Re: True Worship

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Aug 24, 3:59 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeicklebo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 8/23/2012 6:39 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 22, 6:50 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 05:09:29 -0400, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>
> >>>>>> So you do not believe that Jesus also could and did raise the flesh to
>
> >>>>> Once again, we have the blind leading the blind: There are TWO types of
> >>>>> "death" and two types of resurrections spoken of in scripture--the
> >>>>> temporal--as in the case of Lazarus--and the eternal--as in the case of
> >>>>> Jesus.
>
> >>>> Laz was not resurrected.   He had to face death again.  But not Jesus.
> >>> Check the Dictionary for "resurrected" and it has to do with what
> >>> happen "Cause to become alive again" - "Restore from a depressed,
> >>> inactive, or unused state" as well as this "Return from the dead"
> >>> which was just what happened, his death again has nothing to do with
> >>> his resurrectiong, that could happen many times.
>
> >> Nope, you're showing your ignorant butt again.  Laz  had to die all over.  Not
> >> Jesus.
>
> >>> Then Jesus is the
> >>> ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD not like a normal human born of man and
> >>> woman.  Now Lazarus did die, and Jesus did bring him back to life
> >>> again as the dictionary and the bible says [return from the dead].
>
> >> Jesus was resurrected; laz was not.
>
> > The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
> > become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
> > English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
> > seem.
>
> And the blind continue to try and lead the blind.

No but your sure are trying to lead the blind, only they have more
smarts then you do and so all you can do is push insults.

> One fool says Lazarus wasn't resurrected (against Catholic doctrine).

Are you that fool?

>
> The other fool refuses to acknowledge that there are TWO types of
> resurrections documented in the Bible.

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

>
> What a pair of fools.

IS That "lke and H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." That is a pair.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 13, 8:13 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 12, 11:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:58:57 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> My words come right out of the bible.  Do you own one?
> >> >No I own a lot more and in versions and also in Chinese and a few
> >> >other languages.
>
> >> But they all say the same thing.  You're one of those Thomas "doubters" that
> >> thinks they can find a better message in another bible.
>
> >Then they do not all say the same, try the Chinese Then a doubter
> >does check things out and that is a good thing.
>
> If the china version says something different, the china version is in error.

Oh my you have no education in Chinese and plain ignorant of foreign
Bibles, by such a remark, you again show your word is not to be
trusted. I wonder if you ever seen one, then even the translation of
the Chinese into English is not from the KJV. My Chinese Bibles just
had a upgrade to make it more understandable. Now the Chinese
language goes all the way back to the time Abraham and could go back
to Moses as Chinese and their history goes back over Five Thousand
Years, almost Six Thousand yours. What a fool you make yourself. Is
that the only way you try to dismiss others, then at lease here that I
remember you have got farm Bulls in to your replies yet.

>
> >Then like you have said before You like the NIV and not the KJV so you
> >do the same thing till you find another bible.
>
> They all say the same thing.

Then why did you make a big deal out of people using the KJV and
pointed out what you used in many post as the NIV. So when you are
shown in public your doctrines you even dismiss your own remarks.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 13, 8:59 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/12/2012 1:10 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 4:58 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/10/2012 1:02 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>>> You just don't realize what a terrible database of scripture you present in yourself.
>
> >>> I do not need to realize you lies, the database is facts and the
> >>> scripture is just that, my facts are just that facts, and the
> >>> organizations listed that are church organizations show I am who I say
> >>> I am, and this person is lying and has no foundation, as it was ripped
> >>> out by the evidents that does support me.
>
> >> No, they simply show that you're simply another latter-day
> >> psuedo-Christian cultist, as prophesied by Jesus, et al.
>
> > Thank you as it is clear, you did not check out the database or even
> > seen them. Since you are cultist all you can do is lie.
>
> > You proved you are not to be trusted.
>
> LOL
>
> ...said the antichristian, antichurch cultist who denies the Trinity,
> etc, etc.

It looks like lke has lost his mind, posting what he thinks in public
above.
>
> Go figure.

Again it looks like you cannot even figure. What a shame and what a
waste of a mind, Ike seems to have here.

R. Knapp

> Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 13, 4:48 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/2012 4:09 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>>> On 8/30/2012 9:33 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>>>> Your problem is that history has recorded it, and the head man would
> >>>>> of been the Pope of that day.  They called them Heretics and burned
> >>>>> many of them on a post in the market so all could see what happens to
> >>>>> anyone that does not obey the church.
>
> >>>> Yes, and then the beast Calvin rose up and did the same thing, polluting
> >>>> the Reformation with his lies and hypocrisy.
>
> >>> So now you only call him a "beast" that is silly. You prove nothing.
>
> >> Notice no rebuttal of the facts.
>
> > You had no fact,  Calvin is his name, you call him "the beast" I
> > rebuttal that as it is not a fact, it is your lie.
>
> Nope. It's a fact. Calvin was an antichristian beast who delivered the
> Protestant movement right back into the hands of the tyranny from which
> Luther sought escape.

Who's facts are they, give a reference and history that list the
documents that say what you did here. You cannot as such is all your
made up terms and has nothing to establies your false statemets here.
You have NOTHING. No one delivered any Protestant movement as the
Catholic Church has no one either. Both claim the same verses as
proof, but you claim nothing but maybe you said it so everyone has to
believe it, do you think you are the Roman Catholic POPE now?

Luther did make it and so did all the others that seen the sin's of
the RCC then and hundreds or thousands today have seen the same kind
of sins that the RCC did not stop, they left also. I spoke in a
United Methodist Church in New Jesus a few years ago and 75 members of
the RCC joined the Methodist Church and was in attendance to hear me,
along with the methodist members, all in one church. I gave everyone
the bread and the cup in remembrance of what Jesus said to do and what
He did, some called it MASS as they out of habit would do.

Then I care about people and that Jesus loves them and all may repent
and come unto Christ and find the peace and salvation the Church in
Christ offers to all that come.

[eickman3]

On 9/13/2012 5:56 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Aug 24, 3:57 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeicklebo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 8/23/2012 6:30 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>> The question asked sure was what I was discussing, and this is open
>>> for all to reply to. It looks like you are in that pickle as you are
>>> the one making excuses for not replying to what was asked. The Roman
>>> Catholic church and its teachings was on subject and was what was
>>> being discussed. It is their priest that were suppose to be the
>>> leaders to teach the members about the RCC doctrine. So again this is
>>> on topic, just you do not want it shown that they are not teaching the
>>> Morals of the teaching of Peter or Jesus.
>>
>> More bullshit blanket bullshit false accusations.

[yawn and snip the rhetorical bullshit]

>> Demonstrate where the RCC is NOT teaching the morals of Peter or Jesus.
>>
>> IN FACT, DEMONSTRATE WHERE PETER OR JESUS TAUGHT "MORALS" AT ALL, as
>> they DIDN'T--the "morals" were assumed from the Old Testament laws, and
>> they taught the Gospel of Grace that OVERCOMES our shortcomings under
>> the law, because NO ONE could keep the law except Jesus, who did so on
>> our behalf.

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

>> Seems you don't even know what the Gospel is about, let alone who and
>> what Jesus is, and what relationship He has to the Father and the Holy
>> Spirit.

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

>> Notice how Satan condemns an ENTIRE Church of God based on the actions
>> of some, whereas Jesus parsed the churches by measure based on the
>> actions of majorities and minorities.

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

Instead of arguing the point, Satan rages at being caught in his lies.
And, oh, lookie. Nothing left.

Ike

[eickman3]

[yawn and snip the rhetorical bullshit]

>> One fool says Lazarus wasn't resurrected (against Catholic doctrine).

[yawn and snip the rhetorical bullshit]

>> The other fool refuses to acknowledge that there are TWO types of
>> resurrections documented in the Bible.
>
> What number are you betting on to be correct, could it be THREE, Most
> believe in only ONE as Jesus only rose once, no matter what the
> Islamic folks say.

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

There are TWO kinds of resurrections (and, hence, two kinds of death)
documented in scripture--temporal to temporal (only to die again later),
and temporal to eternal.

LAZARUS death was temporal to temporal--he died again at the hands of
the Sanhedrin, which was trying to quash Jesus' miracle.

JESUS death was temporal to eternal, as it was, is, and will be at the
resurrections.

Now, these are the facts; and you'll get no rebuttal of these facts from
the moron.

Just more rhetorical bullshit.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/13/2012 6:29 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 13, 8:59 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/12/2012 1:10 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 10, 4:58 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/2012 1:02 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>>>> You just don't realize what a terrible database of scripture you present in yourself.
>>
>>>>> I do not need to realize you lies, the database is facts and the
>>>>> scripture is just that, my facts are just that facts, and the
>>>>> organizations listed that are church organizations show I am who I say
>>>>> I am, and this person is lying and has no foundation, as it was ripped
>>>>> out by the evidents that does support me.
>>
>>>> No, they simply show that you're simply another latter-day
>>>> psuedo-Christian cultist, as prophesied by Jesus, et al.
>>
>>> Thank you as it is clear, you did not check out the database or even
>>> seen them. Since you are cultist all you can do is lie.
>>
>>> You proved you are not to be trusted.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> ...said the antichristian, antichurch cultist who denies the Trinity,
>> etc, etc.
>
> It looks like lke has lost his mind, posting what he thinks in public
> above.

Oh, so now you're NOT denying the Trinity, antichristian?

[snippeth the usual rhetorical bullshit]

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/13/2012 11:57 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 13, 4:48 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/13/2012 4:09 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 8/30/2012 9:33 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Your problem is that history has recorded it, and the head man would
>>>>>>> of been the Pope of that day. They called them Heretics and burned
>>>>>>> many of them on a post in the market so all could see what happens to
>>>>>>> anyone that does not obey the church.
>>
>>>>>> Yes, and then the beast Calvin rose up and did the same thing, polluting
>>>>>> the Reformation with his lies and hypocrisy.
>>
>>>>> So now you only call him a "beast" that is silly. You prove nothing.
>>
>>>> Notice no rebuttal of the facts.
>>
>>> You had no fact, Calvin is his name, you call him "the beast" I
>>> rebuttal that as it is not a fact, it is your lie.
>>
>> Nope. It's a fact. Calvin was an antichristian beast who delivered the
>> Protestant movement right back into the hands of the tyranny from which
>> Luther sought escape.
>
> Who's facts are they,

The worlds.

> give a reference and history that list the
> documents that say what you did here.

All one has to do is go look up "Calvin" and "Geneva," and they'll get
all the facts they need.

> You cannot as such is all your
> made up terms and has nothing to establies your false statemets here.

I've made no false statements here, cultist.

It's just plain history.

[snippeth the rhetorical bullshit]

Ike

[duke]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:25:06 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 13, 8:13 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 12, 11:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:58:57 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> My words come right out of the bible.  Do you own one?
>> >> >No I own a lot more and in versions and also in Chinese and a few
>> >> >other languages.
>>
>> >> But they all say the same thing.  You're one of those Thomas "doubters" that
>> >> thinks they can find a better message in another bible.
>>
>> >Then they do not all say the same, try the Chinese Then a doubter
>> >does check things out and that is a good thing.
>>
>> If the china version says something different, the china version is in error.
>
>Oh my you have no education in Chinese

That's not only right, but perfectly fine with. Being an American, English
works perfectly well for me.

>and plain ignorant of foreign
>Bibles, by such a remark, you again show your word is not to be
>trusted.

A bible that doesn't agree is a bible from the devil.

>> >Then like you have said before You like the NIV and not the KJV so you
>> >do the same thing till you find another bible.
>> They all say the same thing.

>Then why did you make a big deal out of people using the KJV and
>pointed out what you used in many post as the NIV. So when you are
>shown in public your doctrines you even dismiss your own remarks.

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

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

[duke]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:00:23 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 9/13/2012 8:15 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:30:22 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2012 11:39 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 05:08:11 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/11/2012 8:46 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snippeth]
>>>>>
>>>>>> THREE: In sacred Scripture the number three represents that which is solid,
>>>>>> real, substantial, and something in its completeness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going with the expert website.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>
>>> Of course, you didn't cite this expert "site." Maybe that because your
>>> "expert" doesn't know what he's talking about.
>>
>> Oh, ike, you just make up silly stuff. Why should anyone believe you instead?

>Notice no rebuttal from the fraud, and he STILL didn't post up his
>"expert" website.

Oh, it's a simple one found by google - clearly the equal of yours.

>And I don't "make up" anything, fraud; I get it from the World.

There is no google world.

>But, of course, the facts disappeared from the post...

>Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/14/2012 11:32 AM, duke wrote:

[snippeth]

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

Here is more proof that dud is just a fraud masquerading as a Catholic
to try and lend credence to his own self-derived false doctrines.

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

They REJECTED the Protestant KJV from the very beginning, and they don't
use the NIV either, as there is NO CATHOLIC VERSION OF IT, so they
COULDN'T use it.

Caught ya, fraud...

Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 14, 3:34 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/2012 6:02 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>> The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
> >>> become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
> >>> English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
> >>> seem.
>
> >> And the blind continue to try and lead the blind.
>

> [yawn and snip the rhetorical.........snip.............

> >> One fool says Lazarus wasn't resurrected (against Catholic doctrine).
>

> [yawn and snip the rhetorical......snip...............

So are you a Catholic or just one of the fools you keep bring us, with
out facts, just rhetorical ........

> >> The other fool refuses to acknowledge that there are TWO types of
> >> resurrections documented in the Bible.
>
> > What number are you betting on to be correct, could it be THREE, Most
> > believe in only ONE as Jesus only rose once, no matter what the
> > Islamic folks say.
>
> And when we finally do get a reply, it's absolutely absurd.

You can not even reply to the reply, that is absolutely absurd only in
you cult false teaching do you have any kind of false answer and that
has nothing to do with your BULL or absolutely absurd silly remarks.

>
> There are TWO kinds of resurrections (and, hence, two kinds of death)
> documented in scripture--temporal to temporal (only to die again later),
> and temporal to eternal.

No there is only ONE resurrection and that is and others came back to
life from the dead, and died later.
No one agrees with you, and when history or records show your wrong,
all you do is insult them with one of your foul terms, which really
shows the kind of person you are by the language you use.

> LAZARUS death was temporal to temporal--he died again at the hands of
> the Sanhedrin, which was trying to quash Jesus' miracle.

Your remarks are those of the unlearned and idiotic to the extreme.
and then act like you made a point when the point would be, how
unlearned can one be, to think you made a point. So now it is the
Sanhedrin why not the woman on the street, or the child in the toy
shop?

Since you brought in the Moran again to mock the truth, I just snip it
out, as a insult to Jesus and a insult to yourself.

Dr. R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

If you took time to look up the word "Trinity" you would see, I never
deny God, "Trinity. The union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in
one Godhead"

I believe in God! Not just a doctrine written in 325AD for the
Catholic Church. I have no problem with the word Trinity as I know
the meaning of it and like above I believe it. I also can sing "Holy,
Holy, Holy Lord God Almighty God in three persons blessed Trinity".

I wonder If you and that H. E. guy, is the same because of the way
you like to use trinity or and say every thing is 3 in you book, if
you see the Trinity singing Trinity with the three HOLY, above then 3
again with Lord, God, Almighty, as well as three persons so the
trinity, Trinity in trinity blessed trinity. Sound like something you
would do. Check out the doctrine of the Trinity in the Methodist
doctrine and I am still a Methodist and follow its teachings on these
matters. As for you antichristian, unbelievers like you would fit,
as well as Muslims and Buddhist, as well as Hindus also call the
Atheist and Communist as antichristian. Your a joke to call
Christians that stupid name because it only makes you more of a liar
and people here can see that as facts. In Dallas Texas, the trash
pick up company is called TRINITY as well as some lakes and rivers,
now pagan use to worship such places as the tree, water, and so on.
The President of the Bible College I attended for four years, was the
Pastor of the Trinity Church in San Antonio, Texas for years.

R. Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 14, 3:38 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/2012 11:57 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 4:48 pm, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/13/2012 4:09 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 8/30/2012 9:33 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Your problem is that history has recorded it, and the head man would
> >>>>>>> of been the Pope of that day.  They called them Heretics and burned
> >>>>>>> many of them on a post in the market so all could see what happens to
> >>>>>>> anyone that does not obey the church.
>
> >>>>>> Yes, and then the beast Calvin rose up and did the same thing, polluting
> >>>>>> the Reformation with his lies and hypocrisy.
>
> >>>>> So now you only call him a "beast" that is silly. You prove nothing.
>
> >>>> Notice no rebuttal of the facts.
>
> >>> You had no fact,  Calvin is his name, you call him "the beast" I
> >>> rebuttal that as it is not a fact, it is your lie.
>
> >> Nope. It's a fact. Calvin was an antichristian beast who delivered the
> >> Protestant movement right back into the hands of the tyranny from which
> >> Luther sought escape.
>
> > Who's facts are they,
>
> The worlds.
>
> > give a reference and history that list the
> > documents that say what you did here.
>
> All one has to do is go look up "Calvin" and "Geneva," and they'll get
> all the facts they need.

I dare say none of them called Calvin the beast and other foul terms
you so love to let out of your heart to say.
I also see not one reference or document that you would of used to
support your foul tongue.

>
> > You cannot as such is all your

> > made up terms and has nothing to establishes your false statuettes here.

>
> I've made no false statements here, cultist.

You just did make a false statement as you do so often calling people
"cultist" because most belong to establish churches, which even the
RCC is a member of that group.

> It's just plain history.

Yes it is clear that even plain history you have nothing to support
you view as it is one no one accepts here.

>
> [snippeth the rhetorical bull...........] Do you enjoy playing with that bull as it would explain your foul and vulgar mouth.
]
>
> Ike

What happen everyone now knows your teaching is not worth the money
use to pushish it, and now you ran away and stoped advertizing it
here?

Thanks.

[eickman3]

On 9/14/2012 5:06 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 14, 3:34 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On 9/13/2012 6:02 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>>> The dictionary shows that "resurrected" is the same as "Cause to
>>>>> become alive again" So yes Laz was also resurrected. It is what the
>>>>> English word says, and so it is so, You are not too smart it would
>>>>> seem.
>>
>>>> And the blind continue to try and lead the blind.
>>
>> [yawn and snip the rhetorical.........snip.............
>
>>>> One fool says Lazarus wasn't resurrected (against Catholic doctrine).
>>
>> [yawn and snip the rhetorical......snip...............
>
> So are you a Catholic or just one of the fools you keep bring us, with
> out facts, just rhetorical ........

Now try writing a coherent sentence this time.

>>>> The other fool refuses to acknowledge that there are TWO types of
>>>> resurrections documented in the Bible.
>>
>>> What number are you betting on to be correct, could it be THREE, Most
>>> believe in only ONE as Jesus only rose once, no matter what the
>>> Islamic folks say.
>>
>> And when we finally do get a reply, it's absolutely absurd.
>
> You can not even reply to the reply, that is absolutely absurd only in
> you cult false teaching do you have any kind of false answer and that
> has nothing to do with your BULL or absolutely absurd silly remarks.

As usual, lots of rhetorical bullshit, but no substance.

>> There are TWO kinds of resurrections (and, hence, two kinds of death)
>> documented in scripture--temporal to temporal (only to die again later),
>> and temporal to eternal.
>

> No there is only ONE resurrection...

And the moron continues to argue by assertion, never mind what the facts
are, and the facts are that there are TWO kinds of resurrection
described in the Bible, as anyone can plainly see--temporal to termoral,
and temporal to eternal.

But the fool doth prattle on, and on, and on..

>> LAZARUS death was temporal to temporal--he died again at the hands of
>> the Sanhedrin, which was trying to quash Jesus' miracle.
>
> Your remarks are those of the unlearned and idiotic to the extreme.

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

Some "Doctor."

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/14/2012 6:03 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 14, 3:36 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/13/2012 6:29 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It looks like lke has lost his mind, posting what he thinks in public
>>> above.
>>
>> Oh, so now you're NOT denying the Trinity, antichristian?
>

> If you took time to look up the word "Trinity" you would see...

More rhetorical bullshit.

> I believe in God!

You don't even know Him, cultist.

Otherwise, you could hear the Word, and you can't.

"In the Beginning was the Word" = Jesus is Jesus.

"And the Word was with God" = Jesus is related to God.

"And the Word was God" = Jesus is God.

This is what the Word says; then ignorant little one-digit mental
midgets like you come along and try to reduce complex three-dimensional
equations into one-dimensional doctrines, dumbing down the Word instead
of rising up to Him.

Ike

[eickman3]

> I dare say none of them called Calvin the beast...

God does.

>>> You cannot as such is all your
>>> made up terms and has nothing to establishes your false statuettes here.
>>
>> I've made no false statements here, cultist.
>
> You just did make a false statement as you do so often calling people
> "cultist" because most belong to establish churches, which even the
> RCC is a member of that group.

LOL

What you call yourself doesn't make it "an established church," cultist.

According to your logic, the JWs, Mormons, Armstrongians, etc, etc,
would be "established churches," when, in fact, there are yours are "cults."

>> It's just plain history.
>
> Yes it is clear that even plain history you have nothing to support
> you view as it is one no one accepts here.

And how many people from a REAL established church have you seen around
here lately?

Answer: NONE.

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

ld

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

Coherent would be something you could learn to do, but first you must
be coherent or you get what you sow in return.

>
> >>>> The other fool refuses to acknowledge that there are TWO types of
> >>>> resurrections documented in the Bible.
>
> >>> What number are you betting on to be correct, could it be THREE, Most
> >>> believe in only ONE as Jesus only rose once, no matter what the
> >>> Islamic folks say.
>
> >> And when we finally do get a reply, it's absolutely absurd.
>
> > You can not even reply to the reply, that is absolutely absurd only in
> > you cult false teaching do you have any kind of false answer and that
> > has nothing to do with your BULL or absolutely absurd silly remarks.
>

> As usual, lots of rhetorical [snip], but no substance.

Then others would disagree with you as they so often do here.

> >> There are TWO kinds of resurrections (and, hence, two kinds of death)
> >> documented in scripture--temporal to temporal (only to die again later),
> >> and temporal to eternal.
>
> > No there is only ONE resurrection...
>
> And the moron continues to argue by assertion, never mind what the facts
> are, and the facts are that there are TWO kinds of resurrection
> described in the Bible, as anyone can plainly see--temporal to termoral,
> and temporal to eternal.

Then you again Mr. Moron for posting such foolish lies, as you really
do not use facts, but claim you do. As we all can plainly see is your
explanation is only seen in your mind, as you have wrote about
historians were wrong because they do not agree with you, then who
would?

This is a strange way to address yourself here, then you should know
that you are "the moron" like you just wrote above. So we will have
to accept that Mr. Moron. I like the facts, only what you call facts
is what the moron would do,as they are false and have no foundation in
reality.

>
> But the fool doth prattle on, and on, and on..

Yes you must learn not to not to speak about unimportant matters as
the term prattle implies.

>
> Some "Doctor."

I think so as does others, thank you, sorry someone could not call you
such.

Thank you also for not linking your messages to your book sale and now
hide it from view.

Dr. R Knapp

[eickman3]

On 9/15/2012 1:11 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
> On Sep 15, 5:12 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/14/2012 5:06 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>>
> ld
>>>> [yawn and snip the rhetorical......snip...............
>>
>>> So are you a Catholic or just one of the fools you keep bring us, with
>>> out facts, just rhetorical ........
>>
>> Now try writing a coherent sentence this time.
>
> Coherent would be something you could learn to do, but first you must
> be coherent or you get what you sow in return.

I was offered two graduate fellowships based on my writing. I read and
write just fine.

You, however, demonstrate that you're no "Dr." You don't even display
the skills of an undergraduate.

Guess that's why the state of Texas pulled the plug on your "college."

>>>>>> The other fool refuses to acknowledge that there are TWO types of
>>>>>> resurrections documented in the Bible.
>>
>>>>> What number are you betting on to be correct, could it be THREE, Most
>>>>> believe in only ONE as Jesus only rose once, no matter what the
>>>>> Islamic folks say.
>>
>>>> And when we finally do get a reply, it's absolutely absurd.
>>
>>> You can not even reply to the reply, that is absolutely absurd only in
>>> you cult false teaching do you have any kind of false answer and that
>>> has nothing to do with your BULL or absolutely absurd silly remarks.
>>
>> As usual, lots of rhetorical [snip], but no substance.
>
> Then others would disagree with you as they so often do here.

The "others" disagree because they're as ignorant, if not more so, than
you; and there is hardly a person from a legitimate church left on these
boards. It's just one "Sardine" cultist after another, inventing their
own perverse brands of Christianity which have nothing to do with Christ.

>>>> There are TWO kinds of resurrections (and, hence, two kinds of death)
>>>> documented in scripture--temporal to temporal (only to die again later),
>>>> and temporal to eternal.
>>
>>> No there is only ONE resurrection...
>>
>> And the moron continues to argue by assertion, never mind what the facts
>> are, and the facts are that there are TWO kinds of resurrection
>> described in the Bible, as anyone can plainly see--temporal to termoral,
>> and temporal to eternal.
>
> Then you again Mr. Moron for posting such foolish lies

Exactly what I'm talking about.

NO proofs; only assertions.

There are NUMEROUS examples of people being raised from stasis back to
MORTAL lives, like the first example pertaining to Elijah, or Tabatha,
or Lazarus.

Then we Christ being raised to eternal glory, as He promises to His
followers.

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

[snip some more rhetorical bullshit]

>> But the fool doth prattle on, and on, and on..

[snip some more rhetorical bullshit]

>> Some "Doctor."
>
> I think...

You've yet to demonstrate that.

[snip the last of the rhetorical bullshit]

Ike

[duke]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:28:39 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 9/14/2012 11:32 AM, duke wrote:
>
>[snippeth]
>
>> The language of the kjv is very difficult to follow. So I use one that is very
>> simple to understand and says the same thing.

>Here is more proof that dud is just a fraud masquerading as a Catholic
>to try and lend credence to his own self-derived false doctrines.

Well, here you are as a fraud masquerading as one knowledgeable of the bible.
All you know is the literature. You don't have a clue about what God says.

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

And?

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

Now what are you ranting about? I use the NIV because of it's simplicity of
language, just like I stay away form the kjv because no body in his right mind
speaks that way today.

>Caught ya, fraud...
>Ike

The mirror gotcha.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

Yes all that Bullxxxxx does point our your false teachings and lies,
Satan is using you and all you have is nothing left, then you had
nothing to start with that was truth facts. We do Notice how evil was
all you had and you and Satan both hate the church and what God is
doing to bless His children, which you are not one.

Nice to see your confession Ike, we know you will try to use that Bull
as your excuse. Then may the readers see, just how evil you are and
this post of yours prove it. Thanks.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 14, 3:34 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/13/2012 6:02 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:> >> And the blind continue to try and lead the blind.

>
> [yawn and snip the rhetorical bullshit]

The a real Christian would never use such language, so we know what
follows, as God is not that persons teacher.

>
> [yawn and snip the rhetorical bullshit]

Now all can see, this person has a problem not only with the mouth but
with his so called teachings.

> >> The other fool refuses to acknowledge that there are TWO types of
> >> resurrections documented in the Bible.

As I said this person seem to think Jesus rose from the dead but still
has another TYPE of resurrection.

>
> > What number are you betting on to be correct, could it be THREE, Most
> > believe in only ONE as Jesus only rose once, no matter what the
> > Islamic folks say.
>
> And when we finally do get a reply, it's absolutely absurd.

See if he gets a reply he lies and want you to believe his lies and
all else is "absolutely absurd" which fits his teachings all the way.
Look forward to more Bull here, as that is only one of his vulgar
terms.

> JESUS death was temporal to eternal, as it was, is, and will be at the
> resurrections.

This person can not accept what the Bible says, and runs like craze to
make it mean what he wants, and if shown he is wrong, he loves that
Bull again and that is his answers. Believe his lies or you get the
Bullxxxxx silly remarks.

>
> Now, these are the facts; and you'll get no rebuttal of these facts from
> the moron.

Oh yes readers you are wrong or he will call you that nasty name
"moron" again showing his non-christian silly replies.

> Just more rhetorical bullshit.

Like I said his uneducated answers to anyone that is right and has a
answer to his false teachings are all full of his bull stuff. Maybe
he should move back to the farm.

Thanks for your post.

R. Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

Well since I am not a antichristian, you should address your reply to
the one you think your replying to.
I have always said as the Bible says God is the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost, which all true believers confess, be they Catholic or
Protestant Then I checked the word "trinity" and found this is what it
says which is "The union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one
Godhead". I do not deny the Trinity as it is only a name for the
doctrine that I believe in and is above God is the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost/Spirit. Which you seem to have a problem with. I can post
the teachings on the Trinity from 325AD and up to now.

>
> [snippeth the usual rhetorical bullshit]

See folks again all this guy has is his Bull waste, and thinks he can
say such like a child would and it is suppose to be the answer to all
his lies making them true. A true lie, like a oxymoron.

Dr. R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

> > made up terms and has nothing to establish your false statements here.

>
> I've made no false statements here, cultist.

Well again you proved you are able to give false statements without
thinking what you said, since you are the cultist, to say other wise
is another lie of yours. The point I made from your post was calling
Calvin the BEAST. Now he says you can check that out with the
documents, only not a one of them uses that word BEAST in relationship
to Calvin, that is your false teaching and which you said, and I
pointed out, you make up your own doctrine and then if one does not
accept your lies they are either a cultist or full of Bullxxxxxx.

> It's just plain history.

Which if anyone looks that up will not find that Calvin is that
"BEAST". Now look again he used this BULL stuff to show all of us,
that is his mental problem which he denies with his "rhetorical" trash
the believer.

>
> [snippeth the rhetorical bullshit]
>
> Ike

So again Ike thanks for the opportunity to reply.

R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 14, 11:32 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:25:06 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> My words come right out of the bible.  Do you own one?
> >> >> >No I own a lot more and in versions and also in Chinese and a few
> >> >> >other languages.
>
> >> >> But they all say the same thing.  You're one of those Thomas "doubters" that
> >> >> thinks they can find a better message in another bible.
>
> >> >Then they do not all say the same, try the Chinese Then a doubter
> >> >does check things out and that is a good thing.
>
> >> If the china version says something different, the china version is in error.
>
> >Oh my you have no education in Chinese
>
> That's not only right, but perfectly fine with.  Being an American, English
> works perfectly well for me.
>
> >and plain ignorant of foreign
> >Bibles, by such a remark, you again show your word is not to be
> >trusted.
>
> A bible that doesn't agree is a bible from the devil.

Now you sound like the Pope of old that tried to kill the writers of
the KJV and even till the late 50s that only the Catholic Bible was
true. Then Chinese is another language as is the Spanish bible and
many more they do not agree as they do not use English, and English
was not even a Bible language, now Latin was for a long time, and some
MASS still has permission to use Latin, even if it only agrees with
itself.

>
> >> >Then like you have said before You like the NIV and not the KJV so you
> >> >do the same thing till you find another bible.
> >> They all say the same thing.
> >Then why did you make a big deal out of people using the KJV and
> >pointed out what you used in many post as the NIV.   So when you are
> >shown in public your doctrines you even dismiss your own remarks.
>
> The language of the kjv is very difficult to follow.   So I use one that is very
> simple to understand and says the same thing.
>

Only to them that are not educated or wants to take the time to
understand the one Bible that has reached all parts of the World and
is still number one in sales. I just went out and purchased one and
what do you know it is not difficult at all to follow. It does show
the teachings of the Catholic Church in many errors as being wrong.
So for a Catholic, maybe you do not want to get intelligence and learn
something. That is up to you. Now the simple ones, like the NIV has
even cut out verses and reworded terms that does not honor God or the
Church, it is simple for the simple minded. Nice confession.

> The dukester, American - American

thank you Duke.

R Knapp

[duke]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwk...@aim.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 14, 11:32 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:25:06 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> >> My words come right out of the bible.  Do you own one?
>> >> >> >No I own a lot more and in versions and also in Chinese and a few
>> >> >> >other languages.
>>
>> >> >> But they all say the same thing.  You're one of those Thomas "doubters" that
>> >> >> thinks they can find a better message in another bible.
>>
>> >> >Then they do not all say the same, try the Chinese Then a doubter
>> >> >does check things out and that is a good thing.
>>
>> >> If the china version says something different, the china version is in error.
>>
>> >Oh my you have no education in Chinese
>>
>> That's not only right, but perfectly fine with.  Being an American, English
>> works perfectly well for me.
>>
>> >and plain ignorant of foreign
>> >Bibles, by such a remark, you again show your word is not to be
>> >trusted.
>>
>> A bible that doesn't agree is a bible from the devil.
>
>Now you sound like the Pope of old that tried to kill the writers of
>the KJV and even till the late 50s that only the Catholic Bible was
>true.

Nope, never. The kjv is a translation form a prior bible into old English. Only
stupid people believe bibles say different things. It's an invalid bible if it
does.

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

>Only to them that are not educated or wants to take the time to
>understand the one Bible that has reached all parts of the World and
>is still number one in sales.

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

> I just went out and purchased one and
>what do you know it is not difficult at all to follow.

It's crap for it's language style.

> It does show
>the teachings of the Catholic Church in many errors as being wrong.

If it disagrees with the Catholic Version, your kjv is in error. You boy lut
didn't come along until 400 years ago. The Apostles were the first Catholics
from 2000 years ago.

The dukester, American - American

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 14, 3:31 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes it does look like you have nothing left, you used your "Bull"
toilet five times in this post alone. You have nothing to offer but
that and I have no argument, if you want to play with that bull and
other Obscene term for feces. You prove to all, nothing you say or do
is important and what you do push here is evil and not what a true
believer would ever do. The point is you full of vulgar remarks and
you do not reply to that point, only show that Satan is also evil and
he would also use the terms you do. So to the reader your fruits show
who you are with and that nothing you say, is acceptable or truthful.
We look forward to your reply if you could give one, but with all the
Bull stuff, the toilet would be the best place for it to end up in.

R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Some "Doctor."

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

>
> [snippeth the rhetorical bullshit]
>
> Ike

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 16, 11:04 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/15/2012 1:11 PM, Dr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> > On Sep 15, 5:12 am, eickman3 <hermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/14/2012 5:06 PM, Mr. R. Knapp wrote:
>
> > ld
> >>>> [yawn and snip the rhetorical......snip...............
>
> >>> So are you a Catholic or just one of the fools you keep bring us, with
> >>> out facts, just rhetorical ........
>
> >> Now try writing a coherent sentence this time.
>
> > Coherent would be something you could learn to do, but first you must
> > be coherent or you get what you sow in return.
>
> I was offered two graduate fellowships based on my writing. I read and
> write just fine.

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

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

> NO proofs; only assertions.

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

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

Again you write about yourself and even the cultist you keep referring
to, is really only yourself, one person one member, makes one
cultist. Now your reply is your Bull again, that shows just how
uneducated you really are.

>
> [snip some more rhetorical bullshit]
>
[snip some more rhetorical bullshit]
>

> [snip the last of the rhetorical bullshit]
>
> Ike

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 16, 6:02 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. R. Knapp" <rwkn...@aim.com>

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

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

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

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

English.

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

If you need to use the crapper, please do.

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

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

On Sep 16, 6:02 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

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

> Frankly, old English is crap.  Nobody spakes that way.  I like one that uses
> good English.
>
> >  I just went out and purchased one and
> >what do you know it is not difficult at all to follow.
>
> It's crap for it's language style.
>
> >  It does show
> >the teachings of the Catholic Church in many errors as being wrong.
>
> If it disagrees with the Catholic Version, your kjv is in error.  You boy lut
> didn't come along until 400 years ago.  The Apostles were the first Catholics
> from 2000 years ago.

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


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

[eickman3]

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

You, on the other hand, excel at them.

Ike

[eickman3]

On 9/16/2012 2:31 PM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:28:39 -0400, eickman3 <hermanei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/14/2012 11:32 AM, duke wrote:
>>
>> [snippeth]
>>
>>> The language of the kjv is very difficult to follow. So I use one that is very
>>> simple to understand and says the same thing.
>
>> Here is more proof that dud is just a fraud masquerading as a Catholic
>> to try and lend credence to his own self-derived false doctrines.
>
> Well, here you are as a fraud masquerading as one knowledgeable of the bible.
> All you know is the literature. You don't have a clue about what God says.

You wish.

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

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

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

Notice how the facts are a "rant."

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

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

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

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

And there's no Catholic version of the NIV.

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

They would NEVER use the KJV or NIV.

Caught ya, fraud.

Ike

[eickman3]

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

[snip the usual rhetorical bullshit]

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

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

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

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

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

I've told no lies, moron.

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

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

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

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

[snippeth the rhetorical bullshit]

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

Still nothing presented except rhetorical bullshit.

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

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

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

Ike

[eickman3]

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

This is called tap dancing around the facts, folks.

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

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

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

[eickman3]

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

[snippeth]

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

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

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

Some "Dr."

You can't even read.

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

Ike

[eickman3]

[snippeth]

Yadi, yadi, yadi.

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

Ike

[eickman3]

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

...nothing of any significance.

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

Ike

[eickman3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

As RIGHT AS A INSANE PERSON IN A MENTAL WARD.

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

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

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


>
> Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

R Knapp

[duke]

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

wrote:

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

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

[duke]

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

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

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

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

[duke]

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

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

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

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

[eickman3]

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

[snippeth]

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

LOL

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

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

Now THAT'S the epitome of insanity.

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

[snip the usual rhetorical bullshit]

Ike

[eickman3]

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

Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

What a Christian you are not!

[eickman3]

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

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

[yawn and snip]

Ike

[eickman3]

Only in fact, cultist.

[snip more bullshit argument by assertion]

Ike

[eickman3]

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

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

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

[yawn and snip]

Ike

[eickman3]

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

[snip the ad hominem attacks in lieu of argument]

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

[snip the ad hominem attack in lieu of argument]

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

[yawn and snip]

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

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

[snip the rhetorical bullshit]

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

> Read my replies...

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

[snip the usual rhetorical bullshit]

Ike

[eickman3]

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

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

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

> is "the beast Calvin"...

What an illiterate idiot.

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

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

Ike

[eickman3]

Apparently not.

[snippeth]

Ike

[eickman3]

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

[yawn and snip]

Ike

[eickman3]

...said the cultist.

Ike

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

What a waste of time.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

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

>
> [snip the usual rhetorical bullshit]

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

[eickman3]

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

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

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

Ike

[eickman3]

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

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

Ike

[eickman3]

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

Yep.

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

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

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

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

[snip the usual satanic false accusations]

Ike

[duke]

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

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

No it was not idiot!

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

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

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

> Ike

Dr R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> [snip the usual satanic false accusations]

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

[eickman3]

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

> Your insults and false information...

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

[yawn and snip]

Ike

[eickman3]

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

Ike

[eickman3]

LOL

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

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

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

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

Some "Dr." you are.

Ike

[eickman3]

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

[yawn and snip]

Ike

[duke]

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

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

I gave that answer on Aug 24.

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

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

[duke]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a tool.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor R Knapp

[eickman3]

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

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

LOL

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

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

Yes.

[snip the usual satanic false accusations]

Ike

[eickman3]

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

[snippeth]

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

That's bullshit.

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

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

Ike

[duke]

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

See, still no knowledge of God.

[duke]

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

And again you reflect zero knowledge of God.

[duke]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

> [yawn and snip]
>
>

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

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> Some "Dr." you are.,

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

Dr. R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

>
> [yawn and snip]
>
> Ike

Pastor R Knapp

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

[eickman3]

...said the empty religionist.

Go figure.

Ike

[eickman3]

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

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

Ike

[eickman3]

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


...nothing of any significance, as usual.

Ike

[eickman3]

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

[snip the no reply reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some "Dr."

>> Some "Dr." you are.,

[snip another no reply reply]

Ike

[eickman3]

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

[yawn and snip yet another no reply reply]

Ike

[duke]

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

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

[duke]

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

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

>Ike

[duke]

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

wrote:

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

Come back after you go to school.

[Dr. R. Knapp]

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

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

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

> > No it was not idiot!

You really need to stop addressing yourself here.

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

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