Re: True Worship

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 15, 5:12 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/14/2012 5:06 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>>> And the blind continue to try and lead the blind.
>
> >> [yawn and snip the rhetorical.........snip.............
>
> >>>> One fool says Lazarus wasn't resurrected (against Catholic doctrine).
>
> >> [yawn and snip the rhetorical......snip...............
>
> > So are you a Catholic or just one of the fools you keep bring us, with
> > out facts, just rhetorical ........
>
> Now try writing a coherent sentence this time.

Why, you do not have the education or abilty to understand any
coherent sentence, you and your Bull is about all you seem to be able
to talk about, and that is not even a sentence.

> >> And when we finally do get a reply, it's absolutely absurd.
>
> > You can not even reply to the reply, that is absolutely absurd only in
> > you cult false teaching do you have any kind of false answer and that
> > has nothing to do with your BULL or absolutely absurd silly remarks.
>
> As usual, lots of rhetorical bullshit, but no substance.

Like I pointed out before, you have no answer but to use the Bull and
prove it by lying again and I do not want the substance of your bull,
you play with it, you can enjoy its substance. Then the sick minded
would like to play with you and your bull.

> And we still can't get an intelligent reply from the moron; just more
> rhetorical bullshit.

You are the only moron here and now you want to hear or see yourself
writing to yourself and more of it. You are one sick personl.

> Some "Doctor."

You sure do need a Doctor, as seen in your lack of commuication skills
here.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 15, 6:19 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/14/2012 6:13 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 3:38 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/13/2012 11:57 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 13, 4:48 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 9/13/2012 4:09 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/30/2012 9:33 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Your problem is that history has recorded it, and the head man would
> >>>>>>>>> of been the Pope of that day.  They called them Heretics and burned
> >>>>>>>>> many of them on a post in the market so all could see what happens to
> >>>>>>>>> anyone that does not obey the church.
>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, and then the beast Calvin rose up and did the same thing, polluting
> >>>>>>>> the Reformation with his lies and hypocrisy.
>
> >>>>>>> So now you only call him a "beast" that is silly. You prove nothing.
>
> >>>>>> Notice no rebuttal of the facts.
>
> >>>>> You had no fact,  Calvin is his name, you call him "the beast" I
> >>>>> rebuttal that as it is not a fact, it is your lie.
>
> >>>> Nope. It's a fact. Calvin was an antichristian beast who delivered the
> >>>> Protestant movement right back into the hands of the tyranny from which
> >>>> Luther sought escape.
>
> >>> Who's facts are they,
>
> >> The worlds.
>
> >>> give a reference and history that list the
> >>> documents that say what you did here.
>
> >> All one has to do is go look up "Calvin" and "Geneva," and they'll get
> >> all the facts they need.
>
> > I dare say none of them called Calvin the beast...
>
> God does.
>
> >>> You cannot as such is all your
> >>> made up terms and has nothing to establishes your false statuettes here.
>
> >> I've made no false statements here, cultist.
>
> > You just did make a false statement as you do so often calling people
> > "cultist" because most belong to establish churches, which even the
> > RCC is a member of that group.
>
> LOL
>
> What you call yourself doesn't make it "an established church," cultist.
>
> According to your logic, the JWs, Mormons, Armstrongians, etc, etc,
> would be "established churches," when, in fact, there are yours are "cults."
>
> >> It's just plain history.
>
> > Yes it is clear that even plain history you have nothing to support
> > you view as it is one no one accepts here.
>
> And how many people from a REAL established church have you seen around
> here lately?
>
> Answer: NONE.

You did a great job of showing your teachings and hate for them that
do follow Christ. It is clear you do not belong to a real church but
you're still around here lately.

>
> It's been a steady steam of predominantly non-church members around here
> for years.

As it will be, because the lost like you need to hear the truth, and
Jesus told His followers to preach to all the people the Gospel. So
it is a good thing that these sinners like you show up for years.

>
> [snippeth the rhetorical bullshit]
>
> Ike

Jesus is the Lord, if you like it or not.
R. Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 16, 11:04 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/15/2012 1:11 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:

>
> > On Sep 15, 5:12 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/14/2012 5:06 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>

> > ld

> >>>> [yawn and snip the rhetorical......snip...............
>
> >>> So are you a Catholic or just one of the fools you keep bring us, with
> >>> out facts, just rhetorical ........
>
> >> Now try writing a coherent sentence this time.
>

> > Coherent would be something you could learn to do, but first you must
> > be coherent or you get what you sow in return.
>
> I was offered two graduate fellowships based on my writing. I read and
> write just fine.

It seems they did not give you any, an offered is useless unless one
earns it. Then I almost broke out with laughter. All you write it
Bullxxxx this and that bullxxxx and you think that is just fine. Very
funny indeed. Then lying your known for, so your statement is not
worth the time it took for you to write it.
Ha, very funny if it was not so sad.

You keep lying about a degree you never could earn and a college that
been there since 1945 and still is located at the same location in
Texas.

> NO proofs; only assertions.

That is strange, I was thinking you fit that to the tee.

> But the cultist is going to continue to deny these facts, BECAUSE he is
> a cultist, and hates being proven ignorant and wrong.

Again you write about yourself and even the cultist you keep referring
to, is really only yourself, one person one member, makes one
cultist. Now your reply is your Bull again, that shows just how
uneducated you really are.
>
> [snip some more rhetorical bullshit]
>
[snip some more rhetorical bullshit]
>
> [snip the last of the rhetorical bullshit]
>
> Ike

You even put your name on the post that fits your last three snips.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 16, 6:02 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 14, 11:32 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:25:06 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> My words come right out of the bible.  Do you own one?
> >> >> >> >No I own a lot more and in versions and also in Chinese and a few
> >> >> >> >other languages.
>
> >> >> >> But they all say the same thing.  You're one of those Thomas "doubters" that
> >> >> >> thinks they can find a better message in another bible.
>
> >> >> >Then they do not all say the same, try the Chinese Then a doubter
> >> >> >does check things out and that is a good thing.
>
> >> >> If the china version says something different, the china version is in error.
>
> >> >Oh my you have no education in Chinese
>
> >> That's not only right, but perfectly fine with.  Being an American, English
> >> works perfectly well for me.
>
> >> >and plain ignorant of foreign
> >> >Bibles, by such a remark, you again show your word is not to be
> >> >trusted.
>
> >> A bible that doesn't agree is a bible from the devil.
>
> >Now you sound like the Pope of old that tried to kill the writers of
> >the KJV and even till the late 50s that only the Catholic Bible was
> >true.
>
> Nope, never.  The kjv is a translation form a prior bible into old English. Only
> stupid people believe bibles say different things.  It's an invalid bible if it
> does.

So that is your excuse, just call them "stupid" and you think that is
not a stupid way to make a point?
Nothing invalid only your lack of education and your need to call it
wrong, then the RCC bible fits the same logic. They even had it put
in print that only its priest could give the correct translation, YOUR
CHURCH you just proved is what you called "stupid".

>
> >> The language of the kjv is very difficult to follow.   So I use one that is very
> >> simple to understand and says the same thing.

> >Only to them that are not educated or wants to take the time to
> >understand the one Bible that has reached all parts of the World and
> >is still number one in sales.
>
> Frankly, old English is crap.  Nobody spakes that way.  I like one that uses
> good English.

Then that word was not used in the OLD ENGLISH. Then since English
was from the UK to start with and they never have had a problem with
English.

>
> >  I just went out and purchased one and
> >what do you know it is not difficult at all to follow.
>
> It's crap for it's language style.

If you need to use the crapper, please do.

>
> >  It does show
> >the teachings of the Catholic Church in many errors as being wrong.
>
> If it disagrees with the Catholic Version, your kjv is in error.  You boy lut
> didn't come along until 400 years ago.  The Apostles were the first Catholics
> from 2000 years ago.

What version is that? It is not my kjv, I have nothing to do with who
owns it. Then that boy as you called him was a honest Roman Catholic
monk, train in all the teachings of that church, you could not even
stand in his shadow. You again prove your so untrained in these
matters, you call him "buy lut" that is not his name and only a fool
things it is. That catholic priest was in the RCC that as you point
out went back all the way to the early church and that 2000 years. HE
was a catholic and like the RCC came along the same path, and was
taught by the RCC. If it was not for priest telling people to pay
them money and they would guarantee they get to heaven. Money for
going into heaven, no matter what the Bible they had then said as
Luther used the Catholic Bible used by all the priest to show that the
sins of the priest was not from God.
In 1501 he matriculated at the University of Erfurt, at the time one
of the most distinguished universities in Germany. The matriculation
records describe him as in habendo, meaning that he was ineligible for
financial aid, an indirect testimonial to the financial success of his
father. Luther took the customary course in the liberal arts and
received the baccalaureate degree in 1502. Three years later he was
awarded the master's degree. His studies gave him a thorough exposure
to Scholasticism; many years later, he spoke of Aristotle and William
of Ockham as “his teachers.” Soon after his return Luther transferred
to the Wittenberg monastery to finish his studies at the university
there. He received his doctorate in the fall of 1512 and assumed the
professorship in biblical studies, which was supplied by the
Augustinian order. At the same time, his administrative
responsibilities in the Wittenberg monastery and the Augustinian order
increased, and he began to publish theological writings, such as the
97 theses against Scholastic theology.

You Duke are like a bug, that one with His education would step on.
You really show you did not study this matter, and think just mock it
or reject it, it will go away and you will only be right. Which a
moment of reading history, just mocks you again.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 16, 6:02 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
> > >> A bible that doesn't agree is a bible from the devil.
>

> Frankly, old English is crap.  Nobody spakes that way.  I like one that uses
> good English.
>

> >  I just went out and purchased one and
> >what do you know it is not difficult at all to follow.
>
> It's crap for it's language style.
>

> >  It does show
> >the teachings of the Catholic Church in many errors as being wrong.
>
> If it disagrees with the Catholic Version, your kjv is in error.  You boy lut
> didn't come along until 400 years ago.  The Apostles were the first Catholics
> from 2000 years ago.

THE APOSTLES WERE THE FIRST CHRISTIANS, THERE WAS NO CATHOLICS OR RCC
CHURCH IN THE DAYS OF THE APOSTLES.


KJV Authorized Version
English translation of the Bible published in 1611 under the auspices
of James I of England. Of 54 scholars approved by James, 47 laboured
in six groups at three locations for seven years, utilizing previous
English translations and texts in the original languages. The
resulting translation had a marked influence on English style and was
generally accepted as the standard English Bible for more than three
centuries.

[eickman3]

On 9/16/2012 4:09 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 14, 3:31 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/13/2012 5:56 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 24, 3:57 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeicklebo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2012 6:30 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>>> The question asked sure was what I was discussing, and this is open
>>>>> for all to reply to. It looks like you are in that pickle as you are
>>>>> the one making excuses for not replying to what was asked. The Roman
>>>>> Catholic church and its teachings was on subject and was what was
>>>>> being discussed. It is their priest that were suppose to be the
>>>>> leaders to teach the members about the RCC doctrine. So again this is
>>>>> on topic, just you do not want it shown that they are not teaching the
>>>>> Morals of the teaching of Peter or Jesus.
>>
>>>> More bullshit blanket bullshit false accusations.
>>
>> [yawn and snip the rhetorical bullshit]
>>
>>>> Demonstrate where the RCC is NOT teaching the morals of Peter or Jesus.
>>
>>>> IN FACT, DEMONSTRATE WHERE PETER OR JESUS TAUGHT "MORALS" AT ALL, as
>>>> they DIDN'T--the "morals" were assumed from the Old Testament laws, and
>>>> they taught the Gospel of Grace that OVERCOMES our shortcomings under
>>>> the law, because NO ONE could keep the law except Jesus, who did so on
>>>> our behalf.
>>
>> [snip the rhetorical bullshit]
>>
>>>> Seems you don't even know what the Gospel is about, let alone who and
>>>> what Jesus is, and what relationship He has to the Father and the Holy
>>>> Spirit.
>>
>> [snip the rhetorical bullshit]
>>
>>>> Notice how Satan condemns an ENTIRE Church of God based on the actions
>>>> of some, whereas Jesus parsed the churches by measure based on the
>>>> actions of majorities and minorities.
>>
>> [snip the rhetorical bullshit]
>>
>> Instead of arguing the point, Satan rages at being caught in his lies.
>> And, oh, lookie. Nothing left.
>>
>> Ike
>
> Yes all that Bullxxxxx does point our your false teachings and lies

I've taught nothing false, and no lies, cultist.

You, on the other hand, excel at them.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/16/2012 2:31 PM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:28:39 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/14/2012 11:32 AM, duke wrote:
>>
>> [snippeth]

>>
>>> The language of the kjv is very difficult to follow. So I use one that is very
>>> simple to understand and says the same thing.
>

>> Here is more proof that dud is just a fraud masquerading as a Catholic
>> to try and lend credence to his own self-derived false doctrines.
>
> Well, here you are as a fraud masquerading as one knowledgeable of the bible.
> All you know is the literature. You don't have a clue about what God says.

You wish.

>> The officially sanctioned Bible of the Catholic Church was the
>> Douay-Rheims. They also allow for the use of the Catholic versions of
>> the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible/New American Bible Revised
>> Edition (in the United States), the Revised Standard Version, the New
>> Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible, all of which have
>> Catholic versions.
>
> And?

And you've been proving that you have little to nothing to do with the
Catholic Church.

>> They REJECTED the Protestant KJV from the very beginning, and they don't
>> use the NIV either, as there is NO CATHOLIC VERSION OF IT, so they
>> COULDN'T use it.
>
> Now what are you ranting about?

Notice how the facts are a "rant."

No Catholic would constantly cite, or even read, the KJV OR the NIV.

> I use the NIV because of it's simplicity of
> language, just like I stay away form the kjv because no body in his right mind
> speaks that way today.

Thanks for proving that you have nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

A Catholic wouldn't use the KJV because it was considered apostate from
day one, not to mention that it doesn't contain the Catholic Canon.

And there's no Catholic version of the NIV.

For an "easy reading" version, a Catholic would use their version of the
NRSV, or the others listed above.

They would NEVER use the KJV or NIV.

Caught ya, fraud.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/16/2012 4:32 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 14, 3:34 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip the usual rhetorical bullshit]

>>>> The other fool refuses to acknowledge that there are TWO types of
>>>> resurrections documented in the Bible.
>
> As I said this person seem to think Jesus rose from the dead but still
> has another TYPE of resurrection.

Once again, the fool presents us with the illogical as argument.

Jesus' resurrection was THE LATER type of resurrection, not the former,
moron.

(Actually, Jesus' resurrection was a combination of both types, but
that's more than your feeble brain could handle.)

>>> What number are you betting on to be correct, could it be THREE, Most
>>> believe in only ONE as Jesus only rose once, no matter what the
>>> Islamic folks say.

>>
>> And when we finally do get a reply, it's absolutely absurd.
>

> See if he gets a reply he lies and want you to believe his lies and
> all else is "absolutely absurd" which fits his teachings all the way.

I've told no lies, moron.

That's why you can't come up with an answer to your self-imposed
conundrum, and formulate a coherent reply.

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

>> JESUS death was temporal to eternal, as it was, is, and will be at the
>> resurrections.
>
> This person can not accept what the Bible says,

You haven't PROVEN what the Bible says, cultist; your kind never do.

[snippeth the rhetorical bullshit]

>> Now, these are the facts; and you'll get no rebuttal of these facts from
>> the moron.
>
> Oh yes readers you are wrong or he will call you that nasty name
> "moron" again showing his non-christian silly replies.

Still nothing presented except rhetorical bullshit.

In fact, the moron isn't even trying to formulate a factual, biblical
rebuttal because HE ALREADY KNOWS I'M RIGHT.

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

Come back when you're ready to back your bullshit up with some actual
biblical and historical facts, moron.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/16/2012 4:44 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 14, 3:36 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/13/2012 6:29 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>> ...said the antichristian, antichurch cultist who denies the Trinity,
>>>> etc, etc.
>>
>>> It looks like lke has lost his mind, posting what he thinks in public
>>> above.
>>
>> Oh, so now you're NOT denying the Trinity, antichristian?
>
> Well since I am not a antichristian, you should address your reply to
> the one you think your replying to.
> I have always said as the Bible says God is the Father, Son and Holy
> Ghost, which all true believers confess, be they Catholic or
> Protestant Then I checked the word "trinity" and found this is what it
> says which is "The union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one
> Godhead". I do not deny the Trinity as it is only a name for the
> doctrine that I believe in and is above God is the Father, Son, and
> Holy Ghost/Spirit. Which you seem to have a problem with. I can post
> the teachings on the Trinity from 325AD and up to now.

This is called tap dancing around the facts, folks.

The cultist tries to make it sound like what he is talking about is
"just like" what the Christian churches teach, but it's not.

Oh, and the doctrine of the Trinity as it is taught by the churches was
formulated BY THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY, just like all the other
major Christian doctrines, not in "325 AD." The first known written
declaration was by Theophilus of Antioch in the late Second Century. The
first apologetic defense of it was by Tertullian in the early Third.

But, of course, the cultist wants to lie, and push that back to the
Fourth, to make it seem like there was something sinister going on.

[eickman3]

On 9/16/2012 4:57 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:

[snippeth]

> Well again you proved you are able to give false statements without
> thinking what you said, since you are the cultist, to say other wise
> is another lie of yours. The point I made from your post was calling
> Calvin the BEAST.

A, the illiterate fool, nibbling around the edges. I didn't say Calvin
was "THE" beast, you moron. That comes later.

I said "the beast Calvin," as he was the epitome of antichristianity.

Some "Dr."

You can't even read.

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

Ike

[eickman3]

[snippeth]

Yadi, yadi, yadi.

Can you ever actually prove a point, or must we endure your constant
whining, crying, moaning, groaning, bitching, and complaining in lieu of
factual argument?

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/16/2012 10:58 PM, mr. R. Knapp wrote:

...nothing of any significance.

Is there someone there who can help you read and write a point? Your
mommy perhaps?

Ike

[eickman3]

And, as usual, we get more rhetorical bullshit in lieu of argument.

>> It's been a steady steam of predominantly non-church members around here
>> for years.
>

> As it will be, because the lost like you need to hear the truth...

What a moron: I MEANT YOU, you blithering idiot.

> Jesus is the Lord, if you like it or not.

Yes, He is. Perhaps some day you'll meet Him. You haven't yet.

Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

More like you taugh nothing true, and lots of lies cultist. Your own
messages here support that point. You book that you stopped listing
now, also shows such, since it seems only you believe what you believe
and everyone else is a moron or connected with your BULL.

>
> You, on the other hand, excel at them.

The only thing I excel in is the MSOffice 2010 program for book
keeping.
It is hard to believe you wrote all this without your Bull at least
once.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

As RIGHT AS A INSANE PERSON IN A MENTAL WARD.

>
> [snip the rhetorical bullshit]
>
> Come back when you're ready to back your bullshit up with some actual
> biblical and historical facts, moron.

I never left and I do not play with bulls as you seem to like the
southside of a bull going north. The yes it is good you end it with
your title "moron"

Not to smart but that is true, as you own writings prove that point.


>
> Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

Only in your mind, which is a sick one by those remarks. Now he wants
me to push something back to the fourth, one has to wonder forth of
what? Then it is a shame when he can not produce facts and truth, he
uses his snipped and that old bull again, as it seems all he has is
the toilet of a bull to look at or play with, so we all can feel sorry
for him. One with sucha limited foul mouth for his excuse of not
knowing what really is going on. It sure has nothing to do with the
farm or the joker he seems to like to be.

R Knapp

[duke]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:50:27 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 9/16/2012 2:31 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:28:39 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/14/2012 11:32 AM, duke wrote:
>>>
>>> [snippeth]
>>>
>>>> The language of the kjv is very difficult to follow. So I use one that is very
>>>> simple to understand and says the same thing.
>>
>>> Here is more proof that dud is just a fraud masquerading as a Catholic
>>> to try and lend credence to his own self-derived false doctrines.
>>
>> Well, here you are as a fraud masquerading as one knowledgeable of the bible.
>> All you know is the literature. You don't have a clue about what God says.
>
>You wish.
>
>>> The officially sanctioned Bible of the Catholic Church was the
>>> Douay-Rheims. They also allow for the use of the Catholic versions of
>>> the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible/New American Bible Revised
>>> Edition (in the United States), the Revised Standard Version, the New
>>> Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible, all of which have
>>> Catholic versions.
>>
>> And?
>
>And you've been proving that you have little to nothing to do with the
>Catholic Church.

You wouldn't know. I know what the Church founded by Jesus teaches. It's the
RCC and I belong to it.


The dukester, American - American
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************

[duke]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:57:35 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

If your bible says something different from all the other bibles, you read a
trash bible.

>Nothing invalid only your lack of education and your need to call it
>wrong, then the RCC bible fits the same logic. They even had it put
>in print that only its priest could give the correct translation,

Hey, fool, how do you put a bible in print so that you can translate it?

[duke]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:11:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 16, 6:02 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> A bible that doesn't agree is a bible from the devil.
>>
>> Frankly, old English is crap.  Nobody spakes that way.  I like one that uses
>> good English.
>>
>> >  I just went out and purchased one and
>> >what do you know it is not difficult at all to follow.
>>
>> It's crap for it's language style.
>>
>> >  It does show
>> >the teachings of the Catholic Church in many errors as being wrong.
>>
>> If it disagrees with the Catholic Version, your kjv is in error.  You boy lut
>> didn't come along until 400 years ago.  The Apostles were the first Catholics
>> from 2000 years ago.
>
>THE APOSTLES WERE THE FIRST CHRISTIANS, THERE WAS NO CATHOLICS OR RCC
>CHURCH IN THE DAYS OF THE APOSTLES.

Yes, the first Christians who went to Mass, kept the 7 sacraments and followed
St. Peter as 1st Pope.

About 1600 years later, you protest_ers came along and thought you knew better.

[eickman3]

On 9/17/2012 4:46 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 17, 4:55 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snippeth]

>> In fact, the moron isn't even trying to formulate a factual, biblical
>> rebuttal because HE ALREADY KNOWS I'M RIGHT.
>
> As RIGHT AS A INSANE PERSON IN A MENTAL WARD.

LOL

After the first Pentecost, people who had overt Pentecostal
powers--original messengers like Moses, Joshua, Sampson, Elijah, etc--
were a rarity. NOT every Tom, Dick, and Schlomo did them; ONLY original
messengers did, and they were typically spread out over centuries.

Now, DESPITE the fact that Jesus pointed this out, and that Jesus said
that these things would end when the last man standing--John--saw the
destruction of the temple, the cultist here claims that he and his
fellow cultists can do them, when every sane person knows they can't.

Now THAT'S the epitome of insanity.

>> Come back when you're ready to back your bullshit up with some actual
>> biblical and historical facts, moron.

[snip the usual rhetorical bullshit]

Ike

[eickman3]

Oh, I know. I've caught you at it red-handed, lunatic.

Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 17, 4:55 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/16/2012 4:32 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> > As I said this person seem to think Jesus rose from the dead but still
> > has another TYPE of resurrection.
>
> Once again, the fool presents us with the illogical as argument.
>

What we say is you have to be the fool, as I pointed out that you have
another TYPE of resurrection, and you here indicate you can not answer
that remark and and call it illogical which was what I pointed out
that you were, so you are the fool, tying to hide here, by saying
others are what you are.

> Jesus' resurrection was THE LATER type of resurrection, not the former,
> moron.

Then instead of a rational reply you just call everyone a "moron"
which shows you have no accepted or educated answer, and you the
moron. You like to play here until others show you logic is illogical
and then you instead of correcting you moron view, just keep proving
you are just what you call others.

Pastor R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 17, 4:55 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/16/2012 4:32 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> >
> > As I said this person seem to think Jesus rose from the dead but still
> > has another TYPE of resurrection.
>
> Once again, the fool presents us with the illogical as argument.

Yes you once again play the fool and pretend it is an argument, that
be funny if it was not so sad.

> (Actually, Jesus' resurrection was a combination of both types, but
> that's more than your feeble brain could handle.)

You mean your feeble brain and uneducational one on top of that.

>
> >>> What number are you betting on to be correct, could it be THREE, Most
> >>> believe in only ONE as Jesus only rose once, no matter what the
> >>> Islamic folks say.
>
> >> And when we finally do get a reply, it's absolutely absurd.
>
> > See if he gets a reply he lies and want you to believe his lies and
> > all else is "absolutely absurd" which fits his teachings all the way.
>
> I've told no lies, moron.

We would be the moron if we ever believed what you said, you tell a
lot of lies and that is fact by the messages you put here. And that
no one in the world accepts you story, they your foul and vulgar
language you like to use, show all that you not a Christian and as
such, nothing you say is true when it comes to the Holy Bible. Yes
that moron pit is getting old, as we all know now, it only replies to
you the one calling others what you are.

> > This person can not accept what the Bible says,

I have no problem with what the Bible says, only with all the make
believe and intelligent statements you make. The Bible is true, you
notes are not.

>
> >> Now, these are the facts; and you'll get no rebuttal of these facts from
> >> the moron.
>
> > Oh yes readers you are wrong or he will call you that nasty name
> > "moron" again showing his non-christian silly replies.
>

> In fact, the moron isn't even trying to formulate a factual, biblical
> rebuttal because HE ALREADY KNOWS I'M RIGHT.

Read my replies to other of his silly remarks and the Biblical
rebuttal has been sent, which he and his BULL likes to dismiss, since
it sure does not agree with his culist remarks.

Learn to use proper English and clean up your act, and maybe someday,
God will be able to reach you.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 17, 5:07 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/2012 4:57 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> [snippeth]
>
> > Well again you proved you are able to give false statements without
> > thinking what you said, since you are the cultist, to say other wise
> > is another lie of yours.  The point I made from your post was calling
> > Calvin the BEAST.
>
> A, the illiterate fool, nibbling around the edges. I didn't say Calvin
> was "THE" beast, you moron. That comes later.

That is correct you did not say he was "THE" beast, you only addressed
him as the Beast Calvin in such a way foolish one that implied he was
the BEAST. Now you run like a chicken that the farmer wants for
supper. Then again you show you are that "moron" and like to keep
referring to, better then the BULL you like to tell us about as you
walk behind the bull.

>
> I said "the beast Calvin," as he was the epitome of antichristianity.

Thanks, you said and prove in the context of the matter that he Calvin
is "the beast Calvin" when you just pointed our that the one who said
that was the MORON. Again you prove my point you have no foundation
and anyone that could be correct if it does not agree with you old
foolish one, is some discreditable name or the toilet tongue you like
to use.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

Yeah buy a dictionary as none of the above has anything to do with
facts, and you like to lie so all you do now is lie and hope people
will not read about how silly and ignorant you are here. Then you use
this silly stuff, as you can not answer intelligently and see all that
prove you wrong as "whining, crying, moaning, groaning, bitching, and
complaining".

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 17, 5:13 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/2012 10:58 PM, mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> ...nothing of any significance.

That we all knew all along, with anything you so far have written.
Been trying to show you that, but you such call others the moron and
we know it is really you.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

What a Christian you are not!

[eickman3]

And the cultist continues to argue by assertion, devoid of any facts.

>> You, on the other hand, excel at them.

[yawn and snip]

Ike

[eickman3]

Only in fact, cultist.

[snip more bullshit argument by assertion]

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/18/2012 3:20 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 17, 4:55 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/16/2012 4:32 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>> As I said this person seem to think Jesus rose from the dead but still
>>> has another TYPE of resurrection.
>>
>> Once again, the fool presents us with the illogical as argument.
>>
> What we say is you have to be the fool, as I pointed out that you have
> another TYPE of resurrection, and you here indicate you can not answer
> that remark and and call it illogical which was what I pointed out
> that you were, so you are the fool, tying to hide here, by saying
> others are what you are.

And the fool continues to argue by assertion while ignoring the facts.

>> Jesus' resurrection was THE LATER type of resurrection, not the former,
>> moron.

[yawn and snip]

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/18/2012 3:41 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 17, 4:55 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/16/2012 4:32 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>
>>> As I said this person seem to think Jesus rose from the dead but still
>>> has another TYPE of resurrection.
>>
>> Once again, the fool presents us with the illogical as argument.

[snip the ad hominem attacks in lieu of argument]

>> (Actually, Jesus' resurrection was a combination of both types, but
>> that's more than your feeble brain could handle.)

[snip the ad hominem attack in lieu of argument]

>>>>> What number are you betting on to be correct, could it be THREE, Most
>>>>> believe in only ONE as Jesus only rose once, no matter what the
>>>>> Islamic folks say.
>>
>>>> And when we finally do get a reply, it's absolutely absurd.
>>
>>> See if he gets a reply he lies and want you to believe his lies and
>>> all else is "absolutely absurd" which fits his teachings all the way.
>>
>> I've told no lies, moron.

[yawn and snip]

>>> This person can not accept what the Bible says,
>
> I have no problem with what the Bible says

Oh, you have GREAT problems with what the Bible says.

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

>>>> Now, these are the facts; and you'll get no rebuttal of these facts from
>>>> the moron.
>>
>>> Oh yes readers you are wrong or he will call you that nasty name
>>> "moron" again showing his non-christian silly replies.
>>
>> In fact, the moron isn't even trying to formulate a factual, biblical
>> rebuttal because HE ALREADY KNOWS I'M RIGHT.
>

> Read my replies...

The only "reply" you've been able to come up with is to continue to hurl
epitaphs because you can't formulate any sort of argument against the
PLAIN FACTS OF SCRIPTURE.

[snip the usual rhetorical bullshit]

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/18/2012 3:53 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 17, 5:07 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/16/2012 4:57 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>> [snippeth]
>>
>>> Well again you proved you are able to give false statements without
>>> thinking what you said, since you are the cultist, to say other wise
>>> is another lie of yours. The point I made from your post was calling
>>> Calvin the BEAST.
>>
>> A, the illiterate fool, nibbling around the edges. I didn't say Calvin
>> was "THE" beast, you moron. That comes later.
>
> That is correct you did not say he was "THE" beast, you only addressed
> him as the Beast Calvin in such a way foolish one that implied he was
> the BEAST.

The moron can't even read plain English, let alone the Bible.

>> I said "the beast Calvin," as he was the epitome of antichristianity.
>
> Thanks, you said and prove in the context of the matter that he Calvin

> is "the beast Calvin"...

What an illiterate idiot.

I could say "the beast Calvin" or "the beast Antiochus Ephiphanes," etc,
etc.

That doesn't mean they're THE "beast," you pathetic excuse for a "scholar."

Ike

[eickman3]

Apparently not.

[snippeth]

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/18/2012 4:08 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 17, 5:13 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/16/2012 10:58 PM, mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>> ...nothing of any significance.

[yawn and snip]

Ike

[eickman3]

...said the cultist.

Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 17, 5:33 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:57:35 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
> If your bible says something different from all the other bibles, you read a
> trash bible.

Since there is over 24 versions of the Bible that all are suppose to
be the one that follows all the scripture. Which one is the trash
ones? You use the NIV the RCC uses others then Latin was the only one
they accepted for centeries. I wonder if you speak Latin or even
understand it.

>
> >Nothing invalid only your lack of education and your need to call it
> >wrong, then the RCC bible fits the same logic.  They even had it put
> >in print that only its priest could give the correct translation,
>
> Hey, fool, how do you put a bible in print so that you can translate it?
>

Yes fool, what do you want now? I never put any bible in print. I do
use differant versions for differant people. Then the Greek language
does help me know what word is correct or which meaning in English
fits the version of the Bible.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 18, 4:46 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/2012 3:20 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 4:55 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/16/2012 4:32 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> > What we say is you have to be the fool, as I pointed out that you have
> > another TYPE of resurrection, and you here indicate you can not answer
> > that remark and and call it illogical which was what I pointed out
> > that you were, so you are the fool, tying to hide here, by saying
> > others are what you are.

This the best answer, that is you you have none.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 18, 4:46 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/18/2012 3:20 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> >
> >>> As I said this person seem to think Jesus rose from the dead but still
> >>> has another TYPE of resurrection.
>
> >> Once again, the fool presents us with the illogical as argument.
>
> > What we say is you have to be the fool, as I pointed out that you have
> > another TYPE of resurrection, and you here indicate you can not answer
> > that remark and and call it illogical which was what I pointed out
> > that you were, so you are the fool, tying to hide here, by saying
> > others are what you are.
>
> And the fool continues to argue by assertion while ignoring the facts.

Your so called facts are from a fool, and so we would be fools if we
did not ignore them.

What a waste of time.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 18, 4:49 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/2012 3:41 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 4:55 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/16/2012 4:32 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> > [yawn and snip]
>
> >>> This person can not accept what the Bible says,
>
> > I have no problem with what the Bible says
>
> Oh, you have GREAT problems with what the Bible says.

Nope, The Bible proves your teachings are NOT from the Bible.

>
> > Read my replies...
>
> The only "reply" you've been able to come up with is to continue to hurl
> epitaphs because you can't formulate any sort of argument against the
> PLAIN FACTS OF SCRIPTURE.

What you call scrijpture is not from the bible, it is from you mind
and your mind is not from God.

>
> [snip the usual rhetorical bullshit]

It seems you forgot again to remove all the Bull you been pushing
here.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Aug 24, 12:27 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:39:44 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
> >become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
> >English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
> >seem.
>
> I myself use God's words.  Jesus overcame death.  He ascended to the Father
> after his resurrection.  Laz had to die again.

That is true, so what is your point to post it?
>
> Foolish, unlearned pastor.  You really need to ask for your money back from the
> bible school and then apologize to your flock.

So now I agree with you and I am "unlearned" very strange indeed. You
need to apologize for such a foolish post.

[eickman3]

The best answer comes from the biblical and historical facts--THERE WERE
TWO TYPES OF RESURRECTIONS (requiring two types of death) DOCUMENTED IN
SCRIPTURE.

1) Temporal-to-temporal.
2) Temporal-to-eternal.

It's as plain as the nose on your face. The problem with ignorant sots
like you is that you can't PERCEIVE what is as plain as the nose on your
face, just like your foolish fathers.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/18/2012 10:43 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 18, 4:46 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/2012 3:20 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>
>>>>> As I said this person seem to think Jesus rose from the dead but still
>>>>> has another TYPE of resurrection.
>>
>>>> Once again, the fool presents us with the illogical as argument.
>>
>>> What we say is you have to be the fool, as I pointed out that you have
>>> another TYPE of resurrection, and you here indicate you can not answer
>>> that remark and and call it illogical which was what I pointed out
>>> that you were, so you are the fool, tying to hide here, by saying
>>> others are what you are.
>>
>> And the fool continues to argue by assertion while ignoring the facts.

Come back when you you're ready to deal with facts, fool.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/18/2012 10:57 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 18, 4:49 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/2012 3:41 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 4:55 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/16/2012 4:32 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>> [yawn and snip]
>>
>>>>> This person can not accept what the Bible says,
>>
>>> I have no problem with what the Bible says
>>
>> Oh, you have GREAT problems with what the Bible says.
>
> Nope

Yep.

> The Bible proves your teachings are NOT from the Bible.

My teachings come STRAIGHT FROM the Bible, you moron; that they prove
you're a liar and fraud is your problem.

>>> Read my replies...
>>
>> The only "reply" you've been able to come up with is to continue to hurl
>> epitaphs because you can't formulate any sort of argument against the
>> PLAIN FACTS OF SCRIPTURE.
>
> What you call scrijpture is not from the bible, it is from you mind
> and your mind is not from God.

...said the cultist, while deflecting all historical and biblical facts
presented, because he knows they prove he's a liar and cad.

[snip the usual satanic false accusations]

Ike

[duke]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:53:27 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>

As I said, you're noted for reading the bible as a novel and taking a test. But
you don't have any idea what God said.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 18, 4:51 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/2012 3:53 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:

> >>> Well again you proved you are able to give false statements without
> >>> thinking what you said, since you are the cultist, to say other wise
> >>> is another lie of yours.  The point I made from your post was calling
> >>> Calvin the BEAST.
>
> >> A, the illiterate fool, nibbling around the edges. I didn't say Calvin
> >> was "THE" beast, you moron. That comes later.
>
> > That is correct you did not say he was "THE" beast, you only addressed
> > him as the Beast Calvin in such a way foolish one that implied he was
> > the BEAST.
>
> The moron can't even read plain English, let alone the Bible.

Well if you could write plain English moron, there be no problem
reading it.

>
> >> I said "the beast Calvin," as he was the epitome of antichristianity.
>
> > Thanks, you said and prove in the context of the matter that he Calvin
> > is "the beast Calvin"...
>
> What an illiterate idiot.

No it was not idiot!

>
> I could say "the beast Calvin" or "the beast Antiochus Ephiphanes," etc,
> etc.
>
> That doesn't mean they're THE "beast," you pathetic excuse for a "scholar."

Now we all know you will say anything if it is true or not, as for
calling people untrue names is easy for you , then I was not pointing
to any scholar. The Beast I was and you were in the context of your
post was the BEAST found in the book of Revelations in the Bible.Rev
11:7-8

7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up
from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. NIV

Nice to see you still can not communicate so one could understand your
lies better, than that is what you do.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

Your insults and false information prove again you could not tell the
truth if your life was no the line. I was going to laugh but your
actions would only lead people from the God of the Bible to your cult
so it is sad all the way around. Now that maybe as clear and plain as
the nose on your face, only it has to a long one and that is so sad
also.

You have nothing to say that is proven by the bible and teachers of
the bible who are a lot more educated then you are, and know the
scriptures and teach them. You are what the bible points out is the
fool and in the UK the professional clown employed to entertain a king
or nobleman in the Middle Ages. And you can not even do that well.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 19, 4:23 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/2012 10:43 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> Come back when you you're ready to deal with facts, fool.

So fool will you come back when you're ready to deal with the facts
that are found in the Holy Bible, as what you call facts is only your
imaganation and that of a mentally destribed person.

> Ike

Dr R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 19, 4:25 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/2012 10:57 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:>

> >> Oh, you have GREAT problems with what the Bible says.

> Yep.
>
> > The Bible proves your teachings are NOT from the Bible.
>
> My teachings come STRAIGHT FROM the Bible, you moron; that they prove
> you're a liar and fraud is your problem.

You say that only when you try to show it is from the bible, you like
the cultist gets a verse then makes a story that is not Biblical so
you false teachings are hidden with by all the terms and such, when in
fact all you did was make the bible the false teachings and anyone
that does not agree with you cultist remarks then are the moron or
just put you Bull stuff in here. We can all see now you hid the
address on you book you so want to sell, which is a good thing.

> > What you call scrijpture is not from the bible, it is from you mind
> > and your mind is not from God.
>
> ...said the cultist, while deflecting all historical and biblical facts
> presented, because he knows they prove he's a liar and cad.

No says the Bible and even says you kind would come and try to corrupt
the teachings of God. So you are following the Bible when it talks
about false teachers and such. We know you are a liar, so in that
understanding you know I am not a liar or a cad,as you are someone who
is morally reprehensible.

>
> [snip the usual satanic false accusations]

Again you lied as such accusations of yours is still here to see, Ike.

[eickman3]

On 9/19/2012 3:26 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 19, 4:23 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/2012 10:35 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 18, 4:46 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/18/2012 3:20 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 4:55 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/16/2012 4:32 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>>> What we say is you have to be the fool, as I pointed out that you have
>>>>> another TYPE of resurrection, and you here indicate you can not answer
>>>>> that remark and and call it illogical which was what I pointed out
>>>>> that you were, so you are the fool, tying to hide here, by saying
>>>>> others are what you are.
>>
>>> This the best answer, that is you you have none.
>>
>> The best answer comes from the biblical and historical facts--THERE WERE
>> TWO TYPES OF RESURRECTIONS (requiring two types of death) DOCUMENTED IN
>> SCRIPTURE.
>>
>> 1) Temporal-to-temporal.
>> 2) Temporal-to-eternal.
>>
>> It's as plain as the nose on your face. The problem with ignorant sots
>> like you is that you can't PERCEIVE what is as plain as the nose on your
>> face, just like your foolish fathers.
>>
>> Ike
>

> Your insults and false information...

As usual, no rebuttal to the facts from the fraud.

[yawn and snip]

Ike

[eickman3]

...said the religionist who mistakes ceremony and traditions for "the
Faith, once delivered."

Ike

[eickman3]

LOL

The false prophet is called "a beast," too, moron, and that IN THE VERY
SAME BOOK.

Likewise, Daniel referred to the rulers who presided over Jerusalem as
"beasts," too, i.e. Belshazzar, Darius III, Alexander, etc, etc.

That doesn't make them "THE beast," moron; it just makes them the
shadows of things to come.

And Calvin was just like them, undoing all of the good works that Luther
set out to do, while trying to stay AWAY from the use of government
institutions to do it.

Some "Dr." you are.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/19/2012 3:31 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 19, 4:23 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/2012 10:43 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>> Come back when you you're ready to deal with facts, fool.

[yawn and snip]

Ike

[duke]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:05:37 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Aug 24, 12:27�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:39:44 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
>> >become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
>> >English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
>> >seem.
>>
>> I myself use God's words. �Jesus overcame death. �He ascended to the Father
>> after his resurrection. �Laz had to die again.
>
>That is true, so what is your point to post it?

I gave that answer on Aug 24.

>> Foolish, unlearned pastor. �You really need to ask for your money back from the
>> bible school and then apologize to your flock.

>So now I agree with you and I am "unlearned" very strange indeed. You
>need to apologize for such a foolish post.

[duke]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:09:30 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 17, 5:33�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:57:35 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If your bible says something different from all the other bibles, you read a
>> trash bible.
>
>Since there is over 24 versions of the Bible that all are suppose to
>be the one that follows all the scripture.

Get your money back from bible school, rk. All bibles say the same thing.
"Version" means language, not content..

> Which one is the trash
>ones? You use the NIV the RCC uses others then Latin was the only one
>they accepted for centeries. I wonder if you speak Latin or even
>understand it.

>> >Nothing invalid only your lack of education and your need to call it
>> >wrong, then the RCC bible fits the same logic. �They even had it put
>> >in print that only its priest could give the correct translation,
>>
>> Hey, fool, how do you put a bible in print so that you can translate it?

>Yes fool, what do you want now? I never put any bible in print. I do
>use differant versions for differant people. Then the Greek language
>does help me know what word is correct or which meaning in English
>fits the version of the Bible.

Any bible that doesn't agree fully with every other bible is a false bible. The
translator is far superior in knowledge to you.

What a tool.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 20, 5:16 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:05:37 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 24, 12:27 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:39:44 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
> >> >become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
> >> >English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
> >> >seem.
>
> >> I myself use God's words.  Jesus overcame death.  He ascended to the Father
> >> after his resurrection.  Laz had to die again.
>
> >That is true, so what is your point to post it?
>
> I gave that answer on Aug 24.

Well that is nice, only you did not give it on September 20. so again
I agree with you, and the shock is to much even for you. That is
pitiful.

>
> >> Foolish, unlearned pastor.  You really need to ask for your money back from the
> >> bible school and then apologize to your flock.

Be nice only that would run into about ten thousand US dollars and if
you really want to send the money to me, we can accept it in the name
of the Lord Jesus and get you a tax exsemption, as I would love to get
another degree then I have more then one now.

Pastor R Knapp

[eickman3]

On 9/19/2012 4:36 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 19, 4:25 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/2012 10:57 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:>
>
>>>> Oh, you have GREAT problems with what the Bible says.
>> Yep.
>>
>>> The Bible proves your teachings are NOT from the Bible.
>>
>> My teachings come STRAIGHT FROM the Bible, you moron; that they prove
>> you're a liar and fraud is your problem.
>

> You say that only when you try to show it is from the bible...

LOL

I substantiate everything I say from the Word; you don't even ATTEMPT to.

>>> What you call scrijpture is not from the bible, it is from you mind
>>> and your mind is not from God.
>>
>> ...said the cultist, while deflecting all historical and biblical facts
>> presented, because he knows they prove he's a liar and cad.
>
> No

Yes.

[snip the usual satanic false accusations]

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/20/2012 5:20 PM, duke wrote:

[snippeth]

> All bibles say the same thing.
> "Version" means language, not content..

That's bullshit.

Many latter day versions are socia-political rewrites, especially the
(N)ot (I)nspired (V)ersion, which is outright abominable.

(And that alone demonstrates how much you DON'T know about Bibles.)

Ike

[duke]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:23:23 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>

See, still no knowledge of God.

[duke]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:59:54 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And again you reflect zero knowledge of God.

[duke]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:22:10 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 20, 5:16 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:05:37 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Aug 24, 12:27 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:39:44 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
>> >> >become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
>> >> >English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
>> >> >seem.
>>
>> >> I myself use God's words.  Jesus overcame death.  He ascended to the Father
>> >> after his resurrection.  Laz had to die again.
>>
>> >That is true, so what is your point to post it?
>>
>> I gave that answer on Aug 24.
>
>Well that is nice, only you did not give it on September 20. so again
>I agree with you, and the shock is to much even for you. That is
>pitiful.

I gave you the answer already of Aug 24. That was a month ago. Are you just
waking up?

>> >> Foolish, unlearned pastor.  You really need to ask for your money back from the
>> >> bible school and then apologize to your flock.

>Be nice only that would run into about ten thousand US dollars and if
>you really want to send the money to me, we can accept it in the name
>of the Lord Jesus and get you a tax exsemption, as I would love to get
>another degree then I have more then one now.

You didn't foolishly give me the money. You actually thought you were learning
to be a pastor. Not to be.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 20, 3:22 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 3:26 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> As usual, no rebuttal to the facts from the fraud.

Thank you, you had noting to rebut in fact you never had any thing but
false statements, Mr. Fraud

> [yawn and snip]
>
>

Yes, yes you are so boring that yawn and sleep is all you have to
snip.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 20, 3:27 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 3:17 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 4:51 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/18/2012 3:53 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>>>> Well again you proved you are able to give false statements without
> >>>>> thinking what you said, since you are the cultist, to say other wise
> >>>>> is another lie of yours.  The point I made from your post was calling
> >>>>> Calvin the BEAST.
>

> The false prophet is called "a beast," too, moron, and that IN THE VERY
> SAME BOOK.

Yes we k now you are the moron and that is so sad, as it seems you do
not even know anything.

>
> Likewise, Daniel referred to the rulers who presided over Jerusalem as
> "beasts," too, i.e. Belshazzar, Darius III, Alexander, etc, etc.

Oh that is it, all of them by you are MORONS that is a shame, you the
Moron calling good people names and it is clear you have no Idea what
your talking about.

>
> That doesn't make them "THE beast," moron; it just makes them the
> shadows of things to come.

It makes you the moron and if that is the shadow to come, this world
is in problems, they did not ask for.

>
> And Calvin was just like them, undoing all of the good works that Luther
> set out to do, while trying to stay AWAY from the use of government
> institutions to do it.

What was he going to do, the government of his day were working hand
and toe with the Pope and the Catholic church. He could not talk it
away and such got him dead.

>
> Some "Dr." you are.,

Thank you, most of the members in the church do call me "Dr Knapp" so
thanks. The truth does matter.

Dr. R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 20, 3:27 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh I see, if we can get rid of you the fool then we can come back and
enjoy the newsgroup, so leave lke, then it seems all you have is yawn,
showing your not even ready to wake up. If we want to sleep, we are
to follow you fool, but if we want God, we would have to forget you
and not waste the time reading or replying to you fool. But this is
the newsgroups and group not the users get rid of fools that like you
Bull go back to the farm.

>
> [yawn and snip]
>
> Ike

Pastor R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 20, 4:16 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:05:37 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

[eickman3]

...said the empty religionist.

Go figure.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/21/2012 12:59 PM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:59:54 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/20/2012 5:20 PM, duke wrote:
>>
>> [snippeth]
>>
>>> All bibles say the same thing.
>>> "Version" means language, not content..
>>
>> That's bullshit.
>>
>> Many latter day versions are socia-political rewrites, especially the
>> (N)ot (I)nspired (V)ersion, which is outright abominable.
>>
>> (And that alone demonstrates how much you DON'T know about Bibles.)
>
> And again you reflect zero knowledge of God.

...says the lunatic as he fails to address the facts presented.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/21/2012 8:05 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote...


...nothing of any significance, as usual.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/21/2012 8:41 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 20, 3:27 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/19/2012 3:17 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 18, 4:51 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/18/2012 3:53 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Well again you proved you are able to give false statements without
>>>>>>> thinking what you said, since you are the cultist, to say other wise
>>>>>>> is another lie of yours. The point I made from your post was calling
>>>>>>> Calvin the BEAST.
>>
>
>> The false prophet is called "a beast," too, moron, and that IN THE VERY
>> SAME BOOK.

[snip the no reply reply]

>> Likewise, Daniel referred to the rulers who presided over Jerusalem as
>> "beasts," too, i.e. Belshazzar, Darius III, Alexander, etc, etc.

[snip the no reply reply that demonstrates that the moron doesn't even
think about the stupid things he says before he says them]

>> That doesn't make them "THE beast," moron; it just makes them the
>> shadows of things to come.

[snip another no reply reply, put up to hide the cultist's embarrASSment]

>> And Calvin was just like them, undoing all of the good works that Luther
>> set out to do, while trying to stay AWAY from the use of government
>> institutions to do it.
>
> What was he going to do, the government of his day were working hand
> and toe with the Pope and the Catholic church. He could not talk it
> away and such got him dead.

And then the cultist couldn't even write a comprehendable reply.

Some "Dr."

>> Some "Dr." you are.,

[snip another no reply reply]

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/21/2012 8:48 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 20, 3:27 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/19/2012 3:31 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 19, 4:23 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/18/2012 10:43 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>> Come back when you you're ready to deal with facts, fool.

[yawn and snip yet another no reply reply]

Ike

[duke]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:49:51 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

It's about time you understood you were a month late and a dollar short.

[duke]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 07:50:27 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>

You have no basis to judge. What happened to pop? Did he die?

>Ike

[duke]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 07:51:06 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 9/21/2012 12:59 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:59:54 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2012 5:20 PM, duke wrote:
>>>
>>> [snippeth]
>>>
>>>> All bibles say the same thing.
>>>> "Version" means language, not content..
>>>
>>> That's bullshit.
>>>
>>> Many latter day versions are socia-political rewrites, especially the
>>> (N)ot (I)nspired (V)ersion, which is outright abominable.
>>>
>>> (And that alone demonstrates how much you DON'T know about Bibles.)
>> And again you reflect zero knowledge of God.
>...says the lunatic as he fails to address the facts presented.

Come back after you go to school.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 20, 4:27 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 3:17 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:>
> >>>> I said "the beast Calvin," as he was the epitome of antichristianity.
>

> >>> Thanks, you said and prove in the context of the matter that he Calvin
> >>> is "the beast Calvin"...
>
> >> What an illiterate idiot.

Yes we know you are but did not want to call you a idiot, then you
should know.

> > No it was not idiot!

You really need to stop addressing yourself here.

> The false prophet is called "a beast," too, moron, and that IN THE VERY
> SAME BOOK.

So now you see Calvan in the SAME BOOK well we that have wisdom know
that he is not in the BIBLE the only BOOK that matters. Then you are
now applying that idiot name to yourself here again, then that is what
a idiot would do anyway.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 22, 7:51 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/21/2012 8:05 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote...
>
> ...nothing of any significance, as usual.

Sounds like the Devil himself, he did not like the WORD of God that is
Jesus either. Then to drop down into HELL as it sees is the only
significance place, that is your home and so nothing is as usual in
your life. I only posted you as I feel so sorry for your pitiful
state of mind.

R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 22, 9:04 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:49:51 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 20, 4:16 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:05:37 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
> >> >> >become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
> >> >> >English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
> >> >> >seem.
>
> >> >> I myself use God's words.  Jesus overcame death.  He ascended to the Father
> >> >> after his resurrection.  Laz had to die again.
>
> >> >That is true, so what is your point to post it?
>
> >> I gave that answer on Aug 24.
>
> It's about time you understood you were a month late and a dollar short.

Sorry I always ahead and I can not remember when I was even a hundred
dollars short. The ATM at the bank keeps me away from ever being a
dollar short. I been away from the USA for so long, if that was a
insult or a blessings, it is not in plain English so don't feel back
if it want over your head like [something] not even sure what it ended
with.

But thanks for trying.

Dr. R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 21, 12:01 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:22:10 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> to be a pastor.  Not to be,

No I became a MISSIONARY full time since 1964 till today, if my wife
did not just have her both knee's replaced and is still in the
Hospital, we would be back in China, HongKong in October 2012 next
month. Then I have trained people how to be a Pastor, as that is a
Calling given by God. Not me or someone else, the Callings of God is
a total commitment.

Rev. R Knapp
WWW.pioneers-for-Jesus.org

[duke]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 02:18:26 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 21, 12:01嚙緘m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:22:10 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:

>> >On Sep 20, 5:16嚙緘m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:05:37 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>

>> >> >On Aug 24, 12:27嚙緘m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:39:44 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
>> >> >> >become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
>> >> >> >English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
>> >> >> >seem.
>>

>> >> >> I myself use God's words. 嚙皚esus overcame death. 嚙瘡e ascended to the Father
>> >> >> after his resurrection. 嚙盤az had to die again.

>>
>> >> >That is true, so what is your point to post it?
>>
>> >> I gave that answer on Aug 24.
>>
>> >Well that is nice, only you did not give it on September 20. so again

>> >I agree with you, and the shock is to much even for you. 嚙確hat is
>> >pitiful.
>>
>> I gave you the answer already of Aug 24. 嚙確hat was a month ago. 嚙璀re you just
>> waking up?
>>
>> >> >> Foolish, unlearned pastor. 嚙磐ou really need to ask for your money back from the

>> >> >> bible school and then apologize to your flock.
>> >Be nice only that would run into about ten thousand US dollars and if
>> >you really want to send the money to me, we can accept it in the name
>> >of the Lord Jesus and get you a tax exsemption, as I would love to get
>> >another degree then I have more then one now.
>>

>> You didn't foolishly give me the money. 嚙磐ou actually thought you were learning
>> to be a pastor. 嚙瞇ot to be,

>No I became a MISSIONARY full time since 1964 till today, if my wife
>did not just have her both knee's replaced and is still in the
>Hospital, we would be back in China, HongKong in October 2012 next
>month. Then I have trained people how to be a Pastor, as that is a
>Calling given by God. Not me or someone else, the Callings of God is
>a total commitment.

I hope they get a better education in bible school than you did.

>Rev. R Knapp
>WWW.pioneers-for-Jesus.org

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 22, 7:51 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/21/2012 8:05 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote...
>
> ...nothing of any significance, as usual.
>

As usual.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 22, 7:54 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/21/2012 8:41 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:> [snip the no reply reply]

>
> [snip the no reply reply that demonstrates that the moron doesn't even
> think about the stupid things he says before he says them]

> [snip another no reply reply, put up to hide the cultist's embarrASSment]
> >

> And then the cultist couldn't even write a comprehendable reply.

Since you are that cultist, nothing will be understandable from you.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 22, 7:55 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/21/2012 8:48 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> [yawn and snip yet another no reply reply]

Just like you do.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 23, 8:41 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 02:18:26 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:

> >> >> >> >The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
> >> >> >> >become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
> >> >> >> >English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
> >> >> >> >seem.
>

> >> >> >> I myself use God's words. Jesus overcame death. He ascended to the Father
> >> >> >> after his resurrection. Laz had to die again.

>
> >> >> >That is true, so what is your point to post it?
>

> >> >Well that is nice, only you did not give it on September 20. so again

> >> >I agree with you, and the shock is to much even for you. That is
> >> >pitiful.
>
> >> I gave you the answer already of Aug 24. That was a month ago. Are you just
> >> waking up?
>
> >> >> >> Foolish, unlearned pastor. You really need to ask for your money back from the

> >> >> >> bible school and then apologize to your flock.


> >> >Be nice only that would run into about ten thousand US dollars and if
> >> >you really want to send the money to me, we can accept it in the name
> >> >of the Lord Jesus and get you a tax exsemption, as I would love to get
> >> >another degree then I have more then one now.
>

> >> You didn't foolishly give me the money. You actually thought you were learning
> >> to be a pastor. Not to be,

> >No I became a MISSIONARY full time since 1964 till today, if my wife
> >did not just have her both knee's replaced and is still in the

> >Hospital, we would be back in China, Hong Kong in October 2012 next

> >month.  Then I have trained people how to be a Pastor, as that is a
> >Calling given by God.  Not me or someone else, the Callings of God is
> >a total commitment.
>
> I hope they get a better education in bible school than you did.

Interesting from a person that never been to any Bible school to tell
others what to do. Is kind of foolish.

> >Rev. R Knapp
> >WWW.pioneers-for-Jesus.org

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 23, 7:41 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 02:18:26 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 21, 12:01 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:22:10 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> wrote:

> >> >On Sep 20, 5:16 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:05:37 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>

> >> >> >On Aug 24, 12:27 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:39:44 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
> >> >> >> >become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
> >> >> >> >English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
> >> >> >> >seem.
>

> >> >> >> I myself use God's words. Jesus overcame death. He ascended to the Father
> >> >> >> after his resurrection. Laz had to die again.

>
> >> >> >That is true, so what is your point to post it?
>
> >> >> I gave that answer on Aug 24.
>
> >> >Well that is nice, only you did not give it on September 20. so again

> >> >I agree with you, and the shock is to much even for you. That is
> >> >pitiful.
>
> >> I gave you the answer already of Aug 24. That was a month ago. Are you just
> >> waking up?
>
> >> >> >> Foolish, unlearned pastor. You really need to ask for your money back from the

> >> >> >> bible school and then apologize to your flock.
> >> >Be nice only that would run into about ten thousand US dollars and if
> >> >you really want to send the money to me, we can accept it in the name
> >> >of the Lord Jesus and get you a tax exsemption, as I would love to get
> >> >another degree then I have more then one now.
>

> >> You didn't foolishly give me the money. You actually thought you were learning
> >> to be a pastor. Not to be,

> >No I became a MISSIONARY full time since 1964 till today, if my wife
> >did not just have her both knee's replaced and is still in the
> >Hospital, we would be back in China, HongKong in October 2012 next
> >month.  Then I have trained people how to be a Pastor, as that is a
> >Calling given by God.  Not me or someone else, the Callings of God is
> >a total commitment.
>
> 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. Building Chapels and churches teaching Pastors and teachers,
so the native that in may places never heard the name of Jesus.I spent
that time helping to feed the poor, and sick so they may have a longer
life. We had no running water, no electric no stores with in a two
hour jeep ride. We raised two young children keeping from the snakes
that could eat them or one bite they be dead in a few minutes. After
my wife got sick and could of died so we went back to the USA and back
I went back for my Theology degree which at that time was accepted by
the State of Texas, to issue accepted. Where if we were in the USA
living it like you did with all the blessings of being a American. We
had to pray for out meals and support so our children could eat, but
we taught the Bible and when we left 19 years later. Many chapels and
churches were built and a Bible seminary in Malaybalay, Bukidon the
Philippines. In the beginning the pastors we trained gave up their
time to preach Jesus and help poor people get work and how to read
their own language. Thousands were Baptized in the name of Jesus as
St. Peter said to do it, in Acts 2:38 which by you own statements
Peter was your Pope and His Chair is what you church claims its
authority.

>
> >Rev. R Knapp
> >WWW.pioneers-for-Jesus.org
>

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 21, 6:56 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 4:36 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>> The Bible proves your teachings are NOT from the Bible.
>
> >> My teachings come STRAIGHT FROM the Bible, you moron; that they prove
> >> you're a liar and fraud is your problem.
>
> > You say that only when you try to show it is from the bible.It is not!

> I substantiate everything I say from the Word; you don't even ATTEMPT to.

Since your teachings are false, I would not even try to attempt to
make them from the Bible WORD. All can see you want to use your "word"
but that is all in errors.

>
> >>> What you call Scripture is not from the bible, it is from you mind
> >>> and your mind is not from God.

May God forgive you for all you curses and foul and vulgar language,
as I would think if you would dare talk like that in person, you had
better make sure you have medical insurance paid up. You can hide
behind the open Internet, but be careful someone does not make you
"eat your words".

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 20, 4:22 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 3:26 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> > > Your insults and false information...

>
> As usual, no rebuttal to the facts from the fraud.

You are too ignorant to understand the facts, then like the fraud and
moron you like to use for your name it is understandable.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 20, 4:27 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 3:31 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> > On Sep 19, 4:23 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Come back Ike when you you're ready to deal with facts, fool.

[duke]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:19:41 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

I learned from the best - the RCC. You learned from some much lesser teachers.

[duke]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:25:47 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@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.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 24, 3:42 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:19:41 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

The problem is, if that is the best you end up lacking. Then some of
my teachers were Roman Catholic Priest as well as the best God fearing
men and woman of God. With degrees from some of the Best Univerites in
the USA.

[eickman3]

It's no wonder you never went to a real school...

...you would have flunked out in the first semester.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/23/2012 5:18 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:

> No I became a MISSIONARY full time since 1964 till today...

No, you became a cult tool then.

[snippeth]

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/23/2012 6:19 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:

> Interesting from a person that never been to any Bible school to tell
> others what to do.

LOL

This from the guy who went to Joe's Transmission shop, B-B-Q Chicken
Hut, and Bible School.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/23/2012 9:25 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:

[snippeth]

> I hope they do get such a education as my College years...

LOL

Folks, this guy has never BEEN to college. The State of Texas certified
his "college" as a scam a few years after it started.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/24/2012 3:05 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 21, 6:56 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/19/2012 4:36 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>>> The Bible proves your teachings are NOT from the Bible.
>>
>>>> My teachings come STRAIGHT FROM the Bible, you moron; that they prove
>>>> you're a liar and fraud is your problem.
>>
>>> You say that only when you try to show it is from the bible.It is not!
>
>> I substantiate everything I say from the Word; you don't even ATTEMPT to.
>

> Since your teachings are false...

Notice how all Satan here does is argue by ASSERTION that what I say is
false; but God forbid he should have to PROVE that any of it is false
using actual scriptural and historical facts.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/24/2012 3:43 PM, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:25:47 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 25, 11:53 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/2012 3:43 PM, duke wrote:
>

> > 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.

The first 3 years was only the starting of Biblical learning. I
started college in 1960 to 1964 for a diploma in Bible and ministry.
Then 6 years in the Missions learning and training as well as church
building In 1970 received my first degree B.Th in Theology Then in
my last degree 1979 recieved the Doctor of Divinity. That is a lot
more then any priest spent that you pointed to here. I respect the
Catholic Preisthood and they do mine also. We as ministers get along
well and will work to help each other. Since you never been a
minister or preist full time with churches under our care, you
understand nothing.

> He didn't even do that.

Now I,ve been full time in the ministry. I am License and ordain
Minister since 1963 untill now. As well as the founder of a non-
profit church orgaization. Which is approved in the State of Texas.
As well by the US Goverment with license to do all areas of Church and
ministries. That is just facts.

Dr. R Knapp
www.pioneers-for-jesus.org


>
> Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 25, 11:46 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/2012 3:56 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>>> What an illiterate idiot.
>
> > Yes we know you are but did not want to call you a idiot, then you
> > should know.
>
> >>> No it was not idiot!
>
> > You really need to stop addressing yourself here.
>
> >> The false prophet is called "a beast," too, moron, and that IN THE VERY
> >> SAME BOOK.
>

> > So now you see Calvin in the SAME BOOK well we that have wisdom know

> > that he is not in the BIBLE the only BOOK that matters.  Then you are
> > now applying that idiot name to yourself here again, then that is what
> > a idiot would do anyway.
>
> It's no wonder you never went to a real school...

It seems you really never did go to a real school so have no idea what
is real or false, we all know you lie here, so with that in mind your
words are just full of false statements like that above.

> ...you would have flunked out in the first semester.

As would you or anyone when you go to a fake school or not a real
school there is no first semester or any thing real at all. The more
you write lke the more you only dig your hole deeper to the point you
can not get out of it. You prove how limited your education is and
your lack of morals with, by the way you use your foul mouth and
such........

[Dr. R. Knapp]

Thank you lke, as this is so simple to show the readers you can not
tell the truth on anything, so reader here is the links to that
"college" and its history, since 1944 till now.

International Bible Center www.ibctx.org
Shared on Google+. View the post.
Founded in 1944 as International Bible College, a San Antonio Texas
Bible College and International BIble Church started in the late 90's.

International Bible Church - Contact Us - International Bible College
(IBC) - About Us International Bible College - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bible_CollegeCached -
SimilarShare
Shared on Google+. View the post.
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
International Bible College was a Christian Bible College located on 5
acres ( 0.020 km2) northwest of historic downtown San Antonio, Texas,
U.S. Founded by ...

Enjoy readers and if your looking for a good place to go, check it out
when in San Antonio Texas.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

That is strange indeed, he made up his own teachings and even states
no scholar or historian agrees with him. So the facts are the Bible
itself, and the Bible is the PROVEN facts that shows his three
Pentecost, and three this and that, which by the way he tried to say
is a type of the Trinity and then calls three this or that as facts,
all made up in his head. I do not do this by ASSERTION it is done by
the Bible itself. Which he has shown he does not want to see, or
hear. If you try to show him the historical facts and such, he will
not accept them and start calling you or anyone as he likes to do, a
moron. When the word applies to his actions here and if that does not
stop you he gets his BILL.... out and insults that animal also. His
foul mouth and terms are not what a Christian uses or that God would
accept as "Holy" or decent. He wants you to by his book so you can
learn about this cultist teachings. Another term he likes to use to
keep you or anyone from taking the time to answer his post.

Dr. R Knapp

>
> Ike

[duke]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:49:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

The RCC is the Church founded by Jesus in 33AD. You founded one, didn't you.

> Then some of
>my teachers were Roman Catholic Priest as well as the best God fearing
>men and woman of God. With degrees from some of the Best Univerites in
>the USA.

You didn't learn then, did you?

[Terry Cross]

The principle of Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible
contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. That is
sola scriptura, Ike-man, not sola schoola.

If you need someone to hoist you into the chair, tuck in your bib, and
spoon-feed the lessons to you, that is your problem. The literate can
read for themselves.

TCross