> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:41:12 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 8:25 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 14, 10:57 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> If Moses had a law requiring people to brush their teeth after every
> >>> meal, it would still not excuse his command to have people stoned for
> >>> gathering firewood on the Sabbath, or have a young woman stoned if she
> >>> failed to bleed on their wedding night.
> >> I don't agree that it is okay to have lethal consequences for such
> >> things.
> > Wikipedia says this under "hymen":
> > The effects of sexual intercourse and childbirth on the hymen are
> > variable. If the hymen is sufficiently elastic, it may return to
> > nearly its original condition. In other cases, there may be remnants
> > (carunculae myrtiformes), or it may appear completely absent after
> > repeated penetration.[3][4][5] Additionally, the hymen may be
> > lacerated by disease, injury, medical examination, masturbation or
> > even physical exercise. For these reasons, it is not possible to
> > definitively determine whether or not a girl or woman is a virgin by
> > examining her hymen.[2][4][5]
> > Moses required a brutal death for many things, including a woman's
> > failure to bleed visibly on her wedding night.
> > Deuteronomy 22:
> > 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
> > 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name
> > upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found
> > her not a maid:
> > 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring
> > forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city
> > in the gate:
> > 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my
> > daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
> > 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I
> > found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my
> > daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the
> > elders of the city.
> > 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
> > 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give
> > them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil
> > name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not
> > put her away all his days.
> > 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found
> > for the damsel:
> > 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's
> > house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she
> > die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in
> > her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
> > I will let you work out your disagreement with a law you consider was
> > divine.
> >>> > > If a man has
> >>> > > sex with his wife, the man is "unclean." Moses was positively
> >>> > > psychotic on the subject of women and sex.
> >>> > Many people today won't have sexual relations while the woman is
> >>> > menstruating, and it isn't because Moses forbade it.
> >>> Don't you see the difference between a personal preference and a law
> >>> declaring people unclean?
> >> Unclean sounds superstitious and irrational.
> > That is how it sounds to me, too. But look at the 120 references in
> > the Mosaic Code:
> > Here is another way that Jesus repudiated the Law of Moses:
> > Leviticus 10:
> > 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee,
> > when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it
> > shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
> > Yet Jesus had his followers drink wine "in remembrance" of him.
> > TCross
> Just wait until you come across the test to see if a woman has slept with
> another man?
What test would you use to see if a man has slept with another woman?
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:42:46 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 3:30 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:41:12 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> >>> On Nov 14, 8:25 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 14, 10:57 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> If Moses had a law requiring people to brush their teeth after every
> >>>>> meal, it would still not excuse his command to have people stoned for
> >>>>> gathering firewood on the Sabbath, or have a young woman stoned if she
> >>>>> failed to bleed on their wedding night.
> >>>> I don't agree that it is okay to have lethal consequences for such
> >>>> things.
> >>> Wikipedia says this under "hymen":
> >>> The effects of sexual intercourse and childbirth on the hymen are
> >>> variable. If the hymen is sufficiently elastic, it may return to
> >>> nearly its original condition. In other cases, there may be remnants
> >>> (carunculae myrtiformes), or it may appear completely absent after
> >>> repeated penetration.[3][4][5] Additionally, the hymen may be
> >>> lacerated by disease, injury, medical examination, masturbation or
> >>> even physical exercise. For these reasons, it is not possible to
> >>> definitively determine whether or not a girl or woman is a virgin by
> >>> examining her hymen.[2][4][5]
> >>> Moses required a brutal death for many things, including a woman's
> >>> failure to bleed visibly on her wedding night.
> >>> Deuteronomy 22:
> >>> 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
> >>> 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name
> >>> upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found
> >>> her not a maid:
> >>> 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring
> >>> forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city
> >>> in the gate:
> >>> 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my
> >>> daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
> >>> 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I
> >>> found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my
> >>> daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the
> >>> elders of the city.
> >>> 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
> >>> 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give
> >>> them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil
> >>> name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not
> >>> put her away all his days.
> >>> 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found
> >>> for the damsel:
> >>> 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's
> >>> house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she
> >>> die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in
> >>> her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
> >>> I will let you work out your disagreement with a law you consider was
> >>> divine.
> >>>>> > > If a man has
> >>>>> > > sex with his wife, the man is "unclean." Moses was positively
> >>>>> > > psychotic on the subject of women and sex.
> >>>>> > Many people today won't have sexual relations while the woman is
> >>>>> > menstruating, and it isn't because Moses forbade it.
> >>>>> Don't you see the difference between a personal preference and a law
> >>>>> declaring people unclean?
> >>>> Unclean sounds superstitious and irrational.
> >>> That is how it sounds to me, too. But look at the 120 references in
> >>> the Mosaic Code:
> >>> Here is another way that Jesus repudiated the Law of Moses:
> >>> Leviticus 10:
> >>> 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee,
> >>> when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it
> >>> shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
> >>> Yet Jesus had his followers drink wine "in remembrance" of him.
> >>> TCross
> >> Just wait until you come across the test to see if a woman has slept with
> >> another man?
> > What test would you use to see if a man has slept with another woman?
> > TCross
> Gossiping women.
Funny. Yet it's proven on the ngs that men gossip just as much as
women do, if not moreso.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:44:00 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 7:52 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:42:46 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> >>> On Nov 14, 3:30 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:41:12 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 14, 8:25 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 14, 10:57 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> If Moses had a law requiring people to brush their teeth after every
> >>>>>>> meal, it would still not excuse his command to have people stoned for
> >>>>>>> gathering firewood on the Sabbath, or have a young woman stoned if she
> >>>>>>> failed to bleed on their wedding night.
> >>>>>> I don't agree that it is okay to have lethal consequences for such
> >>>>>> things.
> >>>>> Wikipedia says this under "hymen":
> >>>>> The effects of sexual intercourse and childbirth on the hymen are
> >>>>> variable. If the hymen is sufficiently elastic, it may return to
> >>>>> nearly its original condition. In other cases, there may be remnants
> >>>>> (carunculae myrtiformes), or it may appear completely absent after
> >>>>> repeated penetration.[3][4][5] Additionally, the hymen may be
> >>>>> lacerated by disease, injury, medical examination, masturbation or
> >>>>> even physical exercise. For these reasons, it is not possible to
> >>>>> definitively determine whether or not a girl or woman is a virgin by
> >>>>> examining her hymen.[2][4][5]
> >>>>> Moses required a brutal death for many things, including a woman's
> >>>>> failure to bleed visibly on her wedding night.
> >>>>> Deuteronomy 22:
> >>>>> 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
> >>>>> 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name
> >>>>> upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found
> >>>>> her not a maid:
> >>>>> 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring
> >>>>> forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city
> >>>>> in the gate:
> >>>>> 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my
> >>>>> daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
> >>>>> 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I
> >>>>> found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my
> >>>>> daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the
> >>>>> elders of the city.
> >>>>> 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
> >>>>> 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give
> >>>>> them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil
> >>>>> name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not
> >>>>> put her away all his days.
> >>>>> 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found
> >>>>> for the damsel:
> >>>>> 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's
> >>>>> house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she
> >>>>> die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in
> >>>>> her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
> >>>>> I will let you work out your disagreement with a law you consider was
> >>>>> divine.
> >>>>>>> > > If a man has
> >>>>>>> > > sex with his wife, the man is "unclean." Moses was positively
> >>>>>>> > > psychotic on the subject of women and sex.
> >>>>>>> > Many people today won't have sexual relations while the woman is
> >>>>>>> > menstruating, and it isn't because Moses forbade it.
> >>>>>>> Don't you see the difference between a personal preference and a law
> >>>>>>> declaring people unclean?
> >>>>>> Unclean sounds superstitious and irrational.
> >>>>> That is how it sounds to me, too. But look at the 120 references in
> >>>>> the Mosaic Code:
> >>>>> Here is another way that Jesus repudiated the Law of Moses:
> >>>>> Leviticus 10:
> >>>>> 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee,
> >>>>> when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it
> >>>>> shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
> >>>>> Yet Jesus had his followers drink wine "in remembrance" of him.
> >>>>> TCross
> >>>> Just wait until you come across the test to see if a woman has slept with
> >>>> another man?
> >>> What test would you use to see if a man has slept with another woman?
> >>> TCross
> >> Gossiping women.
> > Funny. Yet it's proven on the ngs that men gossip just as much as
> > women do, if not moreso.
> oh I don't doubt that for a minute, but most men are tight lipped about
> affairs, and the women open, brazen,
That's one way of looking at it. On the other hand, perhaps men are
"tight lipped" about it because they're better at being sneaky, and
women appear "brazen" about it because their "woman's intuition" tells
them they're married to men who are sneaking around, and so they feel
justified in having an affair, and are therefore "open" about it.
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:42:46 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> > > On Nov 14, 3:30 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:41:12 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> > >>> On Nov 14, 8:25 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Nov 14, 10:57 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> If Moses had a law requiring people to brush their teeth after every
> > >>>>> meal, it would still not excuse his command to have people stoned for
> > >>>>> gathering firewood on the Sabbath, or have a young woman stoned if she
> > >>>>> failed to bleed on their wedding night.
> > >>>> I don't agree that it is okay to have lethal consequences for such
> > >>>> things.
> > >>> Wikipedia says this under "hymen":
> > >>> The effects of sexual intercourse and childbirth on the hymen are
> > >>> variable. If the hymen is sufficiently elastic, it may return to
> > >>> nearly its original condition. In other cases, there may be remnants
> > >>> (carunculae myrtiformes), or it may appear completely absent after
> > >>> repeated penetration.[3][4][5] Additionally, the hymen may be
> > >>> lacerated by disease, injury, medical examination, masturbation or
> > >>> even physical exercise. For these reasons, it is not possible to
> > >>> definitively determine whether or not a girl or woman is a virgin by
> > >>> examining her hymen.[2][4][5]
> > >>> Moses required a brutal death for many things, including a woman's
> > >>> failure to bleed visibly on her wedding night.
> > >>> Deuteronomy 22:
> > >>> 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
> > >>> 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name
> > >>> upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found
> > >>> her not a maid:
> > >>> 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring
> > >>> forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city
> > >>> in the gate:
> > >>> 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my
> > >>> daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
> > >>> 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I
> > >>> found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my
> > >>> daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the
> > >>> elders of the city.
> > >>> 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
> > >>> 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give
> > >>> them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil
> > >>> name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not
> > >>> put her away all his days.
> > >>> 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found
> > >>> for the damsel:
> > >>> 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's
> > >>> house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she
> > >>> die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in
> > >>> her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
> > >>> I will let you work out your disagreement with a law you consider was
> > >>> divine.
> > >>>>> > > If a man has
> > >>>>> > > sex with his wife, the man is "unclean." Moses was positively
> > >>>>> > > psychotic on the subject of women and sex.
> > >>>>> > Many people today won't have sexual relations while the woman is
> > >>>>> > menstruating, and it isn't because Moses forbade it.
> > >>>>> Don't you see the difference between a personal preference and a law
> > >>>>> declaring people unclean?
> > >>>> Unclean sounds superstitious and irrational.
> > >>> That is how it sounds to me, too. But look at the 120 references in
> > >>> the Mosaic Code:
> > >>> Here is another way that Jesus repudiated the Law of Moses:
> > >>> Leviticus 10:
> > >>> 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee,
> > >>> when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it
> > >>> shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
> > >>> Yet Jesus had his followers drink wine "in remembrance" of him.
> > >>> TCross
> > >> Just wait until you come across the test to see if a woman has slept with
> > >> another man?
> > > What test would you use to see if a man has slept with another woman?
> > > TCross
> > Gossiping women.
> Funny. Yet it's proven on the ngs that men gossip just as much as
> women do, if not moreso.
Under Pete's Code, a man is stoned to death of women gossip about
him. Bring on the tablets of stone.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:44:00 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 7:52 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:42:46 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> >>> On Nov 14, 3:30 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:41:12 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 14, 8:25 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 14, 10:57 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> If Moses had a law requiring people to brush their teeth after every
> >>>>>>> meal, it would still not excuse his command to have people stoned for
> >>>>>>> gathering firewood on the Sabbath, or have a young woman stoned if she
> >>>>>>> failed to bleed on their wedding night.
> >>>>>> I don't agree that it is okay to have lethal consequences for such
> >>>>>> things.
> >>>>> Wikipedia says this under "hymen":
> >>>>> The effects of sexual intercourse and childbirth on the hymen are
> >>>>> variable. If the hymen is sufficiently elastic, it may return to
> >>>>> nearly its original condition. In other cases, there may be remnants
> >>>>> (carunculae myrtiformes), or it may appear completely absent after
> >>>>> repeated penetration.[3][4][5] Additionally, the hymen may be
> >>>>> lacerated by disease, injury, medical examination, masturbation or
> >>>>> even physical exercise. For these reasons, it is not possible to
> >>>>> definitively determine whether or not a girl or woman is a virgin by
> >>>>> examining her hymen.[2][4][5]
> >>>>> Moses required a brutal death for many things, including a woman's
> >>>>> failure to bleed visibly on her wedding night.
> >>>>> Deuteronomy 22:
> >>>>> 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
> >>>>> 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name
> >>>>> upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found
> >>>>> her not a maid:
> >>>>> 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring
> >>>>> forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city
> >>>>> in the gate:
> >>>>> 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my
> >>>>> daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
> >>>>> 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I
> >>>>> found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my
> >>>>> daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the
> >>>>> elders of the city.
> >>>>> 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
> >>>>> 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give
> >>>>> them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil
> >>>>> name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not
> >>>>> put her away all his days.
> >>>>> 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found
> >>>>> for the damsel:
> >>>>> 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's
> >>>>> house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she
> >>>>> die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in
> >>>>> her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
> >>>>> I will let you work out your disagreement with a law you consider was
> >>>>> divine.
> >>>>>>> > > If a man has
> >>>>>>> > > sex with his wife, the man is "unclean." Moses was positively
> >>>>>>> > > psychotic on the subject of women and sex.
> >>>>>>> > Many people today won't have sexual relations while the woman is
> >>>>>>> > menstruating, and it isn't because Moses forbade it.
> >>>>>>> Don't you see the difference between a personal preference and a law
> >>>>>>> declaring people unclean?
> >>>>>> Unclean sounds superstitious and irrational.
> >>>>> That is how it sounds to me, too. But look at the 120 references in
> >>>>> the Mosaic Code:
> >>>>> Here is another way that Jesus repudiated the Law of Moses:
> >>>>> Leviticus 10:
> >>>>> 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee,
> >>>>> when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it
> >>>>> shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
> >>>>> Yet Jesus had his followers drink wine "in remembrance" of him.
> >>>>> TCross
> >>>> Just wait until you come across the test to see if a woman has slept with
> >>>> another man?
> >>> What test would you use to see if a man has slept with another woman?
> >>> TCross
> >> Gossiping women.
> > Funny. Yet it's proven on the ngs that men gossip just as much as
> > women do, if not moreso.
> oh I don't doubt that for a minute, but most men are tight lipped about
> affairs,
That is an utterly false statement. My husband used to tell me about
the men in his shop boasting of the women they had, either on business
trips or on some other occasion when the wives turned their backs.
Men are no more "tight-lipped" than they are rational or
unemotional.
It might be true that men are less honest about themselves than
women. From that source, a wealth of myths.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:13:51 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 7:31 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:44:00 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> >>> On Nov 14, 7:52 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:42:46 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 14, 3:30 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:41:12 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 14, 8:25 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 10:57 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> If Moses had a law requiring people to brush their teeth after every
> >>>>>>>>> meal, it would still not excuse his command to have people stoned for
> >>>>>>>>> gathering firewood on the Sabbath, or have a young woman stoned if she
> >>>>>>>>> failed to bleed on their wedding night.
> >>>>>>>> I don't agree that it is okay to have lethal consequences for such
> >>>>>>>> things.
> >>>>>>> Wikipedia says this under "hymen":
> >>>>>>> The effects of sexual intercourse and childbirth on the hymen are
> >>>>>>> variable. If the hymen is sufficiently elastic, it may return to
> >>>>>>> nearly its original condition. In other cases, there may be remnants
> >>>>>>> (carunculae myrtiformes), or it may appear completely absent after
> >>>>>>> repeated penetration.[3][4][5] Additionally, the hymen may be
> >>>>>>> lacerated by disease, injury, medical examination, masturbation or
> >>>>>>> even physical exercise. For these reasons, it is not possible to
> >>>>>>> definitively determine whether or not a girl or woman is a virgin by
> >>>>>>> examining her hymen.[2][4][5]
> >>>>>>> Moses required a brutal death for many things, including a woman's
> >>>>>>> failure to bleed visibly on her wedding night.
> >>>>>>> Deuteronomy 22:
> >>>>>>> 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
> >>>>>>> 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name
> >>>>>>> upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found
> >>>>>>> her not a maid:
> >>>>>>> 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring
> >>>>>>> forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city
> >>>>>>> in the gate:
> >>>>>>> 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my
> >>>>>>> daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
> >>>>>>> 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I
> >>>>>>> found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my
> >>>>>>> daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the
> >>>>>>> elders of the city.
> >>>>>>> 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
> >>>>>>> 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give
> >>>>>>> them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil
> >>>>>>> name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not
> >>>>>>> put her away all his days.
> >>>>>>> 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found
> >>>>>>> for the damsel:
> >>>>>>> 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's
> >>>>>>> house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she
> >>>>>>> die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in
> >>>>>>> her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
> >>>>>>> I will let you work out your disagreement with a law you consider was
> >>>>>>> divine.
> >>>>>>>>> > > If a man has
> >>>>>>>>> > > sex with his wife, the man is "unclean." Moses was positively
> >>>>>>>>> > > psychotic on the subject of women and sex.
> >>>>>>>>> > Many people today won't have sexual relations while the woman is
> >>>>>>>>> > menstruating, and it isn't because Moses forbade it.
> >>>>>>>>> Don't you see the difference between a personal preference and a law
> >>>>>>>>> declaring people unclean?
> >>>>>>>> Unclean sounds superstitious and irrational.
> >>>>>>> That is how it sounds to me, too. But look at the 120 references in
> >>>>>>> the Mosaic Code:
> >>>>>>> Here is another way that Jesus repudiated the Law of Moses:
> >>>>>>> Leviticus 10:
> >>>>>>> 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee,
> >>>>>>> when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it
> >>>>>>> shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
> >>>>>>> Yet Jesus had his followers drink wine "in remembrance" of him.
> >>>>>>> TCross
> >>>>>> Just wait until you come across the test to see if a woman has slept with
> >>>>>> another man?
> >>>>> What test would you use to see if a man has slept with another woman?
> >>>>> TCross
> >>>> Gossiping women.
> >>> Funny. Yet it's proven on the ngs that men gossip just as much as
> >>> women do, if not moreso.
> >> oh I don't doubt that for a minute, but most men are tight lipped about
> >> affairs,
> > That is an utterly false statement. My husband used to tell me about
> > the men in his shop boasting of the women they had, either on business
> > trips or on some other occasion when the wives turned their backs.
> > Men are no more "tight-lipped" than they are rational or
> > unemotional.
> Did you notice the word "had". There is a reason for that. I am not saying
> that there aren't exceptions to the "rules".
> > It might be true that men are less honest about themselves than
> > women. From that source, a wealth of myths.
> > TCross
> It is also well known that women are less faithful then men. I don't
> remember for sure but it is something like 2-1 or slightly more.
"Well known"? I guess I can't beat an authority like that. Even
Galileo was powerless in the face of what is "well known." </sacasm>
> On Nov 8, 8:11 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/26/2012 9:58 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 3:02 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/1/2012 11:29 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 1, 4:56 am, "Ed Form" <ed.f...@workgroupsolutions.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/09/2012 23:13:46, vince garcia wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Form wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/09/2012 22:18:46, "Dr. R. Knapp" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> God is Spirit, the Angels are spirit also, so the seven spirits does
>>>>>>>>> not mean they are GOD just seven other spirits. Jesus is God not some
>>>>>>>>> spirit angel. What pagan group has only three gods? some have
>>>>>>>>> thousands of gods. You are a Trinity also, are you a pagan? You are
>>>>>>>>> somehow ONE also. Body, Soul and Spirit, but still only one human body
>>>>>>>>> walking around. Also man is made in the image of God, so like man
>>>>>>>>> body soul and spirit in one, as God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, all
>>>>>>>>> in one body called GOD.
>>>>>>>> You trinitarians
>>>>>>> Raymond is NOT a Trinitarian, ed...
>>>>>> What I think you mean is that the gentleman doesn't express his beliefs in
>>>>>> accordance with the approved trinitarian formula.
>>>>> Which approved trinitarian formula would that be? I believe and
>>>>> follow the "Apostles creed" as the Metholidis church follows and
>>>>> membership follow as well as the Lord,s prayer.
>>>> The hell you do.
>>>> You reinterpret it along cult lines; you do NOT "follow" it as Christian do.
>>>> And if you taught what the Methodist churches taught, then you would be
>>>> a Methodist instead of cultic Oneness Pentecostal trying to snake his
>>>> way in the door to gather disciples unto yourself, like the serpent in
>>>> the garden.
>>> I never was in any of your cultics be they Oneness or Pentecostal or
>>> any other such name. You are the snake here and even Steve Winter
>>> that was one of them Oneness Pentecost cult folks you like to point
>>> to, I was not a Oneness Pentecostal but a believer that believed in
>>> the Triune God as I pointed out to him, that I was saved in the
>>> Southern Bible Church. I never joined the United Pentecostal Church
>>> that beleived in salvation in Baptism, which I post manytimes just
>>> like my Methodist upbringing we are saved by Faith not works. Then
>>> Ike you like to lie and call people false names and are evil.
>>> Then like the ONE GOD the Oneness of the GodHead as the Methodist
>>> Church and most Christians believe. I accept this below know as
>>> Affirming the Essentials:
>>> The Apostles Creed
>> Notice that the cultist references the Apostles' Creed, which he can
>> interpret ambiguously, but not the Nicene Creed, which he cannot, even
>> though the United Methodist Church uses both.
>> With these cultists, it's always a game of words against the Word.
>> Ike
> Notice here that only "lke" is in a cult and is the cultist here.
> Ignorant as he can be. It is clear you are not a Methodist. You are
> only a lost soul. Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed both are used
> when they want to do so. You are the only one with the game of words
> and they are all vulgar.
> On Nov 8, 8:24 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/21/2012 7:50 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> On Oct 21, 6:27 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2012 1:24 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 19, 9:59 pm, "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 17, 11:45 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/16/2012 8:04 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:11 pm, "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 1:34 pm, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:12 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 1:40 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/7/2012 10:14 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The hell you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No Hell is all yours and keep it up and you will end up there.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...said the antitrinitarian, antichurch antichristian.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You reinterpret it along cult lines; you do NOT "follow" it as Christian do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keep making it up, as it seems all you can do is LIE. Then that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what liars do as you do here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've told no lie, cultist.
>>>>>>>>>>> More like you told nothing that is true, and try again to hide your
>>>>>>>>>>> cultist life, so call others what you really are.
>>>>>>>>>> As usual, no intelligent response from the cultist.
>>>>>>>>> Yes you have no response that is intelligent as that is what your cult
>>>>>>>>> is about.
>>>>>>>> Ike calls his cult the Triunist cult...
>>>>>>> Notice how quickly Jezebel aligns herself with every heretical beast who
>>>>>>> otherwise declares her a liar, as she declares them liars.
>>>>>>> The whore doesn't care who she gets in bed with, just as long as they're
>>>>>>> opposed to the truth as I tell it.
>>>>>> I hope someone can get the police to put you away, calling a woman
>>>>>> such a evil name and if it is not true, you could end up in court and
>>>>>> cost you a lot of money and freedoms.
>>>>> It is not true.
>>>> Yeah, it is, and you just proved it again.
>>>>> And I've heard that people on the Internet can be sued
>>>>> for defamation, libel, etc. Herman E. Eickleberry, Jr. wouldn't be
>>>>> hard to identify and find. And maybe he'd like the people at
>>>>> Amazon.com to know how he talks and what he really is, a low-life who
>>>>> calls women whores when they don't agree with him.
>>>> LOL
>>>> That's "Babylonian whore," Jezebel; learn what it means, i.e. you climb
>>>> into bed with anyone, even opponents, as long as they're as against the
>>>> truth as you are.
>>> Your explanation as to what you meant falls short
>> LOL
>> Nope.
> YOU IMBECILE; YOU LIED WHEN YOU CLAIM KNAPP AND I WERE CALLING EACH
> OTHER LIARS (IKE SAYS: "Notice how quickly Jezebel aligns herself with
> every heretical beast who otherwise declares her a liar, as she
> declares them liars. The whore doesn't care who she gets in bed with,
> just as long as they're opposed to the truth as I tell it." - SEE
> ABOVE). THAT LIE WAS YOUR EXPLANATION THAT FELL SHORT ABOUT WHY YOU
> CALLED ME A WHORE. YOU ARE REALLY A MORON.
> On Nov 8, 8:20 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/20/2012 11:02 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>> "Born from above" = the present epiphany in the believers.
>>>> "Born again" refers to the resurrection.
>>> Oh here we go again you calling others the moron, and then lying about
>>> the historical church teachings on "Born Again".
>> LOL
>> The Historical churches NEVER used the term "born again Christian;" that
>> bit of nonsensical fluff didn't start after the Reformation...
> Here you prove you are always lying,
...and here I prove I'm not, as usual...
"To many historic church denominations, to be "born again" was understood as spiritual regeneration via the sacrament of baptism by the power of water and word. This is still the understanding in Roman Catholicism, some parts of Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy. However, beginning sometime after the Reformation, being born again has been predominantly understood by some Protestants (of the "anabaptist" branch) to be an experience of conversion symbolized by water baptism, and rooted in a commitment to one's own personal faith in Jesus Christ for salvation."
This bit of fluff was begun by Wesley and his "you can perfect the flesh" nonsense.
> there is no way for you to say
> NEVER as you have no evident to support that statement. Now the Bible
> does point to that Born again and since it is for Christians it would
> be easy to see that they all called themselves born again.
Jezebel, you have no idea "what the Bible says," as evidenced by the fact that you keep attempting to reduce Jesus' three-concept statement (birth, spiritual birth, resurrection) into a one-part concept...and that's how the lie of the "born again Christian" got started.
> You are
> the liar and full of nonsensical foolishness.
Thus saith Satan to cover her ignorance and arrogance.
> > On Nov 8, 8:11 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/26/2012 9:58 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> >>> On Oct 6, 3:02 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/1/2012 11:29 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 1, 4:56 am, "Ed Form" <ed.f...@workgroupsolutions.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 30/09/2012 23:13:46, vince garcia wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ed Form wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 30/09/2012 22:18:46, "Dr. R. Knapp" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> God is Spirit, the Angels are spirit also, so the seven spirits does
> >>>>>>>>> not mean they are GOD just seven other spirits. Jesus is God not some
> >>>>>>>>> spirit angel. What pagan group has only three gods? some have
> >>>>>>>>> thousands of gods. You are a Trinity also, are you a pagan? You are
> >>>>>>>>> somehow ONE also. Body, Soul and Spirit, but still only one human body
> >>>>>>>>> walking around. Also man is made in the image of God, so like man
> >>>>>>>>> body soul and spirit in one, as God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, all
> >>>>>>>>> in one body called GOD.
> >>>>>>>> You trinitarians
> >>>>>>> Raymond is NOT a Trinitarian, ed...
> >>>>>> What I think you mean is that the gentleman doesn't express his beliefs in
> >>>>>> accordance with the approved trinitarian formula.
> >>>>> Which approved trinitarian formula would that be? I believe and
> >>>>> follow the "Apostles creed" as the Metholidis church follows and
> >>>>> membership follow as well as the Lord,s prayer.
> >>>> The hell you do.
> >>>> You reinterpret it along cult lines; you do NOT "follow" it as Christian do.
> >>>> And if you taught what the Methodist churches taught, then you would be
> >>>> a Methodist instead of cultic Oneness Pentecostal trying to snake his
> >>>> way in the door to gather disciples unto yourself, like the serpent in
> >>>> the garden.
> >>> I never was in any of your cultics be they Oneness or Pentecostal or
> >>> any other such name. You are the snake here and even Steve Winter
> >>> that was one of them Oneness Pentecost cult folks you like to point
> >>> to, I was not a Oneness Pentecostal but a believer that believed in
> >>> the Triune God as I pointed out to him, that I was saved in the
> >>> Southern Bible Church. I never joined the United Pentecostal Church
> >>> that beleived in salvation in Baptism, which I post manytimes just
> >>> like my Methodist upbringing we are saved by Faith not works. Then
> >>> Ike you like to lie and call people false names and are evil.
> >>> Then like the ONE GOD the Oneness of the GodHead as the Methodist
> >>> Church and most Christians believe. I accept this below know as
> >>> Affirming the Essentials:
> >>> The Apostles Creed
> >> Notice that the cultist references the Apostles' Creed, which he can
> >> interpret ambiguously, but not the Nicene Creed, which he cannot, even
> >> though the United Methodist Church uses both.
> >> With these cultists, it's always a game of words against the Word.
> >> Ike
> > Notice here that only "lke" is in a cult and is the cultist here.
> > Ignorant as he can be. It is clear you are not a Methodist. You are
> > only a lost soul. Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed both are used
> > when they want to do so. You are the only one with the game of words
> > and they are all vulgar.
> LOL
> 1) Yes, the Methodists DO you use both.
> 2) You're NOT a Methodist.
> That was the point, you moron.
> Ike
You lke again is the only moron here. You make stupid statements and
act like you think people in the newsgroups are like you and YOUR
CULT. I proved even by you, that we Methodist do follow both creeds,
which in your sick mind lied about till it is clear you are not a
Methodist or know its doctrines.
> > On Nov 8, 8:20 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/20/2012 11:02 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> >>>> "Born from above" = the present epiphany in the believers.
> >>>> "Born again" refers to the resurrection.
> >>> Oh here we go again you calling others the moron, and then lying about
> >>> the historical church teachings on "Born Again".
> >> LOL
> >> The Historical churches NEVER used the term "born again Christian;" that
> >> bit of nonsensical fluff didn't start after the Reformation...
> > Here you prove you are always lying,
> ...and here I prove I'm not, as usual...
Like I said many times all you do as usual is lie. All you have is a
foul mouth and prove it by your own postings here.
> "To many historic church denominations, to be "born again" was
> understood as spiritual regeneration via the sacrament of baptism by the
> power of water and word. This is still the understanding in Roman
> Catholicism, some parts of Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Eastern
> Orthodoxy. However, beginning sometime after the Reformation, being born
> again has been predominantly understood by some Protestants (of the
> "anabaptist" branch) to be an experience of conversion symbolized by
> water baptism, and rooted in a commitment to one's own personal faith in
> Jesus Christ for salvation."
You give us someones ideas on this matter, while I gave you the Holy
Bible and that is the source of all Christian teachings. Then your
denial shows again you are not a Christian of a follow of the Christ
of the Holy Bible.
> This bit of fluff was begun by Wesley and his "you can perfect the
> flesh" nonsense.
So now it is "fluff"? Which is only "Any light downy material" noun
and as a verb "Ruffle (one's hair) by combing the ends towards the
scalp, for a full effect"! Again you prove you ignorants and need to
try to insult people, only comes back and hits you in the rear.
The only nonsense here is yours, and you need to cut out of context
stuff, which again shows how ignorant you really are here.
> > there is no way for you to say
> > NEVER as you have no evident to support that statement. Now the Bible
> > does point to that Born again and since it is for Christians it would
> > be easy to see that they all called themselves born again.
> Jezebel, you have no idea "what the Bible says," as evidenced by the
> fact that you keep attempting to reduce Jesus' three-concept statement
> (birth, spiritual birth, resurrection) into a one-part concept...and
> that's how the lie of the "born again Christian" got started.
No it got started by you and the Devil and the Bible does show where
the term "born again" came from and has nothing to do with your evil
minded ideals.
> > You are
> > the liar and full of nonsensical foolishness.
> Thus saith Satan to cover her ignorance and arrogance.
Yes you and Satan are friend and now you even say Satan agrees with
you, and then attacking Christians is all you and your vulgar mouth
can do here. Then you are the liar and full of nonsensical
foolishness, as a fool would do.
On Nov 15, 3:48 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 1:39 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> [snippeth]
> > She rebutted only your sinful nature...
> 1) Document my "sinful nature" above that of any other man.
> 2) Document your "moral superiority" above that of any other man.
> [Welcome to the Pharisee game, folks]
> Ike
More like the lies of lke, as he seems to live in that game and like
the Bible says: Rom 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life
in Christ Jesus our Lord. NKJV
Rom 3:22-27
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to
all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith,
to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had
passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might
be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. NKJV
There is always hope for you lke, if you would obey the verses above.
> >>>> That's "Babylonian whore," Jezebel; learn what it means, i.e. you climb
> >>>> into bed with anyone, even opponents, as long as they're as against the
> >>>> truth as you are.
> >>> Your explanation as to what you meant falls short
> >> LOL
> >> Nope.
> > YOU IMBECILE; YOU LIED WHEN YOU CLAIM KNAPP AND I WERE CALLING EACH
> > OTHER LIARS (IKE SAYS: "Notice how quickly Jezebel aligns herself with
> > every heretical beast who otherwise declares her a liar, as she
> > declares them liars. The whore doesn't care who she gets in bed with,
> > just as long as they're opposed to the truth as I tell it." - SEE
> > ABOVE). THAT LIE WAS YOUR EXPLANATION THAT FELL SHORT ABOUT WHY YOU
> > CALLED ME A WHORE. YOU ARE REALLY A MORON.
> As if this is the only example.
> Ike
Ike is a lost soul, and it is clear by his mouth that he is not a
Christian, or believes in Holiness of any kind. His other posting
show there are many, many examples of how lke lets the Devil lead him.
> On Nov 15, 3:46 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/10/2012 9:06 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 8:20 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 10/20/2012 11:02 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> > >>>> "Born from above" = the present epiphany in the believers.
> > >>>> "Born again" refers to the resurrection.
> > >>> Oh here we go again you calling others the moron, and then lying about
> > >>> the historical church teachings on "Born Again".
> > >> LOL
> > >> The Historical churches NEVER used the term "born again Christian;" that
> > >> bit of nonsensical fluff didn't start after the Reformation...
> > > Here you prove you are always lying,
> > ...and here I prove I'm not, as usual...
> Like I said many times all you do as usual is lie. All you have is a
> foul mouth and prove it by your own postings here.
> > "To many historic church denominations, to be "born again" was
> > understood as spiritual regeneration via the sacrament of baptism by the
> > power of water and word. This is still the understanding in Roman
> > Catholicism, some parts of Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Eastern
> > Orthodoxy. However, beginning sometime after the Reformation, being born
> > again has been predominantly understood by some Protestants (of the
> > "anabaptist" branch) to be an experience of conversion symbolized by
> > water baptism, and rooted in a commitment to one's own personal faith in
> > Jesus Christ for salvation."
> You give us someones ideas on this matter, while I gave you the Holy
> Bible and that is the source of all Christian teachings. Then your
> denial shows again you are not a Christian of a follow of the Christ
> of the Holy Bible.
> > This bit of fluff was begun by Wesley and his "you can perfect the
> > flesh" nonsense.
> So now it is "fluff"? Which is only "Any light downy material" noun
> and as a verb "Ruffle (one's hair) by combing the ends towards the
> scalp, for a full effect"! Again you prove you ignorants and need to
> try to insult people, only comes back and hits you in the rear.
> The only nonsense here is yours, and you need to cut out of context
> stuff, which again shows how ignorant you really are here.
> > > there is no way for you to say
> > > NEVER as you have no evident to support that statement. Now the Bible
> > > does point to that Born again and since it is for Christians it would
> > > be easy to see that they all called themselves born again.
> > Jezebel, you have no idea "what the Bible says," as evidenced by the
> > fact that you keep attempting to reduce Jesus' three-concept statement
> > (birth, spiritual birth, resurrection) into a one-part concept...and
> > that's how the lie of the "born again Christian" got started.
> No it got started by you and the Devil and the Bible does show where
> the term "born again" came from and has nothing to do with your evil
> minded ideals.
> > > You are
> > > the liar and full of nonsensical foolishness.
> > Thus saith Satan to cover her ignorance and arrogance.
> Yes you and Satan are friend and now you even say Satan agrees with
> you, and then attacking Christians is all you and your vulgar mouth
> can do here. Then you are the liar and full of nonsensical
> foolishness, as a fool would do.
> > Ike
> Pastor R Knapp
Ike cannot accept the Messiah's teaching that one must be born of the
Spirit, i.e. they must have the indwelling Holy Spirit, if they are to
see and enter into the kingdom of God, because Herman (Ike) does NOT
have the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, HE CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is
old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be
born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
OF GOD.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is
born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so
is every one that is BORN OF THE SPIRIT.
John 14:23, "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he
will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and WE WILL COME UNTO
HIM, AND MAKE OUR ABODE WITH HIM."
The Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ", and
if one does not have the Holy Spirit, it is because they are not
Christ's:
Rom. 8:9, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be
that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have NOT the
Spirit of Christ, HE IS NONE OF HIS."
And Peter says "the Spirit of Christ" indwelt the prophets who
prophesied of Christ:
1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation THE PROPHETS have enquired and searched
diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST
WHICH WAS _IN THEM_ did signify, when it testified beforehand the
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
And Christ confirmed Abraham knew of the future coming of God as the
Christ and rejoiced to know it:
Christ said in John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:
and he saw it, and was glad."
> On Nov 15, 3:41 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 11/9/2012 9:35 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> Snip out the trash of "lke" which shows his evil mind and filthy mouth
> and mind.
> > >>>> That's "Babylonian whore," Jezebel; learn what it means, i.e. you climb
> > >>>> into bed with anyone, even opponents, as long as they're as against the
> > >>>> truth as you are.
> > >>> Your explanation as to what you meant falls short
> > >> LOL
> > >> Nope.
> > > YOU IMBECILE; YOU LIED WHEN YOU CLAIM KNAPP AND I WERE CALLING EACH
> > > OTHER LIARS (IKE SAYS: "Notice how quickly Jezebel aligns herself with
> > > every heretical beast who otherwise declares her a liar, as she
> > > declares them liars. The whore doesn't care who she gets in bed with,
> > > just as long as they're opposed to the truth as I tell it." - SEE
> > > ABOVE). THAT LIE WAS YOUR EXPLANATION THAT FELL SHORT ABOUT WHY YOU
> > > CALLED ME A WHORE. YOU ARE REALLY A MORON.
> > As if this is the only example.
> > Ike
> Ike is a lost soul, and it is clear by his mouth that he is not a
> Christian, or believes in Holiness of any kind. His other posting
> show there are many, many examples of how lke lets the Devil lead him.
Herman/Ike has recently said if it were up to him, I would already
have been destroyed. The irony of Herman/Ike's gigantic egocentric
HYPOCRISY is this; he claims he remains a sinner and believes he is
allowed to sin all he wants to in word and in deed and will receive
the mercy of God, yet he is always eager to cast the first stone at
everyone else as if he is "without sin".
John 8:7 "So when they continued asking him [CHRIST], he lifted up
himself, and said unto them, HE THAT IS _WITHOUT SIN_ AMONG YOU, let
him first cast a stone at her."
> On Nov 15, 3:41 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 11/9/2012 9:35 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> Snip out the trash of "lke" which shows his evil mind and filthy mouth
> and mind.
> > >>>> That's "Babylonian whore," Jezebel; learn what it means, i.e. you climb
> > >>>> into bed with anyone, even opponents, as long as they're as against the
> > >>>> truth as you are.
> > >>> Your explanation as to what you meant falls short
> > >> LOL
> > >> Nope.
> > > YOU IMBECILE; YOU LIED WHEN YOU CLAIM KNAPP AND I WERE CALLING EACH
> > > OTHER LIARS (IKE SAYS: "Notice how quickly Jezebel aligns herself with
> > > every heretical beast who otherwise declares her a liar, as she
> > > declares them liars. The whore doesn't care who she gets in bed with,
> > > just as long as they're opposed to the truth as I tell it." - SEE
> > > ABOVE). THAT LIE WAS YOUR EXPLANATION THAT FELL SHORT ABOUT WHY YOU
> > > CALLED ME A WHORE. YOU ARE REALLY A MORON.
> > As if this is the only example.
> > Ike
> Ike is a lost soul, and it is clear by his mouth that he is not a
> Christian, or believes in Holiness of any kind. His other posting
> show there are many, many examples of how lke lets the Devil lead him.
No doubt. Herman/Ike's statement that, if it were up to him, I would
"be destroyed already" shows he either does not know, or does not
accept, even the most basic of the Messiah's teachings.
Ike believes he can be unmerciful and yet he will obtain mercy from
God for his sins; he believes all he has to do is proclaim he is a
sinner who wants God's mercy, relying upon this verse in Luke 18:13,
"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful
to me a sinner."
But the publican was not condemning others and vowing how he'd destroy
them if he could as Herman/Ike does. And Christ said in Matt. 5:7,
"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy."
And Christ also said in Luke 6:36-38:
Luk 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye
shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Luk 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed
down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your
bosom. FOR WITH THE SAME MEASURE THAT YE METE WITHAL IT SHALL BE
MEASURED TO YOU AGAIN.
> On Nov 15, 6:08 am, "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 3:41 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 11/9/2012 9:35 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> > Snip out the trash of "lke" which shows his evil mind and filthy mouth
> > and mind.
> > > >>>> That's "Babylonian whore," Jezebel; learn what it means, i.e. you climb
> > > >>>> into bed with anyone, even opponents, as long as they're as against the
> > > >>>> truth as you are.
> > > >>> Your explanation as to what you meant falls short
> > > >> LOL
> > > >> Nope.
> > > > YOU IMBECILE; YOU LIED WHEN YOU CLAIM KNAPP AND I WERE CALLING EACH
> > > > OTHER LIARS (IKE SAYS: "Notice how quickly Jezebel aligns herself with
> > > > every heretical beast who otherwise declares her a liar, as she
> > > > declares them liars. The whore doesn't care who she gets in bed with,
> > > > just as long as they're opposed to the truth as I tell it." - SEE
> > > > ABOVE). THAT LIE WAS YOUR EXPLANATION THAT FELL SHORT ABOUT WHY YOU
> > > > CALLED ME A WHORE. YOU ARE REALLY A MORON.
> > > As if this is the only example.
> > > Ike
> > Ike is a lost soul, and it is clear by his mouth that he is not a
> > Christian, or believes in Holiness of any kind. His other posting
> > show there are many, many examples of how lke lets the Devil lead him.
> Herman/Ike has recently said if it were up to him, I would already
> have been destroyed. The irony of Herman/Ike's gigantic egocentric
> HYPOCRISY is this; he claims he remains a sinner and believes he is
> allowed to sin all he wants to in word and in deed and will receive
> the mercy of God, yet he is always eager to cast the first stone at
> everyone else as if he is "without sin".
> John 8:7 "So when they continued asking him [CHRIST], he lifted up
> himself, and said unto them, HE THAT IS _WITHOUT SIN_ AMONG YOU, let
> him first cast a stone at her."-
We see there that NONE were without Sin, but like lke he is loud and
bad mouth, but when Jesus is let into the matter, lke mouth shows he
has no right to condemn anyone or went them hurt etc.
> On Nov 15, 6:08 am, "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> > > Snip out the trash of "lke" which shows his evil mind and filthy mouth
> > and mind.
> > > >>>> That's "Babylonian whore," Jezebel; learn what it means, i.e. you climb
> > > >>>> into bed with anyone, even opponents, as long as they're as against the
> > > >>>> truth as you are.
> > > >>> Your explanation as to what you meant falls short
> > > >> LOL
> > > >> Nope.
> > > > YOU IMBECILE; YOU LIED WHEN YOU CLAIM KNAPP AND I WERE CALLING EACH
> > > > OTHER LIARS (IKE SAYS: "Notice how quickly Jezebel aligns herself with
> > > > every heretical beast who otherwise declares her a liar, as she
> > > > declares them liars. The whore doesn't care who she gets in bed with,
> > > > just as long as they're opposed to the truth as I tell it." - SEE
> > > > ABOVE). THAT LIE WAS YOUR EXPLANATION THAT FELL SHORT ABOUT WHY YOU
> > > > CALLED ME A WHORE. YOU ARE REALLY A MORON.
> > > As if this is the only example.
> > > Ike
> > Ike is a lost soul, and it is clear by his mouth that he is not a
> > Christian, or believes in Holiness of any kind. His other posting
> > show there are many, many examples of how lke lets the Devil lead him.
> No doubt. Herman/Ike's statement that, if it were up to him, I would
> "be destroyed already" shows he either does not know, or does not
> accept, even the most basic of the Messiah's teachings.
> Ike believes he can be unmerciful and yet he will obtain mercy from
> God for his sins; he believes all he has to do is proclaim he is a
> sinner who wants God's mercy, relying upon this verse in Luke 18:13,
> "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
> eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful
> to me a sinner."
The only big problem here is that prayer or statement has to be made
before he dies and stands before Christ. Now is the day of Salvation.
> But the publican was not condemning others and vowing how he'd destroy
> them if he could as Herman/Ike does. And Christ said in Matt. 5:7,
> "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy."
One thing here is Ike is not merciful so he will not obtain mercy, to
want one dead shows no mercy.
> And Christ also said in Luke 6:36-38:
> Luk 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
> Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye
> shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
> Luk 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed
> down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your
> bosom. FOR WITH THE SAME MEASURE THAT YE MET WITHAL IT SHALL BE
> MEASURED TO YOU AGAIN.
On Oct 22, 2:45 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:30:33 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
> >In fact, I graduated with honors.
> Then why don't you demonstrate it. Was it an accredited college.
I do demonstrate such, only one that mind is closed can not see it as
such. Then YES! the college was accredited since 1944 and was in 1970
when I a my wife both went to that College starting in 1963. Next
year we will have our 50th Wedding anniversary.
> On Oct 20, 12:25 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 9:59 pm, "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ike calls his cult the Triunist cult...
>>>> Notice how quickly Jezebel aligns herself with every heretical beast who
>>>> otherwise declares her a liar, as she declares them liars.
>>>> The whore doesn't care who she gets in bed with, just as long as they're
>>>> opposed to the truth as I tell it.
>>> I hope someone can get the police to put you away, calling a woman
>>> such a evil name and if it is not true, you could end up in court and
>>> cost you a lot of money and freedoms.
>> It is not true. And I've heard that people on the Internet can be sued
>> for defamation, libel, etc. Herman E. Eickleberry, Jr. wouldn't be
>> hard to identify and find. And maybe he'd like the people at
>> Amazon.com to know how he talks and what he really is, a low-life who
>> calls women whores when they don't agree with him. Perhaps I should
>> leave a comment on his bookpage
> Remember that defamation goes both ways. A person can say their mind
> and what they think freely here. Since Amazon.com has nothing to do
> with with opiniones in this area, they want to sell what they have and
> what people give to them to sell. So nothing you say about Eickleberry
> means anything, his product for sell is all you can point to then you
> could even get people to buy his writings as they want to see why you
> don't like it. He will use you to get more money by showing what you
> said and unbelievers want to attack religion and can use his
> information to accuse others as being wrong. The truth does not mean
> anything and the more one is insulted the more they want it. Sinners
> are such and the wages of sin is death, only God is the one that will
> judge these matters.
> I hope you the best and we can be sure the devil will have "lke" to
> respond.
LOL
1) If you've ever bought so much as one book, even a Bible, you've condemned yourself in your hypocrisy.
2) Let me know when those big bucks start rolling in, as almost NOBODY makes money writing books anymore.
On Nov 20, 2:59 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 1:58 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> 1) If you've ever bought so much as one book, even a Bible, you've
> condemned yourself in your hypocrisy.
> 2) Let me know when those big bucks start rolling in, as almost NOBODY
> makes money writing books anymore.
> Idiot.
By your post we all can see why you think you are an Idiot.
Then People WORK and it seems such a word is so nasty, even if you
could write a book. Few if any, once looking at anything you write
would give any money to buy it. So you get the "big bucks" just no
money. Maybe that is why you and that "Bull......." you like to point
to, is about the only "bucks" you get, and that is from the back.
Sorry you need to sign off as "Idiot" then you know yourself better
then anyone else.
> On 10/25/2012 10:02 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> >>>>>> Ike calls his cult the Triunist cult...
> >>>>> Notice how quickly Jezebel aligns herself with every heretical beast who
> >>>>> otherwise declares her a liar, as she declares them liars.
> >>>>> The whore doesn't care who she gets in bed with, just as long as they're
> >>>>> opposed to the truth as I tell it.
> >>>> I hope someone can get the police to put you away, calling a woman
> >>>> such a evil name and if it is not true, you could end up in court and
> >>>> cost you a lot of money and freedoms.
> >>> It is not true.
> >> Yeah, it is, and you just proved it again.
> >>> And I've heard that people on the Internet can be sued
> >>> for defamation, libel, etc. Herman E. Eickleberry, Jr. wouldn't be
> >>> hard to identify and find. And maybe he'd like the people at
> >>> Amazon.com to know how he talks and what he really is, a low-life who
> >>> calls women whores when they don't agree with him.
> >> LOL
> >> That's "Babylonian whore," Jezebel; learn what it means, i.e. you climb
> >> into bed with anyone, even opponents, as long as they're as against the
> >> truth as you are.
> >>> Perhaps I should
> >>> leave a comment on his bookpage.
> >> Someone else tried that and got kicked off of Amazon.
> > Then you been reported already and time will tell, and if Amazon has
> > any power, you will know about it.
> LOL
> Ah, no.
> On ONE occasion a poster from this newsgroup tried to attack me through
> my book page, and when I notified Amazon about it, they suspended her
> account.
I do not know why Amazon would have anything to do with any newsgroup
or can they suspend anyone. I know they do not want to try that with
me, because I would stop buying from them, and that is not smart on
their part. As for your or anyone's book they ask people to reply and
let them know what they think about a book they have on their link.
They can delete that remark, but to suspend a person is just not good
business. I may not like your book, but I did not buy it, you can
sell you book if anyone would want to buy it, that is up to them.
> [snip the rest of the unintelligible rhetorical bullshit]
We know your remarks fit your statement above so I did snip the rest
of you foul stuff, thanks for showing us you also can not stand your
rhetorical garbage.
> On Oct 27, 7:22 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/25/2012 10:02 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> > >>>>>> Ike calls his cult the Triunist cult...
> > >>>>> Notice how quickly Jezebel aligns herself with every heretical beast who
> > >>>>> otherwise declares her a liar, as she declares them liars.
> > >>>>> The whore doesn't care who she gets in bed with, just as long as they're
> > >>>>> opposed to the truth as I tell it.
> > >>>> I hope someone can get the police to put you away, calling a woman
> > >>>> such a evil name and if it is not true, you could end up in court and
> > >>>> cost you a lot of money and freedoms.
> > >>> It is not true.
> > >> Yeah, it is, and you just proved it again.
> > >>> And I've heard that people on the Internet can be sued
> > >>> for defamation, libel, etc. Herman E. Eickleberry, Jr. wouldn't be
> > >>> hard to identify and find. And maybe he'd like the people at
> > >>> Amazon.com to know how he talks and what he really is, a low-life who
> > >>> calls women whores when they don't agree with him.
> > >> LOL
> > >> That's "Babylonian whore," Jezebel; learn what it means, i.e. you climb
> > >> into bed with anyone, even opponents, as long as they're as against the
> > >> truth as you are.
> > >>> Perhaps I should
> > >>> leave a comment on his bookpage.
> > >> Someone else tried that and got kicked off of Amazon.
> > > Then you been reported already and time will tell, and if Amazon has
> > > any power, you will know about it.
> > LOL
> > Ah, no.
> > On ONE occasion a poster from this newsgroup tried to attack me through
> > my book page, and when I notified Amazon about it, they suspended her
> > account.
> I do not know why Amazon would have anything to do with any newsgroup
> or can they suspend anyone. I know they do not want to try that with
> me, because I would stop buying from them, and that is not smart on
> their part.
Heh! Look out for the deep pockets of Dr. Knapp. THAT would
certainly be a topic of concern for Amazon the boardroom.
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:25:47 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> > wrote:
> >>> I hope they get a better education in bible school than you
> >> I hope they do get such a education as my College years was three
> >> years in class then 4 years in the Jungles tell them of the Lord Jesus
> >> Christ.
> > Teaching is not the same as being taught. You spent 3 years learning that an
> > average priest spends 8 years and some 12 years.
> He didn't even do that.
> Ike
You lke are a proven liar and just because you are too lazy to work or
go to school and spend years, you think others are as stupit as you
show you are here. You think your cute because you cut out the rest
of the years of study 3 years for a depolma and then 4 years in
training as a Missionary, back to college for another year and the
degree for Theology in 1970 then working with building a Semanary and
establising it. Studying and such till recieving the Doctors degree
in 1979. From 1960 to 1979 is a total of 19 years from start to
finish for classroom work. WHICH I DID DO, FOOLISH ONE.
Eph 5:4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting,
which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
2 Tim 2:23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they
generate strife.
John 8:55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, 'I
do not know Him,' I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and
keep His word. NKJV
