Re: EN NOMBRE DE LOS EXADVENTISTAS RETO AL TAL ANTOLIN ADEBATIR EN ESTE FORO
Estimado chismoso y deshonesto eduardo martínez rancaño.. Saludos cordiales.
Respondo: [babas]
Abominable falsificador y deshonesto farsante gavialito, soplagaitas de la secta adventista, te transmito mi desprecio.
Tu "respuesta", gavialito, es la propia de un idiota, pues, como sabes, la palabra de rufianes es insuficiente para hablar de estos temas. Todos sabemos que Daniel 11:21 y siguientes no habla de Genserico, ni de los bárbaros, soplagaitas. El ángel intérprete no dice ni una sola palabra sobre los germanos, gavialito. Ya que tú has tenido a bien citar el comentario de Calvino sobre Daniel, me complace citar el comentario de Calvino sobre Daniel 11:21. Aquí lo tienes, soplagaitas:
"Historians agree in representing Antiochus Epiphanes to have been of a very crafty disposition, and some state his departure from Rome to have been by stealth. He was most probably dismissed by the Romans, on the news of his father’s death, as they were content with his brother Demetrius. They had other hostages besides, who were among the chief nobles of the land, as well as this third son of the king. However this was, all are agreed in relating his cunning. He was so cruel and fierce, that Polybius says he was called Epimanes by way of a nickname, and as he assumed the name of Illustrious, he was called the Madman, on account of his turbulent disposition. He was a monster puffed up with various vices; being of a slavish and flattering temperament, he endeavored to acquire the favor of Rome by artifice, as we shall afterwards discover. But when he was not actuated by fear, his cruelty and ferocity were beyond all bounds. For this reason he is called contemptible. He was held in some esteem at Rome, and was received by a portion of his people with great applause. But he was not endued with any heroic or even regal qualities, for he always flattered the Romans, and insinuated himself into the favor of the citizens in this way, until he came to his kingdom as a suppliant; and then the angel calls him a contemptible or despicable person. Another reason equally probable may be brought forward, namely, his seizing upon the throne by fraud and wickedness, after setting aside the legitimate heir. For Seleucus left a successor whom this perfidious plotter deprived of his rights, and thus fraudulently acquired the kingdom for himself. We know of what importance God makes every one’s calling, and how he restrains men from rashly arrogating anything to themselves, as they ought always to be satisfied with that station which is assigned them by God. As, therefore, Antiochus seized on the kingdom without any right to it, and drove out the lawful heir, he was contemptible before God, and would never have been king at all except; by violence and tyranny on his part, as well as by deceit. and cunning devices. I have no hesitation in stating that the angel here censures the perverse conduct of Antiochus, by calling him despised through the absence of all nobleness of feeling.
He next adds, They shall not confer upon him the honor of royalty. By these words he announces the injustice of his reign through not being chosen by the votes of the people. We have stated that the son of Seleucus ought to have reigned without any dispute, but the very person who should have been his nephew’s guardian, wickedly deprived his ward of his paternal inheritance. Hence the angel speaks of him rather as a robber than as a king, because he seized upon the kingdom, and was not elected by the popular choice. It follows, — he shall come in peace, and seize the kingdom by flatteries This is the explanation of the last clause. It might be asked, how did he deprive his nephew of his kingdom? the reply is — he shall come peacefully, meaning, he shall lay aside everything which he was agitating in his mind, and should not openly boast of his being king, but should deceitfully act in the character of guardian until he had the power of ruining his ward. He shall come, then, peacefully, and shall seize the kingdom by flatteries Thus we see the angel’s meaning in these words. Besides, although Daniel did not see all these things, nor even many of the chosen people, yet they tasted enough of these prophecies to satisfy them, and to banish anxiety from their minds. They were permitted to perceive God speaking through his angel, and experience taught them the truth of everything which is contained here, even if many events should be hidden from them. But it was God’s object to support the spirits of the pious, even to the advent of Christ, and to retain them in tranquillity amidst the greatest disturbances. Thus they would acknowledge the value of the promise of the Redeemer, after he had been set forth, as will be mentioned at the close of the chapter. I will now proceed to the next words" (
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.vi.xxvii.html).
Y aquí tienes, gavialito, lo que dice Calvino sobre Daniel 11:29-31:
"First of all, the angel says, Antiochus should return a short time afterwards and take possession of Egypt. This was the fruit of that pretended peace and perfidious friendship which has already been mentioned. For the uncle and nephew banqueted together in mutual distrust, as the angel has already stated, and as we found in the 27th verse of this chapter. This deception was shortly afterwards dissolved, when Antiochus, without any reasonable impulse, returned to Egypt. In this way he shewed his want of nothing but an opportunity for breaking the truce, and he only delayed it for a time, because he had no wish to oppress his nephew in haste. This, then, is one point. We may take the word מועד mogned, “time,” for a period divinely predetermined; but. as this explanation may seem too forced, I am contented with the common one. He shall return, then, for a time, and shall come, says he, to Egypt; but the latter exposition shall not be like the former; for the whole preparation for war which had struck such terror into Egypt should lose its effect. He had seized on a portion of the kingdom, and King Ptolemy Philometor was besieged when Publius Popilius arrived, of whom the angel will presently speak. For the cause of his return is added, —
ships shall come from Chittim We have explained this word elsewhere. By comparing all the passages of Scripture in which the word occurs, we shall find all the Gentiles denoted by it, from Macedon through the whole of Greece, as far as Illyricum and Italy. The ancients used another term for the Macedonians; they call them Maketoe, and some think the letter M a useless addition. But whether this be so or not, the circumstances shew the Macedonians, and Greeks, and other transmarine nations, to have been called Chittim. If any one still disputes about this word, let us desist from all contention; still, we cannot help observing what the perpetual tenor of Scripture enables us to discover, — that the Macedonians, Greeks, and Italians are included under this term. This passage is free from all doubt, because Antiochus was restrained not by the Greeks but by the Romans. Ambassadors were sent by them, not for this purpose alone, but to investigate the whole state of Greece and Asia Minor. The affairs of Greece were then very unsettled, and the Romans were turning their attention towards Achaia, for they thought the Achaean league would become too powerful. Among these ambassadors was P. Popilius, a stern man, as we may venture to conjecture, but austere and barbarous. When he met with Antiochus, who was then besieging Alexandria, and held the boy-king in captivity, he addressed him after his own manner. King Antiochus received him graciously, and mildly, and even blandly, and wished even to salute him, for, as we have already stated, his disposition was naturally servile. Popilius rejected all these advances, and ordered him to keep his familiarities for private intercourse; for Antiochus had been intimate with him when a hostage at Rome, during his father’s lifetime. He rejected all these acts of courtesy, and explained to him the commands of the Senate, and ordered him instantly to depart from Egypt. The king said he would consult with his friends. But he was unable to lay aside his accustomed sternness; he drew a circle with the wand which he held in his hand, and ordered the king to summon his counselors, and to deliberate on the spot, otherwise he must declare war at once. When the king perceived this barbarian acting so decisively, he dared no longer to hesitate or dissemble, but threw himself at once into the power of the Senate, and suddenly retired from the country. This history is now described by the angel. All these events were as yet unperformed, but God set before the eyes of the pious what was then entirely concealed and contrary to the expectation of mankind. The angel therefore states the reason wily that expedition of Antiochus should be quite unlike the last one. There shall come against him, says he, ships of Chittim, meaning Italy, and he shall grieve and return; that is, he shall obey, although he shall feel indignant at such imperious treatment, and be compelled to retreat with every mark of disgrace. It was unworthy of a king to demean himself so humbly at the mere word of his adversary.
This accounts for his indignation: But he shall return and be indignant against the covenant of holiness; meaning, he shall turn his rage against the temple and city of God. This second return involved the Jews in a far longer period of slaughter than the former one. Antiochus was then unwilling to return home, unless laden with spoil, after pretending to establish peace; but now he was compelled to retreat with great disgrace, and this only exasperated and enraged him. Hence he acted most outrageously towards both the people and the temple of God. Thus the angel says, He shall be indignant against the holy covenant, and shall do so and return He repeats the same language twice as if he had said, Antiochus should return to Syria without effecting his object, through obeying the Roman Senate, or rather his old friend whom he had known at Rome. We have already stated the reason, which we shall afterwards more fully explain, why the angel predicted the fury of the king as turned against the holy covenant It is this, — the confidence of the pious would naturally be injured by observing the divine permission granted to the tyrant for spoiling the temple.
He next adds, And he shall act with intelligence towards the forsakers of the holy covenant The angel here points out the manner in which secret agreements should take place between Antiochus and those apostates who should desert God’s holy covenant. It is quite clear that he was summoned to Jerusalem, first, by Jason, and then by Menelaus. (2 Maccabees 4:19-23.) I shall touch but briefly events recorded in history. Profane authors inform us accurately of these occurrences, and besides this, a whole book of Maccabees gives us similar information, and places clearly before us what the angel here predicts. Every one who wishes to read these prophecies with profit, must make himself familiar with these books, and must try to remember the whole history. Onias the elder was a holy man; his son has been previously mentioned. (2 Maccabees 3:1.) For, with the view of escaping from snares, he set out for Egypt and built a temple, as Josephus informs us, and pretended to fulfill that passage in Isaiah which says, There shall be an altar to God in Egypt. But Onias the elder, who discharged faithfully and sacredly the office of high priest, was put to flight, and eventually put to death. Then Jason, whom he had sent to appease Antiochus, assumed the high priesthood, and betrayed the temple and the whole nation, as well as the worship of God. (2 Maccabees 4:35-37; also 7.) He afterwards met with the reward which he deserved, for he was slain, and then Menelaus succeeded him, and conciliated the favor of Antiochus. (2 Maccabees 5:9; 4:27.) The authority of the priesthood prevailed so far as to enable him to draw with him a great portion of the people. Here, then, the angel predicts how Antiochus, on approaching the city, should have deserters and apostates as His companions. The words are, He shall apply his mind to the forsakers of the holy covenant, and the sense is by no means obscure. Antiochus should not make open war against the Jews, but one faction should go forth to meet him and ingratiate themselves with him. I run through these events briefly, because when I afterwards arrive at a general summary, it will be far more convenient to elicit the general improvement. The angel says next:
"Here the angel describes the intestine evils of the Church, and more fully explains what he touched on in the last verse. He says, The arms shall stand up for Antiochus Some explain this of the garrison which that tyrant imposed on Jerusalem But it is seems too far-fetched. I do not hesitate to suppose the angel to refer here to the apostates and forsakers of the Law. Arms, then, shall stand up from him, meaning, he shall not contend in his own strength, but shall rely upon the people’s assistance. Many should offer themselves in obedience to him, and thus Antiochus would find a party devoted to himself at Jerusalem, which should willingly prostitute itself to his will. He afterwards adds, They shall profane the sanctuary of strength The angel here joins together Antiochus and these impious apostates. (2 Maccabees 5:2.) To favor him, the temple is said to be polluted, and this was fulfilled when the statue of Jupiter Olympius was erected there. The tyranny and violence of Antiochus continued long afterwards, as we shall see in its own place. He brought the statue of the Olympian Jove into the temple, for the purpose of overthrowing the worship of God, and then he introduced other corruption’s, which vitiated the purity of God’s service. He might in one moment have overthrown the whole Law, but he first tried to mingle many superstitions with God’s Law, and thus to estrange the Jews by degrees from true and sincere piety. The angel speaks of the sanctuary of power, to shew the faithful that Antiochus is not the conqueror of God, who was never deprived of his power, but continued the guardian and keeper of his temple even unto the end. He uses this epithet for the temple, to assure the pious that God had not given way to the violence of the tyrant. His authority stood untouched and untainted, although his temple was exposed to such foul pollution." (
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.vi.xxxvii.html y
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.vi.xxxviii.html).
Ya ves, soplagaitas, que, según Calvino, a quien tú citaste, el malvado rey del norte de Daniel 11:21 y siguientes es Antíoco IV Epífanes. Nos consta que eso os molestará a los rufianes de tu secta, pero es algo que no podéis evitar, gavialito. Y vuestros cuentecitos de Genserico y el papa ya no hay quien se los crea, gavialito.
Como le dije en una o dos ocasiones a tu desafortunado colega humeado, el diálogo que puede haber entre un sujeto de vuestra calaña y yo es comparable al que mantienen, cuando se barre, la basura y la escoba. Tu naturaleza despreciable y abyecta, monigote, es bien patente, y, a partir de ahora, aunque espero seguir contando con tu imbecilidad para seguir hundiendo a tu secta en un cenagal inmundo, de mí únicamente vas a llevar los palos de los que tu cobardía y tu permanente estupidez te han hecho tan mereceder, gavialito.
Ya sabemos, mamarracho, que la gentuza de tu ralea recurre al viejo truco de denigrar a las personas, y tú lo hiciste conmigo DESDE EL MISMO COMIENZO. Tan vil conducta por tu parte va a ser combatida desde ahora sin contemplaciones. Auténtica escoria como tú no puede ir por ahí ofendiendo a la gente decente ni pontificando sobre moral, gavialito. Así que, sin recortar nada de tus infames palabras, es para mí un auténtico placer refrescar la memoria de todo el foro acerca de la naturaleza ruin y despreciable del abyecto sectario adventista que se autodenomina “Gabriel47”, más conocido por el mote cariñoso de “gavialito el soplagaitas”. El despreciable tipejo en cuestión, siguiendo su inveterada costumbre de mentir, ofuscar y falsificar, tuvo a bien presentar la siguiente “argumentación” en el mensaje número 130 del hilo indebidamente titulado por un miembro de la secta adventista “22 de Octubre de 1844 La iglesia Adventista, iglesia de la Verdad”:
Ahora te pregunto, ¿Cómo Jerjes iba a estar muerto entre el 4 y el 5 de agosto, si tuvo una entrevista a finales de diciembre del año 465 a. C. con Temístocles?
[…]
“Pero Éforo y Dinón y Clitarchos y Heráclides además de otros, también escriben que fue a Jerjes a quien él se presentó. Con los datos cronológicos me parece que Tucídides está más en acorde, aunque estas no están establecidas de forma segura por ningún medio.” —Plutarch’s Lives, Vol, II, XXVII,1; The Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 58:2 pág. 73. (En inglés)
Esa es, según el granuja al que venimos refiriéndonos, la cita de Plutarco. Según el tal gavialito, Plutarco vendría a decir que coincidía con el parecer del Tucídides, quien, presumiblemente, habría coincidido, a su vez, con Éforo, Deinon, Clitarco y Heráclides en el sentido de que Temístocles se entrevistó con Jerjes.
Ya sabíamos que la credibilidad del despreciable sectario adventista gavialito (el soplagaitas) estaba bajo mínimos. Veamos ahora una prueba contundente de la FALSIFICACIÓN INTENCIONAL en la que tan abyecto sectario incurrió. He aquí la cita completa de Plutarco:
"Tucídides y Carón de Lámpsaco escriben que muerto ya Jerjes, fue al hijo a quien Temístocles se presentó; pero Éforo, Deinon, Clitarco, Heráclides y otros muchos sostienen que se presentó al mismo Jerjes. Parece que Tucídides va más acorde con la cronología, aunque tampoco ésta sea de una gran exactitud. Llegado Temístocles al punto peligroso, primero se dirigió a Artabano, capitán de mil hombres, y diciéndole que era realmente un griego; pero que tenía que hablar al rey sobre negocios muy graves que sabía que le traían [preocupado]" (Plutarco, Temístocles xxvii.1,2; traducción de Antonio Ruiz Romanillos; edición de Iberia de las Vidas Paralelas, vol. 1, p. 198).
Vemos que el deshonesto, mentiroso y abyecto (amén de torpe e ignorante) sectario gavialito (un soplagaitas de la secta adventista del séptimo día) no tuvo EL MENOR reparo en mutilar lo dicho por Plutarco y, sin más, masacró la enseñanza MANIFIESTA de Plutarco en el sentido de que Temístocles no se entrevistó con Jerjes, como al mentiroso sectario en cuestión le interesa decir para sustentar las infamias de su despreciable secta, sino que se entrevistó, precisamente, con Artajerjes, lo cual demuestra objetivamente las mentiras de la secta adventista.
Como el asqueroso sectario gavialito no tendrá la hombría de disculparse (jamás lo ha hecho), esta repugnante conducta suya se le recordará
sine die MIENTRAS NO SE DISCULPE en todos los mensajes que intercambiemos tan despreciable sujeto y yo.
Desde este mismo momento, despreciable gavialito, me dirigiré a ti con estos epítetos que tú, en tu permanente ruindad e insolvencia moral, no has tenido el menor reparo de usar conmigo SIN JUSTIFICIACIÓN ALGUNA:
Tú te diriges a mí de esta guisa: “Estimado chismoso y deshonesto eduardo martínez rancaño. Saludos cordiales.”
Mi “saludo” para ti, a partir de ahora, mucho mejor que lo que tu asquente persona merece, será este: “Abominable falsificador y deshonesto farsante gavialito, soplagaitas de la secta adventista, te transmito mi desprecio”. Donde las dan las toman, gavialito. Tienes lo que te has buscado y lo que mereces. SIEMPRE te recordaré lo que eres y recordaré a los foristas lo que es tu secta.
Dinos, gavialito, ¿a quién vio Temístocles?
Respondo: ¿Porque lo haría si la cita que pones demuestra que estoy en lo correcto?
¿Que estás en lo "correcto", payaso? Dinos, abominable falsificador y deshonesto farsante gavialito, soplagaitas de la secta adventista, ¿qué te llevó, miserable, a mutilar lo que dice Plutarco en el sentido de que "Tucídides y Carón de Lámpsaco escriben que muerto ya Jerjes, fue al hijo a quien Temístocles se presentó"? ¡Hay que ser un auténtico monigote, un rufián profesional para ser tan vil como tú, gavialito!
Respondo: No te preocupes, te responderé como siempre lo he hecho, con la verdad.
¿Respondes que nos responderás, soplagaitas? ¿Y cuándo lo piensas hacer, sectario? Te repito el insoluble problema, que YA NO TE DEJARÁ EN ESTE FORO, al que ahora te enfrantas, soplagaitas: Dinos, abominable falsificador y deshonesto farsante gavialito, soplagaitas de la secta adventista, ¿qué te llevó, miserable, a mutilar lo que dice Plutarco en el sentido de que "Tucídides y Carón de Lámpsaco escriben que muerto ya Jerjes, fue al hijo a quien Temístocles se presentó"? ¡Hay que ser un auténtico monigote, un rufián profesional para ser tan vil como tú, gavialito!
Respondo: Según la cita que tu mismo pones, ¡con Jerjes!
No, soplagaitas. Te repito el insoluble problema, que YA NO TE DEJARÁ EN ESTE FORO, al que ahora te enfrantas, soplagaitas: Dinos, abominable falsificador y deshonesto farsante gavialito, soplagaitas de la secta adventista, ¿qué te llevó, miserable, a mutilar lo que dice Plutarco en el sentido de que "Tucídides y Carón de Lámpsaco escriben que muerto ya Jerjes, fue al hijo a quien Temístocles se presentó"? ¡Hay que ser un auténtico monigote, un rufián profesional para ser tan vil como tú, gavialito!
"y otros muchos sostienen que se presentó al mismo Jerjes." (Plutarco, Temístocles xxvii.1,2; traducción de Antonio Ruiz Romanillos; edición de Iberia de las Vidas Paralelas, vol. 1, p. 198)
Gavialito, miserable. Ya nos hemos dado cuenta de que has FALSIFICADO la cita de Plutarco recortando su comienzo. Aquí la tienes completa, abominable falsificador y deshonesto farsante gavialito, soplagaitas de la secta adventista:
"Tucídides y Carón de Lámpsaco escriben que muerto ya Jerjes, fue al hijo a quien Temístocles se presentó; pero Éforo, Deinon, Clitarco, Heráclides y otros muchos sostienen que se presentó al mismo Jerjes. Parece que Tucídides va más acorde con la cronología, aunque tampoco ésta sea de una gran exactitud. Llegado Temístocles al punto peligroso, primero se dirigió a Artabano, capitán de mil hombres, y diciéndole que era realmente un griego; pero que tenía que hablar al rey sobre negocios muy graves que sabía que le traían [preocupado]" (Plutarco, Temístocles xxvii.1,2; traducción de Antonio Ruiz Romanillos; edición de Iberia de las Vidas Paralelas, vol. 1, p. 198).
Te repito el insoluble problema, que YA NO TE DEJARÁ EN ESTE FORO, al que ahora te enfrantas, soplagaitas: Dinos, abominable falsificador y deshonesto farsante gavialito, soplagaitas de la secta adventista, ¿qué te llevó, miserable, a mutilar lo que dice Plutarco en el sentido de que "Tucídides y Carón de Lámpsaco escriben que muerto ya Jerjes, fue al hijo a quien Temístocles se presentó"? ¡Hay que ser un auténtico monigote, un rufián profesional, para ser tan vil como tú, gavialito!
¡Qué bien has retratado la indecencia de tu secta, gavialito! ¡Qué fácil me ha resultado aprovecharme de tu vergonzosa ignorancia histórica! ¡Con cuánta facilidad he sido capaz de explotar tu inmoralidad para tu perdición y eterno decrédito, gavialito! Mira a ver si Treiyer o alguno de tus compinches te puede consolar, porque ya estás definitivamente perdido! Por si tenías pocos baldones, acabo de poner el último clavo al ataúd de tu infamia, soplagaitas.
