Re: Saints and sinners.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 2, 3:13 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 03:31:42 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >Well silly one you did not say Pastor, you said pastor_urer. there is
> >no such word so no root and no nothing for one that spells as bad as
> >you do, and think you said something.
>
> You dummy, you don't even understand basic word derivation.  And you well said
> you would never refer to yourself as a pastor.

Well I suppose I will have to address you as "dummy" from now one
Duke, as you acting like one with every word you write now. I do refer
to myself as Pasotr, as that I am, but never the term you made up as a
name it is not true and is not even a word. Dummy you are, that is
your problem and to show that I refer you to your words "pastor_urer"
dummy is what you wrote. Ignorant one.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 2, 3:16 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:55:08 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 30, 11:58 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:01:32 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> I follow Jesus, unlike you.
> >> >> >> >> >> >No, you follow a "religion," whereas Jesus started a "grass roots movement."
> >> >> >> >> >> And Jesus gave characteristics. We have them, you don't.
> >> >> >> >> >Tell that to the hundreds of molested children that are now of age and
> >> >> >> >> >man and woman.
>
> >> >> >> >> Yes, there are a few. But scripture well says that Jesus alone never sinned.
> >> >> >> >A FEW? HUNDREDS AND THE COURT CASES PROVE THAT,
>
> >> >> >> 6% of the US priesthood accused, many not guilty.
> >> >> >How many thousands of priest are there world wide, not only in the
> >> >> >USA. 6% would number into many hundreds and you think that is ok only
> >> >> >a few?
>
> >> >> I never said ok. I said 6% accused in the US. In some places, that could be
> >> >> low, and in some places, extremely high.
> >> >You did not say until I showed you lied by trying to limit it to only
> >> >6% now you confess that lie and still hide what that Extremely HIGH
> >> >number is.
>
> >> 6% of US priests accused.  Most not guilty.
>
> >It is so nice of you to say this, now give us the references that
> >support that, or is that just another off your head number that is
> >nothing but a wish by you.
>
> Calee-fornia:  256 accused, 16 convicted = 6%.
>
> Massachusetts:  About 560 accused, 31 convicted = 6%.
>
> Those two states were the worst.

I do not see any references to where that information can be found to
see if you telling the truth or not and what about the other 48
States, 6% in all of them would be a large number. I also found that
many could not prove they were molested as it was over ten years for
some, and others have no witnesses to support if did or did not, so
they had to drop the case, even if it was true.
>
> The dukester, American - American
>
> ********************************************
> Repeal Obama
> You simply can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 2, 3:17 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:41:03 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> 6% of US priests accused.  Most not guilty.

> >The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles posted the documents on
> >its website Thursday night, an hour after a Los Angeles judge ended
> >5-1/2 years of legal wrangling over the release of the files with an
> >order compelling the church to make the documents public within three
> >weeks.
>
> 6%.

The church has not made the documents public yet as this says in three
weeks, then that is only one court in one city and what happen was in
many cites and States, making only 6% not the truth for all the States
and how many in them are guilty and still in court cases. What we do
know it the amount of money that church has paid is a whole lot. And
membership has dropped in some locations, as well as churches having
to sell their land and buildings to find money to pay for all the sins
those guilty priest did. Then for a Church that claims to be Gods
church and it is Gods voice to let these leaders of the MASS and such
to keep doing what they did in sin and is sin, only show they are not
Gods chosen ones.

[Ike]

On 5/1/2013 2:59 PM, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:48:04 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/25/2013 1:13 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:05:32 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/24/2013 3:53 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:05:27 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 4:18 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You guys left the Church founded by Jesus, turned away from many of his
>>>>>>> teachings, and now you're in deep trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here we have demonstrated the arrogance of the opinionated Catholic, as
>>>>>> the RCC was never the first, the one, or the only church.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ONLY Church...
>>>>
>>>> Once again for the moron: The RCC was never the first, the one, or the only.
>>>
>>> Jessu Christ started his Church...
>
>> ...which has seven permutations, which proves that the RCC was NEVER the
>> first, the one, or the only, just as I said.
>
> Jesus started one.

Better go read Revelation, moron.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/1/2013 3:02 PM, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:50:33 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> There are sins of the NEW Covenant which need to be forgiven, too, moron.
>>>>> That's correct.
>>>> Then your statement was bullshit to begin with, as they always are.
>>> Nope...
>> The moron can't even follow his OWN bullshit "logic."
>
>> 1) The asshole said that baptism removes the stain of...sin committed
>> under the OLD covenant.
>
> Yep.
>
>> 2) I said, rightly, that was a lie, since there are NEW covenant sins, too.
>
> Not a lie. There are **NEW** sins under the new covenant.
>
>> 3) The moron said "correct," which means his first statement was
>> bullshit, and he knows it.
>
> Nope, baptism/born again takes care of only of the old covenant sins.

Flat out lie.

>> THEN THE MORON PROCEEDED TO ARGUE AGAINST HIS OWN CONFESSION.
>> Yeesh, are you ever stupid.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/1/2013 3:06 PM, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:55:22 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/2013 11:51 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:22:08 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/2013 1:14 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:09:19 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 6:21 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:45:58 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing for sure my name was not JUDAS, one of the original
>>>>>>>> apostles, or is it Peter that Jesus told to get behind ME Satan.
>>>>>>>> God is with me, and promised never to leave me, that is good enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. You left him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hebrews...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...is spurious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canonized NT scripture.
>>>
>>>> By fools three centuries after Christianity started; before that, it was
>>>> rejected.
>>>
>>> Oh, noooooooo.
>>
>> Oh, yes.
>>
>> Go read some history, moron.

Go read some history, moron.

Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Apr 30, 11:53 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:51:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 28, 1:26 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >That would be impossible as God does not lie, and once He said "I am
> >> >with you always" there is no way to leave Him
>
> >> Wrong.  He's with us always, but it is we who will turn away from him.   You
> >> reject many of his teachings in your own admissions..
>
> >You speak for yourself you accept many of the false teachings of the
> >Papacy
>
> Correction.  Your protest_ers accept many false teachings.  We of the RCC are
> the Apostolic Church meaning we teach what the Apostles taught who learned from
> Jesus.
>
> >The Catholic church is only one group of thousands as ALL believers
> >come from Christ
>
> But we are the Apostolic Church.

Nope!

[duke]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:01:34 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 2:58�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:14:02 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Oh get real the old covenant was not in such a statement.
>>
>> Hebrews 9:15-18 (New International Version)
>> �15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
>> called may receive the promised eternal inheritance�now that he has died as a
>> ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
>>
>> I'm waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of you in scripture knowledge.

>NO you only prove just how little of the scriptures you do know.

You'e never read the NT, have you?

>Then your so far ahead you make up your own scripture and give
>yourself a laugh for doing so. Ignorance is not Knowledge except
>maybe to you.

It's all right out of the bible, rk.

>> >Where did
>> >you get this Mortal sin, from? �Sin is sin not one kind is better then
>> >another kind as the RCC teach.
>
>> More pure ignorance from numbnuts rk.

>Now all can see again how little you do know, you have nothing to say
>about "Mortal sin" Give the answer foolish one, or accept your own
>stupity as fact, nothing about the Catholic category's for sin such as
>Mortal Sin etc. When you sin, it is SIN and all sin little or large
>is received the same way, sin and burn in hell if you keep doing it.

>> 1 John 5:16-17 (New International Version)
>> �16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death,
>> you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not
>> lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you
>> should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not
>> lead to death.

>AND YOU SEE IN THAT THE TERM "MORTAL SIN" NOT THERE READ AGAIN IF YOU
>CAN.

Intelligent people, which doesn't include you, knows what "leading to death"
means (mortal) as opposed to sins that do NOT lead to death (not mortal to the
soul).

See how dumb you are, fake pastor. How can you lead your flock demonstrating
such pure ignorance.

>>
>> > If you did with sin you go to hell,
>> >and end up not in heaven no matter how many times you go to
>> >confessional or was baptized. �I washed my hands to day and will later
>> >today, and since I took a bath once does not mean I never need another
>> >one.
> Then why do you?
>
>Because I know to stay clean to take a bath a few times a week and
>when I do need one. You sin and you do it again and over again

Oh, noooo, but you, ohhhhhhhhh you, commit mortal sin and then you think it gets
washed away is a bath.

>> >> Thank God for the Sacrament of Confession.
>> >It is not a game that you get a pass go free card.
>> John 20:22-23. �Use it or lose it, salvation that is.
>You never used it to start with.

Of course I do, but you disavow any knowledge of Confession.

>Confession has to be to Jesus Not to some Catholic Priest.

John 20:22-23 says Jesus gave authority to man, ie, a priest and not a
protest_ant pastor. So you go right ahead and ignore what Jesus said. It's
your funeral, not mine.

[duke]

Jesus.

Yuo better go read a mickey mouse comic book.

>Ike

[duke]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:56:09 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/1/2013 3:02 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:50:33 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> There are sins of the NEW Covenant which need to be forgiven, too, moron.
>>>>>> That's correct.
>>>>> Then your statement was bullshit to begin with, as they always are.
>>>> Nope...
>>> The moron can't even follow his OWN bullshit "logic."
>>
>>> 1) The asshole said that baptism removes the stain of...sin committed
>>> under the OLD covenant.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> 2) I said, rightly, that was a lie, since there are NEW covenant sins, too.
>>
>> Not a lie. There are **NEW** sins under the new covenant.
>>
>>> 3) The moron said "correct," which means his first statement was
>>> bullshit, and he knows it.
>>
>> Nope, baptism/born again takes care of only of the old covenant sins.
>
>Flat out lie.

RIGHT out of scripture, ike.

Hebrews 9:15 (New International Version)

15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance�now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Just think. ALL the mortal sins you committed after you were born again are
dripping form your soul. And that soul never gets to the purging. It goes
straight to hell.

[duke]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:


>> But people who follow a faith different from what Jesus taught are protesters.

>That makes the Roman Catholic Church and its membership all
>PROTESTERS! Thanks for making that clear.

Hebrews 9:15 (New International Version)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance�now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

[duke]

Here's some history you've been hiding form

[duke]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:26:28 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 3:09�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:07:12 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> We can call them anything we wish to call them. �The critically important thing
>> is that we follow them, and YOU don't.
>>
>> Main Entry:sac�ra�ment
>> 1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have
>> been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be
>> a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
>>
>> See, rk, you dummy. �The word "sacrament" is not the important thing. �The
>> action is the important thing.
>
>Oh again you show you are that dummy as you do not comprehend what you
>do read. Look again "that is believed to have been" does not make it
>so

Hey, Jesus gave us 7 of those, regardless of calling them sacraments or not.
You're in trouble.

[duke]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:32:25 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 3:13�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 May 2013 03:31:42 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well silly one you did not say Pastor, you said pastor_urer. there is
>> >no such word so no root and no nothing for one that spells as bad as
>> >you do, and think you said something.
>>
>> You dummy, you don't even understand basic word derivation. �And you well said
>> you would never refer to yourself as a pastor.

>Well I suppose I will have to address you as "dummy" from now one
>Duke, as you acting like one with every word you write now. I do refer
>to myself as Pasotr, as that I am,

A pasotr [sic]?

[duke]

Caleefornia and Massachusetts were the worst.

[duke]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:53:29 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 3:17�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:41:03 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> 6% of US priests accused. �Most not guilty.
>> >The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles posted the documents on
>> >its website Thursday night, an hour after a Los Angeles judge ended
>> >5-1/2 years of legal wrangling over the release of the files with an
>> >order compelling the church to make the documents public within three
>> >weeks.
>>
>> 6%.
>
>The church has not made the documents public yet as this says in three
>weeks

The study was done a decade ago, dummy.

[Ike]

On 5/2/2013 12:47 PM, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:56:09 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/2013 3:02 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:50:33 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> There are sins of the NEW Covenant which need to be forgiven, too, moron.
>>>>>>> That's correct.
>>>>>> Then your statement was bullshit to begin with, as they always are.
>>>>> Nope...
>>>> The moron can't even follow his OWN bullshit "logic."
>>>
>>>> 1) The asshole said that baptism removes the stain of...sin committed
>>>> under the OLD covenant.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> 2) I said, rightly, that was a lie, since there are NEW covenant sins, too.
>>>
>>> Not a lie. There are **NEW** sins under the new covenant.
>>>
>>>> 3) The moron said "correct," which means his first statement was
>>>> bullshit, and he knows it.
>>>
>>> Nope, baptism/born again takes care of only of the old covenant sins.
>>
>> Flat out lie.
>
> RIGHT out of scripture, ike.
>

> Hebrews...

...is spurious.

Next.

Ike

[Ike]

> Hebrews...

...is spurious.

Ike

[duke]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:44:17 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/25/2013 1:23 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:54:24 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/24/2013 3:42 PM, duke wrote:
>>>
>>> [snippeth]
>>>
>>>> Forgiving sins AGAINST GOD is the directive of Jesus.

>>> Now there's a blatant lie.
>>>
>>> Mt 18:
>>> 21 ś Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother
>>> sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
>>> 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but,
>>> Until seventy times seven.
>>
>> Yep, brother to brother.
>
>And then the ignorant fool came up with another lie even worse than the
>last one...

So you don't get it that violating any of the 10 commandments is a sin against
God?? Figures.

[duke]

Accepted for containing the teachings of the Lord Jesus without error or
fabrication. You really should try for Christianity after coming all this way,
ike.

[duke]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:09:48 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 3:04�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:58:56 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 1, 4:24�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:16:26 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> Only in 33AD with the characteristics of the New Way - the Holy Mass, 7
>> >> sacraments, the Papacy
>> >Never happen just another lie of your church. �In fact it is sick and
>> >shows a evil mind/
>>
>> You're going down, dummy.
>
>That will never happen as your the dummy

I follow scripture, you heathen.

[Ike]

On 5/2/2013 12:44 PM, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:54:20 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/2013 2:59 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:48:04 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/2013 1:13 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:05:32 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 3:53 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:05:27 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 4:18 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You guys left the Church founded by Jesus, turned away from many of his
>>>>>>>>> teachings, and now you're in deep trouble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here we have demonstrated the arrogance of the opinionated Catholic, as
>>>>>>>> the RCC was never the first, the one, or the only church.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ONLY Church...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again for the moron: The RCC was never the first, the one, or the only.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jessu Christ started his Church...
>>>
>>>> ...which has seven permutations, which proves that the RCC was NEVER the
>>>> first, the one, or the only, just as I said.
>>>
>>> Jesus started one.
>
>> Better go read Revelation, moron.
>

> Jesus...

...gave Revelation to John via an angel, which he dictated to a scribe
to give to the "angels" (i.e. pastors) of THE SEVEN CHURCHES.

Now, go read it, moron, 'cause the RCC was NEVER the first, the one, or
the only.

NEVER.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/1/2013 3:12 PM, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:52:55 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Christ = anointed one = messiah = warrior king to come to deliver the Jews back
>>>>>>> to the prosperity they had before the Babylonian exile.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely biblical.
>>>>
>>>> Cite it.
>>>>
>>>>>> There were many "messiahs" in the Old Testament, as a "messiah" was
>>>>>> someone appointed and "anointed" by God to a accomplish particular task.
>>>>>> All of these were prototypes, figuratively preceding THE Messiah, Jesus
>>>>>> Christ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Warrior king.
>>>>
>>>> ...asserted the fool, without proof.
>>>
>>> Cry little baby ike. Your goose is cooked, carved and consumed on this one.
>>
>> ...asserted the fool, without proof.
>
> In Jewish eschatology

LOL

The Jews NEVER understood their own eschatology, moron--THAT'S HOW THE
WOUND UP CRUCIFYING CHRIST.

<chuckle>

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/2/2013 3:45 PM, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:03:35 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2013 12:47 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:56:09 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/1/2013 3:02 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:50:33 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are sins of the NEW Covenant which need to be forgiven, too, moron.
>>>>>>>>> That's correct.
>>>>>>>> Then your statement was bullshit to begin with, as they always are.
>>>>>>> Nope...
>>>>>> The moron can't even follow his OWN bullshit "logic."
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) The asshole said that baptism removes the stain of...sin committed
>>>>>> under the OLD covenant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) I said, rightly, that was a lie, since there are NEW covenant sins, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a lie. There are **NEW** sins under the new covenant.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) The moron said "correct," which means his first statement was
>>>>>> bullshit, and he knows it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, baptism/born again takes care of only of the old covenant sins.
>>>>
>>>> Flat out lie.
>>>
>>> RIGHT out of scripture, ike.
>>>
>>> Hebrews...
>>
>> ...is spurious.
>

> Accepted for containing the teachings of the Lord Jesus...

There is nothing of the "teachings of the Lord Jesus" in Hebrews, moron.
In fact, Hebrews was written to ATTACK Jesus' teachings via John in
Revelation.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/2/2013 3:44 PM, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:44:17 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/25/2013 1:23 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:54:24 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/24/2013 3:42 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snippeth]
>>>>
>>>>> Forgiving sins AGAINST GOD is the directive of Jesus.
>
>>>> Now there's a blatant lie.
>>>>
>>>> Mt 18:

>>>> 21 � Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother

>>>> sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
>>>> 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but,
>>>> Until seventy times seven.
>>>
>>> Yep, brother to brother.
>>
>> And then the ignorant fool came up with another lie even worse than the
>> last one...

[snip the no-rebuttal (and completely illogical) rebuttal]

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

"Dr. R. Knapp" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "duke" wrote:
> >>
> >> The Catholic Church started in 33AD when
> >> founded by Jesus Christ.
> >
> > Which, as I have already demonstrated from the
> > Panarion and the Catalogus Liberian, that 29 CE
> > is the more likely year of the crucifixion.
>
> So what

The choice is yours, to examine, or to reject it
out of hand. It matters not to me.


> such has nothing to do with the catholic church
> or 33 AD or 28 CE as that never happen and
> that is only a claim of the Catholic church to get
> people to believe they are the Church when they
> are only their own church, maybe at 130 CE or
> any date.

When combined with the Liber Pontificalis:

Post hanc dispositionem martyrio cum Paulo coronatur,
post passionem Domini anno XXXVIII.

Which is roughly translated:

After this the order of the martyrdom of Paul was crowned,
after the passion of the Lord the year 38

IOW: It is saying that Paul was martyred 38 years *after*
the year of the crucifixion. Thus, should we take even the
latest of the years in which Paul may have been martyred,
circa 67 CE, that places the year of the crucifixion as
significantly earlier than 33 CE. It agrees with a 29 CE
crucifixion year.

There is more evidence for a the year 29 CE as being the
year of the crucifixion than there is for 33 CE. Thus,
proving Duke's claim incorrect.

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:

> > duke wrote:
> >>
> >> 6% of US priests accused. Most not guilty.

<snip>

> Calee-fornia: 256 accused, 16 convicted = 6%.
>
> Massachusetts: About 560 accused, 31 convicted = 6%.

You're "facts" appear to be skewed.

Unless, it happened that of the total number of "priests"
that 6% were accused, and 6% of the accused were
convicted.

In Massachusetts, if 560 were accused, that is more than
6% being accused. Sure, only 6% were convicted, but
31 in a state the size of Massachusetts, is a considerable
number.

[Up from the Abyss]

"Dr. R. Knapp" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "Dr. R. Knapp" wrote:
> >> Up from the Abyss wrote:

> >>> "Dr. R. Knapp" wrote:
> >>>>
>
> Since most of this post is just a lot of nothings, you
> make a statement, then try to say I did something like
> you point to, which I did not and so on, to waste more
> space here, so will try to be short.

Pro 13:1 Wise children pay attention when their parents
correct them, but arrogant people never admit they are
wrong. 2 Good people will be rewarded for what they say,
but those who are deceitful are hungry for violence. 3 Be
careful what you say and protect your life. A careless talker
destroys himself.


> You ask what the R is in my name, it is for "Raymond"
> as for the R and applying it to the T in TCross, the question
> was what was his first name was it for trash and that is why
> he uses Tcross? It shows me you did not read what this was
> about but jump at some fool notion in you head without looking
> at the statements. No Rcross from me silly one.

I knew exactly what the "R" stood for before I ever asked.

As I said, such should be beneath you.


> >> The bible say to have elders, teachers, Pastors and you say ha,
> >
> > Show me "Pastors". Yes, there are elders, to feed the flock,
> > but there is only one shepherd [cf 1 Peter 5:2-4].
>
> One God and many apostles or followers.

You failed to show me "Pastors".


> > LMAO! I am actually very happy. I was accused of
> > being too happy just yesterday.
>
> Is that because of drugs?

Is that the best you have to offer?


> >>>> What the 'T' for? Trash the Cross?
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Knapp, I am an atheist, I have no problem harassing
> >>> Christians. Yet, I have left you alone. In the above, is
> >>> an example of something that should be beneath you.
> >>
> >> Oh go away, you no more a atheist then I am the Pope.
> >
> > So, you are condoning the above as the proper standard
> > and manner for those of the "House of God" to act. Yet,
> > in another post, you commented with regard to people
> > not wanting to be told what was appropriate. Perhaps they
> > are merely following the example that you set above.
>
> Now silly one, there was no House of God that I made a
> standard for, that was you fake story and such, not a word
> of mine. I do not remember the last time I used the word
> "House of God" in my messages here, but I sure did not
> have anything to do with the lie you just posted here.

So, the standard of the "House of God" that you represent
is to accuse a person's initial of being 'T'rash, and then to
accuse another of being on drugs.

Thus, you do condone such a "standard" as being representative
of the "House of God". It is people whom represent such
as you have done that deny God, and affirm atheism.

*I* put "House of God" in quotation marks, it was not something
you said. But, you condone a standard in the above, that reveals
your "House of God" as being "Trash".


> >> Your are not a decent person, because you do such,
> >> has nothing to do with being a atheist.
> >
> > No, I am not a decent person. Just another lowly
> > atheist nudnik.
>
> All you did here "nudnik" is support what I said, dah!!

Yes. But where's the stark contrast?

How does your "goodness" reveal the stark contrast of
my not being a decent person. You have accused one
of their initial standing for "Trash", and then when told
the such behavior should be beneath a man of your standing,
you accuse him of being on drugs.

I would say, there is very little contrast. In fact, I do not
see you currently as any better. That! Is sad.

That!!! Is how you have chosen to represent the "House"
of your "God".


> >> I have problems with doing that kind of action against
> >> anyone one.
> >
> > Yet, how did you respond to Terry in the above?
> > Do you only have problems with others acting in
> > that manner while you currently excuse yourself?
>
> So now you call Tcross by the name TERRY that was not a
> reply from me to any one named TERRy but was to the TCross
> for was it TRASH Christ the name he was trying to sign his post
> with. I have no problems here, it seems you sure do and that is
> you manner.

I would suggest that you pay just a little more attention then.

Terry Cross; AKA: TCross, *she* is the same person.

So, you would also be abusive toward a woman in your
language.


> > Yet, I rose to the position of COO.
>
> Beside this, "The sound made by a pigeon."
>
> And that is suppose to mean something? More like you
> can not even spell a word correctly.

Aren't you the clever one.

And these, as irrational natural beasts, made to be caught
and destroyed--in what things they are ignorant of, speaking
evil--shall perish in their own corruption


> >> I have no idea what you think you see here or how not
> >> mocking or insulting people by foul terms and such could
> >> reduce my character in the way you are implying here.
> >
> > What's the "R" for, Ravage the Cross?
>
> Nothing as I never used such Rcross, but Tcross could not
> mean that either.

So why did you insinuate that the 'T' stood for
"Trash the Cross"?


> > Do you do that before or after you "Trash the Cross"?
>
> Neither I never trash the Cross, I honor the one that died
> on the Cross and rose from the dead a few days after.

Not when you do as you did with regard to Terry.

Not when you say some of the things that you do to Duke.

Not when you threaten to go to law with another, namely
Ike, and that before unbelievers. Paul wrote that such a
one was already completely defeated.


> > In my former reply, did I mock or insult you?
>
> Which one and when why try to say a former reply, I
> reading your NOW reply and since you wrote it before
> I read it, it would be Yes you did and do as in this reply
> both MOCK and INSULT.

Don't play coy, it doesn't become you. And only confirms
that which I quoted from Proverbs 13 above.


> > Hey, it's your choice if you desire to "Trash the Cross".
>
> I would not make such a choice or ever have such a desire,
> then maybe your Tcross person that now you say is Terry,
> a name he did not even use in his post as Tcross.

Then you should learn unto whom you speak.


> >> If someone is beating up a woman or weak person am I
> >> just to say, Do not do that, it is wrong?
> >
> > No, it's much better to ask what the 'T' is for and
> > insinuate that it's for "Trash the Cross".
>
> I DID COO that is why you are able to write about the Tcross
> to start with, I can ask what I like to find what I want to a
> question or statement.

In a manner that is demeaning?

In a manner that is depreciating one's worth?

In a manner that lacks the love that has been shown unto you?

In a manner that fails to reflect the hope you are supposed to have?

In a manner that reveals a lack of standards?

In a manner that is neglectful, of ***ALL*** the love and
mercy that has been shown unto you?

And yet you claim, that you would *not* make such a choice,
that you would never have such a desire as to "Trash the Cross".

I say bullshit. I say you are falling away from the great calling
that has been given unto you. That you are trampling underfoot
the Spirit of Grace.


> > But hey, if that's the way you wish to represent "Christianity",
> > by all means, go ahead. I shall simply consider you as on par
> > with Ike and Duke.
>
> I really do not care in any way what YOU THINK or What
> you will CONSIDER you mean nothing to me but a foolish
> lost soul with out enough sense to see he is lost and do
> something about it.

Yeah, there's that tremendous love that I hear told about
in the Bible. You set such an exemplary example in the
above.


> > Yeah, much better to say to the woman, "Trash the Cross".
>
> Why because you want to beat that woman up and also
> trash the cross, that could be hanging around her neck?

Is that the best you've got? Is that the great example
of the Christ you claim to follow?


> > The one that jumped over the counter to confront and step in
> > between the man assaulting a woman. The one who has had
> > to wait around numerous times for the authorities to arrive, for
> > stepping into the middle of such things.
>
> That is what you would do? More like the act of a coward.

Say what you will. It is no skin off my back.

Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified,
and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.


> >> I can be trusted as one that will do his best to help anyone
> >> in need. Even you, if the time arose and you need help.
> >
> > What, by asking me what the 'T' stands for? "Trash the Cross".
>
> Yeah to ask you name or are you so ashamed of it that you
> post the Tcross, then think people can not ask you why, shows
> your not in this world or in lalalal land.

LMFAO!!! I am not TCross. But you may call me
Anathema, or Richard. However it remains that as
long as you are acting in the manner that you currently
are, I shall be le-satan unto you.


> > No thanks, I don't need that kind of help. That's the kind
> > of help that Duke has to offer.
>
> I would not give that kind of help as that is now what I do,
> but by your reply it sure seems you would do that, then you
> offer Help, I think not.

So carry on with your ad hominem, if that is all the better
that you wish to represent the "Cross" of your "Jesus".


> > So, did they say to you: "Come, let us 'Trash the Cross'
> > together".
>
> Nope that is your title not mine.

It is a play on Isaiah 1:18.

And again, you clearly do not know to whom you speak.


> > You clearly do not know to whom you speak. Yet, I
> > suppose that is to be expected since I am simply a
> > lowly atheist nudnik unto you.
>
> How could anyone know whom they speak to when they
> hide their name behind a "Tcross," that is not your name,
> so why would I care who I am speaking to, as you are
> ashamed of your name and call your self "Tcross". If this
> is even him or his reply, or just another kid joking around
> here.

No, it is not my name. That is Terry's name.

<snip>

Again, such behavior should be beneath you.

The choice is yours. But, it is not I you need worry
about nor fear, but rather, your "God", and how you
are currently representing Him.

I am just the ass, and the one standing before you as
le-satan, shall smote you should you choose not to
pay heed.

Again, the choice is yours.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 12:49 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:26:28 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote

> >> 1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have
> >> been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be
> >> a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality

No fact just "believed to have been" well I believe it never happen.
The dog may believe the same but can not talk English dummy.

>
> >> See, rk, you dummy. The word "sacrament" is not the important thing. The
> >> action is the important thing.

Tell that to the church, dummy.

>
> >Oh again you show you are that dummy as you do not comprehend what you
> >do read.   Look again "that is believed to have been" does not make it
> >so

> Hey, Jesus gave us 7 of those, regardless of calling them sacraments or not.
> You're in trouble.

NO dummy look it up again and you what Jesus said was not sacraments,
just things to do, you should know that dummy.

Thank you dummy it was interesting to see just how far you would go to
lie just to make you point that of a real dummy.

Dr. R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 12:51 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

I see now, your whole reply was all made up as there is no such STATES
in the USA dummy.

>
> The dukester, American - American

And you even put your name to such mistakes dummy you can not prove
anything.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 12:52 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:53:29 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 3:17 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:41:03 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> 6% of US priests accused. Most not guilty.
> >> >The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles posted the documents on
> >> >its website Thursday night, an hour after a Los Angeles judge ended
> >> >5-1/2 years of legal wrangling over the release of the files with an
> >> >order compelling the church to make the documents public within three
> >> >weeks.
>
> >> 6%.
>
> >The church has not made the documents public yet as this says in three
> >weeks
>
> The study was done a decade ago, dummy.

Seems you can not even accept facts that were given just On Tue, 30

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 12:43 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:01:34 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 2:58 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> You'e never read the NT, have you?

Your so funny it is painful to read this kind of trash Dummy.

>
> >Then your so far ahead you make up your own scripture and give
> >yourself a laugh for doing so.  Ignorance is not Knowledge except
> >maybe to you.
>
> It's all right out of the bible, rk.

I agree you so far "out of the Bible" duke your statements prove your
a dummy, nice to get into the Holy Bible, then maybe you need to
attend my church and learn some.

> >AND YOU SEE IN THAT THE TERM "MORTAL SIN" NOT THERE READ AGAIN IF YOU
> >CAN.
>
> Intelligent people, which doesn't include you, knows what "leading to death"
> means (mortal) as opposed to sins that do NOT lead to death (not mortal to the
> soul).

Then you are not a intelligent person duke dummy.

>
> See how dumb you are, fake pastor. How can you lead your flock demonstrating
> such pure ignorance.

I know dummy your not anything in the RCC except your own words a lay
person. Maybe dummy you should get up and stop laying around so much,
you might learn something.

>
> Oh, noooo, but you, ohhhhhhhhh you, commit mortal sin and then you think it gets
> washed away is a bath.

Nope only a catholic can do that mortal sin silly stuff, then that is
your game not mine or any sane person.
Your baptism was only a bath, in a sinner, out a sinner, no saving
grace, nothing but a priest and what a cup of water, not enough to was
a hand, dummy you are.

It is clear you do not want any discussion unless they agree with all
your errors and mistakes, and you think that is intelligent, a dummy
is still a dummy and since you started this dummy name calling, I must
agreed it sure seems to fit you like a rock around your neck.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 12:47 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >> But people who follow a faith different from what Jesus taught are protesters.
> >That makes the Roman Catholic Church and its membership all
> >PROTESTERS!  Thanks for making that clear.
>
> Hebrews 9:15 (New International Version)
>  15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
> called may receive the promised eternal inheritance now that he has died as a
> ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Again thank your protesters in the Catholic Church that you made it
clear they are and the protestants are the true followers of the
church from the start.
Note, nothing about the Roman Catholic church or any Papacy, priest
etc. in those verses you posted here. Great word, only your so much a
dummy you don't even see the errors of your ways.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 3:46 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:09:48 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 2, 3:04 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:58:56 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 1, 4:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:16:26 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Only in 33AD with the characteristics of the New Way - the Holy Mass, 7
> >> >> sacraments, the Papacy

> >> >Never happen just another lie of your church. In fact it is sick and
> >> >shows a evil mind/
>
> >> You're going down, dummy.
>
> >That will never happen as your the dummy
>
> I follow scripture, you heathen.

No you do not, then I work with converting heathens like you to Christ
Jesus and salvation, so they will become born again believers in
Christ Jesus.

[duke]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:41:06 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The scandal was over by a decade when the news hit.

[duke]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 23:53:19 -0700, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:

>
>"duke" wrote:
>> > duke wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 6% of US priests accused. Most not guilty.
>
><snip>
>
>> Calee-fornia: 256 accused, 16 convicted = 6%.
>>
>> Massachusetts: About 560 accused, 31 convicted = 6%.
>
>You're "facts" appear to be skewed.

>Unless, it happened that of the total number of "priests"
>that 6% were accused, and 6% of the accused were
>convicted.

6% of accused were found guilty.

>In Massachusetts, if 560 were accused, that is more than
>6% being accused. Sure, only 6% were convicted, but
>31 in a state the size of Massachusetts, is a considerable
>number.

Maybe you just can't read.

[duke]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:37:51 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You never left China, did you?

The dukester, American - American

[duke]

Couldn't handle my answer, could you?

[duke]

Hide, fool.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In Jewish eschatology, the term came to refer to a future Jewish king from the
Davidic line, who will be "anointed" with holy anointing oil, to be king of
God's kingdom, and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. In Judaism,
the Messiah is not considered to be God or a divine Son of God. Belief in the
eventual coming of a future messiah is a fundamental part of Judaism, and is one
of Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith.[8]
------------------------------------------------------------

>Ike

[duke]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:31:42 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 3, 12:49 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:26:28 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote
>
>> >> 1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have
>> >> been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be
>> >> a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality

>No fact just "believed to have been" well I believe it never happen.
>The dog may believe the same but can not talk English dummy.

We believe Jesus; you reject what he said.

>> >> See, rk, you dummy. The word "sacrament" is not the important thing. The
>> >> action is the important thing.
>Tell that to the church, dummy.

Which is why we know Christians have 7. How many does your pagan group have?

>> Hey, Jesus gave us 7 of those, regardless of calling them sacraments or not.
>> You're in trouble.

>NO dummy look it up again and you what Jesus said was not sacraments,
>just things to do, you should know that dummy.

Haahaahaa. Jesus said they weren't "sacraments"???? You heathen.

[duke]

Canonized scripture.
>
>Ike

[duke]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:07:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Stay out of my town. I'm a Catholic Christian.

[duke]

Epistles are canonized based on being in accordance with the teachings of the
Lord Jesus.

>Ike

[duke]

Jesus started the Catholic Christian Church.

>NEVER.

[Ike]

On 5/3/2013 11:46 AM, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:22:22 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2013 3:44 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:44:17 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/2013 1:23 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:54:24 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 3:42 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snippeth]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Forgiving sins AGAINST GOD is the directive of Jesus.
>>>
>>>>>> Now there's a blatant lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mt 18:
>>>>>> 21 � Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother
>>>>>> sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
>>>>>> 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but,
>>>>>> Until seventy times seven.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, brother to brother.
>>>>
>>>> And then the ignorant fool came up with another lie even worse than the
>>>> last one...
>>
>> [snip the no-rebuttal (and completely illogical) rebuttal]
>>
>> Ike
>
> Couldn't handle my answer, could you?

There was no "answer," moron.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/3/2013 11:48 AM, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:20:31 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/2013 3:12 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:52:55 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christ = anointed one = messiah = warrior king to come to deliver the Jews back
>>>>>>>>> to the prosperity they had before the Babylonian exile.
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely biblical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There were many "messiahs" in the Old Testament, as a "messiah" was
>>>>>>>> someone appointed and "anointed" by God to a accomplish particular task.
>>>>>>>> All of these were prototypes, figuratively preceding THE Messiah, Jesus
>>>>>>>> Christ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Warrior king.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...asserted the fool, without proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cry little baby ike. Your goose is cooked, carved and consumed on this one.
>>>>
>>>> ...asserted the fool, without proof.
>>>
>>> In Jewish eschatology
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> The Jews NEVER understood their own eschatology, moron--THAT'S HOW THE
>> WOUND UP CRUCIFYING CHRIST.
>
> Hide, fool.

And the point went completely over the moron's head, as usual.

There are TWO depictions of the Messiah in the Old Testament. The Jews,
being completely ignorant of this, CRUCIFIED HIM IN THEIR IGNORANCE.

And THIS is the people you want to rely on for information, i.e. people
who are just as ignorant as you are.

Go figure.

Ike

[Ike]

Not even according to Catholic Doctrine before the Counter Reformation,
moron.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/3/2013 11:51 AM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:07:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On May 3, 3:46 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:09:48 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 2, 3:04 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:58:56 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On May 1, 4:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:16:26 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Only in 33AD with the characteristics of the New Way - the Holy Mass, 7
>>>>>>> sacraments, the Papacy
>>
>>>>>> Never happen just another lie of your church. In fact it is sick and
>>>>>> shows a evil mind/
>>>
>>>>> You're going down, dummy.
>>>
>>>> That will never happen as your the dummy
>>>
>>> I follow scripture, you heathen.
>>
>> No you do not, then I work with converting heathens like you to Christ
>> Jesus and salvation, so they will become born again believers in
>> Christ Jesus.
>
> Stay out of my town. I'm a Catholic Christian.
>
> The dukester, American - American

You are neither.

Ike

[Rod]

On 5/1/2013 11:44 AM, Ike wrote:
> On 4/26/2013 9:06 AM, Rod wrote:
>> On 4/25/2013 10:46 AM, Ike wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2013 1:00 PM, Rod wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2013 11:48 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/2013 12:38 PM, Rod wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 11:11 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/23/2013 10:27 AM, Rod wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 12:10 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2013 8:58 AM, Asku-inu-nachak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 3:01 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 7:47 PM, Asku-inu-nachak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2013 3:28 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:40 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2013 7:30 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must be happy your address is not known, I have some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> family
>>>>>>>>>>>>> members that would love to wipe the ground with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Raymond...Ike just made a printed threat of extreme bodily
>>>>>>>>>>>> harm,
>>>>>>>>>>>> even death. Here it is below...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The day someone shows up at my door looking for a fight
>>>>>>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> last day of their miserable existence."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You people are quite stupid, aren't you? As if warning
>>>>>>>>>>> someone of
>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>> right to self-defense is the same as trying to find someone's
>>>>>>>>>>> address
>>>>>>>>>>> and threatening to come do him harm.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ike
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's amazing what a little deception will bring about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You would know, ye who hides behind the false name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It isn't a false name, it is the name my tribe gave me, you
>>>>>>>> wretched
>>>>>>>> cruel spirited fool..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The moron keeps coming in on the side of a con artist,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we are well aware that you side with yourself. No big
>>>>>> surprise
>>>>>> their..
>>>>>
>>>>> Yo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever checked out this guy's spurious credentials? Or his
>>>>> illegal business structures? Or his fake "sermons" delivered to no
>>>>> one?
>>>>
>>>> If you have proof then provide it.
>>>
>>> I already did--about 40 posts back and along the way.
>>>
>>> As to the rest, we'll see what the authorities of make of it.
>>>
>>>>> Of course not--you're a Babylonian whore who simply jumps in on
>>>>> whosoever's side is against THE TRUTH.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've seen no evidence come from you...
>>>
>>> [snip the pointless yadi, yadi, yadi]
>>>
>>> I don't have to prove anything to you, moron.
>>
>>
>>
>> And I don't have to take your word for anything.
>
> Go back and read the posts, moron.
>
> Ike
>

Not interested, bitch.

[Ike]

> Epistles are canonized based on...

...inter-church politics.

Ike

[Ike]

More fictitious argument by false assertion.

GO READ THE SEVEN LETTERS, moron.

Ike

[Rod]

On 4/29/2013 8:20 AM, Ike wrote:

> On 4/24/2013 12:56 PM, Rod wrote:
>> On 4/24/2013 11:48 AM, Ike wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2013 12:38 PM, Rod wrote:

>>>> On 4/24/2013 11:12 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>> On 4/23/2013 10:33 AM, Rod wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 12:32 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/2013 6:30 PM, Asku-inu-nachak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 2:54 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 7:44 PM, Asku-inu-nachak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 4:30 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 4:06 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 1:22 am, xyxyxtatwevak <xuxuxy...@excell.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2013 3:28 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:40 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2013 7:30 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must be happy your address is not known, I have some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> family
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members that would love to wipe the ground with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real name:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Address:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1206 Beulah Vista Blvd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Valparaiso, IN 46383-3404
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with my compliments!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you I have a hard copy now and will check this out later
>>>>>>>>>>>> tonight
>>>>>>>>>>>> as I have a Hospital call to make and it will take a few
>>>>>>>>>>>> hours by
>>>>>>>>>>>> Train and bus, round trip.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) That information is 2 years out of date, as I moved down
>>>>>>>>>>> south 2
>>>>>>>>>>> years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Rod--who was a hair smarter than you--knew it was ILLEGAL to
>>>>>>>>>>> post
>>>>>>>>>>> unpublished personal information on the internet (which is
>>>>>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> things that got Mark T kicked off), so he didn't do it. Then
>>>>>>>>>>> you,
>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>> a moron, did it anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> More fuel for the fire.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) The day someone shows up at my door looking for a fight

>>>>>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> last day of their miserable existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Oh Ike...I believe you just made a threat by wire of extreme
>>>>>>>>>> bodily
>>>>>>>>>> harm, and it too is illegal...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You really are that stupid, aren't you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A little deception goes a long way Eikenboob. Keep talking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, I'll keep talking...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...'cause I haven't said a single actionable thing, you little twit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep talking...
>>>>>
>>>>> ???
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't stopped yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I repeat, I haven't said a single actionable thing, you little
>>>>> twit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ike
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Keep talking...
>>>
>>> I intend to, dickhead.
>>>
>>> Ike
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> Fuck you.
>
> Ike


I'm not your type, fagboi...

[Rod]

I wonder if jesus ever said anything like this....and I'll bet if I
ever bent over around your faggot ass you probably would fuck me up
the poop shoot, wouldn't ya fagboi ????

[duke]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 14:54:13 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> The Jews NEVER understood their own eschatology, moron--THAT'S HOW THE
>>> WOUND UP CRUCIFYING CHRIST.
>> Hide, fool.

>And the point went completely over the moron's head, as usual.

>There are TWO depictions of the Messiah in the Old Testament. The Jews,
>being completely ignorant of this, CRUCIFIED HIM IN THEIR IGNORANCE.

>And THIS is the people you want to rely on for information, i.e. people
>who are just as ignorant as you are.

Which is another way of saying you just didn't understand that the man expected
as Messiah was to be a warrior king that would return the Jews to the prosperity

they had before the Babylonian exile.

It's no surprise that they and you don't see the arrival of the Triune Godhead.

>Go figure.
>Ike

I already did.

[duke]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 14:52:42 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/3/2013 11:46 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:22:22 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/2/2013 3:44 PM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:44:17 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/25/2013 1:23 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:54:24 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 3:42 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snippeth]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forgiving sins AGAINST GOD is the directive of Jesus.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Now there's a blatant lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mt 18:

>>>>>>> 21 ś Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother

>>>>>>> sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
>>>>>>> 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but,
>>>>>>> Until seventy times seven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, brother to brother.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then the ignorant fool came up with another lie even worse than the
>>>>> last one...
>>>
>>> [snip the no-rebuttal (and completely illogical) rebuttal]
>>>
>>> Ike
>>
>> Couldn't handle my answer, could you?
>
>There was no "answer," moron.

You're too challenged to have answered it.

[duke]

Then that means that you are highly odds-on to be following bad data. If the
people that knew Jesus didn't know what he said, there's zero chance for you.

[duke]

>You are neither.
>Ike

Heathens like you don't know truth.

The dukester, American - American

[duke]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:04:34 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 3, 12:47�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> But people who follow a faith different from what Jesus taught are protesters.
>> >That makes the Roman Catholic Church and its membership all
>> >PROTESTERS! �Thanks for making that clear.
>>
>> Hebrews 9:15 (New International Version)
>> �15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
>> called may receive the promised eternal inheritance now that he has died as a
>> ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
>
>Again thank your protesters in the Catholic Church that you made it
>clear they are and the protestants are the true followers of the
>church from the start.

No can be, rk. You took the canonized scripture form us Catholic Christians,
eliminated a lot of what Jesus taught, and headed home 1600 years after the
cross.

[duke]

Catholic doctrine is used to follow Catholic canonized scripture, dummy.

[duke]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 06:58:59 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 3, 12:43 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:01:34 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 2, 2:58 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> You'e never read the NT, have you?
>
>Your so funny it is painful to read this kind of trash Dummy.

You painfully demonstrate daily how lost you are.

>> >Then your so far ahead you make up your own scripture and give
>> >yourself a laugh for doing so.  Ignorance is not Knowledge except
>> >maybe to you.
>>
>> It's all right out of the bible, rk.
>
>I agree you so far "out of the Bible" duke your statements prove your
>a dummy, nice to get into the Holy Bible, then maybe you need to
>attend my church and learn some.

>> >AND YOU SEE IN THAT THE TERM "MORTAL SIN" NOT THERE READ AGAIN IF YOU
>> >CAN.

>> Intelligent people, which doesn't include you, knows what "leading to death"
>> means (mortal) as opposed to sins that do NOT lead to death (not mortal to the
>> soul).

>Then you are not a intelligent person duke dummy.

I'm the one that understands what "mortal" means. I feel sorry for your flock.

>Nope only a catholic can do that mortal sin silly stuff, then that is
>your game not mine or any sane person.

Jesus defined it. Unless you are a heathen, you are bound to follow it. If you
are a heathen, you booked anyway.

>Your baptism was only a bath, in a sinner, out a sinner, no saving
>grace, nothing but a priest and what a cup of water, not enough to was
>a hand, dummy you are.

Thank God for making me a Catholic Christian.

[duke]

I already read the definition of the 7 sacraments in scripture.

>GO READ THE SEVEN LETTERS, moron.
>
>Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 11:45 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:37:51 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@gmail.com>

Simple to find out, check the website www.pioneers-for-jesus.org.
You play the dummy again here, nothing is hid that is done by you and
shows how little you do know.
Learn how to spell and you would see you are the one that seems never
to have been in the USA, dummy

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 11:50 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:31:42 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On May 3, 12:49 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:26:28 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote
>
> >> >> 1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have
> >> >> been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be
> >> >> a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
> >No fact just "believed to have been" well I believe it never happen.
> >The dog may believe the same but can not talk English dummy.
>
> We believe Jesus;  you reject what he said.
>
> >> >> See, rk, you dummy. The word "sacrament" is not the important thing. The
> >> >> action is the important thing.
> >Tell that to the church, dummy.
>
> Which is why we know Christians have 7.  How many does your pagan group have?
>
> >> Hey, Jesus gave us 7 of those, regardless of calling them sacraments or not.
> >> You're in trouble.
> >NO dummy look it up again and you what Jesus said was not sacraments,
> >just things to do, you should know that dummy.
>
> Haahaahaa.  Jesus said they weren't "sacraments"????  You heathen.

Thank you duke dummy, all the above words from you show just how
ignorant you are and laughing at them is what the mentally ill does,
so enjoy yourself dummy that is about all you have now. Look up the
word "sacraments" and give us all the verse where Jesus ever said that
word, all you have is what the papacy said, dummy, as I said before
you lie and now you proved it again. Now it is this,

" A formal religious ceremony conferring a specific grace on those who
receive it; the two Protestant ceremonies are baptism and the Lord's
Supper; in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church
there are seven traditional rites accepted as instituted by Jesus:
baptism and confirmation and Holy Eucharist and penance and holy
orders and matrimony and extreme unction."

Wise up dummy and stop trying to put words into Jesus mouth as if is
so easy to show by the Bible, you are the dummy you kept calling
others. Got it dummy!

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 11:51 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:07:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 3, 3:46 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:09:48 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 2, 3:04 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:58:56 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On May 1, 4:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:16:26 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Only in 33AD with the characteristics of the New Way - the Holy Mass, 7
> >> >> >> sacraments, the Papacy
>
> >> >> >Never happen just another lie of your church. In fact it is sick and
> >> >> >shows a evil mind/
>
> >> >> You're going down, dummy.
>
> >> >That will never happen as your the dummy
>
> >> I follow scripture, you heathen.
>
> >No you do not, then I work with converting heathens like you to Christ
> >Jesus and salvation, so they will become born again believers in
> >Christ Jesus.
>
> Stay out of my town.  I'm a Catholic Christian.

Your town, so now you think your the mayor or own a town, silly man,
you are a dummy by that statement. Then since you never post where
you are, I never need to worry about your sorry make believe town,
your remarks show you are not a true Catholic and Christian is by your
actions which you also are not. such a dummy you are, by the way,
thanks for using that term, it fits you so well, unless you repent and
become a true believer in Christ, dummy would fit you and your made up
town. I would love to come to your town and convert you to Christ
Jesus and let Jesus save you sinful "catholic" soul.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 11:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:21:35 -0400, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 5/2/2013 3:45 PM, duke wrote:

> >> On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:03:35 -0400, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/2/2013 12:47 PM, duke wrote:

> >>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:56:09 -0400, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 5/1/2013 3:02 PM, duke wrote:

> >>>>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:50:33 -0400, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There are sins of the NEW Covenant which need to be forgiven, too, moron.
> >>>>>>>>>> That's correct.
> >>>>>>>>> Then your statement was bullshit to begin with, as they always are.
> >>>>>>>> Nope...
> >>>>>>> The moron can't even follow his OWN bullshit "logic."
>
> >>>>>>> 1) The asshole said that baptism removes the stain of...sin committed
> >>>>>>> under the OLD covenant.
>
> >>>>>> Yep.
>
> >>>>>>> 2) I said, rightly, that was a lie, since there are NEW covenant sins, too.
>
> >>>>>> Not a lie.  There are **NEW** sins under the new covenant.
>
> >>>>>>> 3) The moron said "correct," which means his first statement was
> >>>>>>> bullshit, and he knows it.
>
> >>>>>> Nope, baptism/born again takes care of only of the old covenant sins.
>
> >>>>> Flat out lie.
>
> >>>> RIGHT out of scripture, ike.
>
> >>>> Hebrews...
>
> >>> ...is spurious.
>
> >> Accepted for containing the teachings of the Lord Jesus...
>
> >There is nothing of the "teachings of the Lord Jesus" in Hebrews, moron.
> >In fact, Hebrews was written to ATTACK Jesus' teachings via John in
> >Revelation.
>
> Epistles are canonized based on being in accordance with the teachings of the
> Lord Jesus.

We wish that was true only they were canonized by the Catholic church
according to the Church teachings that made it agree with its
teaching, no matter what the Lord Jesus had to say about it in the
Holy bible.

stop playing the dummy you seem to be.

>
> The dukester, American - American
>
> ********************************************
> Repeal Obama
> You simply can't fix stupid.

> ********************************************- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 11:53 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:19:39 -0400, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 5/2/2013 12:44 PM, duke wrote:

> >> On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:54:20 -0400, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/1/2013 2:59 PM, duke wrote:

> >>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:48:04 -0400, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 4/25/2013 1:13 PM, duke wrote:

> >>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:05:32 -0400, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 3:53 PM, duke wrote:

> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:05:27 -0400, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 4:18 PM, duke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You guys left the Church founded by Jesus, turned away from many of his
> >>>>>>>>>> teachings, and now you're in deep trouble.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Here we have demonstrated the arrogance of the opinionated Catholic, as
> >>>>>>>>> the RCC was never the first, the one, or the only church.
>
> >>>>>>>> The ONLY Church...
>
> >>>>>>> Once again for the moron: The RCC was never the first, the one, or the only.
>
> >>>>>> Jessu Christ started his Church...
>
> >>>>> ...which has seven permutations, which proves that the RCC was NEVER the
> >>>>> first, the one, or the only, just as I said.
>
> >>>> Jesus started one.
>
> >>> Better go read Revelation, moron.
>
> >> Jesus...
>
> >...gave Revelation to John via an angel, which he dictated to a scribe
> >to give to the "angels" (i.e. pastors) of THE SEVEN CHURCHES.
> >Now, go read it, moron, 'cause the RCC was NEVER the first, the one, or
> >the only.
>
> Jesus started the Catholic Christian Church.

Which is NOT the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH!

>

[Up from the Abyss]

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

> >>> duke wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 6% of US priests accused. Most not guilty.

<snip>
> 6% of accused were found guilty.

Compare your two statements.


> Maybe you just can't read.

Ulay, ulay lo'.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 12:49 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:26:28 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 2, 3:09 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:07:12 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> We can call them anything we wish to call them. The critically important thing
> >> is that we follow them, and YOU don't.
>
> >> Main Entry:sac ra ment

> >> 1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have
> >> been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be
> >> a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
>

> >> See, rk, you dummy. The word "sacrament" is not the important thing. The
> >> action is the important thing.
>

> >Oh again you show you are that dummy as you do not comprehend what you
> >do read.   Look again "that is believed to have been" does not make it
> >so

>
> Hey, Jesus gave us 7 of those, regardless of calling them sacraments or not.
> You're in trouble.

Nope, you were the one making up sacraments not me. Then really it
was you church that tricked you into saying such. But I told you so,
and you think I am in trouble that makes you the dummy again here.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 12:43 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:01:34 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>

>
> >Because I know to stay clean to take a bath a few times a week and
> >when I do need one.  You sin and you do it again and over again
>
> Oh, noooo, but you, ohhhhhhhhh you, commit mortal sin and then you think it gets
> washed away is a bath.

You can not even read or understand what was written, had nothing at
all to do with "mortal sin" in any way, it had to do with taking a
bath and when you need to wash the dirt off your body. Sin has
nothing to do with taking a bath. Now you seem to think your mortal
sin can be washed away and so are no more, that is the ohhhhhhhhhhh
your a dummy.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 3, 12:52 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:53:29 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 3:17 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:41:03 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> 6% of US priests accused.  Most not guilty.

> >> >The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles posted the documents on
> >> >its website Thursday night, an hour after a Los Angeles judge ended
> >> >5-1/2 years of legal wrangling over the release of the files with an
> >> >order compelling the church to make the documents public within three
> >> >weeks.
>
> >> 6%.
>
> >The church has not made the documents public yet as this says in three
> >weeks
>
> The study was done a decade ago, dummy.

Yes dummy you are a dummy and that decade ago was the act of those
sins in molesting children and that is last year and this, dummy.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Apr 28, 1:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 04:15:53 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:

> >> >Ha you are making a joke here, if you believe that you been brained
> >> >washed and with bad water.
> >> You should try Christianity.

> >If I was not a Christian already, I sure would not be one if being one
> >would be like you.  Then you are not a Christian your a Catholic.
>
> Jesus gave the world the Christian "Catholic Church".

Yes and that is NOT the "Roman Catholic Church" the word Catholic
only means Universal nothing to do with the Roman church.

[duke]

SACRAMENTS:
Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

Now you can call them "peeling potatoes" as far as I care. But they are
specified by God as pleasing to him as seen by their inclusion in scripture. And
so you refuse God. Don't blame me if you end up biting the dust for your
rejection of them.

>" A formal religious ceremony conferring a specific grace on those who
>receive it; the two Protestant ceremonies are baptism and the Lord's
>Supper; in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church
>there are seven traditional rites accepted as instituted by Jesus:
>baptism and confirmation and Holy Eucharist and penance and holy
>orders and matrimony and extreme unction."

>Wise up dummy and stop trying to put words into Jesus mouth as if is
>so easy to show by the Bible, you are the dummy you kept calling
>others. Got it dummy!

[duke]

On Sat, 4 May 2013 02:58:31 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

SACRAMENTS:
Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

[duke]

This is what makes you a dummy in God's eyes.

[duke]

Yes, it is, and for the following 7 reasons:

[duke]

What drunken stupor were you in when your military unit was sent to CaleeFornia
and Massachusetts?

[duke]

Correction: It's actually 4-8% accused. Of the accused, 6% were found guilty.

[duke]

On Sat, 4 May 2013 04:43:18 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>On May 3, 12:43 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:01:34 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> >Because I know to stay clean to take a bath a few times a week and
>> >when I do need one.  You sin and you do it again and over again
>>
>> Oh, noooo, but you, ohhhhhhhhh you, commit mortal sin and then you think it gets
>> washed away is a bath.
>
>You can not even read or understand what was written, had nothing at
>all to do with "mortal sin" in any way, it had to do with taking a
>bath and when you need to wash the dirt off your body.

That was the Jews preparing the gentiles for being Jews.

> Sin has
>nothing to do with taking a bath.

As the minister laves the side of your head with water, he repeats "I baptize
the in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". Welcme to
Christianity, IF you were baptized.

Romans 6:3-4 (New International Version)
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism
into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the
glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Hebrews 9:15-18 (New International Version)

15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16 In the case of a will,[a] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who
made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never
takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first
covenant was not put into effect without blood.

> Now you seem to think your mortal
>sin can be washed away and so are no more, that is the ohhhhhhhhhhh
>your a dummy.

In accordance with Heb 9:15, original sin and all actual sins you committed
before baptism (under the first covenant) are removed in Christian baptism.
After that you're on your own for your mortal (death dealing) sins. They hang
off your soul until you go to confession. John 20:22-23.

Have you ever been to confession, rk? Remember, dying with mortal sins on your
soul close the door to heaven as they are blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Luke 12:10 (New International Version)
10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but
anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Do you really think God will accept you into his heavenly kingdom when you are
guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

[duke]

We know what the Lord Jesus had to say, and it's not what you say.

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >"duke" wrote:
> >> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >> >"duke" wrote:
> >> >>> duke wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 6% of US priests accused. Most not guilty.
> > <snip>
> >> 6% of accused were found guilty.
> >
> > Compare your two statements.
> >
> >
> >> Maybe you just can't read.
> >
> > Ulay, ulay lo'.
>
> Correction: It's actually 4-8% accused. Of the accused,
> 6% were found guilty.

Thank you.

[Ike]

On 5/3/2013 3:31 PM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 14:54:13 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The Jews NEVER understood their own eschatology, moron--THAT'S HOW THE
>>>> WOUND UP CRUCIFYING CHRIST.
>>> Hide, fool.
>
>> And the point went completely over the moron's head, as usual.
>
>> There are TWO depictions of the Messiah in the Old Testament. The Jews,
>> being completely ignorant of this, CRUCIFIED HIM IN THEIR IGNORANCE.
>
>> And THIS is the people you want to rely on for information, i.e. people
>> who are just as ignorant as you are.
>
> Which is another way of saying you just didn't understand...

Bub, I understand more than you and your foolish leaders will ever know.

Now try dealing with the facts, moron: There are TWO depictions of the
Messiah in the Word. The Jews CRUCIFIED CHRIST, not knowing this.

Citing the Jews to support your stupidity is just plain stupid.

<chuckle>

Ike

[Ike]

No, Catholic doctrine is used to make mindless fools like you who don't
study, don't read, and don't think for themselves, and don't have any
connection to God or reality, moron.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/3/2013 5:19 PM, Dupe wrote:

> On Fri, 03 May 2013 14:55:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Stay out of my town. I'm a Catholic Christian.

>> You are neither.

End of report.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/3/2013 2:56 PM, Rod wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 11:44 AM, Ike wrote:
>> On 4/26/2013 9:06 AM, Rod wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2013 10:46 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2013 1:00 PM, Rod wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/2013 11:48 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 12:38 PM, Rod wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 11:11 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2013 10:27 AM, Rod wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 12:10 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2013 8:58 AM, Asku-inu-nachak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 3:01 AM, Ike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 7:47 PM, Asku-inu-nachak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2013 3:28 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:40 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2013 7:30 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must be happy your address is not known, I have some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> family
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members that would love to wipe the ground with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Raymond...Ike just made a printed threat of extreme bodily
>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even death. Here it is below...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The day someone shows up at my door looking for a fight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> last day of their miserable existence."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You people are quite stupid, aren't you? As if warning
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone of
>>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>> right to self-defense is the same as trying to find someone's
>>>>>>>>>>>> address
>>>>>>>>>>>> and threatening to come do him harm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ike
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's amazing what a little deception will bring about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You would know, ye who hides behind the false name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It isn't a false name, it is the name my tribe gave me, you
>>>>>>>>> wretched
>>>>>>>>> cruel spirited fool..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The moron keeps coming in on the side of a con artist,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, we are well aware that you side with yourself. No big
>>>>>>> surprise
>>>>>>> their..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever checked out this guy's spurious credentials? Or his
>>>>>> illegal business structures? Or his fake "sermons" delivered to no
>>>>>> one?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have proof then provide it.
>>>>
>>>> I already did--about 40 posts back and along the way.
>>>>
>>>> As to the rest, we'll see what the authorities of make of it.
>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not--you're a Babylonian whore who simply jumps in on
>>>>>> whosoever's side is against THE TRUTH.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen no evidence come from you...
>>>>
>>>> [snip the pointless yadi, yadi, yadi]
>>>>
>>>> I don't have to prove anything to you, moron.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And I don't have to take your word for anything.
>>
>> Go back and read the posts, moron.
>>
>> Ike
>>
>
> Not interested, bitch.

Of course not, cunt: You're just here to argue for the sake of arguing;
otherwise, you would have no purpose in life.

Come to think of it, you STILL don't.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/3/2013 2:57 PM, Rod wrote:

> I'm not your type, fagboi...

What do you get when you cross Rod with a pig?

NOTHING!

There are some things even a pig won't do.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/3/2013 5:17 PM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 14:52:42 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2013 11:46 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:22:22 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/2/2013 3:44 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:44:17 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/25/2013 1:23 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:54:24 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 3:42 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snippeth]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forgiving sins AGAINST GOD is the directive of Jesus.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now there's a blatant lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mt 18:
>>>>>>>> 21 � Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother
>>>>>>>> sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
>>>>>>>> 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but,
>>>>>>>> Until seventy times seven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, brother to brother.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then the ignorant fool came up with another lie even worse than the
>>>>>> last one...
>>>>
>>>> [snip the no-rebuttal (and completely illogical) rebuttal]
>>>>
>>>> Ike
>>>
>>> Couldn't handle my answer, could you?
>>
>> There was no "answer," moron.
>
> You're too challenged to have answered it.

There was no "answer," moron.

Ike

[Michael Christ]

Ike wrote:
>Go back and read the posts, moron.

Rodney wrote:
>Not interested, bitch.


Ike imparted:

> Of course not, cunt: You're just here to argue for the sake of arguing;
> otherwise, you would have no purpose in life.
>
> Come to think of it, you STILL don't.

Is this liberal or conservative Lutheranism? :-).

More 'Ike' theology.

You see, all your theology, all your bible quoting, is not worth a
dime.

It not the word, it is the spirit behind the word, and all along.

Moron, shut up and start listening while you yet have time.


Your friend,
Michael Christ

[Rod]

On 5/2/2013 2:04 PM, Ike wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 12:48 PM, duke wrote:

>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:56:47 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/1/2013 3:06 PM, duke wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 02:55:22 -0400, Ike
>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/30/2013 11:51 AM, duke wrote:

>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:22:08 -0400, Ike
>>>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/25/2013 1:14 PM, duke wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:09:19 -0400, Ike
>>>>>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 6:21 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:45:58 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp"
>>>>>>>>>> <rwk...@aim.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One thing for sure my name was not JUDAS, one of the original
>>>>>>>>>>> apostles, or is it Peter that Jesus told to get behind ME Satan.
>>>>>>>>>>> God is with me, and promised never to leave me, that is good
>>>>>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right. You left him.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hebrews...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...is spurious.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Canonized NT scripture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By fools three centuries after Christianity started; before that,
>>>>>>> it was
>>>>>>> rejected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, noooooooo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go read some history, moron.
>>>
>>> Go read some history, moron.
>>
>> Here's some history you've been hiding form
>>
>> Hebrews...
>
> ...is spurious.
>

> Ike
>

And at least in one case it is contradictory.

[Rod]

But that doesn't stop you from doing them, does it ??

Bwahahahahaha!

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 5, 2:52 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

I do not reject the ones that the bible teaches and Jesus said, we
follow all of them, only use different names that even you said in one
post was not important what they were called. I see in the above you
cut out the ones I pointed to that was not what Jesus taught like the
PAPACY.
Now you think dummy anyone is going to accept the 7 you wanted when
you hide one that makes it a Catholic set and not the Bible way of
doing things. I don't blame you for anything that is Biblical as like
you said your only a layman, and being such does not know all the
teachings and such. I really do not care what you church says is
biblical when in doctrine all one needs to do is check the wording. It
does matter to me and the Bible teachers that no one things "peeling
potatoes" is to be used. Then I suppose they did peel potatoes in
those days as they do now, if they could even get a potatoes in those
nations at that time.

>
> >" A formal religious ceremony conferring a specific grace on those who
> >receive it; the two Protestant ceremonies are baptism and the Lord's
> >Supper; in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church
> >there are seven traditional rites accepted as instituted by Jesus:
> >baptism and confirmation and Holy Eucharist and penance and holy
> >orders and matrimony and extreme unction."
> >Wise up dummy and stop trying to put words into Jesus mouth as if is
> >so easy to show by the Bible, you are the dummy you kept calling
> >others.  Got it dummy!
>

Looks like duke dummy can not even read when one shows how wrong he is
here.

May God bless them that love Jesus, as Lord and Saviour.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 5, 2:54 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:04:36 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >> Stay out of my town.  I'm a Catholic Christian.
>
> >Your town, so now you think your the mayor or own a town, silly man,
> >you are a dummy by that statement.
>
> This is what makes you a dummy in God's eyes.

That it does Duke you are the dummy as I have pointed out the names
you call them as sacraments is not bible and I see you think you can
hide the matter Dummy and people are going to think you got me. When
in you most all your many times in posting the 7 you always added into
them that the Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church had to be accepted
or none of that would work. You dropped that requirement as I have
told you many times to do. Now you play the dummy in our eyes, as you
sure do not speak for God or His eyes, foolish one.

>
> SACRAMENTS:
> Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
> Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
>                      1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
> Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
> Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
> Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
> Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
> Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

You confirmation according to the Bible is not the same as according
to the RCC, but near it. Then Holy Orders Jesus never used that term
or the Apostles but to obey Jesus as we do and our churches do can be
seen as Orders and Holy as they come from Christ to start with not the
RCC orders. We anoint and pray for sick in almost ever service and
the answer of prayer is many. God heals and that is to be ashamed of.

Rev/ Dr. R Knapp
www.pioneers-for-JESUS.org

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 5, 2:57 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

Learn how to spell foolish one, and I do not drink so never get drunk
like it seem you are now. At least you now got one spelled correctly,
than half right still means half wrong and you do not past the test.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 5, 2:58 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 21:22:24 -0700, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"duke" wrote:
> >> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >> >"duke" wrote:
> >> >>> duke wrote:
>
> >> >>>> 6% of US priests accused. Most not guilty.
> ><snip>
> >> 6% of accused were found guilty.
>
> >Compare your two statements.
>
> >> Maybe you just can't read.
>
> >Ulay, ulay lo'.
>
> Correction:  It's actually 4-8% accused.  Of the accused, 6% were found guilty.

Prove it, with reference from the court not just a myth number you
like and then that number no matter what percentage is way too high
for those that were suppose to be man of God, given the power of the
church to hold Mass and such, no excuse no matter how much you want to
buddy up with them that molest children.

[Rod]

On 4/22/2013 12:16 AM, Ike wrote:

> On 4/21/2013 12:49 PM, Asku-inu-nachak wrote:
>> On 4/20/2013 3:01 AM, Ike wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2013 7:47 PM, Asku-inu-nachak wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2013 3:28 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:40 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2013 7:30 AM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You must be happy your address is not known, I have some family
>>>>> members that would love to wipe the ground with you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Raymond...Ike just made a printed threat of extreme bodily harm,
>>>> even death. Here it is below...
>>>>
>>>> "The day someone shows up at my door looking for a fight will be
>>>> the
>>>> last day of their miserable existence."
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> You people are quite stupid, aren't you?
>>

>> You need to look at this statement a little closer
>> and do some serious rethinking about many of the
>> things you have said..
>
> Everything I've said is dead-on-balls.
>
> In fact, I'm finding out even more so every day.

>
>>> As if warning someone of his
>>> right to self-defense
>>

>> You wouldn't need to use that right if you hadn't
>> been the cause of the threat being made.
>
> I'm exercising my freedom of speech and religion.

And there are others doing likewise.



>
> I haven't "caused" anything that I don't have a right to "cause."

And what makes you think you have a right to cause it ? Who granted
you this right ?




>
> If you don't like what I say, and you don't want to hear the truth,

If telling the truth were the extent of it I would be listening and
testing, but your right of free speech and right to practice your
religion do not extend to verbal abuse and defamation of others not
sharing your views or understanding.


Nevertheless, congratulations, the supreme court upholds your views
TO a POINT. You now enjoy your right to be abusive and a bastard from
Christ as does Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptists Church !


Congratulations ! It has become apparent that you will lie down with
any dog, even a rabid one!

Oh, BTW, I am now exercising my right of free speech just as Raymond
did. And we can thank the wisdumb of the supreme court for supporting
our right to defame your name, ruin your book sales, and I would also
say trashing your teaching career...but it is my understanding that you
did THAT YOURSELF !


My...I'll bet your wife is proud....

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On May 5, 3:08 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

So you now deny that Peter was the Pope and that Peter said and did
was not what Jesus said to do in Matt 28:20 where Jesus told Peter all
the truth and taught him all thins, and Peter must of lied as he
baptized all 3000 folks in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, not in
the names as Jesus did not say to use names, that would of been plural
but in a singular name. Matt 28:19 with what Peter DID Acts 2:36-39
I know, I read the Bible and I can understand the difference between
the NAME and Names.

Thanks for trying dummy

[Up from the Abyss]

"Dr. R. Knapp" wrote:

> duke wrote:
> >
> > What drunken stupor were you in when your military
> > unit was sent to CaleeFornia and Massachusetts?
>
> Learn how to spell foolish one, and I do not drink so
> never get drunk like it seem you are now. At least you
> now got one spelled correctly, than half right still means
> half wrong and you do not past the test.

What *if* Duke has always spelled the one correctly.
That places you also as only being half right, thus it
would also remain, that you were half wrong.

I do not recall reading Duke mis-spelling the latter.
I do recall you attempting to point it out, but *if*
memory serves, you were the one mistaken, for
Massachusetts was "speeled" correctly.

[duke]

Well, I just showed you scripture for all 7.

>I see in the above you
>cut out the ones I pointed to that was not what Jesus taught like the
>PAPACY.

I clearly see you as nuts, a sham to your flock.

>Now you think dummy anyone is going to accept the 7 you wanted when
>you hide one that makes it a Catholic set and not the Bible way of
>doing things.

I quoted you scripture. You urinated on yourself.

[duke]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 05:42:44 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Catholic doctrine is used to follow Catholic canonized scripture, dummy.

>No, Catholic doctrine is used to make mindless fools like you who don't
>study, don't read, and don't think for themselves, and don't have any
>connection to God or reality, moron.

Jesus gave us the sacrament. We Roman Catholics follow it. What you do is
unknown to mankind.

[duke]

It's good you didn't try to argue my point.

[duke]

On Sun, 5 May 2013 09:14:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:

>> SACRAMENTS:
>> Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
>> Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
>>                      1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
>> Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
>> Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
>> Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
>> Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
>> Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

>You confirmation according to the Bible is not the same as according
>to the RCC, but near it.

That's that Jesus gave us. We follow. You're trying for hell fire.