>
> Notice how the asshole failed to comment on any point along the way, KNOWING
> that I was right, but the minute he thought he found a weak point, he jumps
> in.
When did I become the third person? And no I don't know you are right
on all of these points. Some of them are not disputed. Some are not
relevant.
>
> Later, he'll say "I'm only asserting."
Yet you are only asserting.
> Nevertheless, we DO who wrote Mark, as attested to by the church fathers
> (who were a helova lot closer to the situation than your fraudulent "higher
> critics."
So when some guy 1700 years ago asserts without proving that is
knowledge?
> > You don't know when
> > he died or how.
>
> Yes, we do. Mark was killed in Ethiopia on Easter, 67 AD, BEFORE the Temple
> was destroyed.
Prove that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.
> Mark was a scribe for Peter, and, later, a traveling companion of Paul.
Proof?
> There's no great mystery here, except where the frauds try to introduce
> ambiguity where there ISN'T any, 'cause the historical facts disprove their
> false assertions.
What facts?
> > All the gospels are anonymous works.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Mark was known.
Prove it.
> Luke was known.
Prove it.
> John was known.
Prove it.
> The only ambiguity is that between Matthew's Log and the later Canonical
> Matthew.
Prove you know who wrote either.
>
> >> John also used Paul's writings, as did Luke, so THOSE existed before the
> >> end
> >> of the First Century, too.
>
> Notice no comment.
Do you confuse me for someone who claims that Paul's writings were
second century?
> >> The ONLY Gospel written after Revelation was John's (based on his
> >> Revelation
> >> experience).
> > Why do you assume that the same man wrote both?
>
> I already told you, I don't "assume;" I prove.
Yeah but your actions show that you often do assert and assume without
proving.
> The THEOLOGY of Revelation and John's Gospel are exactly the same.
Come again? Prove it.
> John even
> works a backward reference to Revelation into the Gospel.
>
> The syntax is different because the books were written down by different
> scribes, both of whom introduce themselves over the course of the books.
LOL! Oh so evidence that supports a different conclusion is easily
dismissed. LOL!
> >> Now, WHAT "orthodox doctrine" DIDN'T exist BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST
> >> CENTURY, "expert?"
> > Trinity to name a big one.
>
> Bullshit.
The gospels are full on non-trinitariansm. Trinity did exist in
paganism but it wasn't adopeted into Christianity until Rome got a
hold of it.
> John's Revelation and Gospel are FULL of Trinitarian concepts.
Trinity was used to smooth over all the contradiction between the
various books of the Bible.
> In fact, the very BASIS of Revelation is trinities, in all three dimensions.
More things you can't prove.
>
> "...who wrote the Word of God, the testimony of Jesus Christ, and all the
> things he saw."
>
> Trinitarian concept:
>
> Word of God = the scroll.
> Testimony of Jesus Christ = the letters.
> All the things John saw = the seven supplemental visions scattered
> throughout the book.
"Trinitarian concept" does not mean set of three.
> And they ALL have their own markers to distinguish one from another.
>
> Trinitarian concept:
>
> Blessed is he who reads, and those who hear and keep the book.
Are you kidding? Set of three doesn't mean Trinity.
> You gotta' read (study), HEAR (perceive), and KEEP (do) the book to receive
> the blessing.
Grouping of three does not mean Trinity. Is this your idea of prove?
> Trinitarian Concept:
>
> John refers to Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords, but deliberately
> avoids the third phrase, leaving it to the reader to figure out.
Wow you are out there. Are you ever going to prove anything or are
you just going to assume and assert?
[...]
> You have GOT to stop listen to the bullshit artists who don't know what
> they're talking about.
Okay I won't read the rest then.
Linda Lee
Ike makes a lot of assertions without providing any scriptural
support. One of his main claims is that hardly anyone here is a
Christian, and that he has the right to act like a brute against
Christians because he claims Christ did.
Unlike Peter B., Ike has actually said he's dyslexic, so it is no
wonder he is so confused about what the Bible texts say since he is
saddled with a learning disability. That doesn't excuse his vile and
prideful behavior though.
seeker
[...]
> > By the way you still have not proved any of the fantastic
> > claims you made.
>
> Ike makes a lot of assertions without providing any scriptural
> support.
I really don't care if he provided scriptural support.
Most of the fantastic claims Ike made are beyond the scope of
scripture. I would like to see him either prove or admit he was wrong
about those. But it looks like neither one is going to happen. Okay
that's kind of expected.
> One of his main claims is that hardly anyone here is a
> Christian, and that he has the right to act like a brute against
> Christians because he claims Christ did.
Oh Ike won't hurt my feelings. The way he curses he must be working
out something someone else gave him. That's fine.
> . . . he's dyslexic . . .
Okay the issue with that is that we have a guy who says that he is a
professional educator. A professional educator would be a shame to
his own colleges if he used a mental disorder as an insult to bully
others. This really is on par with going to the Special Olympics and
jeering at the athletes by shouting "RETARD! RETARD! YOU'RE A
RETARD! HA HA I'M SMARTER THAN YOU!". It just isn't done.
Dyslexia is a major issue for children in school. If they get help at
the critical moment then they can overcome the problem. Those who
don't tend to struggle much worse as adults. Only an unprofessional
un-educator would go up to an adult who suffered from this problem and
jeer at them. It's unconscionable.
> wonder he is so confused about what the Bible texts say since he is
> saddled with a learning disability.
Let's not repeat things like that. Ike has his struggles just like
everyone else has theirs.
> That doesn't excuse his vile and
> prideful behavior though.
If Ike needs to yell at someone then he is welcome to yell at me.
Ike E 1/1/11
Mark Tindall DipT BA MAITD
14 Tyrell Street
TENAMBIT NSW 2323
Phone: (02) 4933 7179
Email: bm...@iniaccess.net.au
Mark's story, from his own mouth...
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/edt/owk/subs/sub47.pdf
As he demonstrates in this document, Mark is a sociopathic malcontent.
Mark was NEVER "a professional educator," as he proclaims so loudly. He
NEVER acquired a teaching degree nor held an teaching license, and he was
never employable at a PUBLIC school. He was appointed for a short time to be
the "principal" of some bizarro church school (about a step up from home
schooling), from whence he quit, or was subsequently fired.
This is a quote from his unibomber-like complaint to the Australian
government:
"I have been unemployed for the last year and am 46 years old. I have a wife
and three daughters.
"World-wide there are 'More than 300 million are unemployed, thirty million
in the wealthy countries ... many are disaffected and angry." (Pilger,
1998:13) This includes me!
"My previous employment as a Training Manager was terminated as a result of
Dr Kemp's decision to revamp Social Security, employment agencies and
training. Before this job I was a Training Officer at BHP Refractories,
Mayfield, which was closed down as a result of BHP's move from the Hunter
Region. Before that I was a Principal of a small independent school (K-6).
"My current employment prospects are bleak.
"I am not registered as unemployed as I would be forced to apply each
fortnight for 8 jobs that don't suit me, are mostly temporary, menial and
demoralising and are outside my area of speciality which is education and
training. (Despite government prolefeed there are no suitable permanent jobs
in training or education available in the Hunter Region.)"
If Mark was ever an ACTUAL degreed and licensed teacher, he would have no
problem getting a real teaching job somewhere in Australia, which has the
same shortages somewhere as we have in the US; but he isn't, and never was,
and couldn't hold a teaching job for long before his insanity revealed
itself, and HE KNOWS IT.
********
Some examples of Mark's antisocial insanity...
"My friends who are unemployed used to call the Department of Social
Security the 'SS Gestapo'
as a result of their uncaring heavy handed 'Nazi' tactics, including antics
by the 'Pubic Hair
Police' who checked whether people were in a defacto relationship.
"Centrelink is now universally referred to as 'CentreStink'- a title which
reflects the mature
unemployed's growing antagonism with the bureaucratic nightmare of forms,
petty rules and an
veritable army of Major Majors who seem to have stepped out of Joseph Heller's
Catch-22."
********
Mark even submitted his own "poetry" to the Australian government, like
David Koresh demanding to recite his personal "prophecies" to the US
Government before the Waco massacre...
"A copy of my poetry book Original Copy (1997) is provided with this
submission. Of particular
interest are the poems: The Dole Queue; The New Nigger; Keep it To Yourself;
I'd Tell The Boss
and This Generation."
********
Here is Mark complaining that he can't get psychological help (under the
guise of "I have these friends")...
"Psychologists are not available with a Health Care Card and mature aged
unemployed are
unable to afford health insurance. These suffering unemployed people are
real people like you,
the reader - not just a number in statistical survey!"
********
Mark claims to be a "qualified philosopher"...
"On his return from the United States in 1997, ... John Howard, said how
impressed he was with America's 'low unemployment rate' based on 'lower
wages' and minimal unemployment benefits. He said that what Australia needed
was a lower minimum wage and reduced dole payments. (Pilger, 1998:77)
"As a tertiary qualified philosopher, such a suggestion horrifies me."
********
While some of his observations may be peripherally valid, the paranoid
schizophrenic nature of his diatribe indicates that Mark Tindale, full blown
Christian-hating heretical tormentor, is one sick puppy in the head.
Now he has taken to sock puppeteering because no one is interested in
listening to his obsessive-compulsive antichristian diatribes anymore.
Ike E 1/1/11
> Okay the issue with that is that we have a guy who says that he is a
> professional educator. A professional educator would be a shame to
> his own colleges if he used a mental disorder as an insult to bully
> others.
Dyslexia is NOT a "mental disorder," moron: It's a physiological one
involving the reversal of images between the optic receptors and the brains'
interpretation of those images.
Oh, and here is my teaching license record, idiot.
http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2bBVvKhDdpepa1aHyQ%3d%3d
> Dyslexia is a major issue for children in school. If they get help at
> the critical moment then they can overcome the problem. Those who
> don't tend to struggle much worse as adults. Only an unprofessional
> un-educator would go up to an adult who suffered from this problem and
> jeer at them. It's unconscionable.
What the f*ck are you talking about, Tindale?
She didn't say I "beat up" on someone with dyslexia; I'M the one with mild
dyslexia, you ass.
SHE suffers from self-imposed ILLITERACY.
Man, are you ever nuts--but my recent post will show that to everyone.
Ike
seeker
wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Okay the issue with that is that we have a guy who says that he is a
> > professional educator. A professional educator would be a shame to
> > his own colleges if he used a mental disorder as an insult to bully
> > others.
>
> Dyslexia is NOT a "mental disorder," moron: It's a physiological one
Okay, my bad.
> involving the reversal of images between the optic receptors and the brains'
> interpretation of those images.
>
> Oh, and here is my teaching license record, idiot.
What does that have to do with anything? It certainly has nothing to
do with the paragraph you quoted above since you are not the subject
of that paragraph. The words ". . . we have a guy . . . " do not
refer to you Ike.
> http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
>
> > Dyslexia is a major issue for children in school. If they get help at
> > the critical moment then they can overcome the problem. Those who
> > don't tend to struggle much worse as adults. Only an unprofessional
> > un-educator would go up to an adult who suffered from this problem and
> > jeer at them. It's unconscionable.
>
> What the f*ck are you talking about, Tindale?
I'm not Tindale. I was talking about Tindale's misdeeds.
> She didn't say I "beat up" on someone with dyslexia;
I know. I was talking about someone else.
> I'M the one with mild
> dyslexia, you ass.
Not the only one. What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense to
use dyslexia as an insult.
> SHE suffers from self-imposed ILLITERACY.
>
> Man, are you ever nuts--but my recent post will show that to everyone.
You mean the one about Tindale? Yeah, I am not Tindale. I was
talking about Tindale's misdeeds.
Ike E 1/1/11
news:b04f057a-15f2-4f85...@c39g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Ike makes a lot of assertions without providing any scriptural
> support.
LOL
"Ike" has continually PROVEN his "assertions," and every time he has, he has
made a fool out of you.
> One of his main claims is that hardly anyone here is a
> Christian...
Which is PRECISELY correct.
In the seven letters, Jesus laid out of grid of development and evaluation
from the First Century Church to the penultimate church before the beginning
of the End of the Age.
In this analysis, Jesus lays out six types of apostasy which would arise
during the course of the Church Age, resulting in the Great Apostasy.
1) Ephesus = legalism, i.e. falsely teaching that one must follow rules and
regulations to be "saved," in direct opposition to Jesus' Gospel of Grace.
2) Smyrna = universalism, i.e. one can mingle other faiths with
Christianity.
3) Pergamos = religiosity, i.e. one must do certain "religious acts" to be
saved.
4) Thyatira = liberalism, i.e. one can do anything they want, abusing the
Grace of God, like a "whore" in a bed.
5) Sardis = presumptuousness, i.e. one can go around FOOLING themselves into
believing they're "Christians," and claim all matter of worldly authority
"in the name of God," but few are actually worthy.
6) Laodicea = marginalism, i.e. Jesus is reduced to the stature of just some
"nice guy." They're not "hot" or "cold," i.e. they don't hate Him, but they
don't BELIEVE in Him, either. They think that they have everything all
worked out in their minds, but they are blind, and destitute, etc, etc, to
the REALITY of Christ, i.e. His Divinity, His omnipresence, His omniscience,
His stature of King of kings, Lord of lords, AND GOD of gods, etc, etc.
These are the first six elements of the Great Apostasy, and they're coming
from every corner of the Church, leaving few actual "Christians" in its
wake.
Funny thing is, the She-Beast, Linda Liar, display almost ALL of these
ANTICHRISTIAN TRAITS in ONE PERSON.
> and that he has the right to act like a brute against
> Christians because he claims Christ did.
I've never "acted a brute" against any Christian: The people I argue
with--like you--are by-and-large NOT CHRISTIANS--they're HERETICS of one
form or another.
YOU are an EBIONITE/BABYLONIAN/JEZEBELIAN heretic.
Pester Dave is a PRETERIST heretic.
Doug is a IDEALISTIC heretic.
Mark Tindale here is a MARGINALIST heretic.
Bear is a DISPENSATIONALIST heretic.
And the list goes on and on.
NONE of you people can actually substantiate your bizzaro doctrines from
scripture and history, but you just keep prattling on...
> Unlike Peter B., Ike has actually said he's dyslexic, so it is no
> wonder he is so confused about what the Bible texts say since he is
> saddled with a learning disability.
LOL
First, "Ike" has mild dyslexia, which is more a problem with numbers for me
than letters. That's is why I have others who proof read my books before
publication, and they find all sorts of funny little mistakes that I don't
"see." But none of the "funny little mistakes" in ANY way interferes with
the logistics of my writing.
And I have NO problems with "reading comprehension:" I was reading at the
college freshman level when I was a high school freshman. (Unlike you, who
can't put two words together and come to the right conclusions); and I have
an IQ of 138.
OH, and dyslexia is NOT a "learning disability;" it's a physiological
optical disability which can SEEM like a learning disability until
corrected.
Dyslexia is about as much a "mental handicap" as being left-handed.
"Retardation" (old term), ADD, hemispheric disorders, etc, are learning
disabilities, and CAN'T be corrected--at best, they're lifelong problems
that may be "managed," but they can't be eliminated.
Dyslexia ISN'T--it's not a mental "handicap" as you two idiots attempt to
imply; it's just a processing error, and all one has to do to fix the
problem is reverse their mental processing of visual information when
necessary.
> That doesn't excuse his vile and
> prideful behavior though.
The "prideful" and "vile" behavior is all yours, Jezebel, as you routinely
ATTACK Jesus and His Gospel of Grace, and His emissary, Paul, and anyone who
points out how UNORTHODOX your ridiculous sayings are; but when everyone
points out how asinine these sayings of yours are, and you go into
"persecution syndrome" as if YOU'RE the "righteous," which is the
manifestation of your jealous rage and insanity.
Go figure.
Ike
--
********
Which of the following is the correct way to read Bible prophecy?
A. Immediacy
B. Historicism
C. Dispensationalism
D. Preterism (Full or Partial)
E. Idealism
F. Realized/Sapiential Eschatology
G. All of the above
H. None of the above
Based on an examination of how (not just what) Jesus and the prophets
prophesied, "The Triune Hypothesis" is a guide to reading the Bible
prophetically in all three dimensions of interpretation-the horizontal axis
in time (what was, is, and/or is to come), the perpendicular axis in
application (literal, figurative, and/or spiritual), and the vertical axis
in context (thesis, generality, and/or antithesis).
Topics of discussion include the resurrections, the triune "Last Days," the
Pentecosts, the one-baptism-in-three-parts, the triple application of the
Elijah prophecies, the Temples in Jerusalem, the Abominations of Desolation,
the Triune Israel, the devolution of prophecy, and much more.
Kindle Version:
Print Version:
Facebook: (discussions enabled)
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Triune-Hypothesis/102657386473773
Web: (filtered blog comments enabled)
http://thetriunist.weebly.com/index.html
Peter B.
He will tell you he is living off inheritance money.
seeker
wrote:
> . . . Tindale (now masquerading as "seeker"):
Are you aware that Tindale and I have not been getting along for about
four months now? You haven't seen all those posts he starts bad
mouthing me? Or do you think Tindale staged all that to make it look
like he and I are different people? If you bother to follow it you
will notice that I have undermined many of Tindale's false accusations
recently.
> Mark Tindall DipT BA MAITD
Please don't post personal info. It's wrong when Tindale does it.
It's wrong when others do it as well.
seeker
wrote:
[...]
> . . . Tindale here is a MARGINALIST heretic.
Did you call me a marginalist heretic because you had me confused for
Tindale?
[...]
> NONE of you people can actually substantiate your bizzaro doctrines from
> scripture and history, but you just keep prattling on...
I take my doctrine from my faith.
[...]
> First, "Ike" has mild dyslexia, which is more a problem with numbers for me
> than letters. That's is why I have others who proof read my books before
> publication, and they find all sorts of funny little mistakes that I don't
> "see." But none of the "funny little mistakes" in ANY way interferes with
> the logistics of my writing.
>
> And I have NO problems with "reading comprehension:" I was reading at the
> college freshman level when I was a high school freshman. (Unlike you, who
> can't put two words together and come to the right conclusions); and I have
> an IQ of 138.
What does that have to do with the obsession Tindale has for Peter?
> OH, and dyslexia is NOT a "learning disability;"
Well it use to be. Maybe they are calling it something else now but
back in the day it was called learning disability. It's kind of like
how Pluto use to be a planet.
> . . . it's a physiological
> optical disability which can SEEM like a learning disability until
> corrected.
>
> Dyslexia is about as much a "mental handicap" as being left-handed.
Which is a slight handicap in writing modern languages. It's an
advantage for languages that go all the way back to the hammer and
chisel.
> "Retardation" (old term), ADD, hemispheric disorders, etc, are learning
> disabilities, and CAN'T be corrected--at best, they're lifelong problems
> that may be "managed," but they can't be eliminated.
>
> Dyslexia ISN'T--it's not a mental "handicap" as you two idiots attempt to
> imply;
It can be very hard on kids in the early grades before they get
treatment.
[...]
seeker
wrote:
[...]
> You've already left Christ.
> And you've gone the opposite direction of the one that Revelation points
> to--you've joined the apostates instead of keeping the faith, undefiled, as
> directed.
I take it that you made these comments on the false assumption that I
am Tindale. In other words you based them on things Tindale said.
Linda Lee
> On Jan 10, 7:23 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > You've already left Christ.
> [....]
> > And you've gone the opposite direction of the one that Revelation points
> > to--you've joined the apostates instead of keeping the faith, undefiled, as
> > directed.
>
> I take it that you made these comments on the false assumption that I
> am Tindale.
Ike calls all believers names; no one escapes his hateful wrath.
Linda Lee
wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Okay the issue with that is that we have a guy who says that he is a
> > professional educator. A professional educator would be a shame to
> > his own colleges if he used a mental disorder as an insult to bully
> > others.
>
> Dyslexia is NOT a "mental disorder," moron: It's a physiological one
And it's a learning disability, which your misinterpretations of the
Scriptures proves everyday.
> involving the reversal of images between the optic receptors and the brains'
> interpretation of those images.
>
> Oh, and here is my teaching license record, idiot.
>
> http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
Linda Lee
> On Jan 12, 2:34 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > By the way you still have not proved any of the fantastic
> > > claims you made.
>
> > Ike makes a lot of assertions without providing any scriptural
> > support.
>
> I really don't care if he provided scriptural support.
>
> Most of the fantastic claims Ike made are beyond the scope of
> scripture.
No kidding.
> I would like to see him either prove or admit he was wrong
> about those. But it looks like neither one is going to happen. Okay
> that's kind of expected.
>
> > One of his main claims is that hardly anyone here is a
> > Christian, and that he has the right to act like a brute against
> > Christians because he claims Christ did.
>
> Oh Ike won't hurt my feelings. The way he curses he must be working
> out something someone else gave him. That's fine.
He's a rageaholic. He is so filled with hatred that rage and disgust
with others are his only emotions. He's been posting here for years,
claiming all Christians are not Christians, and all of them are morons
and fools and heretics.
>
> > . . . he's dyslexic . . .
>
> Okay the issue with that is that we have a guy who says that he is a
> professional educator. A professional educator would be a shame to
> his own colleges if he used a mental disorder as an insult to bully
> others. This really is on par with going to the Special Olympics and
> jeering at the athletes by shouting "RETARD! RETARD! YOU'RE A
> RETARD! HA HA I'M SMARTER THAN YOU!". It just isn't done.
Lol! Now Ike, also a famous denigrator and namecaller of Christians is
claiming he's an educator as well:
Ike said to you (whom he thinks is Mark Tindale for *some* reason
(likely again his learning disability):
"Oh, and here is my teaching license record, idiot.
http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
"
We all had the same experience, I suppose, some teachers were just
nuts and/or not qualified for their jobs. I've often thought they
should put teachers (who are teaching people of any age) through
psychological testing to weed out the sadistic and sick ones.
>
> Dyslexia is a major issue for children in school. If they get help at
> the critical moment then they can overcome the problem. Those who
> don't tend to struggle much worse as adults. Only an unprofessional
> un-educator would go up to an adult who suffered from this problem and
> jeer at them. It's unconscionable.
>
> > wonder he is so confused about what the Bible texts say since he is
> > saddled with a learning disability.
>
> Let's not repeat things like that. Ike has his struggles just like
> everyone else has theirs.
Ike says there are no believers/Christians here; Ike will tell you
himself that his interpretation of the Scriptures is different than
anyone else in history, and he doesn't attribute that to his own
learning disability (dyslexia), but to the fact that *everyone else in
the world are morons,* which he is quick to point out. See something
wrong with that picture?
>
> > That doesn't excuse his vile and
> > prideful behavior though.
>
> If Ike needs to yell at someone then he is welcome to yell at me.
Don't worry; he will now that he's noticed your nic.
Linda Lee
> On Jan 12, 11:51 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
>
> >
>
>
> Well it use to be.
Dyslexia is still classified as a learning disability because it is a
reading disability.
Dyslexia is also called developmental reading disorder, which is a
reading disability resulting from the inability to process written
symbols, so that there is difficulty in understanding sentences. It is
not related to intelligence however, but you'd think someone with this
problem would rely on audio discs to learn since reading the written
word correctly is so difficult.
> Maybe they are calling it something else now but
> back in the day it was called learning disability. It's kind of like
> how Pluto use to be a planet.
>
> > . . . it's a physiological
> > optical disability which can SEEM like a learning disability until
> > corrected.
Dyslexia cannot be cured i.e. corrected., although the ability to
understand the written word can be improved with help.
THE LORD
DESIST POSTING MY NAME & ADDRESS & SLANDEROUS LIES
Ignorant Ike wrote material from 1999 which doesn't include my M EdSt
completed afterwards nor my lesser TAFE certificates. Nor does it mention my
honorary DD.
After this date I also became a Training Manager.
> Mark was NEVER "a professional educator," as he proclaims so loudly. He
> NEVER acquired a teaching degree nor held an teaching license
I most certainly was and did! Ike lies. Every position I held as a
professional educator was state accredited. I still hold valid teaching
qualifications and credentials and am currently teaching in schools.
> and he was never employable at a PUBLIC school.
Nonsense! I taught in the NSW Department of Education between 1974 and 1988.
> If Mark was ever an ACTUAL degreed and licensed teacher, he would have no
> problem getting a real teaching job somewhere in Australia
Absolute nonsense! It was the biggest recession Australia ever had and
THOUSANDS of teachers were out of work.
> Mark claims to be a "qualified philosopher"...
> "As a tertiary qualified philosopher, such a suggestion horrifies me."
I am a fully accredited philosopher. My BA majored in philosophy.
THE LORD
Real name: Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr
47807 TERRE HAUTE
Northwest Indiana
Email: xhermanei...@gmail.com
Age 49 *[HOW can he study the bible for over forty years as in next quote?
Obvious he started before the age of 9!]
Previously lived in
Valparaiso, IN
Crown Point, IN
Terre Haute, IN
- http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&searchform=publicrecords
~Mr. Eickleberry earned his bachelors degree in general, choral, and
instrumental music education and computer literacy ... He is a former
teacher and musician. .... He currently resides with His wife of twenty-six
years, Sarah, in Northwest Indiana.
He has been studying the Bible--especially it's eschatological aspects--for
over forty years.
- http://www.amazon.com/H.E.-Eickleberry-Jr/e/B004CXX7XS
Taught Music and Computer. K-12
- http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
BOOK REJECTED BY WIKIPEDIA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
N Not done. You were shamelessly trying to promote your own self-published
"book" without even pretending to try to claim that it was in any way
notable. Not every book is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; and
even notable books need actual articles about them, not blatant promotional
material. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*[Ike speaking]
I run my own percussion teaching studio
...
He has spent $1,000 to promote his book. *[ The Character Map: An
Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation ]...
....
"Some folks think I am nuts. *[ Amen!]
...
"I spent quite a bit of money for a marketing package from VirtualBookworm,
most of which was wasted,"
...
-
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet/browse_thread/thread/f567aff130eb701d/5e7c468301616953?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Eickleberry+indiana#5e7c468301616953
He has been studying the Bible since he began to read, but he has no formal
theological training. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he has
attended just about every kind of church one can think of, and even a few
one would not. (He is currently a Lutheran, but they are not sure how to
take him.) ... Why do I get the feeling they keep kicking him out due to
his novel beliefs? ... maybe they kept kicked him out due to his unrepentant
vulgarity... maybe they kept kicking him out due to his insulting nature...
You heard the one about the rock and roll band? You know, six musicians and
a drummer??!! :-) *[Ike being the drummer] No formal theological training.
... In other words you are a "self-appointed scholar" of many words, nasty
language, and so disagreeable that you cannot seem to get along with ANYONE
AT ALL!
Mr. Eickleberry grew up in northwest Indiana, where he currently
resides with his wife, Sarah, and daughter; Erin. ...
So lets get this straight.
You have graduate work in MUSIC.....nothing to do with bible.
You have NO theological training.
You're barely a member of a church....
(btw Luther is known for being one of the biggest antisemites this
side of the century....that said, he has the likes of Hitler by his
side....while the church of Luther currently have renounced his
antisemitic teachings, and much of his work has been cut out....I
don't believe you can be lutheran and consider yourself free of his
antisemitism.
Basically, your authority is moot.
You have a book, lets see how many takers on Amazon you have....
then we can talk....also, your graduate work is not in the same field
- that is a sure sign of disaster.
THE LORD
THE LORD
Ike E 1/1/11
"THE LORD" <VeraSixmystalker&tr...@home00190.com> wrote in message
news:4d2e4783$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Ike"
>
> Real name: Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr
>
> 47807 TERRE HAUTE
> Northwest Indiana
LOL
That was my college address back in 91, moron.
<chuckle>
> Email: xhermanei...@gmail.com
>
> Age 49 *[HOW can he study the bible for over forty years as in next quote?
> Obvious he started before the age of 9!]
LOL
Actually, five: I read through a children's Bible the first time (as well as
my first novel, "Gentle Ben") when I was five.
Been reading it ever since.
> Previously lived in
> Valparaiso, IN
> Crown Point, IN
> Terre Haute, IN
> -
> http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&searchform=publicrecords
Gee, you missed a whole stack of information.
Cadiz, OH
San Diego
Little Creek, VA (TWICE!)
Washington, DC
Albany, GA
Bloomington, IN
Richmond, VA
> ~Mr. Eickleberry earned his bachelors degree in general, choral, and
> instrumental music education and computer literacy ... He is a former
> teacher and musician. .... He currently resides with His wife of
> twenty-six
> years, Sarah, in Northwest Indiana.
> He has been studying the Bible--especially it's eschatological
> aspects--for
> over forty years.
> - http://www.amazon.com/H.E.-Eickleberry-Jr/e/B004CXX7XS
Yep.
> Taught Music and Computer. K-12
> - http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
Yep.
> BOOK REJECTED BY WIKIPEDIA
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
> N Not done. You were shamelessly trying to promote your own self-published
> "book" without even pretending to try to claim that it was in any way
> notable. Not every book is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; and
> even notable books need actual articles about them, not blatant
> promotional
> material. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
> -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep. They said the user pages were for the users, and the users plaster all
sorts of personal interests and careers on their pages, but when I posted
mine, they got all bent out of shape.
All part of the hypocrisy of Wikipedia.
> *[Ike speaking]
> I run my own percussion teaching studio
Yep, and produced some of the best percussionists around.
Had one in the Chicago Symphonia, one in the Northwest Indiana Youth
Symphony, several in all-state concert bands, jazz bands, and percussion
ensembles, and even qualifies an eighth grader to go to the state solo and
ensemble contest (which is normally for high school juniors and seniors).
> ...
> He has spent $1,000 to promote his book. *[ The Character Map: An
> Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation ]...
Spent more than that.
> ....
> "Some folks think I am nuts. *[ Amen!]
Yep. The ones who can't dismiss the rock solid basis of what I say have to
resort to the personal attacks.
> ...
> "I spent quite a bit of money for a marketing package from
> VirtualBookworm,
> most of which was wasted,"
> ...
Yep.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet/browse_thread/thread/f567aff130eb701d/5e7c468301616953?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Eickleberry+indiana#5e7c468301616953
>
> He has been studying the Bible since he began to read, but he has no
> formal
> theological training. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he has
> attended just about every kind of church one can think of, and even a few
> one would not. (He is currently a Lutheran, but they are not sure how to
> take him.) ... Why do I get the feeling they keep kicking him out due to
> his novel beliefs?
Yep.
> ... maybe they kept kicked him out due to his unrepentant
> vulgarity...
Never been kicked out of a church in my life.
> maybe they kept kicking him out due to his insulting nature...
Never been kicked out of a church in my life.
> You heard the one about the rock and roll band? You know, six musicians
> and
> a drummer??!! :-) *[Ike being the drummer]
LOL
"Rock and Roll band?"
Try the Commandant's Own US Marine Drum & Bugle Corp, Washington, DC,
serving Marine Barracks, the Department of Defense, Congress, and the White
House (which was why a security clearance was required).
Try numerous youth groups, the Marine Drum & Bugle Corp, Albany, GA, Drum
Corp International, the Reading Buccaneers, the Colts Drum & Bugle Corp, the
39th Infantry Division Band, The Terre Haute Symphony, the Northcoast Jazz
(Chicago area big band), not to mention honors recitals, clinics, theaters,
etc, etc, etc.
> No formal theological training.
Good thing, too--the only thing that those who go to theological centers
learn is how to regurgitate their sects official line.
> ... In other words you are a "self-appointed scholar" of many words, nasty
> language, and so disagreeable that you cannot seem to get along with
> ANYONE
> AT ALL!
No, I'm a WELL-VERSED academic who was schooled via the Marine Corp
Institute, the Armed Forces School of Music, George Washington University,
Indiana University, Indiana State University, and VanderCook.
Just a drop in the bucket.
> Mr. Eickleberry grew up in northwest Indiana, where he currently
> resides with his wife, Sarah, and daughter; Erin. ...
Yep.
> So lets get this straight.
> You have graduate work in MUSIC.....nothing to do with bible.
LOL
Music has EVERYTHING to do with the Bible.
Music, like the Bible, is three-dimensional.
The performer or conductor has to think in three-dimensions at once. Even
the music is written three-dimensionally, with the horizontal axis
representing time, the vertical axis representing pitch, and with other
elements like temple, style, dynamics, etc, etc, being thrown at the reader
perpendicularly all the time.
That's why music figures so prominently in the Bible.
> You have NO theological training.
I have all the "theological training" in the world, just like Jesus, who got
His theology from experience and insight.
Ah, but the PHARISEES asked "who maketh this man to learn letters," i.e.
Jesus didn't come from THEIR schools, and didn't have THEIR credentials,
therefore they thought they could dismiss Him out of hand.
Thing is, if I had gone to a Seminary (as I wanted to when I was young), I
would be just as clueless as the Pharisees were in Jesus day; for the
Lutheran pastor must hold the Lutheran line, and the Catholic priest must
hold the Catholic line, and the Baptist minister should just shot himself in
the head now and get it over with, etc, etc, etc.
> You're barely a member of a church....
Nonsense. Until I got sick, I played for the Contemporary Music Ensemble and
tympani for the services involving special music.
I don't have much to do with them now because I have more important things
to do, and this doesn't involved them.
> (btw Luther is known for being one of the biggest antisemites this
> side of the century....
Ah, the ignorant one demonstrates his ignorant.
Luther was a DEFENDER of the Jews before pre-senile dementia began to take
over in the last few years of his life. In fact, Luther wrote "On the Jews
and Their Lies" three years before he died.
Too bad no one thought to shut him down before his growing dementia took
over.
> that said, he has the likes of Hitler by his
> side....
Actually, the problem across ALL of Christendom at the time of Hitler was
the Covenantalist doctrines advocated by the Historicists which led them to
dehumanize the Jews, and create an atmosphere of apathy toward them, make
the ground fertile for the Holocaust.
But the same was true back during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the
Pogroms, not to mention the various personal attacks that the Jews had to
endure.
> while the church of Luther currently have renounced his
> antisemitic teachings, and much of his work has been cut out....
Yep.
> I
> don't believe you can be lutheran and consider yourself free of his
> antisemitism.
Oh, the liberals favorite tactic; because someone in the past was an
"anti-Semite" (when, in fact, all of Europe was anti-Semitic), I'M supposed
to bear the guilt, nevermind that it happened 30 years before I was born.
> Basically, your authority is moot.
That's what your Satanic fathers said about Jesus, too.
> You have a book, lets see how many takers on Amazon you have....
> then we can talk....also, your graduate work is not in the same field
> - that is a sure sign of disaster.
LOL
At least I HAVE post-graduate work.
Now, here's the thing. God can't talk to the "experts," and has never been
able to--they all think they know what they're talking about when they
don't, and God can't get a word in edgewise.
So what does God do?
He goes out and find 12 sheep ranchers, fishermen, and a tax collector who
DON'T have preconceived theological notions, and trains them up to teach
what HE wants taught, DESPITE the "experts" (who are really no experts at
all).
So what does God do when He wants prophecy explained the RIGHT way?
He can't go to the Seminarians, or Bible College teachers, or Divinity
School professors--THEY aren't LISTENING because they already THINK they
know what they're talking about.
So he goes and finds some relatively smart (but common) fellow who is from
several disciplines (military, agricultural, academic, etc.) and says "Let
Me show you some things that no one has noticed."
So what YOU think is "an embarrassment" is MY GREATEST STRENGTH.
<chuckle>
Now, what part of that little diatribe was supposed to embarrass me, as YOU
have embarrassed yourself over-and-over again your whole life?
You think this little discussion of my history in ANY way compares to the
LUNACY you present about yourself?
Ike E 1/1/11
"THE LORD" <VeraSixmystalker&tr...@home00190.com> wrote in message
news:4d2e4783$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Ike"
>
> Real name: Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr
>
> 47807 TERRE HAUTE
> Northwest Indiana
LOL
That was my college address back in 91, moron.
<chuckle>
> Email: xhermanei...@gmail.com
>
> Age 49 *[HOW can he study the bible for over forty years as in next quote?
> Obvious he started before the age of 9!]
LOL
Actually, five: I read through a children's Bible the first time (as well as
my first novel, "Gentle Ben") when I was five.
Been reading it ever since.
> Previously lived in
> Valparaiso, IN
> Crown Point, IN
> Terre Haute, IN
> -
> http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&searchform=publicrecords
Gee, you missed a whole stack of information.
Cadiz, OH
San Diego
Little Creek, VA (TWICE!)
Washington, DC
Albany, GA
Bloomington, IN
Richmond, VA
> ~Mr. Eickleberry earned his bachelors degree in general, choral, and
> instrumental music education and computer literacy ... He is a former
> teacher and musician. .... He currently resides with His wife of
> twenty-six
> years, Sarah, in Northwest Indiana.
> He has been studying the Bible--especially it's eschatological
> aspects--for
> over forty years.
> - http://www.amazon.com/H.E.-Eickleberry-Jr/e/B004CXX7XS
Yep.
> Taught Music and Computer. K-12
> - http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
Yep.
> BOOK REJECTED BY WIKIPEDIA
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
> N Not done. You were shamelessly trying to promote your own self-published
> "book" without even pretending to try to claim that it was in any way
> notable. Not every book is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; and
> even notable books need actual articles about them, not blatant
> promotional
> material. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
> -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep. They said the user pages were for the users, and the users plaster all
sorts of personal interests and careers on their pages, but when I posted
mine, they got all bent out of shape.
All part of the hypocrisy of Wikipedia.
> *[Ike speaking]
> I run my own percussion teaching studio
Yep, and produced some of the best percussionists around.
Had one in the Chicago Symphonia, one in the Northwest Indiana Youth
Symphony, several in all-state concert bands, jazz bands, and percussion
ensembles, and even qualifies an eighth grader to go to the state solo and
ensemble contest (which is normally for high school juniors and seniors).
> ...
> He has spent $1,000 to promote his book. *[ The Character Map: An
> Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation ]...
Spent more than that.
> ....
> "Some folks think I am nuts. *[ Amen!]
Yep. The ones who can't dismiss the rock solid basis of what I say have to
resort to the personal attacks.
> ...
> "I spent quite a bit of money for a marketing package from
> VirtualBookworm,
> most of which was wasted,"
> ...
Yep.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet/browse_thread/thread/f567aff130eb701d/5e7c468301616953?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Eickleberry+indiana#5e7c468301616953
>
> He has been studying the Bible since he began to read, but he has no
> formal
> theological training. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he has
> attended just about every kind of church one can think of, and even a few
> one would not. (He is currently a Lutheran, but they are not sure how to
> take him.) ... Why do I get the feeling they keep kicking him out due to
> his novel beliefs?
Yep.
> ... maybe they kept kicked him out due to his unrepentant
> vulgarity...
Never been kicked out of a church in my life.
> maybe they kept kicking him out due to his insulting nature...
Never been kicked out of a church in my life.
> You heard the one about the rock and roll band? You know, six musicians
> and
> a drummer??!! :-) *[Ike being the drummer]
LOL
"Rock and Roll band?"
Try the Commandant's Own US Marine Drum & Bugle Corp, Washington, DC,
serving Marine Barracks, the Department of Defense, Congress, and the White
House (which was why a security clearance was required).
Try numerous youth groups, the Marine Drum & Bugle Corp, Albanay, GA, Drum
Corp International, the Reading Buccaneers, the Colts Drum & Bugle Corp, the
39th Infantry Division Band, The Terre Haute Symphony, the Northcoast Jazz
(Chicago area big band), not to mention honors recitals, clinics, theaters,
etc, etc, etc.
> No formal theological training.
Good thing, too--the only thing that those who go to theological centers
learn is how to regurgitate their sects official line.
> ... In other words you are a "self-appointed scholar" of many words, nasty
> language, and so disagreeable that you cannot seem to get along with
> ANYONE
> AT ALL!
No, I'm a WELL-VERSED academic who was schooled via the Marine Corp
Institute, the Armed Forces School of Music, George Washington University,
Indiana University, Indiana State University, and VanderCook.
Just a drop in the bucket.
> Mr. Eickleberry grew up in northwest Indiana, where he currently
> resides with his wife, Sarah, and daughter; Erin. ...
Yep.
> So lets get this straight.
> You have graduate work in MUSIC.....nothing to do with bible.
LOL
Music has EVERYTHING to do with the Bible.
Music, like the Bible, is three-dimensional.
The performer or conductor has to think in three-dimensions at once. Even
the music is written three-dimensionally, with the horizontal axis
representing time, the vertical axis representing pitch, and with other
elements like temple, style, dynamics, etc, etc, being thrown at the reader
perpendicularly all the time.
That's why music figures so prominently in the Bible.
> You have NO theological training.
I have all the "theological training" in the world, just like Jesus, who got
His theology from experience and insight.
Ah, but the PHARISEES asked "who maketh this man to learn letters," i.e.
Jesus didn't come from THEIR schools, and didn't have THEIR credentials,
therefore they thought they could dismiss Him out of hand.
Thing is, if I had gone to a Seminary (as I wanted to when I was young), I
would be just as clueless as the Pharisees were in Jesus day; for the
Lutheran pastor must hold the Lutheran line, and the Catholic priest must
hold the Catholic line, and the Baptist minister should just shot himself in
the head now and get it over with, etc, etc, etc.
> You're barely a member of a church....
Nonsense. Until I got sick, I played for the Contemporary Music Ensemble and
tympani for the services involving special music.
I don't have much to do with them now because I have more important things
to do, and this doesn't involved them.
> (btw Luther is known for being one of the biggest antisemites this
> side of the century....
Ah, the ignorant one demonstrates his ignorant.
Luther was a DEFENDER of the Jews before pre-senile dementia began to take
over in the last few years of his life. In fact, Luther wrote "On the Jews
and Their Lies" three years before he died.
Too bad no one thought to shut him down before his growing dementia took
over.
> that said, he has the likes of Hitler by his
> side....
Actually, the problem across ALL of Christendom at the time of Hitler was
the Covenantalist doctrines advocated by the Historicists which led them to
dehumanize the Jews, and create an atmosphere of apathy toward them, make
the ground fertile for the Holocaust.
But the same was true back during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the
Pogroms, not to mention the various personal attacks that the Jews had to
endure.
> while the church of Luther currently have renounced his
> antisemitic teachings, and much of his work has been cut out....
Yep.
> I
> don't believe you can be lutheran and consider yourself free of his
> antisemitism.
Oh, the liberals favorite tactic; because someone in the past was an
"anti-Semite" (when, in fact, all of Europe was anti-Semitic), I'M supposed
to bear the guilt, nevermind that it happened 30 years before I was born.
> Basically, your authority is moot.
That's what your Satanic fathers said about Jesus, too.
> You have a book, lets see how many takers on Amazon you have....
> then we can talk....also, your graduate work is not in the same field
> - that is a sure sign of disaster.
LOL
At least I HAVE post-graduate work.
Now, here's the thing. God can't talk to the "experts," and has never been
able to--they all think they know what they're talking about when they
don't, and God can't get a word in edgewise.
So what does God do?
He goes out and find 12 sheep ranchers, fishermen, and a tax collector who
DON'T have preconceived theological notions, and trains them up to teach
what HE wants taught, DESPITE the "experts" (who are really no experts at
all).
So what does God do when He wants prophecy explained the RIGHT way?
He can't go to the Seminarians, or Bible College teachers, or Divinity
School professors--THEY aren't LISTENING because they already THINK they
know what they're talking about.
So he goes and finds some relatively smart (but common) fellow who is from
several disciplines (military, agricultural, academic, etc.) and says "Let
Me show you some things that no one has noticed."
So what YOU think is "an embarrassment" is MY GREATEST STRENGTH.
<chuckle>
Now, what part of that little diatribe was supposed to embarrass me, as YOU
have embarrassed yourself over-and-over again your whole life?
You think this little discussion of my history in ANY way compares to the
LUNACY you present about yourself?
Ike
Ike E 1/1/11
The cretin embarrassed himself, but now he thinks he can embarrass me when,
in reality, he has just helped my cause.
<chuckle>
"THE LORD" <VeraSixmystalker&tr...@home00190.com> wrote in message
news:4d2e4783$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Ike"
>
> Real name: Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr
>
> 47807 TERRE HAUTE
> Northwest Indiana
LOL
That was my college address back in 91, moron.
<chuckle>
> Email: xhermanei...@gmail.com
>
> Age 49 *[HOW can he study the bible for over forty years as in next quote?
> Obvious he started before the age of 9!]
LOL
Actually, five: I read through a children's Bible the first time (as well as
my first novel, "Gentle Ben") when I was five.
Been reading it ever since.
> Previously lived in
> Valparaiso, IN
> Crown Point, IN
> Terre Haute, IN
> -
> http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&searchform=publicrecords
Gee, you missed a whole stack of information.
Cadiz, OH
San Diego
Little Creek, VA (TWICE!)
Washington, DC
Albany, GA
Bloomington, IN
Richmond, VA
> ~Mr. Eickleberry earned his bachelors degree in general, choral, and
> instrumental music education and computer literacy ... He is a former
> teacher and musician. .... He currently resides with His wife of
> twenty-six
> years, Sarah, in Northwest Indiana.
> He has been studying the Bible--especially it's eschatological
> aspects--for
> over forty years.
> - http://www.amazon.com/H.E.-Eickleberry-Jr/e/B004CXX7XS
Yep.
> Taught Music and Computer. K-12
> - http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
Yep.
> BOOK REJECTED BY WIKIPEDIA
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
> N Not done. You were shamelessly trying to promote your own self-published
> "book" without even pretending to try to claim that it was in any way
> notable. Not every book is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; and
> even notable books need actual articles about them, not blatant
> promotional
> material. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
> -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep. They said the user pages were for the users, and the users plaster all
sorts of personal interests and careers on their pages, but when I posted
mine, they got all bent out of shape.
All part of the hypocrisy of Wikipedia.
> *[Ike speaking]
> I run my own percussion teaching studio
Yep, and produced some of the best percussionists around.
Had one in the Chicago Symphonia, one in the Northwest Indiana Youth
Symphony, several in all-state concert bands, jazz bands, and percussion
ensembles, and even qualifies an eighth grader to go to the state solo and
ensemble contest (which is normally for high school juniors and seniors).
> ...
> He has spent $1,000 to promote his book. *[ The Character Map: An
> Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation ]...
Spent more than that.
> ....
> "Some folks think I am nuts. *[ Amen!]
Yep. The ones who can't dismiss the rock solid basis of what I say have to
resort to the personal attacks.
> ...
> "I spent quite a bit of money for a marketing package from
> VirtualBookworm,
> most of which was wasted,"
> ...
Yep.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet/browse_thread/thread/f567aff130eb701d/5e7c468301616953?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Eickleberry+indiana#5e7c468301616953
>
> He has been studying the Bible since he began to read, but he has no
> formal
> theological training. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he has
> attended just about every kind of church one can think of, and even a few
> one would not. (He is currently a Lutheran, but they are not sure how to
> take him.) ... Why do I get the feeling they keep kicking him out due to
> his novel beliefs?
Yep.
> ... maybe they kept kicked him out due to his unrepentant
> vulgarity...
Never been kicked out of a church in my life.
> maybe they kept kicking him out due to his insulting nature...
Never been kicked out of a church in my life.
> You heard the one about the rock and roll band? You know, six musicians
> and
> a drummer??!! :-) *[Ike being the drummer]
LOL
"Rock and Roll band?"
Try the Commandant's Own US Marine Drum & Bugle Corp, Washington, DC,
serving Marine Barracks, the Department of Defense, Congress, and the White
House (which was why a security clearance was required).
Try numerous youth groups, the Marine Drum & Bugle Corp, Albany, GA, Drum
Corp International, the Reading Buccaneers, the Colts Drum & Bugle Corp, the
39th Infantry Division Band, The Terre Haute Symphony, the Northcoast Jazz
(Chicago area big band), not to mention honors recitals, clinics, theaters,
etc, etc, etc.
> No formal theological training.
Good thing, too--the only thing that those who go to theological centers
learn is how to regurgitate their sects official line.
> ... In other words you are a "self-appointed scholar" of many words, nasty
> language, and so disagreeable that you cannot seem to get along with
> ANYONE
> AT ALL!
No, I'm a WELL-VERSED academic who was schooled via the Marine Corp
Institute, the Armed Forces School of Music, George Washington University,
Indiana University, Indiana State University, and VanderCook.
Just a drop in the bucket.
> Mr. Eickleberry grew up in northwest Indiana, where he currently
> resides with his wife, Sarah, and daughter; Erin. ...
Yep.
> So lets get this straight.
> You have graduate work in MUSIC.....nothing to do with bible.
LOL
Music has EVERYTHING to do with the Bible.
Music, like the Bible, is three-dimensional.
The performer or conductor has to think in three-dimensions at once. Even
the music is written three-dimensionally, with the horizontal axis
representing time, the vertical axis representing pitch, and with other
elements like temple, style, dynamics, etc, etc, being thrown at the reader
perpendicularly all the time.
That's why music figures so prominently in the Bible.
> You have NO theological training.
I have all the "theological training" in the world, just like Jesus, who got
His theology from experience and insight.
Ah, but the PHARISEES asked "who maketh this man to learn letters," i.e.
Jesus didn't come from THEIR schools, and didn't have THEIR credentials,
therefore they thought they could dismiss Him out of hand.
Thing is, if I had gone to a Seminary (as I wanted to when I was young), I
would be just as clueless as the Pharisees were in Jesus day; for the
Lutheran pastor must hold the Lutheran line, and the Catholic priest must
hold the Catholic line, and the Baptist minister should just shot himself in
the head now and get it over with, etc, etc, etc.
> You're barely a member of a church....
Nonsense. Until I got sick, I played for the Contemporary Music Ensemble and
tympani for the services involving special music.
I don't have much to do with them now because I have more important things
to do, and this doesn't involved them.
> (btw Luther is known for being one of the biggest antisemites this
> side of the century....
Ah, the ignorant one demonstrates his ignorant.
Luther was a DEFENDER of the Jews before pre-senile dementia began to take
over in the last few years of his life. In fact, Luther wrote "On the Jews
and Their Lies" three years before he died.
Too bad no one thought to shut him down before his growing dementia took
over.
> that said, he has the likes of Hitler by his
> side....
Actually, the problem across ALL of Christendom at the time of Hitler was
the Covenantalist doctrines advocated by the Historicists which led them to
dehumanize the Jews, and create an atmosphere of apathy toward them, make
the ground fertile for the Holocaust.
But the same was true back during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the
Pogroms, not to mention the various personal attacks that the Jews had to
endure.
> while the church of Luther currently have renounced his
> antisemitic teachings, and much of his work has been cut out....
Yep.
> I
> don't believe you can be lutheran and consider yourself free of his
> antisemitism.
Oh, the liberals favorite tactic; because someone in the past was an
"anti-Semite" (when, in fact, all of Europe was anti-Semitic), I'M supposed
to bear the guilt, nevermind that it happened 30 years before I was born.
> Basically, your authority is moot.
That's what your Satanic fathers said about Jesus, too.
> You have a book, lets see how many takers on Amazon you have....
> then we can talk....also, your graduate work is not in the same field
> - that is a sure sign of disaster.
Ike E 1/1/11
"THE LORD" <VeraSixmystalker&tr...@home00190.com> wrote in message
news:4d2e4783$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Ike"
>
> Real name: Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr
>
> 47807 TERRE HAUTE
> Northwest Indiana
LOL
That was my college address back in 91, moron.
<chuckle>
> Email: xhermanei...@gmail.com
>
> Age 49 *[HOW can he study the bible for over forty years as in next quote?
> Obvious he started before the age of 9!]
LOL
Actually, five: I read through a children's Bible the first time (as well as
my first novel, "Gentle Ben") when I was five.
Been reading it ever since.
> Previously lived in
> Valparaiso, IN
> Crown Point, IN
> Terre Haute, IN
> -
> http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&searchform=publicrecords
Gee, you missed a whole stack of information.
Cadiz, OH
San Diego
Little Creek, VA (TWICE!)
Washington, DC
Albany, GA
Bloomington, IN
Richmond, VA
> ~Mr. Eickleberry earned his bachelors degree in general, choral, and
> instrumental music education and computer literacy ... He is a former
> teacher and musician. .... He currently resides with His wife of
> twenty-six
> years, Sarah, in Northwest Indiana.
> He has been studying the Bible--especially it's eschatological
> aspects--for
> over forty years.
> - http://www.amazon.com/H.E.-Eickleberry-Jr/e/B004CXX7XS
Yep.
> Taught Music and Computer. K-12
> - http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
Yep.
> BOOK REJECTED BY WIKIPEDIA
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
> N Not done. You were shamelessly trying to promote your own self-published
> "book" without even pretending to try to claim that it was in any way
> notable. Not every book is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; and
> even notable books need actual articles about them, not blatant
> promotional
> material. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
> -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep. They said the user pages were for the users, and the users plaster all
sorts of personal interests and careers on their pages, but when I posted
mine, they got all bent out of shape.
All part of the hypocrisy of Wikipedia.
> *[Ike speaking]
> I run my own percussion teaching studio
Yep, and produced some of the best percussionists around.
Had one in the Chicago Symphonia, one in the Northwest Indiana Youth
Symphony, several in all-state concert bands, jazz bands, and percussion
ensembles, and even qualifies an eighth grader to go to the state solo and
ensemble contest (which is normally for high school juniors and seniors).
> ...
> He has spent $1,000 to promote his book. *[ The Character Map: An
> Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation ]...
Spent more than that.
> ....
> "Some folks think I am nuts. *[ Amen!]
Yep. The ones who can't dismiss the rock solid basis of what I say have to
resort to the personal attacks.
> ...
> "I spent quite a bit of money for a marketing package from
> VirtualBookworm,
> most of which was wasted,"
> ...
Yep.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet/browse_thread/thread/f567aff130eb701d/5e7c468301616953?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Eickleberry+indiana#5e7c468301616953
>
> He has been studying the Bible since he began to read, but he has no
> formal
> theological training. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he has
> attended just about every kind of church one can think of, and even a few
> one would not. (He is currently a Lutheran, but they are not sure how to
> take him.) ... Why do I get the feeling they keep kicking him out due to
> his novel beliefs?
Yep.
> ... maybe they kept kicked him out due to his unrepentant
> vulgarity...
Never been kicked out of a church in my life.
> maybe they kept kicking him out due to his insulting nature...
Never been kicked out of a church in my life.
> You heard the one about the rock and roll band? You know, six musicians
> and
> a drummer??!! :-) *[Ike being the drummer]
LOL
"Rock and Roll band?"
Try the Commandant's Own US Marine Drum & Bugle Corp, Washington, DC,
serving Marine Barracks, the Department of Defense, Congress, and the White
House (which was why a security clearance was required).
Try numerous youth groups, the Marine Drum & Bugle Corp, Albany, GA, Drum
Corp International, the Reading Buccaneers, the Colts Drum & Bugle Corp, the
39th Infantry Division Band, The Terre Haute Symphony, the Northcoast Jazz
(Chicago area big band), not to mention honors recitals, clinics, theaters,
etc, etc, etc.
> No formal theological training.
Good thing, too--the only thing that those who go to theological centers
learn is how to regurgitate their sects official line.
> ... In other words you are a "self-appointed scholar" of many words, nasty
> language, and so disagreeable that you cannot seem to get along with
> ANYONE
> AT ALL!
No, I'm a WELL-VERSED academic who was schooled via the Marine Corp
Institute, the Armed Forces School of Music, George Washington University,
Indiana University, Indiana State University, and VanderCook.
Just a drop in the bucket.
> Mr. Eickleberry grew up in northwest Indiana, where he currently
> resides with his wife, Sarah, and daughter; Erin. ...
Yep.
> So lets get this straight.
> You have graduate work in MUSIC.....nothing to do with bible.
LOL
Music has EVERYTHING to do with the Bible.
Music, like the Bible, is three-dimensional.
The performer or conductor has to think in three-dimensions at once. Even
the music is written three-dimensionally, with the horizontal axis
representing time, the vertical axis representing pitch, and with other
elements like temple, style, dynamics, etc, etc, being thrown at the reader
perpendicularly all the time.
That's why music figures so prominently in the Bible.
> You have NO theological training.
I have all the "theological training" in the world, just like Jesus, who got
His theology from experience and insight.
Ah, but the PHARISEES asked "who maketh this man to learn letters," i.e.
Jesus didn't come from THEIR schools, and didn't have THEIR credentials,
therefore they thought they could dismiss Him out of hand.
Thing is, if I had gone to a Seminary (as I wanted to when I was young), I
would be just as clueless as the Pharisees were in Jesus day; for the
Lutheran pastor must hold the Lutheran line, and the Catholic priest must
hold the Catholic line, and the Baptist minister should just shot himself in
the head now and get it over with, etc, etc, etc.
> You're barely a member of a church....
Nonsense. Until I got sick, I played for the Contemporary Music Ensemble and
tympani for the services involving special music.
I don't have much to do with them now because I have more important things
to do, and this doesn't involved them.
> (btw Luther is known for being one of the biggest antisemites this
> side of the century....
Ah, the ignorant one demonstrates his ignorant.
Luther was a DEFENDER of the Jews before pre-senile dementia began to take
over in the last few years of his life. In fact, Luther wrote "On the Jews
and Their Lies" three years before he died.
Too bad no one thought to shut him down before his growing dementia took
over.
> that said, he has the likes of Hitler by his
> side....
Actually, the problem across ALL of Christendom at the time of Hitler was
the Covenantalist doctrines advocated by the Historicists which led them to
dehumanize the Jews, and create an atmosphere of apathy toward them, make
the ground fertile for the Holocaust.
But the same was true back during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the
Pogroms, not to mention the various personal attacks that the Jews had to
endure.
> while the church of Luther currently have renounced his
> antisemitic teachings, and much of his work has been cut out....
Yep.
> I
> don't believe you can be lutheran and consider yourself free of his
> antisemitism.
Oh, the liberals favorite tactic; because someone in the past was an
"anti-Semite" (when, in fact, all of Europe was anti-Semitic), I'M supposed
to bear the guilt, nevermind that it happened 30 years before I was born.
> Basically, your authority is moot.
That's what your Satanic fathers said about Jesus, too.
> You have a book, lets see how many takers on Amazon you have....
> then we can talk....also, your graduate work is not in the same field
> - that is a sure sign of disaster.
LOL
At least I HAVE post-graduate work.
Now, here's the thing. God can't talk to the "experts," and has never been
able to--they all think they know what they're talking about when they
don't, and God can't get a word in edgewise.
So what does God do?
He goes out and find 12 sheep ranchers, fishermen, and a tax collector who
DON'T have preconceived theological notions, and trains them up to teach
what HE wants taught, DESPITE the "experts" (who are really no experts at
all).
So what does God do when He wants prophecy explained the RIGHT way?
He can't go to the Seminarians, or Bible College teachers, or Divinity
School professors--THEY aren't LISTENING because they already THINK they
know what they're talking about.
So he goes and finds some relatively smart (but common) fellow who is from
several disciplines (military, agricultural, academic, etc.) and says "Let
Me show you some things that no one has noticed."
So what YOU think is "an embarrassment" is MY GREATEST STRENGTH.
<chuckle>
Now, what part of that little diatribe was supposed to embarrass me, as YOU
have embarrassed yourself over-and-over again your whole life?
You think this little discussion of my history in ANY way compares to the
LUNACY you present about yourself?
Ike
Little Blue Smurf
> serving Marine Barracks, the Department of Defense, Congress, and the White
> House (which was why a security clearance was required).
>
> Corp International, the Reading Buccaneers, the Colts Drum& Bugle Corp, the
A very interesting post Ike...I'm impressed. I repent, you
aren't all hot air as i thought. My apologies.
Linda Lee
wrote:
> <chuckle>
>
> "THE LORD" <VeraSixmystalker&tr...@home00190.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4d2e4783$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> >
>
> I have all the "theological training" in the world, just like Jesus, who got
> His theology from experience and insight.
>
> Ah, but the PHARISEES asked "who maketh this man to learn letters," i.e.
> Jesus didn't come from THEIR schools, and didn't have THEIR credentials,
> therefore they thought they could dismiss Him out of hand.
Good grief, Ike; you compare your sick twisted misunderstanding of the
Scriptures to the knowledge of God incarnate? What is wrong with you?
You are NOT like the Messiah in any way. You need help.
Ike E 1/1/11
news:4d2e32a6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> IGNORANT "Ike E 1/1/11" wrote:
>
> DESIST POSTING MY NAME & ADDRESS & SLANDEROUS LIES
I didn't post it--YOU did.
<chuckle>
> Ignorant Ike wrote material from 1999 which doesn't include my M EdSt
> completed afterwards nor my lesser TAFE certificates. Nor does it mention
> my honorary DD.
Thanks. You just gave away your lie.
You said in the article that you WERE a teacher in the PAST when you wrote
the article; NOW you say you got a decree in education LATER. In other
words, what I said was RIGHT--you have NEVER been a real teacher, and you
WEREN'T certified to be a teacher when you were piddling around in some
backwoods church "school" (before you either quit or were dismissed from a
church school for reasons you're not discussing--hint, hint).
Second, a TAFE is a VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND TRAINING certificate, NOT a
teaching certificate (which would make sense in light of your later jobs,
but NOT your interim "teaching" job).
And from what matchbook cover did you get this "honorary DD?" Is that
"doctor of dentistry," 'cause it sure as hell isn't any legitimate
"doctorate of divinity," or you would have been touting THAT nonsense long
ago.
Giving yourself degrees, are you now?
One notes that you haven't provided any name of this fine institution of
higher learning.
>> After this date I also became a Training Manager.
Which is what you REALLY were then, and are NOW--a VOTECH instructor.
>>> Mark was NEVER "a professional educator," as he proclaims so loudly. He
>>> NEVER acquired a teaching degree nor held an teaching license
>
>> I most certainly was and did! Ike lies. Every position I held as a
>> professional educator was state accredited.
You did it again: Notice that the fraud said every POSITION he held was
"state accredited," NOT that HE was "state accredited."
ALL schools are "state accredited," but one has to be accredited to TEACH in
those positions, except on an INTERIM basis.
I held an interim position as a jr. high band director one summer while I
was in college; I couldn't KEEP that job because I wasn't certified yet
(because I hadn't finished college).
You're playing it fast and loose with the facts here in a game of puffery.
>>> I still hold valid teaching qualifications and credentials and am
>>> currently teaching in schools.
Yeah--IN VOTECH classes, NOT academics.
You're burying yourself deeper in your lie.
>>> and he was never employable at a PUBLIC school.
>
>> Nonsense! I taught in the NSW Department of Education between 1974 and
>> 1988.
He just did it again. Notice that he says "in the NSW DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION."
My wife worked for Indiana State University as a copy editor for the school
newspaper while I was a student/teacher there; that DIDN'T make her A
PROFESSOR!
The lies seeps through again: Working for the Department of Education is NOT
working in a school. Hell, a janitor can "work for the department of
education;" that DOESN'T make him a "teacher."
>>> If Mark was ever an ACTUAL degreed and licensed teacher, he would have
>>> no problem getting a real teaching job somewhere in Australia
>
>> Absolute nonsense! It was the biggest recession Australia ever had and
>> THOUSANDS of teachers were out of work.
Except your unemployment had nothing to DO with school teaching, as you
yourself declared in your diatribe; you had already LONG SINCE been out of
"teaching" when you wrote it--you're some kind of VoTech instructor at best,
NOT a classroom teacher.
>> Mark claims to be a "qualified philosopher"...
>> "As a tertiary qualified philosopher, such a suggestion horrifies me."
>
> I am a fully accredited philosopher. My BA majored in philosophy.
Now we're getting to the real story--you left school with a useless degree,
and then tried to recoup later.
Now, notice a couple of other things here.
First, Mark Tindall hasn't said ANYTHING about the insane things he wrote to
the Australian government.
Second, MARK doesn't have ANY THEOLOGICAL TRAINING, EITHER. But whereas I
get my theology straight from the Bible and history, he gets HIS from what
OTHERS say, especially the modern "Laodiceans" of the Jesus Seminar, because
Mark HATES orthodox Christianity and everything Christ was and stood for
because he is a SOCIAL MALCONTENT.
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Sarah Schuster
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > while the church of Luther currently have renounced his
> > antisemitic teachings, and much of his work has been cut out....
>
> Yep.
>
> > I
> > don't believe you can be lutheran and consider yourself free of his
> > antisemitism.
>
> Oh, the liberals favorite tactic; because someone in the past was an
> "anti-Semite" (when, in fact, all of Europe was anti-Semitic), I'M supposed
> to bear the guilt, nevermind that it happened 30 years before I was born.
LONG LIVE FASCIST EGO-CHRISTIANITY
HEIL THE FUHRER JESUS ADOLF CHRIST
(Roaster of men)!!!
WE ARE RIGHT AND THEY ARE ALL WRONG!
OUR GOD IS THE ONE TRUE GOD!
OUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE -
IS THE TRUE INTERPRETATION!
AND WE ARE HIS ONLY CHOSEN ONES!
DEATH TO ALL BUT HIS CHOSEN ONES!
KILL IN THE NAME OF JESUS LORD, KILL THEM ALL!
ROAST THEM ALL, JESUS ADOLF CHRIST!
ROAST THEM ALIVE, JESUS ADOLF CHRIST!
VICTORY FOR THE FUHRER JESUS ADOLF!
AND HIS THOUSAND YEAR REICH!
"Jesus Adolf Christ ist der Sieg!!
Aber noch lange nicht das ende..."
-Herr Reichsmarshall Eickleberry.
Heil Hitler!
"The only difference between Adolf Hitler and Jesus Christ was intent"
-Herr Reichsmarshall Hermann "Ike" Eickleberry.
(Reichsmarshall Kommandant-in-Chief- ALT.HITLER.PROPHECY) and
supreme Kommandant, Geheime Staatspolizei Evangelica
SIEG HEIL FASCIST CHRISTIANITY! HEIL HITLER!
Friends and supporters of the "christian" fascist, Hermann "Ike"
Eickleberry:
Satan, Adolf Hitler, Fred Phelps, Pastor John Hagee, Ku Klux Klan,
Rupert Murdock, Wolfman, Dracula, Xenu, Frankenstein, the Blob, Vlad
the Impaler, Attilla the Hun, Benito Mussolini, Tojo, Michael Myers,
Jason Vorhees, Jigsaw, Freddy Kreuger, Pinhead, Chucky, Leatherface,
Hannibal Lector, Darth Vader, The Joker, Mister Mxyzptlk, Lex Luthor,
The Green Goblin, Sephiroth, Xenia Onatopp, Catwoman, Ernst Stavro
Blofeld, Doctor Julius No, Francisco Scaramanga, Max Zorin, Elektra
King, Dominic Greene, Hugo Drax, "The Doctor", "The Dentist", Peeves
the Poltergeist, Q, Oddjob, Le Chiffre, Mr. Big, Rosa Klebb, Auric
Goldfinger, Siegfried and Starker, Light Yagami, Retsudo, The Rolling
Stones,
Organizations: SMERSH, SPECTRE, AIPAC, SD6, Yagyu clan, The Borg, The
Ferengi, Cardassians, KAOS. The American Nazi Party, The Spangled Mob,
Drax Corporation, Auric Enterprises, OCTOPUS, and many others too
secret and evil to mention.
A public service of:
-Great Sage Itchy
seeker
wrote:
[...]
> First, Mark Tindall hasn't said ANYTHING about the insane things he wrote to
> the Australian government.
>
> Second, MARK doesn't have ANY THEOLOGICAL TRAINING, EITHER. But whereas I
> get my theology straight from the Bible and history, he gets HIS from what
> OTHERS say, especially the modern "Laodiceans" of the Jesus Seminar, because
> Mark HATES orthodox Christianity and everything Christ was and stood for
> because he is a SOCIAL MALCONTENT.
I take it you have figured out that I am not Tindall. Would it be
correct to say the things you said to me were really directed to
Tindall?
Ike E 1/1/11
> On Jan 12, 9:32 pm, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> <chuckle>
>
>> "THE LORD" <VeraSixmystalker&tr...@home00190.com> wrote in message
>
>> news:4d2e4783$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>>
>>> You have NO theological training.
>
>> I have all the "theological training" in the world, just like Jesus, who
>> got
>> His theology from experience and insight.
>
>> Ah, but the PHARISEES asked "who maketh this man to learn letters," i.e.
>> Jesus didn't come from THEIR schools, and didn't have THEIR credentials,
>> therefore they thought they could dismiss Him out of hand.
> Good grief, Ike; you compare your sick twisted misunderstanding of the
> Scriptures to the knowledge of God incarnate?
???
WHAT "sick twisted misunderstanding of the scriptures?
I'M not the one BASHING PAUL while requiring the spurious texts to support
my doctrines, which was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the ante-Nicene Church
Fathers did.
I'M not the one polluting Jesus' Gospel of Grace with Pharisaical legalisms.
I'M not the one teaching Babylonian angelology/demonology.
And so on, and so forth.
YOU are.
> What is wrong with you?
No, what's wrong with YOU?
> You are NOT like the Messiah in any way.
Guess you better go back and read Jesus' diatribes against false teachers
such as yourself from back in His day--I am VERY MUCH like Him.
> You need help.
Said the lunatic who reverses most everything God says when it goes against
her Jezebelian spirit, and can't read two words of the Bible without turning
everything into a litany of false accusations against Paul, Jesus, and even
God Himself.
Ike E 1/1/11
> On 1/12/2011 8:32 PM, Ike E 1/1/11 wrote:
>> serving Marine Barracks, the Department of Defense, Congress, and the
>> White
>> House (which was why a security clearance was required).
>>
>> Corp International, the Reading Buccaneers, the Colts Drum& Bugle Corp,
>>> antisemitic teachings, and much of his work has been cut out....
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> I
>>> don't believe you can be lutheran and consider yourself free of his
>>> antisemitism.
>>
>> Oh, the liberals favorite tactic; because someone in the past was an
>> "anti-Semite" (when, in fact, all of Europe was anti-Semitic), I'M
>> supposed
>> to bear the guilt, nevermind that it happened 30 years before I was born.
>>
> aren't all hot air as i thought. My apologies.
Thanks.
I find it ironic that Mark T somehow thought all this would serve to tear me
down (as his own words tore himself down).
Thing is, I've never touted my education to substantiate my doctrines; it
has only come up when jerks like Mark T here start questioning my education
and intelligence.
And on this subject, Mark's hypocrisy is truly astounding. I've never
claimed any ties to any "Christian" (read "Pharisaical") theological
training, which is actually my strength, not my weakness; whereas Mark T
doesn't have a LICK of theological training either, but only spouts the
nonsense he reads in books from the fellows of the Jesus Seminar, then
claims some manner of "expertise" while tormenting would-be Christians
without end. And neither he NOR they actually know what they're talking
about.
Ike
THE LORD
Eickleberry Jr wrote:
>> Ignorant Ike wrote material from 1999 which doesn't include my M EdSt
>> completed afterwards nor my lesser TAFE certificates. Nor does it mention
>> my honorary DD.
>
> You said in the article that you WERE a teacher in the PAST
I've taught fulltime in the NSW Department of Education from 1972 to 1988 as
a fully state accredited teacher. I taught in state accredited private
schools as a state accredited full-time teacher after 1989 (later a School
Principal) and later went into full-time employment in adult education as a
state accredited workplace trainer and assessor (later a Training Manager).
My research post graduate degree (M EdSt) is AFTER 1999 and was in the
education delivered to mature age people. You don't need a Masters degree
to teach. As usual you LIE about me. You have NO post graduate work
whatsoever. Are you a little envious as a drum tutor rejected by Wikipedia?
> Second, a TAFE is a VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND TRAINING certificate, NOT a
> teaching certificate
I have BOTH. A teaching certificate from 1974 AND a vocational educational
training certificate from 1991 PLUS DEGREES INCLUDING POST GRADUATE WORK IN
EDUCATION. In NSW a teaching certificate is earned AFTER you do your
tertiary training and AFTER have been in a school full-time and been
assessed as competent by your peers. I earned my teacher's credential as a
state accredited full-time teacher in a public school. You are NOT
currently accredited in Indiana. You are an ignorant drum tutor rejected by
Wikipedia.
> "honorary DD?"
As worthy as most of the thousands of your fundamentalist DDs floating
around. I view it as useless as it wasn't earn through study but through my
published material. It wasn't PAID for in a Diploma Mill but completely
FREE. It is again state accredited through a state accredited institution.
I usually don't mention it but it does say that another institution values
my work in theology. You have NO such institution wishing to grant you an
honorary Doctorate in anything! You may refer to me as Dr. I'll refer to
you as "the ignorant drum tutor rejected by Wikipedia".
>> After this date I also became a Training Manager.
> Which is what you REALLY were then, and are NOW--a VOTECH instructor.
I am a professional educator - began in 1974 and am still qualified and
state accredited now - (K-12 & Adult) - being BOTH a School Principal AND a
Training Manager - and still teaching on a casual basis when I feel like it.
(Unlike you I am wealthy enough to not have to work ever again but
occasionally I like to return to the classroom and keep my skills honed.)
You are unable to negate that fact as a drum tutor with NO qualification in
the area in which you speak (theology)! I note that I have far more
tertiary qualifications that you as a drum tutor rejected by Wikipedia. I
have done guitar tutoring in the past. You need NO qualification for what
you are currently doing. I am equally qualified to do the drum tutoring
that you are currently doing. I am also better read in theology than you
will ever be.
> ALL schools are "state accredited," but one has to be accredited to TEACH
> in those positions
I was fully state accredited to teach in NSW schools in the past as a
full-time professional educator and I am now still fully state accredited to
teach in NSW schools today. You are lying as usual. You are NOT accredited
to teach at the moment. See
http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2
>>> I still hold valid teaching qualifications and credentials and am
>>> currently teaching in schools.
>
> Yeah--IN VOTECH classes, NOT academics.
In academics AND vocational training, poor little ignorant Ike. K-12 & Adult
in academics PLUS vocational education. I have more experience in teaching
AND training than you will ever have in several lifetimes. I note that your
drum tutoring comes on the lowest level of education possible - skill
training. It is merely the teaching of skills and I have taught far more
than merely skills. Skill training is reserved for the last educated.
>> Nonsense! I taught in the NSW Department of Education between 1974 and
>> 1988.
> He just did it again. Notice that he says "in the NSW DEPARTMENT OF
> EDUCATION."
As a FULL TIME TEACHER fully state accredited.
> MARK doesn't have ANY THEOLOGICAL TRAINING
Have you ever wondered what a honorary Doctor of Divinity means? (Given by a
state accredited institution). I am also a qualified philosopher which you
are not. That means I know more about rationality and logic that you will
ever do. you are copmpletely irrational and illogical.
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr is a DRUM TUTOR with NO
THEOLOGICAL TRAINING!!!
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr thinks what he read at
age 5 is "study"of theology!
>> Age 49 *[HOW can he study the bible for over forty years as in next
>> quote?
>> Obvious he started before the age of 9!]
> Actually, five: I read through a children's Bible the first time
Obviously educational institutions will give him credit towards a degree for
that ................... NOT!
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr moves all around the
country looking for work. Previously lived in:
Valparaiso, IN
Crown Point, IN
Terre Haute, IN
Cadiz, OH
San Diego
Little Creek, VA (TWICE!)
Washington, DC
Albany, GA
Bloomington, IN
Richmond, VA
BOOK REJECTED BY WIKIPEDIA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
N Not done. You were shamelessly trying to promote your own self-published
"book" without even pretending to try to claim that it was in any way
notable. Not every book is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; and
even notable books need actual articles about them, not blatant promotional
material. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have to be REALLY BAD to be rejected by Wikipedia!!!!!! They accept any
idiot. Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr is apparently
regarded by Wikipedia as less than an idiot.
> Yep.
I have just been asked by a university lecturer to help co-write a book
using my expertise in philosophy.
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr has NEVER been asked by
an academic to co-write a book. All the books by ignorant moron Ike aka
Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr are SELF PUBLISHED. NO publisher has deemed
them worthy to spend money on!
I self published a poetry book. It is on the same level as ignorant moron
Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr's self published "theology". I am
currently asked by a university lecturer to contribute to a PAID book by a
well-known academic publisher using my expertise in philosophy.
>> I run my own percussion teaching studio
> Yep, and produced some of the best percussionists around.
A DRUM TUTOR!!!! How does tutoring in DRUMS qualify you in THEOLOGY????????
My degree in PHILOSOPHY at least qualifies my to speak in the subject area
regarding rationality and logic.
>> You have NO theological training.
> I have all the "theological training" in the world
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr has NO STATE ACCREDITED
QUALIFICATION IN THEOLOGY!!!!!!!!
> At least I HAVE post-graduate work
WHAT in?????? Tom foolery???? DRUMMING????
"One thumb, one thumb, drumming on a drum"- Dr Seuss
YOU ARE A DRUM TUTOR!!!!!!
DRUM TUTORS NEED NO QUALIFICATION WHATSOEVER!!!!!
I can tutor in drumming. Easy!
Your CURRENT status as an educator :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indiana Educator License Lookup >
Educator Details
SPN requested is invalid
Name: Sample Name Return to Search Results
License Information from the Office of Educational Licensing and Development
(OELD)
No licenses found.
Teaching Assignments
Teaching Assignment from DOE-CE/CP Oct 1, 2009
No teaching assignment data found.
The school assignment information is reported on the Certified
Employee/Certified Position (DOE-CE/CP) data collection each October.
Information from the collection may not be reflected on this page until
February for the current school year.
http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are NOT currently registered!!!
THE LORD
Eickleberry Jr wrote:
<whatever>
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr is a DRUM TUTOR with NO
THEOLOGICAL TRAINING!!!
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr thinks what he read at
age 5 is "study"of theology!
>> Age 49 *[HOW can he study the bible for over forty years as in next
>> quote?
>> Obvious he started before the age of 9!]
> Actually, five: I read through a children's Bible the first time
Obviously educational institutions will give him credit towards a degree for
that ................... NOT!
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr moves all around the
country looking for work. Previously lived in:
Valparaiso, IN
Crown Point, IN
Terre Haute, IN
Cadiz, OH
San Diego
Little Creek, VA (TWICE!)
Washington, DC
Albany, GA
Bloomington, IN
Richmond, VA
BOOK REJECTED BY WIKIPEDIA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
N Not done. You were shamelessly trying to promote your own self-published
"book" without even pretending to try to claim that it was in any way
notable. Not every book is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; and
even notable books need actual articles about them, not blatant promotional
material. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have to be REALLY BAD to be rejected by Wikipedia!!!!!! They accept any
idiot. Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr is apparently
regarded by Wikipedia as less than an idiot.
> Yep.
I have just been asked by a university lecturer to help co-write a book
using my expertise in philosophy.
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr has NEVER been asked by
an academic to co-write a book. All the books by ignorant moron Ike aka
Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr are SELF PUBLISHED. NO publisher has deemed
them worthy to spend money on!
I self published a poetry book. It is on the same level as ignorant moron
Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr's self published "theology". I am
currently asked by a university lecturer to contribute to a PAID book by a
well-known academic publisher using my expertise in philosophy.
>> I run my own percussion teaching studio
> Yep, and produced some of the best percussionists around.
A DRUM TUTOR!!!! How does tutoring in DRUMS qualify you in THEOLOGY????????
My degree in PHILOSOPHY at least qualifies my to speak in the subject area
regarding rationality and logic.
>> You have NO theological training.
THE LORD
Eickleberry Jr wrote:
<whatever>
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr is a DRUM TUTOR with NO
THEOLOGICAL TRAINING!!!
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr thinks what he read at
age 5 is "study"of theology!
>> Age 49 *[HOW can he study the bible for over forty years as in next
>> quote?
>> Obvious he started before the age of 9!]
> Actually, five: I read through a children's Bible the first time
Obviously educational institutions will give him credit towards a degree for
that ................... NOT!
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr moves all around the
country looking for work. Previously lived in:
Valparaiso, IN
Crown Point, IN
Terre Haute, IN
Cadiz, OH
San Diego
Little Creek, VA (TWICE!)
Washington, DC
Albany, GA
Bloomington, IN
Richmond, VA
BOOK REJECTED BY WIKIPEDIA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
N Not done. You were shamelessly trying to promote your own self-published
"book" without even pretending to try to claim that it was in any way
notable. Not every book is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; and
even notable books need actual articles about them, not blatant promotional
material. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have to be REALLY BAD to be rejected by Wikipedia!!!!!! They accept any
idiot. Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr is apparently
regarded by Wikipedia as less than an idiot.
> Yep.
I have just been asked by a university lecturer to help co-write a book
using my expertise in philosophy.
Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr has NEVER been asked by
an academic to co-write a book. All the books by ignorant moron Ike aka
Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr are SELF PUBLISHED. NO publisher has deemed
them worthy to spend money on!
I self published a poetry book. It is on the same level as ignorant moron
Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr's self published "theology". I am
currently asked by a university lecturer to contribute to a PAID book by a
well-known academic publisher using my expertise in philosophy.
>> I run my own percussion teaching studio
> Yep, and produced some of the best percussionists around.
A DRUM TUTOR!!!! How does tutoring in DRUMS qualify you in THEOLOGY????????
My degree in PHILOSOPHY at least qualifies my to speak in the subject area
regarding rationality and logic.
>> You have NO theological training.
Ike E 1/1/11
> On Jan 12, 3:06 pm, seeker <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 11:51 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>
>>>
>
>>> OH, and dyslexia is NOT a "learning disability;"
>
>> Well it use to be.
> Dyslexia is still classified as a learning disability because it is a
> reading disability.
Ah, no, it is a visual acuity disability that can BE a reading disability.
> Dyslexia is also called developmental reading disorder, which is a
> reading disability resulting from the inability to process written
> symbols,
Ah, false--it's not just "written symbols" but occasionally reversed images.
When light comes through the lens of the eye, the image is projected on the
retinas upside down and backwards. The visual centers of the brain has to
reverse this information and turn it right-side up and forward.
In some people, this is a problem until they train themselves to know which
way the figures are supposed to go.
> so that there is difficulty in understanding sentences.
Another false assumption. Dyslexics don't "have difficulty understanding
sentences." They understand grammar and form just fine--it's the DIRECTIONS
of the symbols they have problems with until they learn how to keep
everything straight.
> It is
> not related to intelligence however, but you'd think someone with this
> problem would rely on audio discs to learn since reading the written
> word correctly is so difficult.
FALSE.
That would be the WORST thing to do, handicapping the individual for LIFE.
The trick to learning how to overcome dyslexia is WHOLISTIC READING, i.e.
learning how to read whole words at a time (instead of using phonetics)
through vocabulary building with exhaustive understanding of grammatical
structure. (This is why dyslexics typically become better, faster, and more
comprehensive readers than "normal" folks.)
First, when I'm reading, I read whole words, phrases, and even entire
sentences at a time, because I've built up such an exhaustive vocabulary
that I instantly know the difference in the shape of words, i.e. dog, dig,
dug, god, golf, gum, etc, etc. That's the visual clue.
The second tool is grammatical structure: I realize I've made a mistake when
I'm reading because the grammatical structure of a given statement falls
apart. Then I quickly have to go back and look at the word that made the
grammatical structure fall apart, at which point my mind quickly replaces it
with the right word to make the sentence work.
This works great with text, but it sucks with numbers.
I sent my new book to one of my proof-readers, and she said the book was
fine, but there was some kind of weird problem with my citations. When I
checked my citations, I had switched the numbers in about half of them. (The
ones I had done quickly, not wanting to break my concentration on the text I
was writing.)
For instance, John 1:16 would be John 1:61 or John 1:19 or something strange
like that. (We laughed because I was citing passages of the Bible that
didn't even exist.)
I had to go back through every citation and double check them.
Math was always my weak point--great at theory, lousy at calculations.
>> Maybe they are calling it something else now but
>> back in the day it was called learning disability. It's kind of like
>> how Pluto use to be a planet.
>
>>> . . . it's a physiological
>>> optical disability which can SEEM like a learning disability until
>>> corrected.
> Dyslexia cannot be cured i.e. corrected., although the ability to
> understand the written word can be improved with help.
Ah, well, that's somewhat true, but most dyslexics can read BETTER than
"normal" people because of the training they have to go through to overcome
their problem.
>>> Dyslexia is about as much a "mental handicap" as being left-handed.
>
>> Which is a slight handicap in writing modern languages. It's an
>> advantage for languages that go all the way back to the hammer and
>> chisel.
>
>>> "Retardation" (old term), ADD, hemispheric disorders, etc, are learning
>>> disabilities, and CAN'T be corrected--at best, they're lifelong problems
>>> that may be "managed," but they can't be eliminated.
>
>>> Dyslexia ISN'T--it's not a mental "handicap" as you two idiots attempt
>>> to
>>> imply;
>
>> It can be very hard on kids in the early grades before they get
>> treatment.
Actually, that works the other way around, too--because of the personalized
attention and the wealth of material read, most dyslexics wind up LIKING
school more than "normal" kids--they feel more accomplished than them, and
they're usually more academically successful than them--IF it's discovered
early enough and not treated as "stupidity" or "retardation."
bear
I think everyone sees Ike for what he is, except Ike.
Bear
Ike E 1/1/11
news:9joti69cb9lghttbh...@4ax.com...
> I think everyone sees Ike for what he is, except Ike.
LOL
You don't "see" shit, Bear, otherwise you wouldn't be holding fast to your
childish and evil doctrines.
And speaking of not "seeing," did you notice that Tindall hasn't defended
his "honorary DD" claim?
It was another lie, just like I said.
THAT'S how much you DON'T "see."
Ike
Ike E 1/1/11
news:4d2e9ea4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
[snip]
> I have just been asked by a university lecturer to help co-write a book
> using my expertise in philosophy.
>
> Ignorant moron Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr has NEVER been asked
> by
> an academic to co-write a book. All the books by ignorant moron Ike aka
> Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr are SELF PUBLISHED. NO publisher has deemed
> them worthy to spend money on!
>
> I self published a poetry book. It is on the same level as ignorant moron
> Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr's self published "theology". I am
> currently asked by a university lecturer to contribute to a PAID book by a
> well-known academic publisher using my expertise in philosophy.
LOL
You and the numbskulls you hang out with couldn't uncover any truth with two
hands and a library.
You have no concept of form or function where the Bible and spiritual truths
are concerned.
You are OBLIVIOUS to what's going on around you and you're failed position
in the big scheme of things.
On top of that, you're pretty a stark raving, Christ-hating, godless
lunatic.
And you are nowhere near "my level," Laodicean heretic: You haven't the
foggiest notion of who or what Jesus was, and the profoundness of what He
said 2,000 years ago, before it was even possible for anyone else to say it.
You are the poster child for the latter day "antichristians."
<chuckle and snip>
Linda Lee
wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Okay the issue with that is that we have a guy who says that he is a
> > professional educator. A professional educator would be a shame to
> > his own colleges if he used a mental disorder as an insult to bully
> > others.
>
> interpretation of those images.
>
>
> http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
>
> > the critical moment then they can overcome the problem. Those who
> > don't tend to struggle much worse as adults. Only an unprofessional
> > un-educator would go up to an adult who suffered from this problem and
> > jeer at them. It's unconscionable.
>
>
> She didn't say I "beat up" on someone with dyslexia; I'M the one with mild
> dyslexia, you ass.
>
> SHE suffers from self-imposed ILLITERACY.
>
> Man, are you ever nuts--but my recent post will show that to everyone.
You are so confused, Mr. Illiterate. That was Seeker talking about
Mark T calling Peter B. dyslexic; he wasn't talking about me OR you.
And Seeker is not Mark T.
Linda Lee
> On Jan 10, 7:23 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > You've already left Christ.
> [....]
> > And you've gone the opposite direction of the one that Revelation points
> > to--you've joined the apostates instead of keeping the faith, undefiled, as
> > directed.
>
> I take it that you made these comments on the false assumption that I
> am Tindale. In other words you based them on things Tindale said.
Doesn't matter that he thinks you're Mark T., and it doesn't matter
what you or Mark T. believe or say; Ike says what he's said here about
*everybody.*
Linda Lee:
> One of his [Ike's] main claims is that hardly anyone here is a
> Christian...
Ike:
"Which is PRECISELY correct." - http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/681d5cb332a5d6cc
- January 12, 2011
Linda Lee
wrote:
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4213af91-7071-4dd6...@v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 9:32 pm, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> <chuckle>
>
> >> "THE LORD" <VeraSixmystalker&tr...@home00190.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4d2e4783$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> >>> You have NO theological training.
>
> >> I have all the "theological training" in the world, just like Jesus, who
> >> got
> >> His theology from experience and insight.
>
> >> Ah, but the PHARISEES asked "who maketh this man to learn letters," i.e.
> >> Jesus didn't come from THEIR schools, and didn't have THEIR credentials,
> >> therefore they thought they could dismiss Him out of hand.
> > Good grief, Ike; you compare your sick twisted misunderstanding of the
> > Scriptures to the knowledge of God incarnate?
>
> ???
>
> WHAT "sick twisted misunderstanding of the scriptures?
>
> I'M not the one BASHING PAUL while requiring the spurious texts to support
> my doctrines, which was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the ante-Nicene Church
> Fathers did.
WHAT do you have against the books of Hebrews, Jude, and II Peter?
They were included in the Protestant bible canon because they are the
same teachings taught in the rest of the New Testament.
>
> I'M not the one polluting Jesus' Gospel of Grace with Pharisaical legalisms.
That's a lie; I have *never* said salvation must be earned by works.
>
> I'M not the one teaching Babylonian angelology/demonology.
>
> And so on, and so forth.
>
> YOU are.
The MESSIAH taught what YOU call "Babylonian angelology/demonology",
in other words, the Messiah taught there were/are angels and demons,
or haven't you read the Gospels yet? Perhaps that wasn't in the
children's bible you read and say was the beginning of your studies.
>
> > What is wrong with you?
>
> No, what's wrong with YOU?
>
> > You are NOT like the Messiah in any way.
>
> Guess you better go back and read Jesus' diatribes against false teachers
> such as yourself from back in His day--I am VERY MUCH like Him.
TOTAL LIE; you're a child of the Devil who is here to attack
Christians and pervert Scripture.
Linda Lee:
> One of his [Ike's] main claims is that hardly anyone here is a
> Christian...
Ike:
"Which is PRECISELY correct." - http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/681d5cb332a5d6cc
- January 12, 2011
According to Ike, the Messiah (God incarnate) had to choose 12 men as
apostles to preach his gospel, but God only chose ONE MAN (IKE) in the
last 2,000 years to interpret ALL prophesy for him, and that man was
Ike.
> and can't read two words of the Bible without turning
> everything into a litany of false accusations against Paul,
I already told you I accept Paul now, but you don't care about facts.
> Jesus, and even God Himself.
That is a lie, just like you always lie about what I believe. All you
do is lie and call all Christians here foul names, while you think
you're some special person who is just like "Jesus" and was chosen by
God as the only person who could ever interpret prophesy accurately.
IOW, you're a loon.