While I was busy focusing on that false prophet, Brother Stair, this twirp called Harold Camping, has been very busy trying to discridet me and the Holy Testament. Of course he has not the courage to come right out and name names. Instead, he will point the finger at me in a sly manner like most of these protestant ministers tend to do, like the sly snakes that they are. Now that I am finished with that false prophet, Stair, I will focus on this viper, Harold Camping and crush it's head into the ground! I have some sample's on tape of what this guy has been saying while I was busy with Stair. Soon, I will have somthing to say about this man's teachings and show you his perverted teachings.

I have heard Camping mention on his "Open Forum" radio program that he is not too much of a student of history, I'm more a student of the Bible, he say's. Had Camping not been so lazy to get into the history of early Christianity, he would have known what went on during that whole time frame. Camping would have known that the letters that were written such as Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, the three Pastorals (1 & 2 Timothy & Titus)were written by others under the pen name of Paul's at a much later time when Paul had lived. Other New Testament epistles; such as James, Hebrews, Jude, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John; including the book now known as Revelation, were written by other's using the pen names of the original Apostils. Let us now look at the non-canonical writings of 1 Clement, the Didache (later called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), the letters of Ignatius, and the Epistle of Barnabas. The dates of many of these documents (all originally written in Greek) are difficult to fix because they could have written much later in time than what the time frame it is written about. These text may very well have been written at a much later date with the appropriate historical fact and setting of the time frame it was written about. Something like a writer can write about a story with a historical setting of the time, say one hundred and fifty years ago and make it seem to the reader who would pick up the text many years later, think that they are reading a text the writer had lived in that time setting. Let us look at the letters that Ignatius wrote. Several times in his letters, Ignatius had stresses his belief in Jesus as the son of Mary, as a man who had lived at the time of Herod, who had suffered and died under Pontius Pilate. Now every Christian would agree that these as essential elements of the story found in the Gospel, along with the portrayal of Jesus as an ethical teacher, as a worker of miracles, as an apocalyptic preacher of the coming Kingdom of God. And yet, when we delve into the first century epistles,(writings) we encounter a huge puzzle. Before we hear of Ignatius, not a single reference was made to Pontius Pilate, Jesus' executioner, is to be found in older text. Ignatius is also the first to mention Mary; Joseph, Jesus' father. Do you not find it strange that nowhere do it appear in any of the early writings. The earliest reference to Jesus as any kind of a teacher comes in 1 Clement, just before Ignatius, who himself seems curiously unaware of any of Jesus' teachings. To find the first indication of Jesus as a miracle worker, we must move beyond Ignatius to the Epistle of Barnabas. Other notable elements of the Gospel story are equally hard to find. This strange silence by the "early church father's" about the "Jesus" we find in the gospels, is absent, which pervades almost a century of Christian correspondence. Do that alone cry out for an explanation? It cannot be dismissed as some sort of inconsequential quirk, or by the blithe observation made by New Testament scholarship that early Christian writers "show no interest" in the earthly life of the true Yeshua (Jesus). This alone shows us that something is wrong here. We know that Christianity was born out of Judaism, who's basic theological tenet was, There is only one GOD. The ultimate blasphemy for a Jew would have been to associate any human man as being GOD. The original Apostles regarded the true Yeshua who was crucified as a criminal, as a son of GOD, not GOD himself! It was only later in time that the paganized Christians gave their "new" Jesus Christ, titles and roles formerly reserved for GOD alone. This began the man-made, God-man of another Yeshua, of another Gospel that the original Apostles had warned about coming from the paganized Christians that perverted the original teachings and understanding of the original Apostles. Nowhere does anyone in the first century CE state that this man-God, and Saviour, this "Jesus Christ" the "church father's" are talking about, was the man Yeshua of Nazareth, who was recently put to death in Judea. Nowhere is there any defence of this outlandish, blasphemous proposition. The first necessary element (presumably) in the paganized Christianity message, that a recent man by the name of Yeshua was God. Such a defence from Christians would have been required even for the Gentile listeners. The Greeks and Romans had their own religious philosophies, which included the idea of a divine Son, of an intermediary between GOD and the world, but such spiritual concepts had never been equated with a human being, until an Emperor of Rome declared himself to be GOD. By contrast, look at the Acts of the Apostles, written well into the second century. In chapter 2, Peter it is speaking to the Jews like this... "Men of Israel, hear my words, Yeshua of Nazareth, a man attested to you by GOD, whom "GOD has made him lord and the anointed one". This text no where implied that Yeshua was GOD. But that is not what the Roman Catholic or Protestants teaches to their people. During the 12th-17th Century, some Roman Catholic's separated from that church and became known as Protestant's. Believing the same paganized, perverted three gods in one theology. They also believe that they have the true interpretation of the original teachings and understanding of who Yeshua really was and what he had instructed his Apostles to do. Yet this Camping fellow thinks that he knows far better than I on how the "Bible" is supposed to be understood! Give me a break, will you? This Camping is as ignorant when it comes to knowing the Scriptures. Camping thinks he is a Know-it-all, yet he fails to understand that the New Testament that he is reading from, is the one that came originally from the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church will tell you that, you do not have to take my word on it. So much for Camping's authoritative preaching! That "other" Gospel and "other" Jesus that the original Apostles warned about had become the perverted, paganized religion that had continued from the second century AD, to the present day and is known as "Christianity". So if you hear Camping going on, and on about some guy who has another Gospel, or preach another Jesus, (meaning me), remind him for me that when that warning was being made and had been written, that "other" Gospel, and "other" Jesus had already begun being taught and written in 50-80 CE. Camping is now repeating that warning after the fact! This is like closing the barn door after all of the horses had run out of the barn. Remind Camping that this is now 2002 CE, not 80 CE. Thanks. I will continue examining some of Camping's teachings and interpretations later when I have more time. Oh; Before I go, This lame brain, this Camping fellow thinks that the statement in the book of Revelations where it says... that anything added or taken away from this book... ect, ect, is referring to the entire "Bible" instead of referring to the prophecy of that book. At the time the book of Revelations was written, the Christian "Bible" had not existed! I had already explained all of this on our Fallacy of Christianity pages. Check it out. By now.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Had Camping bothered to check out the historical background about this "Satan" that is found in the Old and New Testament's, which he ignorantly preache's to all of his "Bible student's" on his radio program, he would have known where and how this figure of "Satan" had actually come from. He would have realized that the "Satan" or the "Devil" came from the imagination of a pagan mistic (priest) who followed the Aryan folk-religion, 600 BCE and was embellished upon by Zoroastria who founded the heathen Persian religion of Zoroastrianism, around 6 BCE. We can even go further back in time to ancient Sumerian religions 3300 BCE to see where the original stories of demons came from that would later evolve to become the "Satan" figure in Christianity. Knowing the true fact's about how all this came about, you will quickly realize and know that these yo-yo's, these no-brainer's Christian "Preacher's" know no more then the people they are preaching to. This knowlage about how "Satan" or the "Devil" or the "Fallen Angel" stories came to be are not some mysterious dark secret that is hidden away. You can get more information about this "Satan the Devil" on our web pages or at any public libary which have books dealing with this subject. Look for books that deal with the subject of "Satan" or "Devil" or "Pagan Mythological Belife's". You will then be able to tell these Christian yo-yo preacher's where they can go! It really get's me mad when I hear these stupid idiot's, these ignorant preacher's keep giving out false ideas and information to people, when the truth is so easy to obtain. I am very aware that not only Camping, but many of these christian preacher's have accessed and read through our web pages but choose to ignore these fact's, as do the vast majority of these Christians. They choose not to want to know about the evoloution of how the mythical figure of "Satan" came to be into their religion, or in the "Bible" that they like to claim is so infallable. I have not even touched upon any of Herold Campings teaching's, and yet, you are already being made aware of just how ignorant Camping and the rest of these "Christian" preacher's really are. Yet how often I hear these same preacher's talking about people picking and choosing certin subjects, when they do that themselves. Hypocrites! And then Herold Camping tries to portray himself as a true preacher of GOD. Really! Sometime soon, I will have to get into Camping's false interpretations and teaching's. I'll try to do that, the next time I have some time to get back to you, the reader.

_________________________________________________________________________________

A person had asked Camping this question... "Was the book of Revelation written when the Bible was complete as we know it today"? Here is what Camping said... We know that the book of Revelation is the last book of the Bible, and the last chapter of the Bible would be Chapter 22. It was the last written Word of God. If anything else was written after that, whatever the nature of it may have been, no matter how holy it would have appeared to be, it would have to immediately be discounted as the Word of God because it would be in violation of Revelation 22. There are theologians who speculate (and I underscore the word speculate) that maybe the Gospel of John was written after Revelation. Well, that's sheer nonsense. That cannot be. That is speculation that is based on no regard at all for the authority of the Word of God. There's no way that any of the books of the Bible could have been written after the Revelation. Had they been, they would never have appeared in the Bible. We can see by Camping's statement that he has little knowlage of how or when the Bible was put together. And he has the gull to say that theologians only speculate? They do more than speculate, they get to the truth of the matter. I suppose that Camping can tell a thing or two about the history of the Bible, or the text that was written, to these theologians. I would like to be around and see him butt heads with these theologians. It may be a rude awakening for Camping of finding out how little he really knows about a book that he is preaching from. I have heard Camping say to someone on his radio program that the "Bible" was in it's compleat form, as it is today, during the first century AD. It make's me wounder how stupid can a person be when they wrap their whole life reading a book that they have so little knowlage about.

Another person called in his Open Forum radio program and had asked Camping... I've heard that Jesus is God, but why do they call... Jesus the Son of God, if He is God? I can't understand that. Camping answers the person with this... Right now, with that question, we stand at the feet of Eternal God. And we cannot understand God. We have no way of comprehending all that God is. He is an infinite Being. We read what the Bible says and accept it by faith, and realize that our finite minds are incapable of comprehending God. While Jesus is repeatedly spoken of as the Son of God, on the other hand the Bible indicates that Jesus is every sense Eternal God: "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." And so we simply accept all of this because the Bible says so. This is an extreme and serious situation, where we must walk by faith and not because we know something. For a person who spends almost his entire life reading and teaching the Bible, Camping has not a clue who GOD really is according to the answer that he gave to that person. This is the standard cop-out that most of these "Preacher's" use when somebody ask's them these type's of question's. These Preacher's teach about a GOD they have little knowlage about, is what Camping is telling that caller.

The other day, a caller asked Camping... I heard a liberal pastor talk, and he said that Jesus was not God because He prayed in the Garden, "Not my will but thine be done," which showed that He was separate from God, and that when He prayed in John 17, "that they may be one as we are one," which showed that they were separate. And he said when they asked Jesus why He came, He said He came that they might have life and have it more abundantly, so that He was more concerned about teaching for this life rather than eternal life. And I wonder if you could give me some scriptures where Jesus Himself said that He was God, and why He came. Camping replies that... The fact is, of course, that God very clearly indicates that Jesus was not God the Father. Jesus was the Son of God. Christ repeatedly spoke of Himself as the Son of God, as well as the Son of Man. And yet from everything we read in the Bible we know that He was God in every sense. As you can see, Camping would rather belive what the Roman Catholic Church had intended a person to belive when they "altered by adding words or text" to documents in order to perpetuate that "Other Gospel", that other "Jesus" that the original Apostals had warned about that people were already preaching during the time the original Apostles were preaching the true "Gospel" of Yeshua (Jesus). If Camping belives in that lie that he gave to that person as an answer, why do he not join the Roman Catholic Church? After all, he is upholding their perverted dogma.

A caller on Open Forum had asked Camping why there were contradictions in some passages in the Bible where both passages deals with the same story? What was Camping's answer to that? Well according to Camping, GOD had diliberately had those contradictions put into the Bible so that it would give an excuse for someone not to belive the Bible. Being that in Camping's understanding, it had to be a diliberate act on GOD for there can be no error in the Bible. Had Camping been honest, he would have told the person who had asked the question, that one of the writers who wrote that story or text that contradict the other had simply made an error, a simple mistake. But could Camping be honest enough to say that? Oh, no! He would rather give the person some cock & bull story that amounts to an untruth, which then becomes a lie. Two of the bigist blunders that Camping makes with his collections of missinterpterating the Scriptures is his adhearence to the Sunday, day of worship that the paganized christianity has replaced original Sabbath Day that is on the seventh day. The other is his perverted, warped idea that you no longer need to observe Passover. He claims that his paganized "Jesus Christ" had done away with it, as with the seventh day Sabbath. Both of these were a perpetual command of observence by GOD. It seems that Camping do not know what the word "perpetual" means. Let me remind him that perpetual means... Continuing without end, it means permanent, it also means everlasting. Get it? Maby Camping's paganized "Jesus Christ" might have changed the perpetual ordinance of GOD, but I know that Yeshua (Jesus) would never have gone against what Father had laid down. So you can now see why Camping is preaching what he is preaching. He is preaching that other Gospel, that other Jesus that the perverted, paganized christians renamed as their man-made perverted, paganized "Jesus Christ" that the original Apostles of Yeshua (Jesus) had warned about, way back when. Know where Camping is comming from.

I hope by now you are realizing how ignorant Camping is when it come's to knowing and understand a book that he read's daily. This also proves that as people get older, it do not mean that they have gained wisdom. It only means that they have remained ignorant longer than other's. I think that I have made my point by now, as to the truth about these "Preacher's" and that false "Prophet" Stair, to give you a handle as to their trust worthyness of their teachings. I only hope that I may have helped you, the reader, to have opened up your eyes and understanding so that you may avoid the pitfall that these "Preachers" and false "Prophet's" had fallen into. May your Spiritual journey be free of obstacle's. Brother Jean