Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
May the Lord reveal this to you.
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Michael Christ
May 21, 2012, 5:17:47 AM5/21/12
to
Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
in you.
Michael Christ
not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
in you.
Michael Christ
duke
May 21, 2012, 3:34:22 PM5/21/12
to
duke - American American
*****
2012 - end of an error
Vote Republican in 2012
*****
Michael Christ
May 21, 2012, 6:04:51 PM5/21/12
to
Michael Christ wrote:
> >Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> >not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> >in you.
> >Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> >not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> >in you.
Duke wrote:
> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
'Is' is what it is.
> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
The real point being is that unless you haven't come to the reality
there is NO GOOD THING in you, not a thought, not a feeling, not an
ideal, nothing, no good thing, you cannot come into true repentance.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
May 21, 2012, 6:57:38 PM5/21/12
to
>Michael Christ
=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
God is a spirit. 0% proof!
duke
May 22, 2012, 7:34:13 AM5/22/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Michael Christ wrote:
>> >Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>> >not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>> >in you.
>
>Duke wrote:
>> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
>
>'Is' is what it is.
Nope, "in" is what it is.
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Michael Christ wrote:
>> >Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>> >not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>> >in you.
>
>Duke wrote:
>> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
>
>'Is' is what it is.
>The real point being is that unless you haven't come to the reality
>there is NO GOOD THING in you, not a thought, not a feeling, not an
>ideal, nothing, no good thing, you cannot come into true repentance.
to overcome. Jesus showed us the way to salvation is love and obedience to
God. If you follow Jesus in his example, you're doing good. If you don't,
sell your winter clothes.
To repent is to acknowledge our sin nature and to make the **efforts** to
overcome our sinful human desires contrary to God's goodness.
Michael Christ
May 22, 2012, 6:25:19 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 9:34 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Michael Christ wrote:
> >> >Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> >> >not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> >> >in you.
Duke wrote:
> >> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
> >Michael Christ wrote:
> >> >Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> >> >not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> >> >in you.
Duke wrote:
> >> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
Michael Christ wrote:
>'Is' is what it is.
>'Is' is what it is.
Duke wrote:
>Nope, "in" is what it is.
You 'think' before but now you know? Why? Because it opposes
>Nope, "in" is what it is.
me? :-).
In...the fallen man IS all sin.
Michael Christ wrote:
> >The real point being is that unless you haven't come to the reality
> >there is NO GOOD THING in you, not a thought, not a feeling, not an
> >ideal, nothing, no good thing, you cannot come into true repentance.
Duke wrote:
> Wrong again. We are born with a sin nature, the very thing God calls us to work
> to overcome.
Your work can never overcome it, and it hasn't.
> Wrong again. We are born with a sin nature, the very thing God calls us to work
> to overcome.
I notice whatever religion it is, Anglican, Jehovah's Witness,
Catholic, Mormons, Baptist...etc,. even though they claim it is faith,
it ALWAYS boils down to human works based salvation. Which of course
is the way of man...self-righteousness.
Duke wrote:
> Jesus showed us the way to salvation is love and obedience to
> God.
Light and dark have no fellowship. New wine goes in new wine skins.
A square peg does not go into a round hole.
Duke wrote:
> If you follow Jesus in his example, you're doing good. If you don't,
> sell your winter clothes.
obedience.
Duke wrote:
>To repent is to acknowledge our sin nature
Duke wrote:
>and to make the **efforts**
pleases you?
Duke wrote:
>to overcome our sinful human desires contrary to God's goodness.
more than inept impotent religious jargon.
You don't know what true repentance is.
All you are doing is pumping out more of the same old 'foot on the
pier foot on the boat' SET YOUR OWN STANDARD fallen nature doctrine.
The Lord has had thousands of years watching men do what is right in
their own eyes; it will certainly come to an abrupt end.
This is the reality...
"Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
in you."
and contrite heart of a man, then God will surely surely take that man
seriously, and as surely as the Lord
lives.................HE.................will do something about it in
that man's life!!!
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
May 22, 2012, 6:30:52 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
(snip)
And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
Why do you think that was so??
Michael Christ
(snip)
And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
Why do you think that was so??
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
May 23, 2012, 6:20:15 AM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>(snip)
>
>And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>
>Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
Did you know Jesus did not exist?
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>(snip)
>
>And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>
>Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>Why do you think that was so??
duke
May 23, 2012, 7:43:23 AM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 22, 9:34 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>
>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Michael Christ wrote:
>> >> >Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>> >> >not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>> >> >in you.
>
>Duke wrote:
>> >> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
>
>Michael Christ wrote:
>>'Is' is what it is.
>
>Duke wrote:
>>Nope, "in" is what it is.
>
>You 'think' before but now you know? Why? Because it opposes
>me? :-).
That's a sound bet on my part.
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 22, 9:34 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>
>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Michael Christ wrote:
>> >> >Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>> >> >not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>> >> >in you.
>
>Duke wrote:
>> >> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
>
>Michael Christ wrote:
>>'Is' is what it is.
>
>Duke wrote:
>>Nope, "in" is what it is.
>
>You 'think' before but now you know? Why? Because it opposes
>me? :-).
>In...the fallen man IS all sin.
20:22-23.
>Michael Christ wrote:
>> >The real point being is that unless you haven't come to the reality
>> >there is NO GOOD THING in you, not a thought, not a feeling, not an
>> >ideal, nothing, no good thing, you cannot come into true repentance.
>Duke wrote:
>> Wrong again. We are born with a sin nature, the very thing God calls us to work
>> to overcome.
>Your work can never overcome it, and it hasn't.
>I notice whatever religion it is, Anglican, Jehovah's Witness,
>Catholic, Mormons, Baptist...etc,. even though they claim it is faith,
>it ALWAYS boils down to human works based salvation. Which of course
>is the way of man...self-righteousness.
Jesus to follow him that is salvation based
>Duke wrote:
>> Jesus showed us the way to salvation is love and obedience to
>> God.
>You can't love and obey while being loveless and disobedient.
>Light and dark have no fellowship. New wine goes in new wine skins.
>A square peg does not go into a round hole.
use.
>Duke wrote:
>> If you follow Jesus in his example, you're doing good. If you don't,
>> sell your winter clothes.
>You are not following Jesus' example, you have to be ALL love and
>obedience.
>Duke wrote:
>>To repent is to acknowledge our sin nature
>That's nice of you. Really, wonderful.
>Duke wrote:
>>and to make the **efforts**
>Oh really, how much...a little, moderate amount, a lot, or whatever
>pleases you?
>Duke wrote:
>>to overcome our sinful human desires contrary to God's goodness.
>That last sentence of yours, be it broken into sections, is nothing
>more than inept impotent religious jargon.
follow him. He'll decide our acceptability, not we of ourselves.
>You don't know what true repentance is.
>All you are doing is pumping out more of the same old 'foot on the
>pier foot on the boat' SET YOUR OWN STANDARD fallen nature doctrine.
>The Lord has had thousands of years watching men do what is right in
>their own eyes; it will certainly come to an abrupt end.
call.
>This is the reality...
>"Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>in you."
man not sinful, I must strive to repent, pick up, and follow. Jesus will judge
my effort and your effort.
>However, when such a confession is made through the rent and broken
>and contrite heart of a man, then God will surely surely take that man
>seriously, and as surely as the Lord
>lives.................HE.................will do something about it in
>that man's life!!!
>Michael Christ
Michael Christ
May 23, 2012, 6:13:54 PM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 8:20 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >(snip)
>
> >On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >(snip)
>
Michael Christ wrote:
> >And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
> >than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>
> >Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
> >prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
> >And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
> >than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>
> >Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
> >prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
Barry wrote:
> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
Amazingly popular for a person you say did not exist, especially those
> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
who are less inclined to think of themselves as greater than they are.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
May 23, 2012, 11:12:09 PM5/23/12
to
Michael Christ wrote:
>Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>in you.
Duke wrote:
>He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
Michael Christ wrote:
>'Is' is what it is.
Duke wrote:
>Nope, "in" is what it is.
>Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>in you.
Duke wrote:
>He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
Michael Christ wrote:
>'Is' is what it is.
Duke wrote:
>Nope, "in" is what it is.
Michael Christ wrote:
>You 'think' before but now you know? Why? Because it opposes
>me? :-).
>You 'think' before but now you know? Why? Because it opposes
>me? :-).
Duke wrote:
>That's a sound bet on my part.
Well let it be according to your bet; there is no point in me
>That's a sound bet on my part.
discussing anything any further.
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
May 24, 2012, 4:22:07 AM5/24/12
to
Michael Christ
May 24, 2012, 6:14:02 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 6:22 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 23, 8:20 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >(snip)
>
> >Michael Christ wrote:
> >> >And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
> >> >than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>
> >> >Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
> >> >prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>
> >Barry wrote:
> >> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 23, 8:20 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >(snip)
>
> >Michael Christ wrote:
> >> >And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
> >> >than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>
> >> >Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
> >> >prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>
> >Barry wrote:
> >> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
Michael Christ wrote:
> >Amazingly popular for a person you say did not exist, especially those
> >who are less inclined to think of themselves as greater than they are.
> >Amazingly popular for a person you say did not exist, especially those
> >who are less inclined to think of themselves as greater than they are.
Barry wrote:
> Harry Potter is amazingly popular too.
Non sequitur. History (past and future) annihilates Mr Potter.
> Harry Potter is amazingly popular too.
He is an unknown compared to Jesus, you wouldn't have even have known
about little Harry a few short years ago.
And a few short years from now Harry will be washed away down the
stream with endless other worldly whims.
But not Jesus. :-).
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
May 24, 2012, 6:51:33 AM5/24/12
to
Michael Christ
May 24, 2012, 7:03:18 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 8:51 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:14:02 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 24, 6:22 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 23, 8:20 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> >(snip)
>
> >> >Michael Christ wrote:
> >> >> >And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
> >> >> >than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>
> >> >> >Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
> >> >> >prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>
> >> >Barry wrote:
> >> >> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
> >Michael Christ wrote:
> >> >Amazingly popular for a person you say did not exist, especially those
> >> >who are less inclined to think of themselves as greater than they are.
>
> >Barry wrote:
> >> Harry Potter is amazingly popular too.
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:14:02 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 24, 6:22 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 23, 8:20 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> >(snip)
>
> >> >Michael Christ wrote:
> >> >> >And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
> >> >> >than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>
> >> >> >Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
> >> >> >prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>
> >> >Barry wrote:
> >> >> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
> >Michael Christ wrote:
> >> >Amazingly popular for a person you say did not exist, especially those
> >> >who are less inclined to think of themselves as greater than they are.
>
> >Barry wrote:
> >> Harry Potter is amazingly popular too.
Michael Christ wrote:
> >Non sequitur. History (past and future) annihilates Mr Potter.
>
> >He is an unknown compared to Jesus, you wouldn't have even have known
> >about little Harry a few short years ago.
>
> >And a few short years from now Harry will be washed away down the
> >stream with endless other worldly whims.
>
> >But not Jesus. :-).
> >Non sequitur. History (past and future) annihilates Mr Potter.
>
> >He is an unknown compared to Jesus, you wouldn't have even have known
> >about little Harry a few short years ago.
>
> >And a few short years from now Harry will be washed away down the
> >stream with endless other worldly whims.
>
> >But not Jesus. :-).
Barry wrote:
> Lack of historical records annihilates Jesus.
Oh well millions must be wrong then, and 3 years of teaching and
> Lack of historical records annihilates Jesus.
ministry 2000 years ago the persists today and will always persist
must be just luck or fluke.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
All the best Barry.
Michael Christ
"historian"
May 24, 2012, 9:54:00 AM5/24/12
to
Barry OGrady posited:
"Lack of historical records annihilates Jesus."
Barry OGrady
May 24, 2012, 10:09:50 AM5/24/12
to
Do you think you could use standard formatting?
Barry OGrady
May 24, 2012, 10:11:20 AM5/24/12
to
On 24 May 2012 13:57:40 GMT, "exist. test" wrote:
>Barry OGrady opined:
The lack of historical evidence.
>Silence is admission of having none.
Historical silence is the none that proves the fact.
Do you think you could use standard formatting?
>Barry OGrady opined:
>
>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
>Your historical proof for this if you please.
>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
The lack of historical evidence.
>Silence is admission of having none.
Historical silence is the none that proves the fact.
Do you think you could use standard formatting?
"exist tester"
May 24, 2012, 11:53:39 AM5/24/12
to
>Barry OGrady opined:
>
>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
>Your historical proof for this if you please.
The lack of historical evidence.
">Silence is admission of having none."
Hmm, are you sure you really want to go there?
>
>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
>Your historical proof for this if you please.
The lack of historical evidence.
">Silence is admission of having none."
We have 4 accounts of His life and death.
You would be very hard pressed to find anyone who studies this topic to
agree with you. Among scholars of all kinds about 60 years ago or so this
was popular among a minority. Since then scholars agree He was a
historical person.
It has been my experience that only the amateurs among atheists would even
propose this idea.
So what is it that you know and the experts don't?
"historian"
May 24, 2012, 11:57:08 AM5/24/12
to
>Barry OGrady posited:
>
>"Lack of historical records annihilates Jesus."
>
>Explain if you please.
"No historical records of Jesus."
There are at least 4 written accounts of His life and death.
>
>"Lack of historical records annihilates Jesus."
>
>Explain if you please.
"No historical records of Jesus."
There are others some propose, we don't need to go there.
It has been my experience that only the amateurs among atheists take this
position.
What do you know the experts don't?
duke
May 24, 2012, 12:15:42 PM5/24/12
to
highway" bunch.
"exist tester"
May 25, 2012, 9:44:42 AM5/25/12
to
Barry OGrady opined:
> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
Your historical proof for this if you please.
> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
Your historical proof for this if you please.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
May 25, 2012, 11:43:48 AM5/25/12
to
Lu 16:31 -And he said unto him,
If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead.
Who Moved The Stone? [Paperback]
Frank Morison (Author)
For Seekers & Skeptics, July 27, 1999
By StLuke...@aol.com (Dublin, Oh) - This review is from: Who Moved
the
Stone? (Paperback)
I've read many books on the historical reliability (and
unreliability)
of the New Testament; I've seen many educated opinions varying in
every way; I done studies many resurrections-centered topics; but
I've
never seen a book quite like this! Morrison takes nothing for
granted.
He trusts his instincts, and, though coming shy of any kind of
Biblical-Christian opinion, he beautifully defends the resurrection
in
this short examination. As a doubter I find it difficult to swallow
what many Christians take for granted in their own faith. This book
is
not like most. However, as a believer I was thrown by Morrison into
the last week of Jesus' life (and the following weeks) as I never
have
by any lecture or writing. Morrison brings to light many historical
details missed my so many people (including myself). He is easy to
read and difficult to put down.
To the skeptics: I was once a skeptic. It was not a brief reading of
one or two apologetic works that convinced me; instead, it was months
and months of hard research, with this book as one of the many
highlights. I encourage all to read this.
Morrison's book will forever remain one of my personal favorites.
Luke Gilkerson
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/dp/1850786747
The Case for the Resurrection:
A First-Century Investigative Reporter
Probes History's Pivotal Event [Paperback]
Lee Strobel (Author)
A Mighty Case for the Risen Christ, August 10, 2010
By Mike Robinson "Mike A Robinson: Apologetic An... (USA) -(TOP 1000
REVIEWER) (REAL NAME) This review is from: The Case for the
Resurrection: A First-Century Investigative Reporter Probes History's
Pivotal Event (Paperback)
Lee Strobel's "The Case for the Resurrection: A First-Century
Investigative Reporter Probes History's Pivotal Event," is a power-
packed booklet (almost 100 pages) that offers compelling evidence for
the resurrection of Jesus Christ. "The Case for the Resurrection" is
helpful and readable and makes a great evidential introduction for
this essential truth of Christianity.
This New book features:
Fresh insights from Lee Strobel's new "The Case for Christ Study
Bible," as the author covers the story of Christ rising from the
grave
from the Gospel of Luke with outstanding notes from "The Case for
Christ Study Bible." The proof is potent, the writing is engaging,
and
the author has a true passion for the subject.
Remember that the Apostles saw the risen Christ, touched the risen
Christ, and died tortuous deaths proclaiming its truth when all thy
had to do was deny it; yes many people die for lies, but no
collective, diverse group of people die for what they Know is a
complete lie.
Furthermore all known ancient documents that refer to the subject
report an empty tomb. Even though the manner in which one accepts or
rejects the evidence on the historicity of the ancient documents and
other papyrus is controlled by one's presuppositions, the facts are
mighty; the evidence is there, and is impressive, but there is an
important distinction between proof and persuasion.
Note the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is:
- 100's of eyewitnesses testified under the threat of death that they
saw the risen Jesus including 500 people at one time. All the
apostles, except one, died a horrible death knowing they saw Jesus
alive from the dead. 100's more died because they would not recant
the
fact that they saw the risen Jesus. Not one Apostle recanted to save
himself from a torturous death.
- Only Christianity offers over three hundred predictions written
down
before Christ came and fulfilled exactly, most of which could not
have
been self-fulfilled.
Only Christ offers a confirmed resurrection of a Savior to
demonstrate
His authority. (Greek & other pseudo-resurrection gods were not
historical figures, the only documents we have concerning the false
gods/myths are documents dated 100's of years after Christianity.
- The resurrection was proclaimed in Jerusalem where the trial,
crucifixion. and resurrection took place. If Jesus had not risen from
the dead, his enemies only had to produce this body and this new
religion that they hated would be terminated before it started.
- The conversion of Jesus' opponents to Christianity, including many
Jewish Priests and Pharisees can best be explained by the
resurrection
of Christ. The risen Jesus converted many of those who executed Him
because of the overwhelming evidence of His resurrection and His many
appearances through God's grace (Acts 6:7 & Acts 15:5).
- Jesus' tomb was secured and guarded by well trained Jewish and
Roman
guards. The tomb had a Roman seal on it to prevent tampering with the
threat of execution for breaking the seal, yet the tomb was empty.
Every ancient historical source that discusses the subject verifies
the tomb was empty.
- Ancient hostile sources and extra-Biblical writers record the same
facts of Christ's death and empty tomb. Additionally, the continuous
defense of the resurrection in front of Roman government officials
from Paul to Tertullian was unchallenged by Rome and all ancient
historians.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310949890/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_...
If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead.
Who Moved The Stone? [Paperback]
Frank Morison (Author)
For Seekers & Skeptics, July 27, 1999
By StLuke...@aol.com (Dublin, Oh) - This review is from: Who Moved
the
Stone? (Paperback)
I've read many books on the historical reliability (and
unreliability)
of the New Testament; I've seen many educated opinions varying in
every way; I done studies many resurrections-centered topics; but
I've
never seen a book quite like this! Morrison takes nothing for
granted.
He trusts his instincts, and, though coming shy of any kind of
Biblical-Christian opinion, he beautifully defends the resurrection
in
this short examination. As a doubter I find it difficult to swallow
what many Christians take for granted in their own faith. This book
is
not like most. However, as a believer I was thrown by Morrison into
the last week of Jesus' life (and the following weeks) as I never
have
by any lecture or writing. Morrison brings to light many historical
details missed my so many people (including myself). He is easy to
read and difficult to put down.
To the skeptics: I was once a skeptic. It was not a brief reading of
one or two apologetic works that convinced me; instead, it was months
and months of hard research, with this book as one of the many
highlights. I encourage all to read this.
Morrison's book will forever remain one of my personal favorites.
Luke Gilkerson
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/dp/1850786747
The Case for the Resurrection:
A First-Century Investigative Reporter
Probes History's Pivotal Event [Paperback]
Lee Strobel (Author)
A Mighty Case for the Risen Christ, August 10, 2010
By Mike Robinson "Mike A Robinson: Apologetic An... (USA) -(TOP 1000
REVIEWER) (REAL NAME) This review is from: The Case for the
Resurrection: A First-Century Investigative Reporter Probes History's
Pivotal Event (Paperback)
Lee Strobel's "The Case for the Resurrection: A First-Century
Investigative Reporter Probes History's Pivotal Event," is a power-
packed booklet (almost 100 pages) that offers compelling evidence for
the resurrection of Jesus Christ. "The Case for the Resurrection" is
helpful and readable and makes a great evidential introduction for
this essential truth of Christianity.
This New book features:
Fresh insights from Lee Strobel's new "The Case for Christ Study
Bible," as the author covers the story of Christ rising from the
grave
from the Gospel of Luke with outstanding notes from "The Case for
Christ Study Bible." The proof is potent, the writing is engaging,
and
the author has a true passion for the subject.
Remember that the Apostles saw the risen Christ, touched the risen
Christ, and died tortuous deaths proclaiming its truth when all thy
had to do was deny it; yes many people die for lies, but no
collective, diverse group of people die for what they Know is a
complete lie.
Furthermore all known ancient documents that refer to the subject
report an empty tomb. Even though the manner in which one accepts or
rejects the evidence on the historicity of the ancient documents and
other papyrus is controlled by one's presuppositions, the facts are
mighty; the evidence is there, and is impressive, but there is an
important distinction between proof and persuasion.
Note the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is:
- 100's of eyewitnesses testified under the threat of death that they
saw the risen Jesus including 500 people at one time. All the
apostles, except one, died a horrible death knowing they saw Jesus
alive from the dead. 100's more died because they would not recant
the
fact that they saw the risen Jesus. Not one Apostle recanted to save
himself from a torturous death.
- Only Christianity offers over three hundred predictions written
down
before Christ came and fulfilled exactly, most of which could not
have
been self-fulfilled.
Only Christ offers a confirmed resurrection of a Savior to
demonstrate
His authority. (Greek & other pseudo-resurrection gods were not
historical figures, the only documents we have concerning the false
gods/myths are documents dated 100's of years after Christianity.
- The resurrection was proclaimed in Jerusalem where the trial,
crucifixion. and resurrection took place. If Jesus had not risen from
the dead, his enemies only had to produce this body and this new
religion that they hated would be terminated before it started.
- The conversion of Jesus' opponents to Christianity, including many
Jewish Priests and Pharisees can best be explained by the
resurrection
of Christ. The risen Jesus converted many of those who executed Him
because of the overwhelming evidence of His resurrection and His many
appearances through God's grace (Acts 6:7 & Acts 15:5).
- Jesus' tomb was secured and guarded by well trained Jewish and
Roman
guards. The tomb had a Roman seal on it to prevent tampering with the
threat of execution for breaking the seal, yet the tomb was empty.
Every ancient historical source that discusses the subject verifies
the tomb was empty.
- Ancient hostile sources and extra-Biblical writers record the same
facts of Christ's death and empty tomb. Additionally, the continuous
defense of the resurrection in front of Roman government officials
from Paul to Tertullian was unchallenged by Rome and all ancient
historians.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310949890/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_...
Rod
May 25, 2012, 3:48:01 PM5/25/12
to
On 5/23/2012 6:43 AM, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 9:34 pm, duke<duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>
>>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>>>>> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>>>>>> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>>>>>> in you.
>>
>> Duke wrote:
>>>>> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
>>
>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>> 'Is' is what it is.
>>
>> Duke wrote:
>>> Nope, "in" is what it is.
>>
>> You 'think' before but now you know? Why? Because it opposes
>> me? :-).
>
> That's a sound bet on my part.
>
>> In...the fallen man IS all sin.
>
> NOt when he leave the confessional and leaves all past sin behind him. John
> 20:22-23.
Oddly enough the chapter doesn't tell you whether
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 9:34 pm, duke<duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>
>>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>>>>> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>>>>>> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>>>>>> in you.
>>
>> Duke wrote:
>>>>> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
>>
>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>> 'Is' is what it is.
>>
>> Duke wrote:
>>> Nope, "in" is what it is.
>>
>> You 'think' before but now you know? Why? Because it opposes
>> me? :-).
>
> That's a sound bet on my part.
>
>> In...the fallen man IS all sin.
>
> NOt when he leave the confessional and leaves all past sin behind him. John
> 20:22-23.
or not Thomas received the Holy Ghost after Christ
confronted him, and really...I'd like to know.
I'd also like to know if there are any written works
by this apostle..
*Vote Coffee Party 2012, send Wall Street to Hell*
Rod
May 25, 2012, 4:01:36 PM5/25/12
to
On 5/23/2012 5:20 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady<athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>> And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>> than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>>
>> Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>> prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>
> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
That is a crock of baloney Barry.
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady<athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>> And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>> than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>>
>> Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>> prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>
> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote:
“The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator
Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.”
Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also
referred to Christ.
In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote
of James, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called
Christ.”
Nor could a man who does not exist leave such an astounding mark
on world history.
Sorry Barry, but you've offered no proof of any kind, subsequently
you loose.
Barry OGrady
May 25, 2012, 9:10:39 PM5/25/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:01:36 -0500, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/23/2012 5:20 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady<athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>>> than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>>>
>>> Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>>> prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>>
>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
> That is a crock of baloney Barry.
:)
>On 5/23/2012 5:20 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady<athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>>> than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>>>
>>> Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>>> prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>>
>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
> That is a crock of baloney Barry.
>Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote:
>“The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator
>Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.”
>
>Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also
>referred to Christ.
>
>In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote
>of James, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called
>Christ.”
>
>
> Nor could a man who does not exist leave such an astounding mark
> on world history.
You lose.
> Sorry Barry, but you've offered no proof of any kind, subsequently
> you loose.
Barry OGrady
May 25, 2012, 9:22:24 PM5/25/12
to
I recommend (Free) Agent newsreader.
Rod
May 25, 2012, 9:32:39 PM5/25/12
to
On 5/25/2012 8:10 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:01:36 -0500, Rod<nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/23/2012 5:20 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady<athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>>>> than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>>>>
>>>> Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>>>> prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>>>
>>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>>
>> That is a crock of baloney Barry.
>
> :)
>
>> Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote:
>> �The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:01:36 -0500, Rod<nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/23/2012 5:20 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady<athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>>>> than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>>>>
>>>> Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>>>> prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>>>
>>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>>
>> That is a crock of baloney Barry.
>
> :)
>
>> Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote:
>> Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.�
>>
>> Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also
>> referred to Christ.
>>
>> In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote
>> of James, whom he identified as �the brother of Jesus, who was called
>> Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also
>> referred to Christ.
>>
>> In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote
>> Christ.�
>>
>>
>> Nor could a man who does not exist leave such an astounding mark
>> on world history.
>
> Odd that Jesus was never talked about by historians of the time.
He was.
>>
>> Nor could a man who does not exist leave such an astounding mark
>> on world history.
>
> Odd that Jesus was never talked about by historians of the time.
> You lose.
No Barry, you've lost.
Barry OGrady
May 26, 2012, 12:31:46 AM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:32:39 -0500, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/25/2012 8:10 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:01:36 -0500, Rod<nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/23/2012 5:20 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady<athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>> And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>>>>> than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>>>>> prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>>>>
>>>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>>>
>>> That is a crock of baloney Barry.
>>
>> :)
>>
>>> Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote:
>>> “The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator
>On 5/25/2012 8:10 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:01:36 -0500, Rod<nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/23/2012 5:20 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady<athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>> And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>>>>> than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>>>>> prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>>>>
>>>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>>>
>>> That is a crock of baloney Barry.
>>
>> :)
>>
>>> Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote:
>>> Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.”
>>>
>>> Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also
>>> referred to Christ.
>>>
>>> In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote
>>> of James, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called
>>> Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also
>>> referred to Christ.
>>>
>>> In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote
>>> Christ.”
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor could a man who does not exist leave such an astounding mark
>>> on world history.
>>
>> Odd that Jesus was never talked about by historians of the time.
>
> He was.
Were any of his miracles categorised?
>>>
>>> Nor could a man who does not exist leave such an astounding mark
>>> on world history.
>>
>> Odd that Jesus was never talked about by historians of the time.
>
> He was.
>> You lose.
>
> No Barry, you've lost.
duke
May 26, 2012, 9:23:41 AM5/26/12
to
selection criteria for the bible ensures that. However, there a many book and
writings from the time period that are not spiritual/biblical.
> I'd also like to know if there are any written works
> by this apostle..
http://www.google.com/search?q=gospel+of+thomas&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rlz=1Q1GGLD_enUS379US390
duke
May 26, 2012, 9:24:34 AM5/26/12
to
>On 5/23/2012 5:20 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady<athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>>> than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>>>
>>> Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>>> prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>>
>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
> That is a crock of baloney Barry.
One can never take barry serious. Only a joker would say the things he does.
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 22, 8:57 am, Barry OGrady<athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> And believe it or not, Baz, that opportunity is no less open to you
>>> than all these other religious, let us say, 'self-saving ones'.
>>>
>>> Did you know that Jesus was much more comfortable with the likes of
>>> prostitutes and drunkards than He was with all these religious types?
>>
>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
> That is a crock of baloney Barry.
"exist test."
May 26, 2012, 9:51:50 AM5/26/12
to
>Barry OGrady opined:
>
>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
>Your historical proof for this if you please.
>
>Silence is admission of having none.
Barry, to have a response, any response at all to fill the silence, offers:
>
>> Did you know Jesus did not exist?
>
>Your historical proof for this if you please.
>
>Silence is admission of having none.
"Historical silence is the admission of no Jesus!"
Do you really want to go there?
We will await proper proof if you please. The silence to now speaks
volumes, no?
duke
May 26, 2012, 12:09:13 PM5/26/12
to
duke
May 26, 2012, 12:10:24 PM5/26/12
to
encampment in those days.
Barry OGrady
May 26, 2012, 6:11:38 PM5/26/12
to
>duke - American American
dolf
May 26, 2012, 7:00:41 PM5/26/12
to
"Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
ANZAC day a day to forget!"
The foremost atheist Philosopher of our age, Alain de Botton, a Swiss
writer, philosopher, television presenter entrepreneur and atheist
recently launched his new book ‘Religion for Atheists’ and no atheists
are interested in talking about it, including all the ones who eagerly
embraced Dawkin's even more enthusiastic endorsement of atheist Gods he
claims ‘came into being’ (sic).
From his book launch he conceded: "A few years ago it struck me that
there is a resource that is a provider of Wisdom, and consolation, and
an ethical framework, and it's rather fascinating and has dominated the
mental landscape of human beings for thousands of years I'm thinking, of
course, of religion.”
The problem is according to Australia's most celebrated atheist Phillip
Adams, who in “The Atheist Delusion”, warns militant atheists against
misplaced arrogance and hubris.
It is Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) who was perhaps the greatest
philosopher of the 20th century and we are challenged to comprehend how
he could have been a life-long Nazi. [McCumber 1999:1] From his
inception in 1927 with his magnum opus: “Being and Time” he clearly
established himself as a foremost and important philosopher, but later
betrayed his philosophical contributions and finished up until his death
in 1976 as a contemptible apologist, first for Nazism and later for himself.
That his work on “Being and Time”, for all its achievements, is no
innocent piece of philosophy. Although some have argued that it may not
have directly encouraged Nazism, it clearly leaves Heidegger open to
such an accusation. For in “Being and Time”, intelligibility is subject
to the world: I can understand nothing that is not within the horizons
of my world. Escape from this world is achievable not through critical
reason but only in a mute and mystified “resolve”. [McCumber 1999:3]
Yet for much of the Western world, the difficulty of Heidegger's thought
was for many years held to be almost insuperable in the medium of a
foreign language, especially English. That this opinion is no longer so
widely held can be seen both from the rapidly increasing number of
translations of Heidegger's works and from the interest of a growing
readership. There are signs moreover, that as a preeminent thinker of
our age, Heidegger may be of interest to many who do not claim to have a
wide knowledge of traditional metaphysics or whose concern with him may
not be primarily philosophical at all.
Such readers have a certain advantage in bringing an open mind to a new
problem, but they also have special difficulties in grappling with
Heidegger. [King 2001:xviii]
However as Gadamer (1976) suggests when the layman wonders what
philosophy really is, he has the idea that philosophising means
defining, and taking responsibility for the need to define, the concepts
in which all men think as homo[ios] sapien[tal]. Since as a rule we do
not see this happen, we have helped ourselves by means of a doctrine of
implicit definition.
In reality, however, such a “doctrine” is a mere verbalism as is the
neologism starting with the German word: Dasein--which is not another
name for ‘consciousness’, ’subject’, or ‘human being’. Heidegger
introduces a vocabulary that challenges the reader [Stambaugh
2010:xviii]. To say nothing of the Hebrew word: Dashen {(#4 - Daleth;
#300 - Shin; #50 - Nun = #354 / #390 as H1878) specifically to anoint;
figuratively to satisfy; denominatively (from H1880 ) to remove (fat)
ashes (of sacrifices):—accept, anoint, take away the (receive) ashes
(from), make (wax) fat}. For to call a definition implicit obviously
means one finally comes to notice, on the basis of a number of sentences
that someone has spoken. And he or she was thinking something
unambiguous by means of using a concept. In this respect, philosophers
are no different from other men, for other men too are in the habit of
thinking definite things and avoiding contradictions. The lay opinion
appealed to here is in fact dominated by the doctrine that universals or
general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality as
nominalistic tradition of recent centuries, in considering linguistic
reproduction as a kind of application of signs. It is obvious that
artificial signs need an organisation and arrangement that excludes any
ambiguity. Thus the demand arises that the illusionary problems of
“metaphysics” must be unmasked by establishing the univocal use of
language. [Gadamer 1971:125-126]
In his scheme to refresh philosophy, Heidegger, like Hegel (1770-1831),
draws upon the earthy roots of his language and dialect. So a promising
way of achieving this refreshment would be the exercise of translating
“Being and Time” into the Anglo-Saxon language. Or perhaps into the
Welsh or Gaelic idioms. Or for that matter, into Hebrew with its
association to the earliest Semitic tongue and most probable origin of
language. [King 2001:xv]
How then did Heidegger's publication in 1927 of “Being and Time”, and in
1929 with his provocative book on Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason” in
his treatise on “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” or his 1939
lectures: “On the Essence of Language: The Metaphysics of Language and
Essencing of the Word” in relation to the German Lutheran theologian and
philosopher Johann Herder's 1772 treatise: “On the Origin of Language”,
lead to the German Reich policy on the genocidal annihilation and
nullification of Judaism as the absence of being? Herder (1744-1803) was
the progenitor of the volkgeist (“Spirit of the people”) conception and
had advanced a cultural superiority by the injunction: “Spew out the
ugly slime of the Seine. Speak German, O You German.” Yet whilst he
supported the French Revolution (1789–1799), his anti-authoritarianism,
anti-militarism, and borderless humanitarianism values would generally
have caused him to find the subsequent acts of political domination, war
and empire which make up the vast bulk of these “great” deeds and events
of history as not just morally unedifying, but morally repugnant.
[Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy 2007]
Heidegger was struggling to distance his thought from the prevailing
neo-Kantian tendency in German philosophical circles of the time, and
this resulted in a highly original interpretation of Kant (1724-1804).
From the standpoint of the development of Heidegger’s own endeavour,
his book: “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” is of pivotal importance
because it takes up and extends a number of themes suggested in “Being
and Time”, in particular the problem of how Heidegger proposed to enact
his “destruction” of the metaphysical tradition and of what role his
reading of Kant would play in that project. It’s this problematic about
Kant’s Categories as it relates to Being in traditional metaphysics and
the phenomenon of time which accounts for what some have called the
“violence” of Heidegger’s interpretation as even he unequivocally
acknowledged in the preface to his 1950 edition. [Taft 1997:xii, xx]
Nous: #20
Time:
Date: 2012.11.7
Torah: #5 #1 #1 %81 = #7
Dao: Left without Language, Different From the Vulgar
Tetra: #50 - Vastness/Wasting
I-Ching: H33 - Withdrawal
Latin: Auxiliator {Hidden God} Alt: Yaliel {Thankful of God's Presence} {
1. PROTECTS ALL THOSE WHO SEEK THE TRUE LIGHT
2. PEACE TREATIES
3. DIPLOMACY & AMBASSADORS
4. Aphruimis
}
Ram {Elevated; sublime}
- http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:5,row:6,col:7
Heidegger asks, “What is the human being?” If I speak, so therefore I
am. It is through and in the being, human language comes into being and
vice versa; in the coming into being of language the human being “is”
the human being. [Gregory 2004:87] How then was any one of Jewish
descent considered as less than human after the 7 November 1938
assassination of Ernst vom Rath, the third Secretary of the German
Embassy in Paris by his reputed 17yo homosexual companion, a German born
Polish Jew named Herschel Grynszpan. As the impetus for Kristallnacht
within days following and the beginning of the Final Solution as
Holocaust--Where was God? I do not desire to participate in the attitude
of silence as others have promulgated to this very time, and neither do
I consider subterfuge in the use of language as the only applicable and
acceptable answer to such questions: “Vous êtes sur un site francophone.
Yez la politesse et la correction de vous exprimer en français.”
This then relates to a little anecdote about my activities as timely
actions over the siege in Toulouse, France on 21-23 March 2012 in
relation to the earlier massacre of three paratroopers (ethnic and
muslim), school children and a Jewish Rabbi by an Islamic extremist.
Whilst enjoying a walk, I made some appraisals of the most probable
cause of the event before it was disclosed as public news. In that the
7 murders which occurred as terrorist activity were in part being
attributed to abuses as starvation of Palestinian children due to an
inability by the menfolk to pursue their livelihoods because of a
confiscation of their tools of trade at border crossings in Israel. And
as a consequence of my comments, as actions of goodwill and regard to
European friends, I found my words as ideas (unity of being, dignity and
discrimination by the State versus the animalistic behaviour of the
perpetrators) being uttered from the mouths of the French President
Nicolas Sarkozy and a Jewish Rabbi in Israel which were subsequently
reported on the news.
In querying the political motive of UNICEF workers in the street (Sale,
Victoria) that same day, I remarked that not even Kofi Annan would be
able to take the “King” of Syria (President Bashar al-Assad) out of my
hands--and indeed that is so today as Russia, China and America are all
indebted to my intellectual property associated to governance.
There was in response to my calculated statements as provocations made
towards the Republic of France (on alt.France) in their time of great
need, an attempt by some person (René Groumal) without any remorse or
apology, to falsely and slanderously characterise my public Internet
statements as being fascist or neo-nazi. I am categorically neither.
The source of my ideology as autonomic doctrines of unity, co-operation,
freedom and democracy are not derived from Adolf Hitler. But that my
prophet is Moses and therefore I am not anti-Semitic.
- http://www.grapple369.com/Being_files/angel-clock.jpg

Governance (religion), angels and time, set in stone: Angel Solar Watch
(replica) 1582 CE Chartres Cathedral, France
anthropo- (comb. form)
human; of a human being: anthropometry.
• relating to humankind: anthropology. ORIGIN from Greek anthrōpos
‘human being.’
anthropic principle (noun)
the cosmological principle that theories of the universe are constrained
by the necessity to allow human existence
ORIGIN 1970s: anthropic from Greek anthrōpikos, from anthrōpos ‘human
being.’
In its ‘weak’ form the anthropic principle affirms that a universe in
which living observers cannot exist is inherently unobservable. ‘Strong’
forms take this line of reasoning further, seeking to explain features
of the universe as being so because they are necessary for human existence.
On 27/05/12 7:40 AM, Uirgil wrote:
- show quoted text -
How should we the Free, Celebrate this the Queen's Jubilee?
We are not free and endure human rights abuses from catholic dogs.
"We have Jesus on the cross
Your cold love put him there.
What is now your human loss?
Forever gone and despair."
What gives BroilJAB (Design...@wmconnect.com) away is his unusual
capacity as a claimed atheist, to call the Pontiff holy when he is in
fact perverse.
It would appear that once again, we have mongrel catholic dogs engaged
in public campaigns of disinformation and vilification of the truth,
which diminishes our human rights.
dolf: “Wasn’t the Pope recently asked on: ‘Creationists need [for a]
Catholic vision’?”
BroilJAB (Design...@wmconnect.com): “Lets hope the Holy Pontiff
sets many creationists back on the right path.”
Vurgil or Uirgit? (vur...@arg.erg / uir...@uirgil.ur): “It would be a
great improvement.”
dolf: “He knows Greedy!”
BroilJAB (Design...@wmconnect.com): “From what I understand.”
Vurgil or Uirgit? (vur...@arg.erg / uir...@uirgil.ur): “Which is nothing!”
dolf: “Is it painful? Very soon being Roman Catholic will be prima
facie proof of guilt in claims of crimes against the dignity of the
'Sovereign Autonomy' made under the Commonwealth of Australia.”
#20 / .jackNote@zen: 5, row: 3, col: 3, nous: 7 [Super: #397 / #46 -
Guiding Contentment, Moderation of Desire; I-Ching: H1 - Creative
Principle/Heaven; Tetra: 37 - Purity, Ego: #403 / #7 - Intentional
Reversal, Dimming Radiance; I-Ching: H12 - Stagnation; Tetra: 56 -
Closed Mouth] {Transforming Nature {DOUBLE: Form of Nature {Autonomous
Nature}}}
In relation to this notion of The Decade is the meaning of Yom Kippur as
a ritual of nullification held over a 10 day period commencing a new
Moon on 18 September 2001 (as my particular interest for synchronising
the centre of the Grapple Temporal / Noumenal Reality for a 5 day period
being #41 on 13 September 2001 as a centrifugal model comprising septet
#369 magic squares with the solar / lunar chronological cycle and
rational representation of PI / ENNEAD) and the Dead Sea Scroll
chronological principle which is a cosmological straight line--hence
transcendent--in having a starting point on the Equinox of Wednesday 20
March 1996 with a new Moon on Thursday 21 March for a base 7 Numbering
system intrinsic to the cosmogony as rational representation of PI.
In that for 3 x 364 days = 1092 days there was a lunar/solar comparison
of 3 x 354 lunar years + 30 days = 1092 days. There are in a cycle of 5
x 364 days + 182 days (as a 1/2 cycle) two fragments in the Dead Sea
Scroll relics related to the 1st day of the 7th solar month as occurring
on 12 September 2001 and the 21st priestly course starting on Sunday 16
September 2001 which fragment also brings together an association of the
solar and lunar cycles which appear to have been a readily observable
phenomenon.
In that this has according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, a reprise in a 294 x
364 day years as 6 Jubilees or 293 x 365.2423 days (just short of the
tropical years, but technologically better than the Julian calendar of
365.25 days instigated in 45 BCE and reformed in 1582 CE (1751 CE in
British Empire) by the Gregorian calendar reforms due to an
intercalation error resulting in a lost of synchronicity comprising a
magnitude loss of one day every 128 years. This forms the basis for
arguing a metaphysical and cosmological origin of language as 22
elements of the Hebrew letters which is otherwise shown geometrically as
an indestructible object (atom) in the association of the 10 as Decade
(as Greek and Ennead as Egyptian notions) and counts (number) and the 22
letters as 3 horizontal (Mother letters), 7 vertical lines (Double
letters) and 12 diagonal lines (Single letters):
Kabbalistic Tree of Life
ATZILUTH {1st as “World of Emanation” also known as Olam Atzilut, עולם
אצילות in Hebrew}
BRIYAH {2nd as “World of Creation” also known as Olam Briyah, עולם בריאה
in Hebrew}
YETZIRAH {3rd as “World of Formation” also known as Olam Yetsirah, עולם
יצירה in Hebrew}
ASSIYAH {4th as “World of Action” also known as Olam Asiyah, עולם עשיה
in Hebrew}
- http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/tree.gif
- http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/yetziratic_wheel.png
This is Chaldean / Babylonian in Origins: Hebrew letters as described in
the “Sefer Yetzirah”
YETZIRAH as in “Making" is as opposed to BRIYAH as in "Creating"
Actually taking whatever matter that was created in the BRIYAH and
shaping it into the basic elements.
It is also possible to divide the number of days in 400 years in the
Gregorian calendar reforms as 146,097 days by 7 and that when made
divisible by 22 to obtain the remainder, and to arrange the Hebrew
letters in a pattern which has a remainder of #13 as being in the middle
of the Chinese 2 BCE published DAO TE CHING / I CHING division of the
year into 364.5 days and the Jewish Kabbalah equivalent which deployed a
magic square of #369 having a distinct mathematical property at centre
of #41 for the equivalent date of 13 September.
#0 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 4000 BCE
#400 MOD 22 = 17 [#PE / #80]
#800 MOD 22 = 12 [#LAMED / #30]
#1200 MOD 22 = 7 [#ZAYIN / #7]
#1600 MOD 22 = 2 [#BETH / #2]
#2000 MOD 22 = 19 [#QOPH / #100]
#2400 MOD 22 = 14 [#NUN / #50]
#2800 MOD 22 = 9 [#TETH / #9]
#3200 MOD 22 = 4 [#DALETH / #4]
#3600 MOD 22 = 21 [#SHIN / #300]
#4000 MOD 22 = 16 [#'AYIN / #70] = #0 CE as HETEROS (MALE/FEMALE
MARRIAGE -- WHAT IS SIN & WICKEDNESS?) autonomic transformative
prototype and symbolic associator to the series #15 CE, #34 CE, #65 CE,
#111 CE, #175 CE, #260 CE, #369 CE ... #2000 Y2K
#4400 MOD 22 = 11 [#KAF / #20] = #400 CE
#4800 MOD 22 = 6 [#VAV / #6] = #800 CE
#5200 MOD 22 = 1 [#ALEPH / #1] = #1200 CE
#5600 MOD 22 = 18 [#TSADE / #90] = #1600 CE
#6000 MOD 22 = 13 [#MEM / #40] = #2000 Y2K / Equinox of DATE(1996,3,20)
+ (5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday DATE(2001,9,12) with Equinox of
Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) commencing the Sabbath year of 'oth cycle
- http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/toth9.gif
#6400 MOD 22 = 8 [#CHET / #8]
#6800 MOD 22 = 3 [#GIMEL / #3]
#7200 MOD 22 = 20 [#RESH / #200]
#7600 MOD 22 = 15 [#SAMEK / #60]
#8000 MOD 22 = 10 [#YOD / #10]
#8400 MOD 22 = 5 [#HE / #5]
#8800 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 8800 CE
In many instances, the Torah also uses words and phrases in ways that
cannot be understood in their literal sense. There are a number of very
obvious examples of this in the narrative of the Creation, for the
metaphysical events that took place at that time were far removed from
the natural order of the world we know today. They could not have been
accurately described in ways that we can understand, nor in language
that we can relate to. For example, the Torah tells us how God brought
the world into being through speech, when in fact He created the world
through a form of thought. When the Torah describes God's thought
process as speech, it makes it easier for us to grasp the idea on our
own level. [Copyright © 2001 by Rabbi Daniel Travis and www.Torah.org]
dolf: “Fascist Dogs BroilJAB & Uergil discuss their creation denial!”
BroilJAB (Design...@wmconnect.com): “The deviant creationists twist
and turn, twist the words of the faithful.
Sad it is to see them like this.”
Uergil (Uer...@uer.net): “If there is any damnation, it is the nation
creationists inhabit.”
dolf: “Vurgil or Uirgit? (vur...@arg.erg / uir...@uirgil.ur)
Or is it now Uergil?
Creationist denial has its roots in German political theatre.
Numerological and mystic speculation was especially rife amongst German
Romantics and Naturphilosophien during the nineteenth century and grew
out of ancient teleological speculations concerning the harmonious
distribution of the heavenly bodies. Such speculation was by no means
confined to the celestial motions; in 1818 the Kantian mineralogist
Christian Weiss even argues for a link between aspects of
rhombic-dodecahedral crystal structure and the musical scale of tones!
However, such flights of imaginative fancy generally had little impact
upon the work of serious scientists; with one notable exception.
In 1766 Johann Daniel Titius von Wittenberg was preparing a German
translation of Charles Bonnet’s Contemplation de la Nature. To the
section on planetary motions he added a now famous footnote pointing out
that the radii of all the planetary orbits can be generated by the
following simple algorithm, where r is measured in astronomical units (1
AU = 1.496 x 1013 cm):
rn = 0.4 + 0.3 x 2n; n = 0,1,2…
This formula provided a striking approximation for the distance from the
Sun to the six then-known planets: Mercury {Measured: 0.39, Predicted:
0.4}, Venus {Measured: 0.72, Predicted: 0.7}, Earth {Measured: 1.00,
Predicted: 1.0}, Mars {Measured: 1.52, Predicted: 1.6}, Jupiter
{Measured: 5.20, Predicted: 5.2}, Saturn {Measured: 9.55, Predicted:
10.0}. Their measured distances from the Sun at the time of the Law’s
inception are indicated together with Titius’ predictions. [Rediscovery
of the Anthropic Principle, John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle, © 1996, p 221]
There is no more opportunity for repentance--and neither for forgiveness.
To hell with you!”
#21 / .jackNote@zen: 5, row: 3, col: 7, nous: 67 [Super: #313 / #24 -
Important Distinctions, Trouble from Indulgence; I-Ching: H5 - Delay;
Tetra: 18 - Waiting, Ego: #462 / #67 - Three Treasures; I-Ching: H10 -
Tread Carefully; Tetra: 48 - Ritual] {Autonomous Nature {MOTHER: Scales
of Liability}}
Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
ANZAC day a day to forget!"
The foremost atheist Philosopher of our age, Alain de Botton, a Swiss
writer, philosopher, television presenter entrepreneur and atheist
recently launched his new book ‘Religion for Atheists’ and no atheists
are interested in talking about it, including all the ones who eagerly
embraced Dawkin's even more enthusiastic endorsement of atheist Gods he
claims ‘came into being’ (sic).
From his book launch he conceded: "A few years ago it struck me that
there is a resource that is a provider of Wisdom, and consolation, and
an ethical framework, and it's rather fascinating and has dominated the
mental landscape of human beings for thousands of years I'm thinking, of
course, of religion.”
The problem is according to Australia's most celebrated atheist Phillip
Adams, who in “The Atheist Delusion”, warns militant atheists against
misplaced arrogance and hubris.
It is Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) who was perhaps the greatest
philosopher of the 20th century and we are challenged to comprehend how
he could have been a life-long Nazi. [McCumber 1999:1] From his
inception in 1927 with his magnum opus: “Being and Time” he clearly
established himself as a foremost and important philosopher, but later
betrayed his philosophical contributions and finished up until his death
in 1976 as a contemptible apologist, first for Nazism and later for himself.
That his work on “Being and Time”, for all its achievements, is no
innocent piece of philosophy. Although some have argued that it may not
have directly encouraged Nazism, it clearly leaves Heidegger open to
such an accusation. For in “Being and Time”, intelligibility is subject
to the world: I can understand nothing that is not within the horizons
of my world. Escape from this world is achievable not through critical
reason but only in a mute and mystified “resolve”. [McCumber 1999:3]
Yet for much of the Western world, the difficulty of Heidegger's thought
was for many years held to be almost insuperable in the medium of a
foreign language, especially English. That this opinion is no longer so
widely held can be seen both from the rapidly increasing number of
translations of Heidegger's works and from the interest of a growing
readership. There are signs moreover, that as a preeminent thinker of
our age, Heidegger may be of interest to many who do not claim to have a
wide knowledge of traditional metaphysics or whose concern with him may
not be primarily philosophical at all.
Such readers have a certain advantage in bringing an open mind to a new
problem, but they also have special difficulties in grappling with
Heidegger. [King 2001:xviii]
However as Gadamer (1976) suggests when the layman wonders what
philosophy really is, he has the idea that philosophising means
defining, and taking responsibility for the need to define, the concepts
in which all men think as homo[ios] sapien[tal]. Since as a rule we do
not see this happen, we have helped ourselves by means of a doctrine of
implicit definition.
In reality, however, such a “doctrine” is a mere verbalism as is the
neologism starting with the German word: Dasein--which is not another
name for ‘consciousness’, ’subject’, or ‘human being’. Heidegger
introduces a vocabulary that challenges the reader [Stambaugh
2010:xviii]. To say nothing of the Hebrew word: Dashen {(#4 - Daleth;
#300 - Shin; #50 - Nun = #354 / #390 as H1878) specifically to anoint;
figuratively to satisfy; denominatively (from H1880 ) to remove (fat)
ashes (of sacrifices):—accept, anoint, take away the (receive) ashes
(from), make (wax) fat}. For to call a definition implicit obviously
means one finally comes to notice, on the basis of a number of sentences
that someone has spoken. And he or she was thinking something
unambiguous by means of using a concept. In this respect, philosophers
are no different from other men, for other men too are in the habit of
thinking definite things and avoiding contradictions. The lay opinion
appealed to here is in fact dominated by the doctrine that universals or
general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality as
nominalistic tradition of recent centuries, in considering linguistic
reproduction as a kind of application of signs. It is obvious that
artificial signs need an organisation and arrangement that excludes any
ambiguity. Thus the demand arises that the illusionary problems of
“metaphysics” must be unmasked by establishing the univocal use of
language. [Gadamer 1971:125-126]
In his scheme to refresh philosophy, Heidegger, like Hegel (1770-1831),
draws upon the earthy roots of his language and dialect. So a promising
way of achieving this refreshment would be the exercise of translating
“Being and Time” into the Anglo-Saxon language. Or perhaps into the
Welsh or Gaelic idioms. Or for that matter, into Hebrew with its
association to the earliest Semitic tongue and most probable origin of
language. [King 2001:xv]
How then did Heidegger's publication in 1927 of “Being and Time”, and in
1929 with his provocative book on Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason” in
his treatise on “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” or his 1939
lectures: “On the Essence of Language: The Metaphysics of Language and
Essencing of the Word” in relation to the German Lutheran theologian and
philosopher Johann Herder's 1772 treatise: “On the Origin of Language”,
lead to the German Reich policy on the genocidal annihilation and
nullification of Judaism as the absence of being? Herder (1744-1803) was
the progenitor of the volkgeist (“Spirit of the people”) conception and
had advanced a cultural superiority by the injunction: “Spew out the
ugly slime of the Seine. Speak German, O You German.” Yet whilst he
supported the French Revolution (1789–1799), his anti-authoritarianism,
anti-militarism, and borderless humanitarianism values would generally
have caused him to find the subsequent acts of political domination, war
and empire which make up the vast bulk of these “great” deeds and events
of history as not just morally unedifying, but morally repugnant.
[Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy 2007]
Heidegger was struggling to distance his thought from the prevailing
neo-Kantian tendency in German philosophical circles of the time, and
this resulted in a highly original interpretation of Kant (1724-1804).
From the standpoint of the development of Heidegger’s own endeavour,
his book: “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” is of pivotal importance
because it takes up and extends a number of themes suggested in “Being
and Time”, in particular the problem of how Heidegger proposed to enact
his “destruction” of the metaphysical tradition and of what role his
reading of Kant would play in that project. It’s this problematic about
Kant’s Categories as it relates to Being in traditional metaphysics and
the phenomenon of time which accounts for what some have called the
“violence” of Heidegger’s interpretation as even he unequivocally
acknowledged in the preface to his 1950 edition. [Taft 1997:xii, xx]
Nous: #20
Time:
Date: 2012.11.7
Torah: #5 #1 #1 %81 = #7
Dao: Left without Language, Different From the Vulgar
Tetra: #50 - Vastness/Wasting
I-Ching: H33 - Withdrawal
Latin: Auxiliator {Hidden God} Alt: Yaliel {Thankful of God's Presence} {
1. PROTECTS ALL THOSE WHO SEEK THE TRUE LIGHT
2. PEACE TREATIES
3. DIPLOMACY & AMBASSADORS
4. Aphruimis
}
Ram {Elevated; sublime}
- http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:5,row:6,col:7
Heidegger asks, “What is the human being?” If I speak, so therefore I
am. It is through and in the being, human language comes into being and
vice versa; in the coming into being of language the human being “is”
the human being. [Gregory 2004:87] How then was any one of Jewish
descent considered as less than human after the 7 November 1938
assassination of Ernst vom Rath, the third Secretary of the German
Embassy in Paris by his reputed 17yo homosexual companion, a German born
Polish Jew named Herschel Grynszpan. As the impetus for Kristallnacht
within days following and the beginning of the Final Solution as
Holocaust--Where was God? I do not desire to participate in the attitude
of silence as others have promulgated to this very time, and neither do
I consider subterfuge in the use of language as the only applicable and
acceptable answer to such questions: “Vous êtes sur un site francophone.
Yez la politesse et la correction de vous exprimer en français.”
This then relates to a little anecdote about my activities as timely
actions over the siege in Toulouse, France on 21-23 March 2012 in
relation to the earlier massacre of three paratroopers (ethnic and
muslim), school children and a Jewish Rabbi by an Islamic extremist.
Whilst enjoying a walk, I made some appraisals of the most probable
cause of the event before it was disclosed as public news. In that the
7 murders which occurred as terrorist activity were in part being
attributed to abuses as starvation of Palestinian children due to an
inability by the menfolk to pursue their livelihoods because of a
confiscation of their tools of trade at border crossings in Israel. And
as a consequence of my comments, as actions of goodwill and regard to
European friends, I found my words as ideas (unity of being, dignity and
discrimination by the State versus the animalistic behaviour of the
perpetrators) being uttered from the mouths of the French President
Nicolas Sarkozy and a Jewish Rabbi in Israel which were subsequently
reported on the news.
In querying the political motive of UNICEF workers in the street (Sale,
Victoria) that same day, I remarked that not even Kofi Annan would be
able to take the “King” of Syria (President Bashar al-Assad) out of my
hands--and indeed that is so today as Russia, China and America are all
indebted to my intellectual property associated to governance.
There was in response to my calculated statements as provocations made
towards the Republic of France (on alt.France) in their time of great
need, an attempt by some person (René Groumal) without any remorse or
apology, to falsely and slanderously characterise my public Internet
statements as being fascist or neo-nazi. I am categorically neither.
The source of my ideology as autonomic doctrines of unity, co-operation,
freedom and democracy are not derived from Adolf Hitler. But that my
prophet is Moses and therefore I am not anti-Semitic.
- http://www.grapple369.com/Being_files/angel-clock.jpg

Governance (religion), angels and time, set in stone: Angel Solar Watch
(replica) 1582 CE Chartres Cathedral, France
anthropo- (comb. form)
human; of a human being: anthropometry.
• relating to humankind: anthropology. ORIGIN from Greek anthrōpos
‘human being.’
anthropic principle (noun)
the cosmological principle that theories of the universe are constrained
by the necessity to allow human existence
ORIGIN 1970s: anthropic from Greek anthrōpikos, from anthrōpos ‘human
being.’
In its ‘weak’ form the anthropic principle affirms that a universe in
which living observers cannot exist is inherently unobservable. ‘Strong’
forms take this line of reasoning further, seeking to explain features
of the universe as being so because they are necessary for human existence.
On 27/05/12 7:40 AM, Uirgil wrote:
- show quoted text -
How should we the Free, Celebrate this the Queen's Jubilee?
We are not free and endure human rights abuses from catholic dogs.
"We have Jesus on the cross
Your cold love put him there.
What is now your human loss?
Forever gone and despair."
What gives BroilJAB (Design...@wmconnect.com) away is his unusual
capacity as a claimed atheist, to call the Pontiff holy when he is in
fact perverse.
It would appear that once again, we have mongrel catholic dogs engaged
in public campaigns of disinformation and vilification of the truth,
which diminishes our human rights.
dolf: “Wasn’t the Pope recently asked on: ‘Creationists need [for a]
Catholic vision’?”
BroilJAB (Design...@wmconnect.com): “Lets hope the Holy Pontiff
sets many creationists back on the right path.”
Vurgil or Uirgit? (vur...@arg.erg / uir...@uirgil.ur): “It would be a
great improvement.”
dolf: “He knows Greedy!”
BroilJAB (Design...@wmconnect.com): “From what I understand.”
Vurgil or Uirgit? (vur...@arg.erg / uir...@uirgil.ur): “Which is nothing!”
dolf: “Is it painful? Very soon being Roman Catholic will be prima
facie proof of guilt in claims of crimes against the dignity of the
'Sovereign Autonomy' made under the Commonwealth of Australia.”
#20 / .jackNote@zen: 5, row: 3, col: 3, nous: 7 [Super: #397 / #46 -
Guiding Contentment, Moderation of Desire; I-Ching: H1 - Creative
Principle/Heaven; Tetra: 37 - Purity, Ego: #403 / #7 - Intentional
Reversal, Dimming Radiance; I-Ching: H12 - Stagnation; Tetra: 56 -
Closed Mouth] {Transforming Nature {DOUBLE: Form of Nature {Autonomous
Nature}}}
In relation to this notion of The Decade is the meaning of Yom Kippur as
a ritual of nullification held over a 10 day period commencing a new
Moon on 18 September 2001 (as my particular interest for synchronising
the centre of the Grapple Temporal / Noumenal Reality for a 5 day period
being #41 on 13 September 2001 as a centrifugal model comprising septet
#369 magic squares with the solar / lunar chronological cycle and
rational representation of PI / ENNEAD) and the Dead Sea Scroll
chronological principle which is a cosmological straight line--hence
transcendent--in having a starting point on the Equinox of Wednesday 20
March 1996 with a new Moon on Thursday 21 March for a base 7 Numbering
system intrinsic to the cosmogony as rational representation of PI.
In that for 3 x 364 days = 1092 days there was a lunar/solar comparison
of 3 x 354 lunar years + 30 days = 1092 days. There are in a cycle of 5
x 364 days + 182 days (as a 1/2 cycle) two fragments in the Dead Sea
Scroll relics related to the 1st day of the 7th solar month as occurring
on 12 September 2001 and the 21st priestly course starting on Sunday 16
September 2001 which fragment also brings together an association of the
solar and lunar cycles which appear to have been a readily observable
phenomenon.
In that this has according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, a reprise in a 294 x
364 day years as 6 Jubilees or 293 x 365.2423 days (just short of the
tropical years, but technologically better than the Julian calendar of
365.25 days instigated in 45 BCE and reformed in 1582 CE (1751 CE in
British Empire) by the Gregorian calendar reforms due to an
intercalation error resulting in a lost of synchronicity comprising a
magnitude loss of one day every 128 years. This forms the basis for
arguing a metaphysical and cosmological origin of language as 22
elements of the Hebrew letters which is otherwise shown geometrically as
an indestructible object (atom) in the association of the 10 as Decade
(as Greek and Ennead as Egyptian notions) and counts (number) and the 22
letters as 3 horizontal (Mother letters), 7 vertical lines (Double
letters) and 12 diagonal lines (Single letters):
Kabbalistic Tree of Life
ATZILUTH {1st as “World of Emanation” also known as Olam Atzilut, עולם
אצילות in Hebrew}
BRIYAH {2nd as “World of Creation” also known as Olam Briyah, עולם בריאה
in Hebrew}
YETZIRAH {3rd as “World of Formation” also known as Olam Yetsirah, עולם
יצירה in Hebrew}
ASSIYAH {4th as “World of Action” also known as Olam Asiyah, עולם עשיה
in Hebrew}
- http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/tree.gif
- http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/yetziratic_wheel.png
This is Chaldean / Babylonian in Origins: Hebrew letters as described in
the “Sefer Yetzirah”
YETZIRAH as in “Making" is as opposed to BRIYAH as in "Creating"
Actually taking whatever matter that was created in the BRIYAH and
shaping it into the basic elements.
It is also possible to divide the number of days in 400 years in the
Gregorian calendar reforms as 146,097 days by 7 and that when made
divisible by 22 to obtain the remainder, and to arrange the Hebrew
letters in a pattern which has a remainder of #13 as being in the middle
of the Chinese 2 BCE published DAO TE CHING / I CHING division of the
year into 364.5 days and the Jewish Kabbalah equivalent which deployed a
magic square of #369 having a distinct mathematical property at centre
of #41 for the equivalent date of 13 September.
#0 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 4000 BCE
#400 MOD 22 = 17 [#PE / #80]
#800 MOD 22 = 12 [#LAMED / #30]
#1200 MOD 22 = 7 [#ZAYIN / #7]
#1600 MOD 22 = 2 [#BETH / #2]
#2000 MOD 22 = 19 [#QOPH / #100]
#2400 MOD 22 = 14 [#NUN / #50]
#2800 MOD 22 = 9 [#TETH / #9]
#3200 MOD 22 = 4 [#DALETH / #4]
#3600 MOD 22 = 21 [#SHIN / #300]
#4000 MOD 22 = 16 [#'AYIN / #70] = #0 CE as HETEROS (MALE/FEMALE
MARRIAGE -- WHAT IS SIN & WICKEDNESS?) autonomic transformative
prototype and symbolic associator to the series #15 CE, #34 CE, #65 CE,
#111 CE, #175 CE, #260 CE, #369 CE ... #2000 Y2K
#4400 MOD 22 = 11 [#KAF / #20] = #400 CE
#4800 MOD 22 = 6 [#VAV / #6] = #800 CE
#5200 MOD 22 = 1 [#ALEPH / #1] = #1200 CE
#5600 MOD 22 = 18 [#TSADE / #90] = #1600 CE
#6000 MOD 22 = 13 [#MEM / #40] = #2000 Y2K / Equinox of DATE(1996,3,20)
+ (5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday DATE(2001,9,12) with Equinox of
Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) commencing the Sabbath year of 'oth cycle
- http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/toth9.gif
#6400 MOD 22 = 8 [#CHET / #8]
#6800 MOD 22 = 3 [#GIMEL / #3]
#7200 MOD 22 = 20 [#RESH / #200]
#7600 MOD 22 = 15 [#SAMEK / #60]
#8000 MOD 22 = 10 [#YOD / #10]
#8400 MOD 22 = 5 [#HE / #5]
#8800 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 8800 CE
In many instances, the Torah also uses words and phrases in ways that
cannot be understood in their literal sense. There are a number of very
obvious examples of this in the narrative of the Creation, for the
metaphysical events that took place at that time were far removed from
the natural order of the world we know today. They could not have been
accurately described in ways that we can understand, nor in language
that we can relate to. For example, the Torah tells us how God brought
the world into being through speech, when in fact He created the world
through a form of thought. When the Torah describes God's thought
process as speech, it makes it easier for us to grasp the idea on our
own level. [Copyright © 2001 by Rabbi Daniel Travis and www.Torah.org]
dolf: “Fascist Dogs BroilJAB & Uergil discuss their creation denial!”
BroilJAB (Design...@wmconnect.com): “The deviant creationists twist
and turn, twist the words of the faithful.
Sad it is to see them like this.”
Uergil (Uer...@uer.net): “If there is any damnation, it is the nation
creationists inhabit.”
dolf: “Vurgil or Uirgit? (vur...@arg.erg / uir...@uirgil.ur)
Or is it now Uergil?
Creationist denial has its roots in German political theatre.
Numerological and mystic speculation was especially rife amongst German
Romantics and Naturphilosophien during the nineteenth century and grew
out of ancient teleological speculations concerning the harmonious
distribution of the heavenly bodies. Such speculation was by no means
confined to the celestial motions; in 1818 the Kantian mineralogist
Christian Weiss even argues for a link between aspects of
rhombic-dodecahedral crystal structure and the musical scale of tones!
However, such flights of imaginative fancy generally had little impact
upon the work of serious scientists; with one notable exception.
In 1766 Johann Daniel Titius von Wittenberg was preparing a German
translation of Charles Bonnet’s Contemplation de la Nature. To the
section on planetary motions he added a now famous footnote pointing out
that the radii of all the planetary orbits can be generated by the
following simple algorithm, where r is measured in astronomical units (1
AU = 1.496 x 1013 cm):
rn = 0.4 + 0.3 x 2n; n = 0,1,2…
This formula provided a striking approximation for the distance from the
Sun to the six then-known planets: Mercury {Measured: 0.39, Predicted:
0.4}, Venus {Measured: 0.72, Predicted: 0.7}, Earth {Measured: 1.00,
Predicted: 1.0}, Mars {Measured: 1.52, Predicted: 1.6}, Jupiter
{Measured: 5.20, Predicted: 5.2}, Saturn {Measured: 9.55, Predicted:
10.0}. Their measured distances from the Sun at the time of the Law’s
inception are indicated together with Titius’ predictions. [Rediscovery
of the Anthropic Principle, John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle, © 1996, p 221]
There is no more opportunity for repentance--and neither for forgiveness.
To hell with you!”
#21 / .jackNote@zen: 5, row: 3, col: 7, nous: 67 [Super: #313 / #24 -
Important Distinctions, Trouble from Indulgence; I-Ching: H5 - Delay;
Tetra: 18 - Waiting, Ego: #462 / #67 - Three Treasures; I-Ching: H10 -
Tread Carefully; Tetra: 48 - Ritual] {Autonomous Nature {MOTHER: Scales
of Liability}}
dolf
May 26, 2012, 7:02:47 PM5/26/12
to
-- Irish impious (catholic or atheist) dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
duke
May 27, 2012, 11:16:35 AM5/27/12
to
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
May 29, 2012, 3:02:34 AM5/29/12
to
Thomas received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, just like the other eleven
(the Disciples having replaced Judas Iscariot with Matthias).
> I'd also like to know if there are any written works
> by this apostle..
There is a spurious work called "The Gospel of Thomas," but it was
written by the Essenes sometime in the Second Century, and has nothing
to do with Thomas.
Ike
--
http://thetriunist.weebly.com/index.html
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Triune-Hypothesis/102657386473773
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
May 29, 2012, 3:04:23 AM5/29/12
to
Correction: The Ebionites, not the Essenes (though Ebionite theology was
heavily influenced by the Essenes).
heavily influenced by the Essenes).
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
May 29, 2012, 3:05:44 AM5/29/12
to
On 5/26/2012 7:00 PM, dolf wrote:
> "Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
>
> Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
> ANZAC day a day to forget!"
...said the fool relying on Babylonian-originating Kabbalist teachings.
> "Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
>
> Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
> ANZAC day a day to forget!"
dolf
May 30, 2012, 2:20:07 AM5/30/12
to
On 29/05/12 5:05 PM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
> On 5/26/2012 7:00 PM, dolf wrote:
>> "Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
>>
>> Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
>> ANZAC day a day to forget!"
>
> ...said the fool relying on Babylonian-originating Kabbalist teachings.
>
Oh no Ike, I make no dependency on an indestructible atom as a geometric
> On 5/26/2012 7:00 PM, dolf wrote:
>> "Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
>>
>> Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
>> ANZAC day a day to forget!"
>
> ...said the fool relying on Babylonian-originating Kabbalist teachings.
>
construction and usage of manufactured spacial overlay:
- http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/tree.gif
- http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/yetziratic_wheel.png
particular dispensation {ie. a system of order, government, or
organization of a nation, community, etc., especially as existing at a
particular time} of governance having power to rule as enumerated within
its Kabbalistic systemic conception by the Theory of Number (the Decade)
as: #1 - KETHER (Crown) to #10 - MALKUTH (Kingdom).
I don't even make a dependency on the emanation of MAGIC SQUARE #0 CE as
HETEROS (MALE/FEMALE MARRIAGE -- WHAT IS SIN & WICKEDNESS?) autonomic
transformative prototype and symbolic associator to the series #15 CE,
#34 CE, #65 CE, #111 CE, #175 CE, #260 CE, #369 CE ... #2000 Y2K
I get the dispensational basis of governance shown above by memetic
transformative prototype and symbolic associator to the series #15 CE,
#34 CE, #65 CE, #111 CE, #175 CE, #260 CE, #369 CE ... #2000 Y2K
specific colour attributions {ie. vBronze: #69, vPurple: #9, vRed: #32,
vBlue: #20, vOrange: #61, vGreen: #73, vYellow: #35, vCyan: #58, vCoral:
#41} accompanying the conception of SEPTET MAGIC SQUARES which provides
an equitable distribution of NUMBER and MEMETIC NATURAL PROCESS OF ORDER
& CHANGE AS “CHAD” GOVERNANCE
So, summing it up, Paul says that a minister of satan will...
Preach another Jesus...
Preach under another spirit...
Preach a different gospel...
While appearing to be a minister of righteousness while doing so!
I believe Vince Garcia and the Roman Catholic Chuch meets ALL FOUR CRITERIA.
Based on the totality of their teachings, I see no conclusion other than
that the "Jesus" they follow is a demon spirit, and the "Yahweh" they
speaks for is actually SATAN.
I am dead to the law by the crucified body of Christ. Are you?
The Catholic Fascist Voice in Our Country is going to perish and will no
longer be heard.
Did you like the earthquake in Parma, Italy? The bins weren't in
disarray at least.
dolf (0822 hrs 20120529): "The Garbage collectors failed to empty my
bins correctly. Left them in a disarray and physically checked them for
compliance before emptying them.
Obviously this is related to my past complaint about their
non-participation in ANZAC day.
שלא
lo'-not (H3808): #331 = #300, #30, #1
1) not, no
1a) not (with verb - absolute prohibition)
1b) not (with modifier - negation)
1c) nothing (subst)
1d) without (with particle)
1e) before (of time)
- http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:3,row:5,col:7
Waste Pariah Dogs & Forgotten Garbage (Butcher Paper & Foam) by a Lone
Gum Tree @ Fitzroy Street, Sale
טבחת
tabach-kill (H2873): #419 = #9, #2, #8, #400
1) to slaughter, slay, butcher, kill ruthlessly
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to slaughter, butcher
1a2) to slay, kill ruthlessly (fig.)
Should any further disparity as preferential service be noted, a legal
claim will be made against you."
Just yesterday, I said, the Catholic (Italian) fascist dogs don't seem
interested in my ANZAC Day miracle:
Where I read out the following in association to a mathematical model
and biblical text as substance of belief and an earthquake occurred in
the Tamar River area of Tasmania, killing one miner.
- http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/nous.gif
“We are not ANZACs, We have done nobler deeds than they, Of which you
know nothing. We are not ANZACs because Australians subject us to
Religious persecution. We are not ANZACs because you deny us fair
Justice. We are not ANZACs because you think your race is better than
ours. We are not ANZACs because you deny us Community and Equal
Opportunity. O God Lord of retribution, LORD, God, Lord of retribution,
shine forth. Rise up O judge of the earth, and render an evil recompense
to the proud. How long will the wicked dwell in error? That pour out and
speak blasphemy, all those who deal falsely utter words of shame. They
crush your people. O LORD, and impoverish your inheritance. They kill
the widow and the sojourner and murder the orphans.
And they say, ‘The LORD does not see, and the God of Jacob does not pay
heed.’” [© 2004 The Order of Saint Benedict, Aramaic Targum of Psalm 94:1-7]
“We have Jesus on the cross
Your cold love put him there.
What is now your human loss?
Forever gone and despair.”
What is now your human loss?
- http://www.grapple369.com/Being_files/crucified.gif
As an authoritative statement of fact about one’s own religious belief
as a substance which supersedes and is sovereign to your own unbelief or
disbelief as the belief (accompanying ritual practice) may be such as
Roman Catholicism. We seem to have Catholic et al managing and
disrupting Internet based conversations for years so as to prevent the
fostering of any viable alternative (as degree of belief) to Catholic
dogma as their disbelief in blasphemy which is the lack any real and
tangible Christian identity as unbelief.
I joked with him about what would likely to have happened yesterday and
whether I would have been involuntarily sectioned, if they had known,
that my singular intention was to effect a disdainful brutalisation of
them by the slaughter of the nuns who own the shop--And I proudly
expressed the view of its anticipated effectiveness, in being for them
an especially enhanced and grievous reality by virtue of the fact that
the Catholic nuns live within a worldview as delusional claim to
superiority, where they mistakenly believe there is no verity and surety
greater to their own belief. As they simply have no awareness of
something much greater than them. It therefore has the very real
capability of manifesting a most pronounced distress as uncontrolled
anxieties and palpitations. A loss of bodily function and breathing
control, an incapacity of speech and most probably resulting in death,
as my intentioned act of a most discomforting awareness of a loss of
soul. A judgement and revenge made against them. What do you think is
implied by the claim that I would effect a collapse and forfeiture by
the Catholic Religious Order, who have no remaining legitimacy within
Australian life?
I described to him, my well intentioned purpose, which I conveyed before
even beginning the 3 hrs of pleading my own cause of liberty with the
psychiatrists yesterday. I had sought to protect them (purposefully left
in draft disposition in that specific regard) in relation to the
mechanics of the document. And described it’s capability for manifesting
trauma as notionally equivalent to getting on the cross with Jesus. And
explained to them that whilst no harm was being intentioned towards
them. That should their sensibilities be moved to an empathy with my
representations, they should clearly convey their free accept of it. The
course of my presentation, would then focus on how the methodology, as
recourse to the habitual use of obstructions, which move one towards the
concealment of any intentioned process and instead having a reliance
upon scurrilous distortions of any immediacy and capability for threat
for actuality, has a mitigating effect on the permissibility of
authority under the legislation.
At one point I brought to their attention, the expressed need to avoid
the risky action of reading and consuming the document at too rapid and
careless rate. As you may unnecessarily enter into a painful anxious
state of fear which rendered them incapable of speech. That I was
responding to the outstanding matter of psychiatrist Peter Sternhell’s
slanderous characterisations of the substantial reality, vital
effectiveness and the substance of my own religious belief. The
improper, immodest and blasphemous characterisation by them, as being
irrational and delusional was often repeated without substantiation by
Dr. Meredith Stone (and I have seen her with child). To whom I have also
intentioned to effect a similar retaliation against those persons, as a
consequence to their slanderous, false and haughty characterisations of
me and my belief as delusional and as cause for their sado-masochistic
perversity to which I was then subject to their pleasure and the
pretence as beneficial claim of a therapeutic process. In having
furnished statements and these documents, in substantiation of my legal
entitlements and claim against Saint Vincent’s Hospital, theirs
similarly, is now a requirement as an accord with immediacy and a
priority towards an unequivocal awareness, of their obligation which is
without any further grounds for delay, as a requirement for them to
provide an accountability for their actions and in their absence any
credibility as lawful criteria to provide an apology and restitution for
their past and continuing persecutions. And they will afford me an
appropriate and sovereign dignity in the acknowledgement of the
superiority and correctness of my substantial claim to Christian belief
and over that which was previously claimed of Roman Catholic belief.
That until they all expire, every remaining Roman Catholic, from this
time forward will afford to me an appropriate dignity as my entitlement
which is attained by the sovereign basis of my substantiated claim to
Christian belief and identity--such recognition of my superiority over
the Roman Catholic Church and its fraudulent claims to Christian
identity is to be accompanied by an appropriate gesturing as bowing in
respect of my dignity and a verbalisation which acknowledges the majesty
of my triumphantism over you all.
On 29/05/12 9:17 PM, vince garcia wrote:
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other
> gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
>
> --Apostle paul
>
> Based on the totality of her teachings, I see no conclusion other than
> that the "Jesus" she follows is a demon spirit, and the "Yahweh" she
> speaks for is actually SATAN.
>
>
> I am dead to the law by the crucified body of Christ. Are you?
vince garcia
May 30, 2012, 6:15:31 AM5/30/12
to
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other
gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
--Apostle paul
Donna Kupp wrote:
gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
--Apostle paul
>
> A thousand may pray until their knees are bloody, but if they are not
> keeping His Commandments, God says their prayer is an abomination to
> Him. Yet the prayers of one one man who abides in Him can change the
> lives and circumstances of many:
>
> "The effectual fervent prayer of a RIGHTEOUS man availeth much."
> James 5:16 KJV
>
> “Little children, let no one deceive you. He who DOES RIGHT is
> RIGHTEOUS.” 1 John 3:7 RSV
Sounds good, doesn't it? SOUNDS like something a believer in Christ
might really say.
But what is the truth behind what Donna Kupp teaches and believes?
How can we know if this woman is of God or actually a false teacher when
she speaks?
Paul gives us the answer:
2 cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve
through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the
simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth ANOTHER JESUS, whom we have not
preached, or if ye receive ANOTHER SPIRIT, which ye have not received,
or ANOTHER GOSPEL, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with
him.
2 cor 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed
as the MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS; whose end shall be according to their
works.
Donna Kupp, for those who do not know, is a woman preaching a false
gospel with a false Christ that denies virtually every possible
essential of the Christian faith.
Note here paul's words about false teachers: they will actually be
"MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS"!!!!! Not antinomians, teaching lawlessness
and freedom to sin, but MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, teaching an
apparently good-sounding Gospel that is actually ANOTHER GOSPEL about
ANOTHER JESUS!
Let us test Donna Kupp's own words against the doctrines of
the New Testament and the Christian church, and see if we can determine
whether she is a servant of God, or actually a minister of Satan!
1. First, Paul warns that a minister of Satan will teach "ANOTHER
JESUS."
Is Donna Kupp's Jesus YOUR Jesus? Is her Jesus the Jesus of
Scripture?
While Donna Kupp just made a number of statements sound like something a
real Christian might make, we cannot make a judgment whether she is or
is not a true Christian based only on what she just posted here. We must
determine if she really teaches the same Jesus REAL Christians follow by
looking at statements she, herself, has made about Christ in the past,
that she may not throw out on a regular basis, because she knows it
reveals what she REALLY thinks about Christ.
So what does she actually say about the Jesus she follows, and
supposedly places faith in?
This...
>"In the beginning was Jesus
> and Jesus was with THE RULER,
> and Jesus was Ruler.
> The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
>John was teaching that Jesus was our Ruler (our theos) and that
>Jesus was with the Father from the very beginning of creation.
>(Not that Jesus was one third of some mysterious and mind-
>boggling "Trinity" that no one had ever heard of.)
We can stop right there. Donna Kupp, denying the deity of Christ,
rewrites the Gospel of John in a manner that affirms that denial, so we
can either change all our Bibles to her new trenslation that "proves"
Jesus is NOT fully God, but some other sort of created lesser being, or
we can allow the sacred words of the apostle John to stand AS WRITTEN!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD
WAS GOD.
So we see her Jesus is ANOTHER JESUS that orthodox Protestants and
Evangelicals (and Catholics) DO NOT believe in.
For US, Jesus is God in flesh, fully God and fully man, and 2nd Person
of the Trinity she goes on to mock and deny.
2. Next, Paul warns that a minister of Satan will teach or operate under
a "DIFFERENT SPIRIT".
Does Donna Kupp teach and receive anoining by the same Holy Spirit that
REAL Christians follow?
Judge for yourself by her own words.
> The concept that the Holy Spirit is God is based on a single verse in
> Acts (5:3) where it says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit - and
> later it says that he lied to God.
> To conclude that the Holy Spirit is God on the basis of those verses is
> merely an interpretation which adds to what is actually written. Since
> the Spirit is the means of communciation between God and man, if you
> lie to the Spirit you are in effect lying to God. Are there any verses
> which actually say that the Holy Spirit is God?
> Not one!
> Jesus did not teach the Trinity, the apostles did not teach it, and it
> was not taught by church leaders for three hundred years after the
> death of Christ.
All REAL Christians believe not only in the deity of Christ, but also
the Godhood of the Holy Spirit. As we see from her own words, Donna
Kupp denies those two essentials of the faith, and proclaims the Holy
Spirit is only some nebulous "means of communication between God and
man"
So now we see she has fulfilled the SECOND warning of Paul--she has
A DIFFERENT SPIRIT than REAL Christians do.
By the way, her LIES about the history of the Trinity are instantly
refutable:
The deity of Christ was EXPLICITLY taught by Ignatius in the early 2nd
century
"To the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by
the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God"
"FOR OUR GOD, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God�s
plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit"
Letter to the Ephesians 1 110 AD
False teacher kupp also adds:
> There is no record of the co-equal, co-eternal, three-in-one God
> being taught by a single one of the early church fathers. It
> was not a part of Christian teaching until it was formulated by the
> Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381.A.D.
"No record"?
For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to
the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their
disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in
the Holy Spirit
Irenaeus, before 200 AD
And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for
the unity is distributed in a TRINITY. Placed in order, the three are
the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition,
but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of
one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one
God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
Tertullian "Against Praxeas" early 200s AD
For Scripture as much announces Christ AS ALSO GOD, as it announces God
himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as
moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it
does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of
man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been
accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he
is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For
as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who
is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed
to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus
Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called
also God and the Son of God"
Novatian, Treatise on the Trinity 11 235 AD
And now the capstone to Kupp's historial and TEXTUAL illiteracy:
The Lord says: 'I and the Father are one.' And again of the Father and
Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And these three are one'.
Cyprian --Treatise 1 on the unity of the Catholic Church, chapter 6,
early 3rd century, PROVING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COMMA JOHANNEUM KUPP
(and other historical illiterates) SAY IS A FRAUD.
3. The minister of Satan will also teach "ANOTHER GOSPEL."
Does Donna Kupp uphold the CHRISTIAN gospel? We've already seen she
denies and perverts the nature of Jesus Himself and the precious Holy
Spirit. But what is her actual gospel message? She talks about
obedience, and making Jesus Lord...but what does she really believe
about sin, justification, and sanctification? Does she ever lay out her
beliefs in clear language so the body of Christ can see and judge
whether she is or is not a fellow believer?
Yes!
Again, these are her own words:
>To be saved is the first step in the process of salvation. Those who
>are saved do not have eternal life -
Did you get that? THOSE WHO ARE SAVED ___DO NOT___HAVE ETERNAL LIFE!!!
LET'S CONTRAST THAT WITH SCRIPTURE:
jn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, HATH eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.
1 jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name
of the Son of God; that YE MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that
ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
More from Donna Jupp:
> "If one who is born of God has truly repented of committing sin
> (chosen to cease from sin) and then deliberately commits sin he has
> despised the Holy Spirit, just as the OT the Israelites despised the
> Law of God. It is blasphemy!"
> "When we are converted all past sins are forgiven. After a person is
> born-again, only sins of ignorance are forgiven. If a person sins
> with knowledge and intent after that time, they have blasphemed
> the Holy Spirit and there is no more sacrifice for sin. See Hebrews
> 6:1-8; Hebrews 10:26-31."
LET'S CONTRAST THAT WITH SCRIPTURE:
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves
are ALSO FOUND SINNERS, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God
forbid.
Apparently, paul understood that even those justified in Christ STILL
SINNED!
Are we sure? Well, let's again test the doctrine of donna kupp by Paul's
own words, written in the last months of his life:
1 tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I AM
CHIEF.
Wait a minute--I thought Donna said any Christian who willingly commits
even ONE SIN is eternally damned!
Apparently, paul did not realize this when he acknowledged he was the
WORST of sinners in 67 AD when he wrote this, 30+ years after finding
Christ! Thus, he must have been guilty of blaspheming the spirit
according to false teachers harold and donna kupp
What else did Paul have to say about whether Christians do or do not
commit sin in romans 7?
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:
for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I
find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: BUT THE EVIL WHICH I WOULD NOT,
____THAT I DO___.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin
that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with
me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my
members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Does THAT sound like a man who has reached the state of sinless
perfection like Donna Kupp, who claims any sin she commits is 100%
accidental and unintentional??????
And this is her ultimate blasphemy regarding the blood of Christ...
> Blood of Christ covers: 1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light,
> as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the
> blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (Only sins
> of ignorance)
Notice how donna kupp added the words "Only sins of ignorance" to
pervert John's words? Just as she did with the powerful passage in John
1:1, she rejects the message and inserts her own heretical words flat
out CONTRADICTING what was actually written! John says Christ's blood
cleanses us from ALL sin; Donna adds words to change it to all
UNINTENTIONAL sins, making the blood of Christ LIMITED in its ability to
atone for sin.
Kupp also has missed what Jesus said about how imperfect His followers
will always be:
Luke 4:4 And FORGIVE US OUR SINS; for we also forgive every one that is
indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from
evil.
Meanwhile, THIS is God's true message of salvation:
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
And while Donna Kupp blasphemes the gospel by claiming we keep--and
actually earn--our salvation through keeping the 10 commandments
perfectly, here is what the SCRIPTURE says about how we stay in right
standing security with God:
1 peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a
lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not
away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 WHO ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD __THROUGH FAITH__ UNTO SALVATION
ready to be revealed in the last time.
So now we see her "gospel" IS NOT the gospel of the New testament. It is
a false gospel that...
A. Requires Bible verses to be rewritten in a heretical manner.
B. Requires adding a clarification to Scripture that TOTALLY overturns
what the Scripture actually SAYS.
C. Must deny the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
D. Requires remaining in a state of salvation by keeping the 10
commandments PERFECTLY, or else the person is now damned without
possibility of repentance.
E. Blasphemes and limits the atoning power of Christ's blood to
"Only sins of ignorance."
4. As we noted, Paul says the MINISTER OF SATAN will actually appear to
be a MINISTER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS! That is what makes them so deceptive.
They are serpents in the guise of sheep, preaching righteous living and
'keeping God's holy law' while in their hearts is satan himself, drawing
people away from TRUE righteousness, to a perverted notion of it based
on keeping commandments!
Take a look at Donna Kupp's deceptive posts, including this one. Every
one touts the keeping of biblical commandments, threatens people with
damnation for failing to keep biblical commandments, and threatenes them
with damnation if anyone should ever--EVEN ONE TIME--willingly BREAK a
biblical commandment.
So Kupp APPEARS to be preaching the righteousness of 'keeping God's holy
commandments'...yet she does it in a way that is an UTTER PERVERSION of
the gospel of grace, and comes right from the mouth of satan speaking
good things, and making her LOOK like a minister of righetousness.
So, summing it up, Paul says that a minister of satan will...
Preach another Jesus...
Preach under another spirit...
Preach a different gospel...
While appearing to be a minister of righteousness while doing so!
Rod
May 30, 2012, 9:32:45 AM5/30/12
to
Terry Cross
May 30, 2012, 6:32:23 PM5/30/12
to
wonderful how God can speak through the instruments of gambling ? But
which of the disciples had about his person the instruments of
gambling by which Matthias could be chosen?
Why didn't they just use a Ouija board?
TCross
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
May 31, 2012, 6:38:24 AM5/31/12
to
On 5/21/2012 5:17 AM, Michael Christ wrote:
> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> in you.
Notice how the cultist changes the Word to try and hide the fact that he
> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> in you.
is a cultist.
THIS is what the Word says, which he blasphemes by saying he does not sin...
1Jn 1:
8 ś If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
May 31, 2012, 6:39:27 AM5/31/12
to
On 5/21/2012 6:04 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
> Michael Christ wrote:
>>> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>>> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>>> in you.
>
> Michael Christ wrote:
>>> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>>> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>>> in you.
>
> Duke wrote:
>> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
>
>> He already has. It's in scripture, but I think he said "in" and not "is".
>
> 'Is' is what it is.
>
> The real point being is that unless you haven't come to the reality
>
> there is NO GOOD THING in you, not a thought, not a feeling, not an
> ideal, nothing, no good thing, you cannot come into true repentance.
You still haven't.
Linda Lee
May 31, 2012, 6:33:19 AM5/31/12
to
On May 21, 5:17 am, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
wrote:
> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> in you.
>
> Michael Christ
> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> in you.
>
Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
May 31, 2012, 6:40:51 AM5/31/12
to
On 5/30/2012 2:20 AM, dolf wrote:
> On 29/05/12 5:05 PM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> On 5/26/2012 7:00 PM, dolf wrote:
>>> "Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
>>>
>>> Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
>>> ANZAC day a day to forget!"
>>
>> ...said the fool relying on Babylonian-originating Kabbalist teachings.
>>
>
> Oh no Ike, I make no dependency on an indestructible atom as a geometric
> construction and usage of manufactured spacial overlay:
And the fool persists in his foolishness.
> On 29/05/12 5:05 PM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> On 5/26/2012 7:00 PM, dolf wrote:
>>> "Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
>>>
>>> Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
>>> ANZAC day a day to forget!"
>>
>> ...said the fool relying on Babylonian-originating Kabbalist teachings.
>>
>
> Oh no Ike, I make no dependency on an indestructible atom as a geometric
> construction and usage of manufactured spacial overlay:
[snippeth]
Linda Lee
May 31, 2012, 6:49:24 AM5/31/12
to
replace Judas Iscariot so that there would once again be a special 12
apostles. You'd think if Christ wanted him to be replaced, he'd have
instructed them to do so, especially considering Christ knew who would
betray him to the council of chief priests, and that Judas set about
to do it immediately after the Messiah had announced he'd just been
anointed for his BURIAL, like he was obeying Christ who had often
taught them he must be killed, and had called Peter "Satan" and said
Peter didn't understand the things of God when Peter exclaimed he must
NOT be killed (Matt. 16:23).
Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his
disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things
of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be
raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it
far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me,
Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things
that be of God, but those that be of men.
Mat 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very
precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
Mat 26:8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying,
To what purpose is this waste?
Mat 26:9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given
to the poor.
Mat 26:10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye
the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
Mat 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not
always.
Mat 26:12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, SHE
DID IT FOR MY BURIAL.
Mat 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be
preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman
hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
Mat 26:14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto
the chief priests,
Mat 26:15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will
deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces
of silver.
Mat 26:16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
...
Matt. 26:21 And as they did eat, he [Christ] said, Verily I say unto
you, that one of you shall betray me.
...
Matt. 26:23 And he [Christ] answered and said, He that dippeth his
hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.
...
Matt. 26:46 Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth
betray me.
Michael Christ
May 31, 2012, 6:57:58 AM5/31/12
to
On May 21, 5:17 am, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> > not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> > in you.
>
> > Michael Christ
> wrote:
> > Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> > not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> > in you.
>
> > Michael Christ
Linda wrote:
> Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
> in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
Minus your 'improvisation', it is the truth plain and clear what I
> Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
> in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
wrote.
For the record, neither Ike or you are in Christ. If you were you
would acknowledge the truth when you hear it and rejoice to hear it.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
May 31, 2012, 7:03:54 AM5/31/12
to
Michael Christ wrote:
> > Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> > not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> > in you.
> > Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> > not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> > in you.
Ike wrote:
> Notice how the cultist changes the Word to try and hide the fact that he
> is a cultist.
> THIS is what the Word says, which he blasphemes by saying he does not sin...
> 1Jn 1:
> 8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
> Notice how the cultist changes the Word to try and hide the fact that he
> is a cultist.
> THIS is what the Word says, which he blasphemes by saying he does not sin...
> 1Jn 1:
> is not in us.
> 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
> sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>
> Ike
Don't let me prevent you, Ike.
> 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
> sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>
> Ike
There are no 'word without the deed' people in heavenly places in
Christ Jesus.
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
May 31, 2012, 7:32:46 AM5/31/12
to
Linda Lee
May 31, 2012, 8:35:27 AM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 6:57 am, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
> If you were you
> would acknowledge the truth when you hear it and rejoice to hear it.
Which one? You're contradicting yourself.
wrote:
> On May 21, 5:17 am, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
> > > Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> > > not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> > > in you.
>
> > > Michael Christ
> Linda wrote:
> > Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
> > in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
>
> Minus your 'improvisation', it is the truth plain and clear what I
> wrote.
>
> For the record, neither Ike or you are in Christ.
Who asked for your opinion?
> On May 21, 5:17 am, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
> > > Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> > > not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> > > in you.
>
> > > Michael Christ
> Linda wrote:
> > Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
> > in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
>
> Minus your 'improvisation', it is the truth plain and clear what I
> wrote.
>
> For the record, neither Ike or you are in Christ.
> If you were you
> would acknowledge the truth when you hear it and rejoice to hear it.
Linda Lee
May 31, 2012, 8:39:41 AM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 6:57 am, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
> If you were you
> would acknowledge the truth when you hear it and rejoice to hear it.
>
> Michael NOT-Christ
You're a joke, Mikey; you present no joyful truths; you just throw out
random statements about obvious things that have long been taught and
known by many, but which are apparently a recent revelation to you.
wrote:
> On May 21, 5:17 am, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
> > > Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> > > not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> > > in you.
>
> > > Michael Christ
> Linda wrote:
> > Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
> > in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
>
> Minus your 'improvisation', it is the truth plain and clear what I
> wrote.
>
> For the record, neither Ike or you are in Christ.
How would you know, Mikey NOT-Christ?
> On May 21, 5:17 am, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
> > > Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> > > not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> > > in you.
>
> > > Michael Christ
> Linda wrote:
> > Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
> > in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
>
> Minus your 'improvisation', it is the truth plain and clear what I
> wrote.
>
> For the record, neither Ike or you are in Christ.
> If you were you
> would acknowledge the truth when you hear it and rejoice to hear it.
>
You're a joke, Mikey; you present no joyful truths; you just throw out
random statements about obvious things that have long been taught and
known by many, but which are apparently a recent revelation to you.
duke
May 31, 2012, 12:28:39 PM5/31/12
to
dolf
May 31, 2012, 3:28:31 PM5/31/12
to
On 31/05/12 8:40 PM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
> On 5/30/2012 2:20 AM, dolf wrote:
>> On 29/05/12 5:05 PM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>>> On 5/26/2012 7:00 PM, dolf wrote:
>>>> "Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
>>>>
>>>> Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
>>>> ANZAC day a day to forget!"
>>>
>>> ...said the fool relying on Babylonian-originating Kabbalist teachings.
>>>
>>
>> Oh no Ike, I make no dependency on an indestructible atom as a geometric
>> construction and usage of manufactured spacial overlay:
>
> And the fool persists in his foolishness.
>
> [snippeth]
>
So it seems you do.
> On 5/30/2012 2:20 AM, dolf wrote:
>> On 29/05/12 5:05 PM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>>> On 5/26/2012 7:00 PM, dolf wrote:
>>>> "Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
>>>>
>>>> Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
>>>> ANZAC day a day to forget!"
>>>
>>> ...said the fool relying on Babylonian-originating Kabbalist teachings.
>>>
>>
>> Oh no Ike, I make no dependency on an indestructible atom as a geometric
>> construction and usage of manufactured spacial overlay:
>
> And the fool persists in his foolishness.
>
> [snippeth]
>
However the failure to now show a proper respect will cost you eternity...
“We have Jesus on the cross
Your cold love put him there.
What is now your human loss?
Forever gone and despair.”
Terry Cross
May 31, 2012, 5:17:20 PM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 3:49 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
Yes. The action of replacing the 12th Apostle stands out like an
aberration. My point was that "casting lots" to select Matthias is
VERY unbliblical. It smacks of divination. Also, the idea that there
must be a magic number of TWELVE, even to choosing someone Jesus did
not choose -- That, too, is an oddity.
The apostles made many mistakes while Jesus was alive. Is there any
reason to believe that everything they did after his death was perfect
and without mistake?
TCross
aberration. My point was that "casting lots" to select Matthias is
VERY unbliblical. It smacks of divination. Also, the idea that there
must be a magic number of TWELVE, even to choosing someone Jesus did
not choose -- That, too, is an oddity.
The apostles made many mistakes while Jesus was alive. Is there any
reason to believe that everything they did after his death was perfect
and without mistake?
TCross
Michael Christ
May 31, 2012, 5:40:01 PM5/31/12
to
Michael Christ wrote:
>Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>in you.
>Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>in you.
Linda wrote:
>Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
>in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
>Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
>in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
Michael Christ wrote:
>Minus your 'improvisation', it is the truth plain and clear what I
>wrote.
>For the record, neither Ike or you are in Christ.
>Minus your 'improvisation', it is the truth plain and clear what I
>wrote.
>For the record, neither Ike or you are in Christ.
Linda wrote:
> How would you know, Mikey NOT-Christ?
It is as obvious as your face is in the mirror.
> How would you know, Mikey NOT-Christ?
Michael Christ wrote:
>If you were you would acknowledge the truth when you hear it and rejoice to hear it.
Linda wrote:
> You're a joke, Mikey; you present no joyful truths; you just throw out
> random statements about obvious things that have long been taught and
> known by many, but which are apparently a recent revelation to you.
And above you ask how would I know??
> You're a joke, Mikey; you present no joyful truths; you just throw out
> random statements about obvious things that have long been taught and
> known by many, but which are apparently a recent revelation to you.
:-). You seek to diminish me in order to enlarge your own garment.
Why?
What a waste of time; you think that I don't see you? Thank the Lord
I do!
Long been taught but very rarely walked. As the Lord lives, you are
wasting your time and your life running around arguing and bickering
over nothing more than 'your will be done'. You, for there is many of
you, are like a herd of 'beasts' on the lower decks on the Titanic as
you speed on to your destination. If you had walked in your talk you
would know my spirit, but you don't to your inevitable and unavoidable
shame.
Rather, flee from yourself and learn what it means indeed, what real
repentance is, while you yet can...
2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the
LORD.
Isa_6:5 (KJV) Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am
a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean
lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine
eye seeth thee.
Job 42:6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
"Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
in you."
that the Lord may have mercy upon you to deliver you from yourself, or
perish in your filth.
Michael Christ
Terry Cross
May 31, 2012, 8:21:22 PM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 2:40 pm, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
the mirror" is NOT Linda's face.
TCross
wrote:
> Michael Christ wrote:
> >Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> >not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> >in you.
> Linda wrote:
> >Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
> >in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
> Michael Christ wrote:
> >Minus your 'improvisation', it is the truth plain and clear what I
> >wrote.
> >For the record, neither Ike or you are in Christ.
> Linda wrote:
> > How would you know, Mikey NOT-Christ?
>
> It is as obvious as your face is in the mirror.
Michael, here is a good Christian lesson for you: What you see "in
> >Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> >not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> >in you.
> Linda wrote:
> >Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
> >in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
> Michael Christ wrote:
> >Minus your 'improvisation', it is the truth plain and clear what I
> >wrote.
> >For the record, neither Ike or you are in Christ.
> Linda wrote:
> > How would you know, Mikey NOT-Christ?
>
> It is as obvious as your face is in the mirror.
the mirror" is NOT Linda's face.
TCross
Barry OGrady
May 31, 2012, 8:42:11 PM5/31/12
to
>TCross
Linda Lee
May 31, 2012, 10:56:05 PM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 5:40 pm, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>
>
> Wake up you who points the finger constantly and see your own sin,
> that the Lord may have mercy upon you to deliver you from yourself, or
> perish in your filth.
>
> Michael Christ
You are the filth, Mike Not-Christ.
> that the Lord may have mercy upon you to deliver you from yourself, or
> perish in your filth.
>
> Michael Christ
Linda Lee
May 31, 2012, 10:54:40 PM5/31/12
to
so we can't assume they were being led by the Spirit to do this.
However, the casting of lots was used by David to choose priests
(1Chron. 24:5) and the scapegoat was chosen by casting lots as well
(Lev. 16:8).
Rod
Jun 1, 2012, 8:02:03 AM6/1/12
to
But
> which of the disciples had about his person the instruments of
> gambling by which Matthias could be chosen?
>
> Why didn't they just use a Ouija board?
>
> TCross
Terry Cross
Jun 1, 2012, 1:54:39 PM6/1/12
to
Divine will are all forms of divination. All are outside the
teachings of Jesus, who recommended prayer alone.
That's why not.
TCross
Rod
Jun 1, 2012, 4:48:49 PM6/1/12
to
to hear what the other side has to say regardless of the prohibitions.
Terry Cross
Jun 2, 2012, 1:26:38 AM6/2/12
to
truth.
TCross
vince garcia
Jun 2, 2012, 7:13:00 AM6/2/12
to
sin, or forbids games of chance. Not one.
See proverbs Proverbs 18:18 and 16:33 which extol and support casting
lots
duke
Jun 2, 2012, 12:07:51 PM6/2/12
to
duke
Jun 2, 2012, 12:10:11 PM6/2/12
to
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:13:00 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Unless it consumes you to the point of failure in following Jesus.
wrote:
Rod
Jun 5, 2012, 11:32:31 AM6/5/12
to
by people of a particular kind of religious fervor
to write into the scriptures that which they feel it
is not plainly saying.
As a side note, Hitler did write into the bible, or more
accurately he wrote a bible in German that included not
only the standard scriptures we usually see, but as well
his own interpretations of specific verses. A friend in Idaho
who collects bibles has a copy of it that he purchased from
an auction house in California. He was telling me about the
history of it.
Rod
Jun 9, 2012, 10:54:19 AM6/9/12
to
On 6/2/2012 6:13 AM, vince garcia wrote:
Terry Cross
Jun 9, 2012, 11:33:01 AM6/9/12
to
sticks, the witching sands. Let there be crystal balls in every home
and tea leaf lessons in every classroom. Do your Church have a pack
of the latest Rider Waite Tarot Cards?
Like the mystics say, when God has a message, he speaks through
everyday items.
TCross
Rod
Jun 9, 2012, 11:59:37 AM6/9/12
to
>
> Like the mystics say, when God has a message, he speaks through
> everyday items.
>
> TCross
Terry Cross
Jun 9, 2012, 1:31:54 PM6/9/12
to
On Jun 2, 9:07 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
The word for that practice and belief is "divination."
Deuteronomy 18:10
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his
daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an
observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
2 Kings 17:17
And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the
fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do
evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Ezekiel 12:24
For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination
within the house of Israel.
TCross
Deuteronomy 18:10
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his
daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an
observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
2 Kings 17:17
And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the
fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do
evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Ezekiel 12:24
For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination
within the house of Israel.
TCross
Rod
Jun 9, 2012, 1:32:35 PM6/9/12
to
Rod
Jun 9, 2012, 3:31:23 PM6/9/12
to
common man.
"The Hebrew bible makes a number of references to lots. For example,
Jonah declared “Let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this
evil is upon us”; and the whole book of Esther is the story of Purim,
which means ‘lots’. Although the masses were forbidden by Jewish law to
cast lots for divination – which was the prerogative of the priests -
God's authorities on earth were allowed to use lottery devices to guide
judgements. Thus the chief priest carried sacred stones inside his
breastplate, through which he sensed divine intentions. The stones gave
God's answer, determined when the 'Yes' or the 'No' stone was drawn out.
King David consulted this oracular medium before going into battle: when
the 'Yes' stone appeared, forecasting his victory over the Philistines,
he set off on the warpath.
Linda Lee
Jun 9, 2012, 5:49:10 PM6/9/12
to
done from the time of Moses. I would not liken it to gambling on games
of chance though, as they involve winning or losing money. Apparently
it is not associated with consulting enchanters or those using
divination either.
Lev 16:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses after the death of the two
sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died;
Lev 16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother,
that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail
before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I
will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.
Lev 16:3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young
bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.
Lev 16:4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the
linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen
girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy
garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them
on.
Lev 16:5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of
Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a
burnt offering.
Lev 16:6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which
is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.
Lev 16:7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the
LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for
the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
Lev 16:9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot
fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat,
shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with
him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
Terry Cross
Jun 9, 2012, 7:40:02 PM6/9/12
to
ordering them to exterminated whole tribes and nations of people, and
to stone each other for religious infractions.
It is similar to Jehovah telling the Hebrews not to make graven
images, then ordering them to carve angels for Mercy Seat and
embroider figurines on the Temple veil.
Now we have Jehovah telling the Hebrews not to practice divination,
then telling them to "cast lots" to determine the Lord's will.
It helps to explain why the Jews and Old Testament-style Christians
are so confused about moral issues. Like Ike, they confuse the
teachings of Jesus with the morals of rabid dogs, biting and infecting
everyone within reach.
TCross
Terry Cross
Jun 9, 2012, 7:46:25 PM6/9/12
to
> evil is upon us�; and the whole book of Esther is the story of Purim,
> which means �lots�. Although the masses were forbidden by Jewish law to
> cast lots for divination � which was the prerogative of the priests -
> God's authorities on earth were allowed to use lottery devices to guide
> judgements. Thus the chief priest carried sacred stones inside his
> breastplate, through which he sensed divine intentions. The stones gave
> God's answer, determined when the 'Yes' or the 'No' stone was drawn out.
> King David consulted this oracular medium before going into battle: when
> the 'Yes' stone appeared, forecasting his victory over the Philistines,
> he set off on the warpath.
And there is another gaping difference between the religion of the
> judgements. Thus the chief priest carried sacred stones inside his
> breastplate, through which he sensed divine intentions. The stones gave
> God's answer, determined when the 'Yes' or the 'No' stone was drawn out.
> King David consulted this oracular medium before going into battle: when
> the 'Yes' stone appeared, forecasting his victory over the Philistines,
> he set off on the warpath.
Jews and the religion of Jesus. Jesus repudiated the high priests.
He had nothing to do with divination.
Jesus told his followers to simply "ask and it shall be given."
So now back to the topic: Why didn't the Apostles in Acts 1:26 simply
ask as Jesus told them? They took a mighty tumble into their previous
barbarisms by casting lots to determine God's will. Already, the
Christian Church was making missteps.
TCross
Michael Christ
Jun 9, 2012, 8:26:17 PM6/9/12
to
trust...etc., etc. in which God decides what is permissible and what
is not. Why couldn't God just tell Peter or one of the others who the
new 12th would be? Well He did, His way. Maybe He wanted the hearts
to just trust Him through the casting of lots. Maybe God intended
there be a palpable presence of expectation toward Him at the time and
use it as a kind of faith ripple effect through their lives from then
on...e.g. trust Me in everything, even in casting lots. Maybe. He
decides what is permissible and what is not and why it is necessary.
Hence the failure of trying to capture the Wind with personal
dogmatism/bible interpretations. You have to know what God's will is
at the time, whether to turn to the left or turn to the right, whether
it be a time to build up or a time to tear down.
Michael Christ
Rod
Jun 9, 2012, 8:39:44 PM6/9/12
to
>> evil is upon us�; and the whole book of Esther is the story of Purim,
>> which means �lots�. Although the masses were forbidden by Jewish law to
>> cast lots for divination � which was the prerogative of the priests -
>> God's authorities on earth were allowed to use lottery devices to guide
>> judgements. Thus the chief priest carried sacred stones inside his
>> breastplate, through which he sensed divine intentions. The stones gave
>> God's answer, determined when the 'Yes' or the 'No' stone was drawn out.
>> King David consulted this oracular medium before going into battle: when
>> the 'Yes' stone appeared, forecasting his victory over the Philistines,
>> he set off on the warpath.
>
>
> And there is another gaping difference between the religion of the
> Jews and the religion of Jesus. Jesus repudiated the high priests.
> He had nothing to do with divination.
That is a big difference. The priests used lots to determine the will
>> judgements. Thus the chief priest carried sacred stones inside his
>> breastplate, through which he sensed divine intentions. The stones gave
>> God's answer, determined when the 'Yes' or the 'No' stone was drawn out.
>> King David consulted this oracular medium before going into battle: when
>> the 'Yes' stone appeared, forecasting his victory over the Philistines,
>> he set off on the warpath.
>
>
> And there is another gaping difference between the religion of the
> Jews and the religion of Jesus. Jesus repudiated the high priests.
> He had nothing to do with divination.
of God all the time, why Christ would be against it is baffling..
>
> Jesus told his followers to simply "ask and it shall be given."
>
> So now back to the topic: Why didn't the Apostles in Acts 1:26 simply
> ask as Jesus told them?
Gods will, or perhaps they didn't trust Jesus as completely as
we think they should have ?
They took a mighty tumble into their previous
> barbarisms by casting lots to determine God's will. Already, the
> Christian Church was making missteps.
as far as I can determine has remained quiet on the subject of Yuzu
Asaf in Kashmir.
>
> TCross
Linda Lee
Jun 9, 2012, 8:48:21 PM6/9/12
to
not of good angels or other things.
>
> Now we have Jehovah telling the Hebrews not to practice divination,
> then telling them to "cast lots" to determine the Lord's will.
>
> It helps to explain why the Jews and Old Testament-style Christians
> are so confused about moral issues. Like Ike, they confuse the
> teachings of Jesus with the morals of rabid dogs, biting and infecting
> everyone within reach.
>
> TCross
determine God's will; enchanters and those who practiced divination
were not appealing to God for his guidance. That is why it was
forbidden; they were relying on something or someone else other than
God to guide them.
Terry Cross
Jun 10, 2012, 1:38:06 AM6/10/12
to
Acts?
TCross
duke
Jun 10, 2012, 9:56:38 AM6/10/12
to
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 10:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
That could well be. But divine intervention is divine intervention. They
prayed to God, not satan, to guide them in selection of a new apostle to God.
Divine intervention walking thru flames is a different mistake.
>Deuteronomy 18:10
>There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his
>daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an
>observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
>2 Kings 17:17
>And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the
>fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do
>evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
>Ezekiel 12:24
>For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination
>within the house of Israel.
>
>TCross
wrote:
prayed to God, not satan, to guide them in selection of a new apostle to God.
Divine intervention walking thru flames is a different mistake.
>Deuteronomy 18:10
>There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his
>daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an
>observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
>2 Kings 17:17
>And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the
>fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do
>evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
>Ezekiel 12:24
>For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination
>within the house of Israel.
>
>TCross
duke
Jun 10, 2012, 9:59:23 AM6/10/12
to
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:32:35 -0500, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The casting of lots, the Ouija board, and hieroscopy to determine
>>>> Divine will are all forms of divination. All are outside the
>>>> teachings of Jesus, who recommended prayer alone.
>>>
>>> There are at least two sides to every story and perhaps more. I'd like
>>> to hear what the other side has to say regardless of the prohibitions.
>>
>> They believed that God guided the lots.
>
> And what do you think ?
To reject that God would respond that way is beyond me. Scripture says it. We
>>>> The casting of lots, the Ouija board, and hieroscopy to determine
>>>> Divine will are all forms of divination. All are outside the
>>>> teachings of Jesus, who recommended prayer alone.
>>>
>>> There are at least two sides to every story and perhaps more. I'd like
>>> to hear what the other side has to say regardless of the prohibitions.
>>
>> They believed that God guided the lots.
>
> And what do you think ?
got a new Apostle for Judas. If you believe that God intervenes at all in our
lives, then for them, lots was legitimate.
Terry Cross
Jun 10, 2012, 4:02:31 PM6/10/12
to
don't believe that is the meaning of Deuteronomy 18:10
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his
daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an
observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
TCross
daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an
observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
Linda Lee
Jun 10, 2012, 5:22:26 PM6/10/12
to
God.
Linda Lee
Jun 10, 2012, 5:51:49 PM6/10/12
to
On Jun 9, 11:59 am, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/2012 10:33 AM, Terry Cross wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 4:13 am, vince garcia<vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>Rodwrote:
>
> >>> On 6/1/2012 12:54 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 1, 5:02 am,Rod<nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/2012 10:33 AM, Terry Cross wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 4:13 am, vince garcia<vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>Rodwrote:
>
> >>> On 6/1/2012 12:54 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/30/2012 5:32 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On May 30, 6:32 am,Rod<nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
"Hallucinations in the sane
A hallucination may occur in a person in a state of good mental and
physical health, even in the apparent absence of a transient trigger
factor such as fatigue, intoxication or sensory deprivation.
It is not widely recognized that hallucinatory experiences are not
merely the prerogative of those suffering from mental illness, or
normal people in abnormal states, but that they occur spontaneously in
a significant proportion of the normal population, when in good health
and not undergoing particular stress or other abnormal circumstance.
The evidence for this statement has been accumulating for more than a
century. Studies of hallucinatory experience in the sane go back to
1886 and the early work of the Society for Psychical Research,[1][2]
which suggested approximately 10% of the population had experienced at
least one hallucinatory episode in the course of their life. More
recent studies have validated these findings; the precise incidence
found varies with the nature of the episode and the criteria of
‘hallucination’ adopted, but the basic finding is now well-supported.
[3]
Contents
1 Types
1.1 Apparitional experiences
1.2 Out-of-body experiences
1.3 Dreams and lucid dreams
1.3.1 False awakenings
1.4 Laboratory-induced hallucinations
2 Subtypes
2.1 Auditory hallucinations
2.2 The ‘Sense of Presence’
2.3 Hallucinations in bereavement
3 Theoretical implications
3.1 Psychological
3.2 Philosophical
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
Types
Of particular interest, for reasons to be discussed below, are those
hallucinatory experiences of the sane which are characterised by
extreme perceptual realism, sometimes to the extent that the subject
does not at first achieve insight, indeed may only achieve insight
after the experience has ended.
Apparitional experiences
A type of hallucinatory experience occurring to sane people is the
apparitional experience, which may be defined as one in which a
subject seems to perceive some person or thing that is not really
there. Self-selected samples tend to report a predominance of human
figures, but apparitions of animals,[4] and even objects[5] are also
reported. Notably, the majority of the human figures reported in such
samples are not recognised by the subject, and of those who are, not
all are of deceased persons; apparitions of living persons have also
been reported.[6]
Out-of-body experiences
Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) have become to some extent conflated in
the public mind with the concept of the near-death experience.
However, the evidence suggests that the majority of out-of-body
experiences do not occur near death, but in conditions of either very
high or very low arousal.[7] McCreery [8] has suggested that this
latter paradox may be explained by reference to the fact that sleep
may be approached, not only by the conventional route of low arousal
and deafferentation, but also by the less familiar route of extreme
stress and hyper-arousal.[9] On this model OBEs represent the
intrusion of Stage 1 sleep processes into waking consciousness.
OBEs are to be regarded as hallucinatory on the grounds that they are
perceptual or quasi-perceptual experiences in which by definition the
ostensible viewpoint is not coincident with the physical body of the
subject. Therefore the normal sensory input, if any, that the subject
is receiving during the experience cannot correspond exactly to the
perceptual representation of the world in the subject’s consciousness.
As with hallucinatory experiences in general, attempts to survey
samples of the general population have suggested that such experiences
are relatively common, incidence figures of between 15 and 25 percent
being commonly reported.[10] The variation is presumably to be
accounted for by the different types of populations sampled and the
different criteria of ‘out-of-body experience’ used.
Dreams and lucid dreams
Main articles: Dream and Lucid dream
A dream has been defined by some (e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica) as a
hallucinatory experience during sleep.
A lucid dream may be defined as one in which the dreamer is aware that
he or she is asleep and dreaming. The term ‘lucid dream’ was first
used by the Dutch physician Frederik van Eeden,[11] who studied his
own dreams of this type.
The word ‘lucid’ refers to the fact that the subject has achieved
insight into his or her condition, rather than the perceptual quality
of the experience. Nevertheless, it is one of the features of lucid
dreams that they can have an extremely high quality of perceptual
realism, to the extent that the dreamer may spend time examining and
admiring the perceptual environment and the way it appears to imitate
that of waking life.[12]
Lucid dreams by definition occur during sleep, but they may be
regarded as hallucinatory experiences in the same way as non-lucid
dreams of a vivid perceptual nature may be regarded as hallucinatory,
that is they are examples of 'an experience having the character of
sense perception, but without relevant or adequate sensory stimulation
[…]' [13]
False awakenings
A false awakening is one in which the subject seems to wake up,
whether from a lucid or a non-lucid dream, but is in fact still asleep.
[14] Sometimes the experience is so realistic perceptually (the
sleeper seeming to wake in his or her own bedroom, for example) that
insight is not achieved at once, or even until the dreamer really
wakes up and realises that what has occurred was hallucinatory. Such
experiences seem particularly liable to occur to those who
deliberately cultivate lucid dreams. However, they may also occur
spontaneously and be associated with the experience of sleep
paralysis.
Laboratory-induced hallucinations
Psychotic-like symptoms, such as hallucinations and unusual perceptual
experience, involve gross alterations in the experience of reality.
Perception is substantially constructive and what we perceive is
strongly influenced by our prior experiences and expectancies. Healthy
individuals prone to hallucinations - or scoring highly on
psychometric measures of positive schizotypy - tend to show a bias
toward reporting stimuli that did not occur under perceptually
ambiguous experimental conditions.[15][16] During visual detection of
fast-moving words, undergraduate students scoring highly on positive
schizotypy had significantly high rates of false perceptions of words
(i.e. reported seeing words that were not included in the experimental
trials).[17] Positive schizotypal symptoms in healthy adults seem to
predict false perceptions in laboratory tasks and certain
environmental parameters such as perceptual load[18] and frequency of
visual targets [19] are critical in the generation of false
perceptions. When detection of events becomes either effortless or
cognitively demanding [1] generation of such biases can be prevented.
[20]
Subtypes
Auditory hallucinations
Main article: Auditory hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations, and in particular the hearing of a voice, are
thought of as particularly characteristic of people suffering from
schizophrenia. However, normal subjects also report auditory
hallucinations to a surprising extent. For example, Bentall and
Slade[21] found that as many as 15.4% of a population of 150 male
students were prepared to endorse the statement ‘In the past I have
had the experience of hearing a person’s voice and then found that no
one was there’. They add:
‘[…]no less than 17.5% of the [subjects] were prepared to score the
item “I often hear a voice speaking my thoughts aloud” as “Certainly
Applies”. This latter item is usually regarded as a first-rank symptom
of schizophrenia[…]’
Green and McCreery[22] found that 14% of their 1800 self-selected
subjects reported a purely auditory hallucination, and of these nearly
half involved the hearing of articulate or inarticulate human speech
sounds. An example of the former would be the case of an engineer
facing a difficult professional decision, who, while sitting in a
cinema, heard a voice saying, ‘loudly and distinctly’: ‘You can’t do
it you know’. He adds:
‘It was so clear and resonant that I turned and looked at my companion
who was gazing placidly at the screen[…] I was amazed and somewhat
relieved when it became apparent that I was the only person who had
heard anything.’[23]
This case would be an example of what Posey and Losch[24] call
‘hearing a comforting or advising voice that is not perceived as being
one’s own thoughts’. They estimated that approximately 10% of their
population of 375 American college students had had this type of
experience.
The ‘Sense of Presence’
This is a paradoxical experience in which the person has a strong
feeling of the presence of another person, sometimes recognised,
sometimes unrecognised, but without any apparently justifying sensory
stimulus.
The nineteenth-century American psychologist and philosopher William
James described the experience thus:
'From the way in which this experience is spoken of by those who have
had it, it would appear to be an extremely definite and positive state
of mind, coupled with a belief in the reality of its object quite as
strong as any direct sensation ever gives. And yet no sensation seems
to be connected with it at all... The phenomenon would seem to be due
to a pure conception becoming saturated with the sort of stinging
urgency which ordinarily only sensations bring.'*[25]
The following is an example of this type of experience:
‘My husband died in June 1945, and 26 years afterwards when I was at
Church, I felt him standing beside me during the singing of a hymn. I
felt I would see him if I turned my head. The feeling was so strong I
was reduced to tears. I had not been thinking of him before I felt his
presence. I had not had this feeling before that day, neither has it
happened since then.’[26]
Experiences of this kind appear to meet all but one of the normal
criteria of hallucination. For example, Slade and Bentall proposed the
following working definition of a hallucination:
‘Any percept-like experience which (a) occurs in the absence of an
appropriate stimulus, (b) has the full force or impact of the
corresponding actual (real) perception, and (c) is not amenable to
direct and voluntary control by the experiencer.’[27]
The experience quoted above certainly meets the second and third of
these three criteria. One might add that the ‘presence’ in such a case
is experienced as located in a definite position in external physical
space. In this respect it may be said to be more hallucinatory than,
for example, some hypnagogic imagery, which may be experienced as
external to the subject but located in a mental ‘space’ of its own.[28]
[29]
Hallucinations in bereavement
This section requires expansion.
Rees[30] conducted a study of 293 widowed people living in a
particular area of mid-Wales. He found that 14% of those interviewed
reported having had a visual hallucination of their deceased spouse,
13.3% an auditory one and 2.7% a tactile one. These categories
overlapped to some extent as some people reported a hallucinatory
experience in more than one modality. Of interest in light of the
previous heading was the fact that 46.7% of the sample reported
experiencing the presence of the deceased spouse.
Theoretical implications
Psychological
The main importance of hallucinations in the sane to theoretical
psychology lies in their relevance to the debate between the disease
model versus the dimensional model of psychosis. According to the
disease model, psychotic states such as those associated with
schizophrenia and manic-depression, represent symptoms of an
underlying disease process, which is dichotomous in nature; i.e. a
given subject either does or does not have the disease, just as a
person either does or does not have a physical disease such as
tuberculosis. According to the dimensional model, by contrast, the
population at large is ranged along a normally distributed continuum
or dimension, which has been variously labelled as psychoticism
(H.J.Eysenck), schizotypy (Gordon Claridge) or psychosis-proneness.
[31]
The occurrence of spontaneous hallucinatory experiences in sane
persons who are enjoying good physical health at the time, and who are
not drugged or in other unusual physical states of a transient nature
such as extreme fatigue, would appear to provide support for the
dimensional model. The alternative to this view requires one to posit
some hidden or latent disease process, of which such experiences are a
symptom or precursor, an explanation which would appear to beg the
question.
Philosophical
The ‘argument from hallucination’ has traditionally been one of those
used by proponents of the philosophical theory of representationalism
against direct realism. Representationalism holds that when perceiving
the world we are not in direct contact with it, as common sense
suggests[citation needed], but only in direct contact with a
representation of the world in consciousness. That representation may
be a more or less accurate one depending on our circumstances, the
state of our health, and so on. Direct realism, on the other hand,
holds that the common sense or unthinking view of perception is
correct, and that when perceiving the world we should be regarded as
in direct contact with it, unmediated by any representation in
consciousness.
Clearly, during an apparitional experience, for example, the
correspondence between how the subject is perceiving the world and how
the world really is at that moment is distinctly imperfect. At the
same time the experience may present itself to the subject as
indistinguishable from normal perception. McCreery[32] has argued that
such empirical phenomena strengthen the case for representationalism
as against direct realism."
<END QUOTE>
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Jun 11, 2012, 11:04:26 AM6/11/12
to
On 5/31/2012 7:03 AM, Michael Christ wrote:
> Michael Christ wrote:
>>> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>>> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>>> in you.
>
>
> Ike wrote:
> Michael Christ wrote:
>>> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>>> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>>> in you.
>
>
>> Notice how the cultist changes the Word to try and hide the fact that he
>> is a cultist.
>
>> THIS is what the Word says, which he blasphemes by saying he does not sin...
>
>> 1Jn 1:
>> 8 � If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
>> is not in us.
>> 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
>> sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>>
>> Ike
>
> Don't let me prevent you, Ike.
>
> There are no 'word without the deed' people in heavenly places in
> Christ Jesus.
Notice how the cultist changes the context, i.e. the deeds of the
Gospel, i.e. mercy, grace, and faith, to the deeds of law keeping, which
is exactly where Satan wants people to go with all of this, i.e. leave
behind the Gospel and put on one's own works of "righteousness," which
leads people right back into the trap of the law which leads to death.
Ike
--
http://thetriunist.weebly.com/index.html
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Triune-Hypothesis/102657386473773
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Jun 11, 2012, 11:05:29 AM6/11/12
to
On 5/31/2012 3:28 PM, dolf wrote:
> On 31/05/12 8:40 PM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> On 5/30/2012 2:20 AM, dolf wrote:
>>> On 29/05/12 5:05 PM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2012 7:00 PM, dolf wrote:
>>>>> "Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
>>>>> ANZAC day a day to forget!"
>>>>
>>>> ...said the fool relying on Babylonian-originating Kabbalist teachings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh no Ike, I make no dependency on an indestructible atom as a geometric
>>> construction and usage of manufactured spacial overlay:
>>
>> And the fool persists in his foolishness.
>>
>> [snippeth]
>>
>
> So it seems you do.
>
> However the failure to now show a proper respect will cost you eternity...
As if any lunatic cultist deserves ANY respect.
> On 31/05/12 8:40 PM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> On 5/30/2012 2:20 AM, dolf wrote:
>>> On 29/05/12 5:05 PM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2012 7:00 PM, dolf wrote:
>>>>> "Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish dogs such as Barry OGRADY make
>>>>> ANZAC day a day to forget!"
>>>>
>>>> ...said the fool relying on Babylonian-originating Kabbalist teachings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh no Ike, I make no dependency on an indestructible atom as a geometric
>>> construction and usage of manufactured spacial overlay:
>>
>> And the fool persists in his foolishness.
>>
>> [snippeth]
>>
>
> So it seems you do.
>
> However the failure to now show a proper respect will cost you eternity...
As if any lunatic cultist deserves ANY respect.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Jun 11, 2012, 11:07:25 AM6/11/12
to
On 5/31/2012 5:40 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
> Michael Christ wrote:
>> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>> in you.
>
> Linda wrote:
> Michael Christ wrote:
>> Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
>> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
>> in you.
>
>> Weren't you just preaching that we all should realize our perfection
>> in Christ? Now we should all realize all we are is sin?
>
> Michael Christ wrote:
>> Minus your 'improvisation', it is the truth plain and clear what I
>> wrote.
>
>> For the record, neither Ike or you are in Christ.
>
> Linda wrote:
>> How would you know, Mikey NOT-Christ?
>
> It is as obvious as your face is in the mirror.
>
>
> Michael Christ wrote:
>> If you were you would acknowledge the truth when you hear it and rejoice to hear it.
>
> Linda wrote:
>> You're a joke, Mikey; you present no joyful truths; you just throw out
>> random statements about obvious things that have long been taught and
>> known by many, but which are apparently a recent revelation to you.
>
> And above you ask how would I know??
>
> :-). You seek to diminish me in order to enlarge your own garment.
> Why?
>
> What a waste of time; you think that I don't see you? Thank the Lord
> I do!
>
> Long been taught but very rarely walked. As the Lord lives, you are
> wasting your time and your life running around arguing and bickering
> over nothing more than 'your will be done'. You, for there is many of
> you, are like a herd of 'beasts' on the lower decks on the Titanic as
> you speed on to your destination. If you had walked in your talk you
> would know my spirit, but you don't to your inevitable and unavoidable
> shame.
>
> Rather, flee from yourself and learn what it means indeed, what real
> repentance is, while you yet can...
>
> 2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the
> LORD.
>
> Isa_6:5 (KJV) Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am
> a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean
> lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
>
> Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine
> eye seeth thee.
> Job 42:6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
>
> "Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> in you."
>
> Wake up you who points the finger constantly and see your own sin,
> "Unless you confess that all you are is sin, you claim that you have
> not sinned in part, and therefore you are a liar and the truth is not
> in you."
>
> that the Lord may have mercy upon you to deliver you from yourself, or
> perish in your filth.
Notice how Satan here keeps referring back to the OLD TESTAMENT concept
of "repentance" rather than Jesus' NEW concept of Repentance, under
which everyone is guilty unto death, but are SAVED by mercy and grace,
NOT law keeping and SELF-righteousness.
Bad Satan.
Barry OGrady
Jun 11, 2012, 5:52:37 PM6/11/12
to
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:07:25 -0400, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Notice how Satan here keeps referring back to the OLD TESTAMENT concept
>of "repentance" rather than Jesus' NEW concept of Repentance, under
>which everyone is guilty unto death, but are SAVED by mercy and grace,
>NOT law keeping and SELF-righteousness.
>
>Bad Satan.
Bad God for creating and using Satan! Colossians 1:16 - 17
<xeickl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Notice how Satan here keeps referring back to the OLD TESTAMENT concept
>of "repentance" rather than Jesus' NEW concept of Repentance, under
>which everyone is guilty unto death, but are SAVED by mercy and grace,
>NOT law keeping and SELF-righteousness.
>
>Bad Satan.
>Ike
=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
God is a spirit. 0% proof!
Michael Christ
Jun 11, 2012, 6:40:29 PM6/11/12
to
On Jun 12, 1:04 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeicklebo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> --http://thetriunist.weebly.com/index.htmlhttp://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Triune-Hypothesis/102657...
Rattle on in your own contexts all you like.
You have to learn to walk in your talk; that evidence was given you
earlier.
You were told, 1 John 1:8-10 is present tense for you, past tense for
me; I posted all that truth about real repentance for all to see
(don't forget verses 6 and 7 by the way).
Walk with your talk and you won't waste your life spitting bile in
vain.
Michael Christ
wrote:
Rattle on in your own contexts all you like.
You have to learn to walk in your talk; that evidence was given you
earlier.
You were told, 1 John 1:8-10 is present tense for you, past tense for
me; I posted all that truth about real repentance for all to see
(don't forget verses 6 and 7 by the way).
Walk with your talk and you won't waste your life spitting bile in
vain.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Jun 11, 2012, 7:04:22 PM6/11/12
to
On Jun 12, 1:07 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeicklebo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
any power.
Mat_28:18 (KJV) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL
POWER is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Serve the Lord Jesus Christ not the belief that Satan has any.
And dispel another cultic 'love me as I am and the way I want to stay'
subtly: A man is not 'saved by mercy and grace', a man is saved by
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Michael Christ
PS Wasn't this enough New Testament for you...Posted the day before
20/5/12...
'Repent'...not 'Keep on Repenting'
Mat 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the
wilderness of Judaea,
Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Did you see the word "REPENT"?
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent:
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Jesus BEGAN TO PREACH and the FIRST word He says, "REPENT".
Notice John in preparing the way of the Lord and the Lord Jesus say
the same thing, "REPENT" and not 'keep on repenting'?
You see, God's standard is not the standard of man. His ways are not
our ways.
And that is why there is so much confusion in religion, there is a
clash between what God says the true meaning of what His Word is, and
what man likes to water it down to mean by virtue of his own fleshly
contrivance.
But the Lord will have none of that, repent means repent, it does not
mean leaving the door open to swing both ways by seeking to establish
a convenient 'keep on repenting' standard.
When God says something He means it.
Michael Christ
wrote:
Ike wrote:
> Notice how Satan here keeps referring back to the OLD TESTAMENT concept
> of "repentance" rather than Jesus' NEW concept of Repentance, under
> which everyone is guilty unto death, but are SAVED by mercy and grace,
> NOT law keeping and SELF-righteousness.
>
> Bad Satan.
>
> Ike
For the record, I'd like to dispel this cultic belief that Satan has
> Notice how Satan here keeps referring back to the OLD TESTAMENT concept
> of "repentance" rather than Jesus' NEW concept of Repentance, under
> which everyone is guilty unto death, but are SAVED by mercy and grace,
> NOT law keeping and SELF-righteousness.
>
> Bad Satan.
>
> Ike
any power.
Mat_28:18 (KJV) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL
POWER is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Serve the Lord Jesus Christ not the belief that Satan has any.
And dispel another cultic 'love me as I am and the way I want to stay'
subtly: A man is not 'saved by mercy and grace', a man is saved by
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Michael Christ
PS Wasn't this enough New Testament for you...Posted the day before
20/5/12...
'Repent'...not 'Keep on Repenting'
Mat 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the
wilderness of Judaea,
Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Did you see the word "REPENT"?
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent:
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Jesus BEGAN TO PREACH and the FIRST word He says, "REPENT".
Notice John in preparing the way of the Lord and the Lord Jesus say
the same thing, "REPENT" and not 'keep on repenting'?
You see, God's standard is not the standard of man. His ways are not
our ways.
And that is why there is so much confusion in religion, there is a
clash between what God says the true meaning of what His Word is, and
what man likes to water it down to mean by virtue of his own fleshly
contrivance.
But the Lord will have none of that, repent means repent, it does not
mean leaving the door open to swing both ways by seeking to establish
a convenient 'keep on repenting' standard.
When God says something He means it.
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
Jun 11, 2012, 9:50:11 PM6/11/12
to
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:04:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 1:07�am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeicklebo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Bad Satan.
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 1:07�am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeicklebo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
Bad god for creating and empowering Satan.
>> Ike
>
>For the record, I'd like to dispel this cultic belief that Satan has
>any power.
>
>Mat_28:18 (KJV) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL
>POWER is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
>
>Serve the Lord Jesus Christ not the belief that Satan has any.
>
>And dispel another cultic 'love me as I am and the way I want to stay'
>subtly: A man is not 'saved by mercy and grace', a man is saved by
>faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
>Michael Christ
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Jun 12, 2012, 1:11:05 AM6/12/12
to
the Pharisee.
It's PRESENT tense for EVERYBODY (save Jesus), and will remain so UNTIL
THE REDEMPTION at the RESURRECTION, Satan.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Jun 12, 2012, 1:12:15 AM6/12/12
to
[snippeth the rest of the cult mantra]
Barry OGrady
Jun 12, 2012, 1:19:29 AM6/12/12
to
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:11:05 -0400, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No, you lie just like the Pharisee in Jesus' parable of the Publican and
>the Pharisee.
>
>It's PRESENT tense for EVERYBODY (save Jesus),
How can we save Jesus?
<xeickl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No, you lie just like the Pharisee in Jesus' parable of the Publican and
>the Pharisee.
>
>It's PRESENT tense for EVERYBODY (save Jesus),
>and will remain so UNTIL
>THE REDEMPTION at the RESURRECTION, Satan.
God uses Satan for his own purpose.
>Ike
Barry OGrady
Jun 12, 2012, 1:21:25 AM6/12/12
to
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:12:15 -0400, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/6/2012 7:04 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
>> For the record, I'd like to dispel this cultic belief that Satan has
>> any power.
>
>You demonstrate that Satan DOES have power...with your lies and blasphemies.
Satan's power comes from God. Colossians 1:16
<xeickl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/6/2012 7:04 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
>> For the record, I'd like to dispel this cultic belief that Satan has
>> any power.
>
>You demonstrate that Satan DOES have power...with your lies and blasphemies.
0 new messages