I need to correct you on a few things. I have never
been a Catholic, am not a Catholic, and will never be
a Catholic. My unsaved parents use to attend a
Southern Baptist Church. NOw they go nowhere. They too
have never been Catholic. I myself am Independent
Baptist (KJV only).
As for your assumptions regarding Baptist history,
you are greatly in err. Lets look at the historical
facts shall we?
APPROXIMATE DATES OF ACTUAL INTRODUCTION INTO HISTORY
Baptist - 30 A.D. (from John the Baptist)
Roman Catholic - 251 A.D.
Greek Orthodox - 869 A.D.
Lutheran - 1530 A.D.
Anglican - 1531 A.D.
Presbyterian - 1541 A.D.
Congregationalist - 1602 A.D.
Methodist - 1785 A.D.
Daniel, since you get all of your information from the
InterNet and/or secular literature, as well as
non-Baptist Historical documents, let me let you in on
the real facts of Baptist history that you cannot
refute;
"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians
that have never symbolized with Rome."
- Sir Isaac Newton
"Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously
tormented and cut off with the knife during the past
twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater
numbers than all the Reformers."
- Cardinal Hosius, Roman Catholic President of the
Council of Trent, 1524 A.D., as quoted from Hosius,
Letters, pages 112-113.
"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay
secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons
who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern
Dutch Baptists."
- Lutheran Historina Mosheim
"It must have already occurred to our readers that the
Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were
formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems
to have been their leading principle from the time of
Tertullian to the present time."
- Presbyterian Edinburg Cyclopedia
NOTE: Tertullian was born in the year 150 A.D., only
fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.
Daniel, I am a Baptist Christian and I oppose the
twisiting of the real Bible, the AV1611 A.D.,
affectionately known as the "King James Version". The
Roman Catholic Church uses the Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia for it's Old Testament, along with the
Septuagint, the Apocrypha, the Codex Alexandrius, and
the Codex Sinaiticus. The KJV uses the Masoretic Text
prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim 1,000 A.D. text for the
Old Testament. The Roman Catholic Church uses the
Eclectic Text for the New Testament, while the KJV
uses the Received Text prepared by Robert Stephens,
1555 Folio Edition. The Roman Catholic Church bases
it's scripture on that of the Roman Catholic
Translator Jerome from his Latin Vulgate. The Baptists
use the scripture found in the Textus Receptus in
Apostolic successsion from the original authographs to
the only successive text of today; the KJV. The NIV,
so-called NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, Jerusalem Bible, the
Jehovah's Witnesses NWT, NIrV, RSV, NRSV, NCV, NLT,
etc, etc, etc, ALL use the Wescott-Hort Eclectic Text
for the New Testament and the Biblica Hebraica
Stuttgartensia for the Old Testament. ONLY the King
James Bible uses the Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old
Testament and the Koine Greek Received Tect for the
New Testament. Hang it up Daniel! If you even attempt
to explain Greek, Hebrew, and Aaramaic to me, I will
wipe you in the dirt friend. Give up on the KJV as
well, because I have given lectures on it, and have
hashed out with Seminary professors and scholars of
liberal colleges and Seminary, excuse me, CEMETARY
students as well, and they have all lost the debate.
I have personally owned the Nestle-Aland 25th, 26th,
and 27th edition Greek New Tetsaments, and the Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the UBS Hebrew Masoretic
Text, the Received Text, the Septuagint, the UBS 3rd
and 4th edition Greek New Testaments, et al. What you
know is so messed up and unfactual it makes me sick.
You really blew that argument, Daniel!
Now lets get to more pressing info; Since you think
you were a Chistian, and let me tell you, you were
NOT, why don't you explain Hebrews 10:11 (KJV). I will
know if you really don't understand it by the
methodology that you may use. Perhaps Hermeneutics
might help you, but I doubt it, since the Bible cannot
be twisted to fit your Symbolic Satanist ideology.
Also, it is the Holy Spirit of God that leads men,
women, boys and girls into the truth of scripture,
something you have no understanding or lot in, as of
yet that is.
Regarding Michael A. Aquino, if you are trying to
convince me that the man is smart and 'good', get
real. Anyone who tattoo's 666 on his sclap, tweeks his
eyebrows upward, and cuts his hair in a 'widows peak',
while proclaiming himself the second beast prophesied
by Wiccan Aleister Crowley (doubt he was NOT a
Satanist, check out my website!), ain't worth
listening to to begin with. The man is a spitual wimp!
He serves a defeated angel named Lucifer who has
convinced Aquino, and you too Daniel, that the
Egyptian pantheon holds the true key to the truths of
the universe. Ever hear of Pharoah? Ever hear of the
Red Sea? Ever hear of Moses? Isn't it funny how that
all the major nations of that time of Moses, ALL
attest in written form, the destruction of Pharoah's
army in the Red Sea following the exodus of the
Israelites from Goshen in Egypt?! ;)
Sorry, Daniel, but you lost the argument, and you will
loose your eternity in heaven if you continue down the
crooked path of Satanism as you have deemed fit to
follow. That can change. Ask me how 'cause hell is for
real. Thanx!
- Evangelist Robby Rush
P.S. Daniel, I will be on the radio October 21st and
28th on radio station KTPW 89.7 FM to present the
truth about Samhain (Halloween). Check it out if you
can. If you don't live in the Dallas/Ft.Worth, Texas
area, you can catch the show live! via InterNet by
going to www.Lighthouse21.com and clicking on REAL
AUDIO, The time I will be on the show will be at 9:00
PM Central Standard Time until 10:00 PM Central
Standard Time. Thanx again.
P.S.S. Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT use the real Bible
but their own revision of it. They refer to it as the
"New World Translation", which has neither references
to any legitimate Hebrew and Greek Texts, and
absolutely refuses to name the actual translators and
their qualification in any edition of the NWT.
However, as I stated above, they use the Eclectic Text
rather than the Received Text, for the New Testament.
The Ecelcetic Text literally ommits, transposes, and
adds verses at whim that are not found in ANY text of
the last 2,000+ years. 1 John 5:7 blows the JW's out
the door every time. This verse I have lectured on as
well, and don't think you can tear it apart, becauses
amigo, I would tear you apart with facts you cannot
refute. Besides, aren't you >suppose< to be Satanist,
albeit Symbolic? :}
=====
EVANGELIST ROBBY RUSH
P.O. Box 360573
Dallas, Texas 75336 U.S.A
Office: (972) 286-3860
E-Mail: ExWitch@yahoo.com
WebSite: Listen.to/RobbyRush
> >
> >
Dear Daniel:
> >
> > I need to correct you on a few things. I have never
> > been a Catholic, am not a Catholic, and will never be
> > a Catholic. My unsaved parents use to attend a
> > Southern Baptist Church. NOw they go nowhere. They too
> > have never been Catholic. I myself am Independent
> > Baptist (KJV only).
> --
> Okay, that clears up some of the history. You weren't brought
up in a
> strict religious household as I had thought, and your salvation was
a
> return to your original religion.
> As for being an "independant", this confirms my suspicions that you
are
> a "matchbook evangelist".
> --
> > As for your assumptions regarding Baptist history,
> > you are greatly in err. Lets look at the historical
> > facts shall we?
> > APPROXIMATE DATES OF ACTUAL INTRODUCTION INTO HISTORY
> > Baptist - 30 A.D. (from John the Baptist)
> > Roman Catholic - 251 A.D.
> > Greek Orthodox - 869 A.D.
> > Lutheran - 1530 A.D.
> > Anglican - 1531 A.D.
> > Presbyterian - 1541 A.D.
> > Congregationalist - 1602 A.D.
> > Methodist - 1785 A.D.
> > --
> You can't consider the Bible as a source of history here, because
the
> accuracy of the Bible is what's up for debate. A claim that
Baptist
> history has a direct line of descent from John the Baptist can only
be
> accepted if we also accept the claim of the Freemasons to be of direct
> descent to the slaves that built the pyramids.
> Note, with the exception of the quintessentially Catholic Greek Orthodox
> church, there are no lasting non-catholic denominations prior to
the
> reformation.
> --
> > Daniel, since you get all of your information from the
> > InterNet and/or secular literature, as well as
> > non-Baptist Historical documents, let me let you in on
> > the real facts of Baptist history that you cannot
> > refute;
> >
> > "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians
> > that have never symbolized with Rome."
> > - Sir Isaac Newton
> --
> I can't refute that they were said, but they can be refuted.
Newton
> may have said so, and probably believed it, but he wasn't a historian.
> Nice to see you quote an astrologer, though. It shows an open
mind.
> --
> > "Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously
> > tormented and cut off with the knife during the past
> > twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater
> > numbers than all the Reformers."
> > - Cardinal Hosius, Roman Catholic President of the
> > Council of Trent, 1524 A.D., as quoted from Hosius,
> > Letters, pages 112-113.
> > "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay
> > secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons
> > who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern
> > Dutch Baptists."
> > - Lutheran Historina Mosheim
> --
> Scattered groups of heretical thinkers from different regions who poked their heads up in different times of history do not make for a cohesive and historically relevant sect. The idea that such constituted a single sect has been applied in modern times with the silly blanket term "paganism" which has it
that the Celts believed pretty much the same thing as the Greeks who believed pretty much the same thing as the African trible cults. These minor historical heretical groups differed widely in many respects from each other and from what you believe.
> --
> > "It must have already occurred to our readers that the
> > Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were
> > formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems
> > to have been their leading principle from the time of
> > Tertullian to the present time."
> > - Presbyterian Edinburg Cyclopedia
> > NOTE: Tertullian was born in the year 150 A.D., only
> > fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.
> --
> Yes, that single thing about baptizing adults instead of children
is the main tie that binds these varied groups together. But both
Rastafarians and Orthodox Jews have rules against cutting their hair, and
they are very different and do not constitute a united sect.
> --
> > Daniel, I am a Baptist Christian and I oppose the
> > twisiting of the real Bible, the AV1611 A.D.,
> > affectionately known as the "King James Version". The
> > Roman Catholic Church uses the Biblia Hebraica
> > Stuttgartensia for it's Old Testament, along with the
> > Septuagint, the Apocrypha, the Codex Alexandrius, and
> > the Codex Sinaiticus. The KJV uses the Masoretic Text
> > prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim 1,000 A.D. text for the
> > Old Testament. The Roman Catholic Church uses the
> > Eclectic Text for the New Testament, while the KJV
> > uses the Received Text prepared by Robert Stephens,
> > 1555 Folio Edition. The Roman Catholic Church bases
> > it's scripture on that of the Roman Catholic
> > Translator Jerome from his Latin Vulgate. The Baptists
> > use the scripture found in the Textus Receptus in
> > Apostolic successsion from the original authographs to
> > the only successive text of today; the KJV. The NIV,
> > so-called NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, Jerusalem Bible, the
> > Jehovah's Witnesses NWT, NIrV, RSV, NRSV, NCV, NLT,
> > etc, etc, etc, ALL use the Wescott-Hort Eclectic Text
> > for the New Testament and the Biblica Hebraica
> > Stuttgartensia for the Old Testament. ONLY the King
> > James Bible uses the Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old
> > Testament and the Koine Greek Received Tect for the
> > New Testament.
> --
> All of the above which currently exist are based on later translations,
and the only works which the later scholars bothered to translate were
the ones canonized by the Catholic church, with a few apocrypha.
Many of the works are believed to have been retro-dated to the apostles,
and certain differences between chapters claiming to have been written
by the same author make this more of a possibility.
The so-called dead sea scrolls, which include writings contemporary
to those of the Bible and from the same region, show that the opinions
of Jews and Christians at the time varied to a great degree, and it's worth
noting that, if the whim of the early Catholic Church had bent differently,
the Bible could be very different than it is and still, by your view, have
the same credibility.
--
> Hang it up Daniel! If you even attempt
> > to explain Greek, Hebrew, and Aaramaic to me, I will
> > wipe you in the dirt friend. Give up on the KJV as
> > well, because I have given lectures on it, and have
> > hashed out with Seminary professors and scholars of
> > liberal colleges and Seminary, excuse me, CEMETARY
> > students as well, and they have all lost the debate.
> --
> You seem bent on winning as opposed to learning or teaching.
This is a
> bad sign. Having given lectures on it means nothing, lots of
people
> have given lectures on lots of things, it doesn't mean they know
what
> they're talking about.
> I'm not about to trust that you won the debates of which you speak,
> because of the number of times you say that you "win" in the middle
of
> any given correspondence that you have. Losing in a conversation
like this would mean learning something, to me, but to you it would mean admitting you were wrong, and your counterproductive pride will not allow you to do that. My guess is that you ranted, gave some obfuscating and only semi-relevant historical facts, and barely let
the "opponent" have a word in edge wise. From your style as I've seen it, I can also guess that you looked for buzzwords and semantic details
in what the "opponent" said and then responded to those, ignoring the original point, and considered the fact that they were sick of you a victory.
> You used this tactic on Egan on the radio show, and have used it here in trying to pin me as a Setian. Not even close, but we'll get into that in a bit.
> --
> > I have personally owned the Nestle-Aland 25th, 26th,
> > and 27th edition Greek New Tetsaments, and the Biblia
> > Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the UBS Hebrew Masoretic
> > Text, the Received Text, the Septuagint, the UBS 3rd
> > and 4th edition Greek New Testaments, et al. What you
> > know is so messed up and unfactual it makes me sick.
> > You really blew that argument, Daniel!
> --
> I didn't say anything that could be construed as messed up. My point on that was pretty brief, and your reply is almost responding to a different argument. The KJV is still a forgery. It's just based
on older forgeries and that, to a believer, makes it genuine.
Whether or not it's based on one set of translations or the other, the originals are so long gone that you or I will never know what they originally said. Again, you're screaming victory because you're pretense to salvation is a cover for a game that you are playing with God's name.
> --
> > Now lets get to more pressing info; Since you think
> > you were a Chistian, and let me tell you, you were
> > NOT, why don't you explain Hebrews 10:11 (KJV). I will
> > know if you really don't understand it by the
> > methodology that you may use. Perhaps Hermeneutics
> > might help you, but I doubt it, since the Bible cannot
> > be twisted to fit your Symbolic Satanist ideology.
> > Also, it is the Holy Spirit of God that leads men,
> > women, boys and girls into the truth of scripture,
> > something you have no understanding or lot in, as of
> > yet that is.
--
I don't need to explain any chapter of the Bible. That's your
job. Hermeneutics, etc. holds no interest to me. You have absolutely no idea what my ideology is, but the Bible fits right into the same box as the Talmud, Koran, Bhagavadgita and Aleister Crowley's The Book Of The Law. Mythology, false prophecy and the projection of human neurosis upon God.
--
> >
> > Regarding Michael A. Aquino, if you are trying to
> > convince me that the man is smart and 'good', get
> > real. Anyone who tattoo's 666 on his sclap, tweeks his
> > eyebrows upward, and cuts his hair in a 'widows peak',
> > while proclaiming himself the second beast prophesied
> > by Wiccan Aleister Crowley (doubt he was NOT a
> > Satanist, check out my website!), ain't worth
> > listening to to begin with. The man is a spitual wimp!
> > He serves a defeated angel named Lucifer who has
> > convinced Aquino, and you too Daniel, that the
> > Egyptian pantheon holds the true key to the truths of
> > the universe. Ever hear of Pharoah? Ever hear of the
> > Red Sea? Ever hear of Moses? Isn't it funny how that
> > all the major nations of that time of Moses, ALL
> > attest in written form, the destruction of Pharoah's
> > army in the Red Sea following the exodus of the
> > Israelites from Goshen in Egypt?! ;)
> --
Micheal Aquino fits on the same page as you do as far as I'm concerned.
Only he know more about what he's talking about than you do, because you only skim the surface of an opponents writings for "key points" that can be dissected to "win" the argument. Aquino has never claimed that the Egyptian pantheon holds the keys to the universe, and I most certainly hold no pantheon whatsoever.
Aquino believes a bunch of mythological yibberyap that, while more appealing in some respects, is identical to the mythological yipperyap you pretend to believe.
By the way, the major nations of that time do NOT confirm any of that crap. They also do not confirm that Israel under Solomon was the wealthiest nation on earth, because Isreal is and always has been an obnoxious flea on the sides of it's larger neighbors.
--
> > Sorry, Daniel, but you lost the argument, and you will
> > loose your eternity in heaven if you continue down the
> > crooked path of Satanism as you have deemed fit to
> > follow. That can change. Ask me how 'cause hell is for
> > real. Thanx!
--
Again, the claim to victory before the argument is even close to being finished. That you end the argument in such a manner confirms my earlier suspicion that you do not, in fact, win very often at all.
You simply yell "I WIN" and walk away. You do this on the radio,
too, the only difference is that on the radio you can interrupt before certain points are finished being made, shut the conversation off when things go bad, etc., whereas in writing the fact that you've ignored the vast majority of what I've said is glaringly apparent.
The eternity in Hell thing, again, makes my original point clear.
That your God would expect us to absolutely believe and follow the contents of a single book, among thousands of books claiming the same power, with the stakes being eternal bliss or pain, shows that your God could not possibly by rational and loving enough to have created this perfectly balanced, logical and wonderful world. It shows that YOUR God is nothing more than a reflection of the barbaric attitudes of our ancestors,
who were, like you and your kind, too ungrateful to truly thank the real God, who has created this and demanded nothing.
Daniel Johnson
> >
> > P.S. Daniel, I will be on the radio October 21st and
> > 28th on radio station KTPW 89.7 FM to present the
> > truth about Samhain (Halloween). Check it out if you
> > can. If you don't live in the Dallas/Ft.Worth, Texas
> > area, you can catch the show live! via InterNet by
> > going to www.Lighthouse21.com and clicking on REAL
> > AUDIO, The time I will be on the show will be at 9:00
> > PM Central Standard Time until 10:00 PM Central
> > Standard Time. Thanx again.
> >
> > P.S.S. Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT use the real Bible
> > but their own revision of it. They refer to it as the
> > "New World Translation", which has neither references
> > to any legitimate Hebrew and Greek Texts, and
> > absolutely refuses to name the actual translators and
> > their qualification in any edition of the NWT.
> > However, as I stated above, they use the Eclectic Text
> > rather than the Received Text, for the New Testament.
> > The Ecelcetic Text literally ommits, transposes, and
> > adds verses at whim that are not found in ANY text of
> > the last 2,000+ years. 1 John 5:7 blows the JW's out
> > the door every time. This verse I have lectured on as
> > well, and don't think you can tear it apart, becauses
> > amigo, I would tear you apart with facts you cannot
> > refute. Besides, aren't you >suppose< to be Satanist,
> > albeit Symbolic? :}
> >
--
While an occultnik such as yourself sees exact texts as the be all
and end all, the core beliefs, the real spirit of the word, is what moves
a real Christian. A real Christian is humble, and you are not.
A real Christian does not go out of his way to "resist evil", as you do.
The reason why the Jehovah's Witnesses don't list their translators, or the writers of any of their books, is that, unlike your kind, they genuinely
believe what they claim to believe and keep egotism out of it. I'll admit that the New World Translation lacks certain non-essential passages, and, much like some other versions of the Bible I have, fails to mention Usury (Usury, the lending of money for interest, the practice upon which our entire economic system is based, bet you knew that but I bet you have a credit card/mortgage/car loan/bank account or some other vehicle through
which you commit this sin, much like most Christians do.)
But they follow it, totally, in their daily lives, much more thoroughly than you follow the Bible you claim to follow. Hell, man, your even arrogant about which Bible you follow, so don't try turning around and telling me you're humble!
I'm a confirmed egotist myself, but I know a true Christian when I see one. You're not. You're a matchbook preacher, oops, I mean "independant evangelist" because you aren't humble enough to endure a seminary or any other normal procedure for ordination. Much like the other evangelists, from Billy Graham on, you address your message by your own name, build your own reputation by personal "wins" in arguments such as this one, and flaunt said reputation in everything you do.
On some arguments on the FCOS message board, you go as far as to BRAG about your occult "accomplishments", criticizing the occultists who don't know as much about it as you, as if meaning to egg on the neophyte Satanists to practice their "magick" harder, when you pretend you want to do just the opposite.
To quote: "most others posting on this board cannot stop lauding thier own acheivements in the secular world because they have no achievements in the Occult realm. They cannot even quote "The Satanic Bible" verbatim without a slip!!! Where are the real Satanists, boys and girls? Are you trying to tell me that the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set are the only Satanic institutions that actually have REAL Satanists in them? I'm beginning to think so."
Kind of cool, in a way, actually. From a Satanic perspective.
I believe that everyone is entitled to a viewpoint, but nothing aggravates me more than those that claim a strong belief but demonstrate in their actions that they don't really mean it.
Anton LaVey claimed strongly to believe many things, but demonstrated in his actions that he was insincere. For this I think he deserved the miserable life he had.
I still agree with many of things he claimed to believe, however, enough to identify myself by name with his philosophy.
I know a Christian who lives by the word as he knows it, careful in every action and stopping himself mid sentence to repent when he says something he feels sounded too much like a boast.
I disagree with almost everything he believes, enough to consider him the epitome of everything I find disgusting.
But I respect him and wish him the best in his life because he his sincere about what he says.
You, Robert Rush, are insincere.
You have no respect for God, either mine or your's.
Daniel Johnson
The final chapter:
I never received a response to my reply, but not long later I found out that he had left the internet preaching scene.
In his hopefully final message on the FCOS religious debate message board, Robby Rush wrote:
"Dear fCoS et al: I e-mailed the "Church of Satan" yesterday to listen to me on Oct. 21st & 28th on the radio regarding Halloween. It seems they contacted Microsoft and told them a bunch of lies about me, because I found my entire WebSite deleted this morning. I don't use profanity, thresaten physicalharm or 'hack' sites. No matter what you think about me, God, the Bible, or Christianity, NOBODY deserves to be censored, which includes Satanists and Wiccans as well. I went ahead and deleted my e-mail account as well to end the garbage once-and-for-all. I guess the CoS thinks that if I don't have a WebSite or e-maill address, my ministry is over and I will not appear on Christian radio further. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! I am a Christian, and my lifedoes not revolve around the computer! This feeble attempt by the Church of Stupidity only solidifies my resolve to which I will evangelize even more now. Sorry for having to come back on to tell you. Sorry also for those of you who tried to e-mail me or view my WebSite, which is no more. If you want to speak with me, use the old fashion telephone. Thanx. - Evangelist Robby Rush"
I don't believe him, actually. For several reasons:
1. If the CoS had that kind of power, you wouldn't be reading this, or anything on any Satanic website that wasn't made by a CoS member.
2. Mr. Rush knows as well as anyone that he can find another webspace provider instantly.
3. No service provider would delete a client's website on accusations alone. They want client's, and therefore would investigate and only delete a website under clear, proven and extreme circumstances.
4.It makes absolutely no sense to delete one's e-mail address because their website is gone. It cancelled numerous conversations, and the only reason I could see Robby wanting to this is that he knew he was "losing". 5. Robby Rush uses tactics of interruption and obfuscation that do not work in writing, only in vocal conversation such as radio and "the good old fashioned telephone". He had to have realized this by now, and all it takes is reading this set of letters to see what I mean. Also, by the way he seemed to be in a hurry to declare a victory and an end in all of his correspondences, including the one with me and the ones on the FCOS message board, he seemed to be anticipating his exit.
6. Robby Rush is aware enough of the infighting between the CoS and many other groups to think that members of other groups would want to believe anything bad they are told about the CoS, or at least latch onto it and pretend to believe it because it gives more fuel to the argument. I only hope this isn't the truth in anyone's case but my own, because the infighting is stupid to begin with.
At any rate, the conversation ends here.