Michael Rood ??

[Scott Shahan]

A friend of mine is listening to this guy. I have never heard of this guy before. He doesn't really interest me though, but was wondering if anyone on the PB has ever heard of this guy, and whether I should be concerned that my friend is listening to this guy?

http://www.michaelrood.com/
http://www.aroodawakening.tv/

Thanks,

Scott

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

A friend of mine is listening to this guy. I have never heard of this guy before. He doesn't really interest me though, but was wondering if anyone on the PB has ever heard of this guy, and whether I should be concerned that my friend is listening to this guy?

http://www.michaelrood.com/
http://www.aroodawakening.tv/

Thanks,

Scott

Looks kinda' goofy, DayStar caliber, I wouldn't listen to him myself.

 

[Scott Shahan]

Looks kinda' goofy, DayStar caliber, I wouldn't listen to him myself.

it does look kind of goofy and scary!! My friend really thinks that this guy is the "cat's meow".

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

it does look kind of goofy and scary!! My friend really thinks that this guy is the "cat's meow".

Kindly inform him that this kitten has not opened it's eyes yet.

 

[Richard King]

heard him, met him, ran the other way.

You'll be studying all about the stuff that was the foreshadowing of the real thing.

 

[Archlute]

I'll bet that this guy is a real hit in Calvary Chapel circles. You've got to love the level of scholarship!

John the Baptist was neither named John, nor was he a baptist – his name was Yochanan ben Zechariah, and he was the son of an Aaronic priest.

Actually, John was named John, if you believe translating the Scriptures into a language that is understandable to English recipients. Yochanan ben Zechariah merely means "John, son of Zechariah", and even though John was not a Baptist in the modern sense of the word (obviously), he is indeed called "John the Baptist" by Matthew (3:1), as well as by the people in Mark's Gospel (6:14ff.).

He continued, but I stopped reading.

This is a prime example of why the stereotypical Marine should not be crossed with Biblical scholarship (see his profile). It's better off for everyone if they stick with carrying out simple commands like, "safety off, raise sights, pull trigger...". (This last comment may raise the ire of at least one member on this board, but that's okay, I worked with some guys from ANGLICO and Force Recon on several occasions, and I used to be patient with their confusion back then as well ).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'll bet that this guy is a real hit in Calvary Chapel circles. You've got to love the level of scholarship!



Actually, John was named John, if you believe translating the Scriptures into a language that is understandable to English recipients. Yochanan ben Zechariah merely means "John, son of Zechariah", and even though John was not a Baptist in the modern sense of the word (obviously), he is indeed called "John the Baptist" by Matthew (3:1), as well as by the people in Mark's Gospel (6:14ff.).

He continued, but I stopped reading.

This is a prime example of why the stereotypical Marine should not be crossed with Biblical scholarship (see his profile). It's better off for everyone if they stick with carrying out simple commands like, "safety off, raise sights, pull trigger...". (This last comment may raise the ire of at least one member on this board, but that's okay, I worked with some guys from ANGLICO and Force Recon on several occasions, and I used to be patient with their confusion back then as well ).

Be careful or I'll pound on you!

 

[Archlute]

On a more serious note, this man certainly is a Scripture twister, and seems to be in it for personal fame and fortune as much as he's in it for "revealing the truth". I read a few more snippets, and its obvious that he's just a blind Judaizer. The statement of the Apostle Paul to the Jews in Acts 28:25-28 surely applies to this man as much as it did to his spiritual forebears.

 

[Archlute]

Be careful or I'll pound on you!

Ha, ha! Thanks for having such a good sense of humor Rich. I wanted to emphasize the stereotypical Marine, but then my unsanctified self came to the fore and I no longer had the desire.... I need to get a handle on respecting my elders a bit more around here (you are pretty old right??? ).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ha, ha! Thanks for having such a good sense of humor Rich. I wanted to emphasize the stereotypical Marine, but then my unsanctified self came to the fore and I no longer had the desire.... I need to get a handle on respecting my elders a bit more around here (you are pretty old right??? ).

I really wasn't bothered. I think the stereotype of Marines is pretty accurate: most are Type A+++ personalities. If that intensity if focused in the wrong direction then it isn't a good thing. Then again, some end up being great blessings. Warriors are needed in this day and age and most men are trained to be wimps these days.

 

[Archlute]

Warriors are needed in this day and age and most men are trained to be wimps these days.

Amen to that.

So as not to be misconstrued as supporting wimpiness, I have temporarily removed the less manly avatar of the excellent lutenist Francesco de Milano, and have replaced it with the more imposing avatar of Rangers on patrol. However, do not be deceived. Most woodland patrols take place when it's pitch black, so the only way these guys got so much back lighting is either, a.) its a promo photo shoot, or b.) they are committing a major tactical no-no of continuing to move after having a large illumination round popped on them. I'd say the answer is "A" (either that, or these fellows all got a "major minus" from their RI ).