Threat in Love

Threat in Love

++Kirk Carmichael

1++Hello brother, I am not sure Matthew is getting my messages but this one is a must send to him to examine his statements from last night (a list below) — IN LOVE please know…

I listened to part of Friday nights teaching and there are major
concerns which Matthew is literally just “making stuff up” as he goes along. (I am including a list below) Shouldn’t this be something I continually address until we meet and can walk through the covenants from the top?

You say “keep digg’in bro” and THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE, but it has fallen on deaf ears. Amy has sent you a giant packet of material, but you know if there isn’t live discussion how can you disseminate all that information?

You have to know and really believe that the three of us in San Diego
here began exactly where you guys have when DrDave first shared Book of
the Covenant vs Book of the Law. This was a MUST NEEDED stepping stone
and I do not diminish the thankfulness for receiving the distinction.

**Thankyou for that much

2++HOWEVER, through stumbling across a few issues that did not line up, we continued to pursue TRUTH (isn’t that what you guys are to do as well?) and found almost everything is off. I am absolutely astounded I can’t so much as get a phone call ONLY to share THE TRUTH. John, don’t you think that it would be a problem if the “theory” DrDave has Matthew repeating is NOT TRUE? Wouldn’t that lead to WRONG CONCLUSIONS? If we are to follow TRUTH and Matthew is a Melchizedek teacher of truth (James 3:1) — I say this with deep love for you guys and the TRUTH.

**@ … don’t you think that it would be a problem if the “theory” DrDave has Matthew repeating is NOT TRUE? Absolutely “IF” – My offer still stands comparing point by point 1 point at a time. Which you walked away from.

3++Matthew is so fierce against customs and traditions to fight against stream on Hanukkah and Purim for example, but clings to DrDave’s theology? For what reason? The only thing I can think of is you have a ministry of your own that you don’t want to change if truth is involved (I can’t imagine this is true) or you just believe we have some sort of vengeance against DrDave and thus won’t pursue what was presented to you. This is exactly the opposite as so many people report how hostile DrDave is and we testify how we have tried to correct him IN LOVE… yet he belittles, demeans, and speaks derogatory. The fruit should speak foritself.

** Boy; do you have that backwards to favor yourself

4++I laid out all of “DrDave’s” errors in the post and Matthew continues to repeat them. It really comes down to this: The DrDave “theology” is an easy cookie cutter format. You just break everything at Exodus 24:12 as before is Book of the Covenant and after is Book of the Law, then you lay out “imposed law” of “Torah” and “wah lah” there you go, in simplest format. YET, NONE OF THIS IS TRUE and there is a much clearer and TRUE
answer to all of these things, but it is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than drawing a line in Exodus 24:12.

**“The former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holms said, ‘I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity this side of complexity.’ In other words, the most difficult questions usually have simple answers…”

5++Here is a short list from last night:

1) Genesis 12 is “the oath Yahweh swore to Himself” — here is the

GENESIS 12:1 The Lord HAD SAID to Abram, ‘Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

I argued with Dave over and over on this point via email when we tried bringing truth to him. He argues the word “SAID” makes it “an oath” which Matthew repeated last night was “swearing to himself”.

Do a short check on just how many times the word “SAID” or “GOD SAID” or “THE LORD SAID” is mentioned in scripture and ask yourself, “is each time the verses say SAID is that an OATH that Yahweh swears to himself”? Does this mean every time YHWH SAID in the creation account that those
are all oaths? OR, does this VERSE make sense?

HEBREWS 7:6 This man (SPEAKING OF MELCHIZEDEK), however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him WHO HAD THE PROMISES.

The Genesis 12:1-3 CALLING of Abram to leave his country FOLLOWED the Genesis 14 blessing of Melchizedek — THE PROMISES were given to Abram. What promises? LAND and SEED (from the Garden) — A NATION. This is NOT AN OATH, but rather a promise that Abram still needed to act upon.

This verse is clearly IS THE OATH Hebrews 6:13 is speaking of which would take too long to explain WHY (without dialogue):

**Oh how very convenient “which would take too long to explain WHY (without dialogue)” – You just want the chance to say anything that falls out of your mouth with no checks or record – preferably written

6++GENESIS 22:16-18 and said, ‘I SWEAR BY MYSELF, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.’

Now, you see why DrDave can’t say THIS IS THE OATH YHWH is speaking of? Because all of his books, websites, discussion, ministries, etc WILL THROW OFF THE “THEOLOGY” he is so proud of. Also, he can’t make sense out of this being the OATH because as he completely SKIPS GENESIS 17
blood covenant of circumcision as having any significance at all.

** You must have a perception problem GENESIS 17:11 is Not a blood covenant but the token/sign of the blood covenant made at GENESIS 15 – note; the change of names is from the same GENESIS 15 blood covenant. If GENESIS 17 is a ‘blood covenant’ as you say – where is the ‘blood covenant’ procedure as you see at GENESIS 15 or Ex.24?

7++That is a MAJOR problem because this COVENANT confirmed the SEED which Isaac
was named, amongst our promise coming to fruition that he would be a father of many nations, changing his name to Abraham. This blood covenant gets completely overlooked because it doesn’t “FIT” DrDave’s “theology”.

** Not a COVENANT – See 6

8++2) The “Royal Torah” Matthew mentions over and over again (from DrDave) as Melchizedek “Royal Torah” is THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. This is the verse:

JAMES 2:8-11 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture,
‘Love your neighbour as yourself,’ you are doing right. 9 But if you
show favouritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as law-breakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, ‘You shall notcommit adultery,’ (SEVENTH COMMANDMENT) also said, ‘You shall notmurder.’ (SIXTH COMMANDMENT) If you do not commit adultery but do commitmurder, you have become a law-breaker.

** 1st off “Royal Torah” that’s Matthew’s term – that I do agree with. 2nd you must not know your Bible very well ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ is Not THE TEN COMMANDMENTS 3rd you constantly refuse to validate Ex.24:3 But no matter how much you disregard it – it is this True. 4Th You do the Sunday School /Messianic tactic of trying to use the NT to wrench Torah to another conclusion.

9++Why is it SO HARD to admit the TEN COMMANDMENTS are our COVENANT especially since you want to make a distinction between “THE LEVITICAL IMPOSED LAW” (see problem #4) and the Melchizedek? The reason is due to many factors (one major one being Torah means ‘first five books of Moses — NEVER THE CASE) of which the next one would CRUSH DrDave’s “theology”.

**Thankyou; for making me the 1 to beat – tho I don’t deserve it

Why is it SO HARD to admit the TEN COMMANDMENTS AND the Judgments are our COVENANT and agree that Ex.24:3 is right?

10++3) The Book of the Covenant was NEVER enacted. When Moses shattered the first set of stone tablets (ONLY WRITTEN THE TEN WORDS ON THEM) the covenant with its covenant offer to make them a kingdom of priests was
OVER. (I will continue on this in a minute)

** The Book of the Covenant was NEVER enacted – This is not a completely true statement – The 70 elders alone would have been consumed had there not been a blood ratified covenant in form and function. (ONLY … THE TEN WORDS, ) ONLY … THE TEN WORDS, ONLY … THE TEN WORDS – Please Read Ex.24:3

11++First, Matthew said in a study a couple of months ago that 120,000 words were written on the stone tablets (This is another point itself which there are several scriptures I could quote which shows THE TEN WORDS was the only thing written), as because he believes Book of the Covenant vs Book of the Law breaks at Exodus 24:12 then this is so. This is ridiculous.

**What is ridiculous is your continual rant that ignores Reading Ex.24:3, Dt.9:10,10:4, etc.

12++Anyways, last night he mentioned “hearing His voice” is connected to THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT. Yet, what did we HEAR YHWH speak?

EXODUS 20:1 And ELOHIYM SPOKE ALL THESE WORDS: (followed by the Ten Commandments)

DEUTERONOMY 5:5 And ELOHIYM SAID: (followed by the Ten Commandments) DEUTERONOMY 5:22 These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed IN A LOAD VOICE to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and HE ADDED NOTHING MORE.

** You ignore DEUTERONOMY 4:1 & 5:1 that agree with Ex.24:3 – See 11

Yes ELOHIYM SPOKE ALL THESE WORDS: (including the judgment part Ex.21 and on they asked not to hear but agreed to Ex.24:3, 7)

<lo> translated ‘no’ can also mean ‘as for a truth’ or ‘verily’ more – that agrees with Ex.24:3

13++Now, to go on more about the Book of the Covenant would take quite some time and to SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN EXODUS 24:12 WOULD AS WELL. However, MY POINT HERE: The “TORAH” that Matthew over and over and over and over again speak of should simply be THE TEN COMMANDMENTS – it is our COVENANT and it is what he meant by “OBEYING HIS VOICE”.

** This is so comedic in the saddest of terms – Read Ex.24:3 and :7 and think “OBEYING HIS VOICE”

14++The Book of the Covenant is actually mentioned a couple of times when Moses is recounting the events taking place in Deuteronomy (again, I need time to show you what is happening with the Book of the Covenant and Exodus 24:12). Here is one verse:

DEUTERONOMY 4:13-14 (SPEAKING OF THE FIRST SPEAKING OF THE TEN WORDS) So He declared to you HIS COVENANT which He commanded you to perform, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; and HE WROTE THEM ON TWO TABLETS OF STONE. (Notice HE WROTE ONLY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) And the Lord commanded me at that time to _TEACH YOU STATUTES AND JUDGMENTS_, (THIS IS THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT MOSES IS SPEAKING OF) that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.

** See 9, 10,11, 12, 13

15++The Book of the Covenant was THE COVENANT, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, PLUS the administration of the COVENANT with statutes and judgments.

** Wow – Are you having an schizophrenic episode? You almost agree with Ex.24:3 now; but if you did that would blow your 10 com’dts only Sunday School shtick wide open.

16++Have you guys ever read the Book of the Covenant?

> Letting Hebrew slaves go after six years of service
> Striking your mother of father being put to death
> Cursing your mother of father being put to death
> Killing a sorcerer
> Eye for an eye
> An entire chapter of oxen, donkeys and sheep restitution
> Redeeming our firstborn sons

THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT was the COVENANT (TEN COMMANDMENTS + STATUTES AND JUDGMENTS) was given Aaron to rule the people as Moses was up on the mountain top for 40 days. Obviously, Aaron did a bad job administering the BOOK OF THE COVENANT as when Moses shattered the COVENANT TABLETS this deal was over…

**What gives? Now you’re saying what I’m saying – THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT Ex.19:5 thru 24:8 was the COVENANT (TEN COMMANDMENTS (being the covenant) STATUTES AND JUDGMENTS) – Read Ex.24:3 – See 11, 12

17++To label THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT as never enacted would be another issue that would destroy DrDave’s “theology”. But if _THE ROYAL LAW_ is the TEN COMMANDMENTS WHY would we want to keep pointing people to THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT and mention TORAH, TORAH, TORAH when THE ROYAL LAW is OUR COVENANT, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Again, THE WORDS YHWH SPOKE was the TEN WORDS. Look at the word “commandment” in the Hebrew and that is a MISTRANSLATION. The word is NOT “mitzvot” COMMANDMENTS but rather “debar” WORDS. The TEN WORDS.

** You say THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT as never enacted – that is a lie – See 10 – The Book of the Covenant was NEVER enacted – This is not a completely true statement – The 70 elders alone would have been consumed had there not been a blood ratified covenant in form and function. (ONLY … THE TEN WORDS, ) ONLY … THE TEN WORDS, ONLY … THE TEN WORDS – Please Read Ex.24:3

The phrase the TEN COMMANDMENTS is <`eser> <dabar> it only occurs 3 x’s do the research <`eser> means to the extent of the digits its root <asar> can mean sixscore thousand – enough for the entire covenant – as Ex.24:3, Dt.9:10 & Dt.10:4 indicate & Ex 31:18, 32:15; 34:1 all but outright directly say so – in the words ‘written on both sides’ (Prv.25:2). And it was put in where – the ark of ??? only 10 words??? not by Ex.24:3

18++ENTER THE LAW OF MOSES — “the imposed law”

**John 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the *law of Moses* should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

Circumcision can only speak of 2 places Gen.17:10-11 & Jos.5:2 – Both are outside your handy parameters of the *law of Moses*

19++4) This is a crafty component for DrDave to keep hold of what he says “a change of torah doesn’t enact a change of torah because it is in torah” (I am making this up, but he says something like this). He has this saying because he keeps hold of TORAH meaning THE FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES. Not one time in scripture does the word “LAW” mean THE FIRST FIVE
THE BOOK OF THE LAW) BROTHER, IF THIS IS TRUE, don’t you see MAJOR interpretation problems? This point takes a long time to develop but will be available in my next powerpoint presentation.

** See 17 – Isa 8:20 To the law <towrah> 08451. hrwt towrah, to-raw’ –

Not one time (???) in scripture does the word “LAW” mean THE FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES. Rather, it ALWAYS means THE LAW OF MOSES,

This is a stupendous lie – Look at and list all the ‘law’ words in the Bible.

Forgive me but you are not very clear or forthright in telling what your estimation is of ‘THE LAW OF MOSES’ – maybe you like it that way – that way it can be anything you think at the time you think it.

You say @ Rather, it **ALWAYS** means ‘THE LAW OF MOSES’ & it is the time of Ex.34 thru Lev 27:34 –

Still this is shredded by;
08451. hrwt towrah, to-raw’ or torah {to-raw’}; from 3384; a precept or statute, especially the Decalogue (10 words) or (as in equal) Pentateuch (1st 5 books or Torah):–law.

Coincidentally this cements the Ex24:3 idea that the 10 Com’dts are the Cov’t statutes and NOT something separate as you imagine.

& Dt.4:1, 5:1, even all of :22, 9:10, 10:4 ID stating it as Ex24:3 does ‘and’ cemented in the law of 1s mention.

Torah as in T for TaNaK – the most basic understanding in Judaism.

###Mr 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
***Ex 20:12; 21:17;*** Le 20:9; De 5:16

Mr 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush Yah spake unto him, saying, I am the Yah of Abraham, and the Yah of Isaac, and the Yah of Jacob?
Ex 3:6

###Lu 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
***Ge 3:15; 22:18; 26:4; 49:10; Nu 21:9;*** De 18:15; Ps 16:9-10

###Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom **Moses in the law**, and the prophets, did write, Yahshua of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
***Gen 3:15; 49:10***; De 18:18…

###Joh 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
***Ex 24:3;*** De 33:4;

Ac 15:1 ¶ And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Note Moses was neither at Gen.17:10 or Jos.5:2 – exceeds both ends of your theory

###Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, {scarlet: or, purple}
***Ex 24:5-6,8***

Kirk I’m sure that you can cookie-cut 1’s that support your notion – I’ve even seen a few that you can use – But that’s OK at least for me cause that’s how Hebrew ‘Block Logic’ works it all fits because it is all the truth even the parts you don’t want to own or include – So the law of Moses is the same Moses according to the law, the same the book of Moses is the book of the law in Torah which is by Hebrew ‘Block Logic’ outside thus Not limited to your imagined parameters.

20++MY POINT: Matthew again repeated DrDave’s “imposed law” which somewhat is correct of it being IMPOSED but it is not nearly as abstract as when he mentions this… there is a SOLID FOUNDATIONAL reason this was an IMPOSED LAW… here it is: THIS WAS NOT A BLOOD RATIFIED COVENANT as the BOOK OF THE COVENANT was BLOOD RATIFIED (another topic):

**Hellooo – Neither was there a Proposal or Acceptance let alone a Cov’t meal.

20A++EXODUS 34:27-28 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I HAVE MADE A COVENANT WITH YOU
he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments

**Again, and again, and again … until we come to our senses; Who you trying to brain blast convince? With your continual repetition – See – See 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 15

21++5) Matthew mentioned Book of the Law many times out of place as mentioned above. This should be very easy to demonstrate the FUNCTION of the BOOK OF THE LAW if you watched my video on this this subject, that

** Oh yes – if you watched my (confused and dizzying brain blast) video on this subject, that the BOOK OF THE LAW is the BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. – Again, and again, and again … until we come to our senses; – See 15, 18


1) THE GOLDEN CALF: LAW OF MOSES (2nd set of stone tablets) with statutes and judgments (Book of Leviticus) replaced THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT (1st set of stone tablets) with statutes and judgments.

**Did directly break a Blood covenant


**Did Not directly break a Blood covenant

receiving a 40 year punishment and BOOK OF THE LAW (DEUTERONOMY) added to 2nd set of stone tablets (LAW OF MOSES).

**Was NOT directly Blood covenant related – Gal.3:10; 17-19 do Not agree with your confused position that also ID’s THE BOOK OF THE LAW at the same time proximity as THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT see v:17 – This alone vindicates my Cov’t/Law point!

24++Here is EXACTLY what Deuteronomy 29:1 is saying:DEUTERONOMY 29:1 These _are_ the words of THE COVENANT which the Lordcommanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in tHE LAND OF MOAB(SEE DEUT 1:5 WHERE MOSES IS WRITING THE BOOK OF THE LAW), besides THECOVENANT which He made with them IN HOREB (LAW OF MOSES/2ND SET OF STONE TABLETS).

** I know this will be upsetting BUT HOREB is not Sinai (Ex.32:34 compared with Ex.33:6) and that gem is found in Torah.

(SEE DEUT 1:5 WHERE MOSES IS WRITING THE BOOK OF THE LAW) – This is your KC’s own emphasized wish-a-mix fairytale

Deut 1:5 On this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses to **declare** this law, **saying** 6 The LORD our God spake unto us in Horeb, **saying**, Ye have dwelt long enough in this mount – Hmm WRITING or saying?, WRITING or saying? Who’s right?


In summary, again brother, this plan is extremely complex. _That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. _

** Very likely means ‘it isn’t true’ – That’s odd Gal.3:15 – says No + / No -; yet you say they’re all ‘ADD’ed together or to each other or some violation of Gal.3:15 – Oh who to believe Yah or you.

26++We have only wanted the TRUTH all of our lives and
interpretation of scripture has been elevated beyond belief. I am simply
coming to Matthew to SET THE PEOPLE FREE from the _TORAH BONDAGE e_ven

** Yes – I (Kirk Carmichael) am simply threating Matthew now IN LOVE of course to accept my (Kirk Carmichael) message the way I (Kirk Carmichael) have imagined it. Shall we pray.

27++ There is tremendous break though for many souls, especially ourChristian brothers and sisters, who cannot nor will identify with this Hebrew overuse of the word “Torah”… without having the proper foundation of this unfolding covenant plan Matthew struggles to answer or see even questions such as “why was Able sacrificing before theLevitical system” because he can’t see distinction of rightly dividing the issues at the proper covenantal (contractual) points and in this case that there was a DIFFERENCE between a BURNT OFFERING of Able, Noah, Abraham, etc and a SIN OFFERING… because BLOOD COVENANT is our stakes in the ground… not some DrDave “theory” he is holding to keep himself as “the expert” of Book of the Law vs Book of the Covenant. If you begin examining what we are saying you will find that virtually none of these puzzle pieces fit where they really belong and other things are flat out “making it up”… I know we are done “making it up” right?

**This is a thinly veiled attempt at ‘know better 1 upmanship’ which is of course arrogance. You (KC) are the 1 that refuses to validate even plain biblical text never mind the obscure and do diligence in study and research instead using Sunday School tactics and Bully reasoning; which would be tolerable ‘IF’ you were right – But clearly you are Not! – Complete with validating yourself over everyone else including Matthew – A legend in your own mind

Matthew is right there is a continual program of Elevation and Denigration. You continually degrade, besmirch and defame me. To elevate yourself and your message. I ought to feel flattered that you see little ole me as the 1 to beat. The “theory” that I hold to is that Torah is correct. Just as Isa.8:20 says it. You on the other-hand plow thru so very many of even normative biblical understanding it is dizzying. Much like trying to eek out a spot and establish order thru chaos. Very similar to the Lunar nonsense you were and did push – Yet; from the posts I read you’re still doing it. Tell me and all the good people here where do you stand on these issues. And where you’re potentially leading them.
1]Lunar Sabbath vs The 7th Day Sabbath – Friday sunset to Saturday sunset?
2]Morning to Morning Day vs A Genesis sunset to sunset Day?
3]The Lunar non-sense of a 1 or 2 New Moon non-day/s every month?
4]Is your 50day count to Shavout 50 or 51 or 52 days because of #3
5] Is your Sabbath Friday sunset to Saturday sunset? OR Every Tues. 1 month – Every Wed. the next and still every Thus the next – and on and on
6]And all the other lunary that goes with it.

Audience you would be wise to ask Kirk Carmichael and his core group these questions and more. Do Not be content with any thing less than a forthright clear fully honest answer and that from scripture.

28++Please examine the facts stated here

**Yes, Please do examine the veracity of the so-called facts stated here Acts 17:11

29++I have been the chosen messenger of
YHWH to deliver you the TRUTH then it is YHWH you are rejecting. If you
choose to continue to ignore, I will start posting critiques IN LOVE of
the messages so souls can find the right answers. I will post this reply
IN LOVE on our group page today.

This just in as of 3.30.15 – From: john
Date: March 30, 2015 at 8:02:32 AM PDT
To: Matthew
Subject: Fwd: Re: Phone number
“… I (Kirk Carmichael) have been the chosen messenger of YHWH to deliver you the TRUTH then it is YHWH you (Matthew Nolan) are rejecting. If you choose to continue to ignore, I will start posting (an ‘IN LOVE’ threat) critiques IN LOVE of the messages so souls can find the right answers. I will post this reply IN LOVE on our group page today (before you even have a chance to respond).” This is the closing exert of a 10 page document that twists several values. – Unquote minus parentheticals
Kirk Carmichael is still not above besmirching me while threating Matthew now also. And has deemed himself the deliverer of the Most High no less – the magnanimous loving portrayor of truth? – let alone full truth? – This man (Kirk Carmichael) is 2 faced – smiles at your face, says smooth brotherly like love style things if you go along to get along, while manipulating what ever he can leverage including the Most High. This is a threat; pure and clear. I do appeal to honest biblical reason; who would use such tactics? – It certainly would not be above the Evil one to do just that (2Cor.11:13-15).

30++Please keep the dialogue open… I only want to deliver the message of
INHERITING THE KINGDOM through the proper BLOOD COVENANT foundation.

** Oh Yes; pretty please do – Or else!???

31++This calling to preach the blood covenant message of Inheriting the Kingdom to our brothers and sisters is beyond all of us.

** Yes – It’s bigger than both of us – You’d better look at who you’ve been talkin to (1Jn.4:1, 2Ths.2:10-12)

32++’Torah’ is not the answer.
Your brother in Messiah…

** ‘Torah’ is not the answer.??? – Funny -Your brother Messiah Yahshua seem to think so Jn.7:16 – Dt.32:2.

PS – Do brothers in Yahshua really threaten to get their way?
Truncated …


3 thoughts on “Threat in Love

  1. Yikes!!!!! Glad you put this out for all to see!!! How insulting to be sheep bit! Well, just keep your wits about you and know that when we stay in His House with our character and attitudes then we will be honored to drink the third cup!

  2. the arrogance of this guy’s (Kirk Carmichael’s) spirit takes ones breath away…. and you almost forget to breath as the Ruach inside of you witnesses your disbelief at this vicious attack (pretending to be “words of love”)…
    While reading these incredible words of haughtiness… at the same time he almost blindsides you with throwing Scripture Verses all over the place; to confuse, obfuscate, distorte, and in doing so…. he changes and reduces the Beauty and the Simplicity of the WORD of our Elohim into a complex piece of “Study Material” … over which HE… then has been given EXCLUSIVE INSIGHT… as the “Messenger of YHWH” to deliver to us “SOULS”… the TRUTH… as “HE SEES IT”…
    ….of course he has to try to destroy the TRUE Shepherds like Dr. Dave and Matthew first to have ANY Credibility…
    …but the TRUE Sheep.. hear the Voice of the TRUE Shepherd and can discern those that tear down the brethren like wolves….
    anna peterman

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s