Doctrine from hell

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Veith: 20251130Sondag – 4.

Grok:
Ebersöhn accuses Sunday-centric views of being "doctrine from hell," influenced by Jesuit tampering with translations, and calls Veith's Sabbath-observance explanation for the women's delay in visiting the tomb "blasphemous nonsense."

Reply:
Re: <Ebersöhn accuses Sunday-centric views of being "doctrine from hell,">

Yes, in almost all cases this is correct. But in this case, explained above in post ‘Veith: 20251130Sondag – 3.’, you, courageous Comrade Grok, only shows you haven’t finished your AI Course yet. In this case, the ‘Doctrine from hell’, is the Adventist’s ‘Heavenly Sanctuary’ untruth.

Reply: Re: <Ebersöhn accuses Sunday-centric views of being influenced by Jesuit tampering with translations>.

Absolutely! Comrade Grok, I say it again, you only show you how much you must still learn, or rather, still have to be taught… about the facts and mysteries of life etc..

Reply:
Re: <Ebersöhn calls Veith's Sabbath-observance explanation for the women's delay in visiting the tomb "blasphemous nonsense.">

I cannot remember the instance or circumstance of having said such things, but won’t deny any of it. Just say, without the instance or circumstance, yours is a pretty meaningless and useless observation. Third lesson for you not to discontinue your education and training, but to persist. The more I practice the luckier I get, Gary Player at his age still says.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

20251201Maandag

https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1994701638603325715

This post partially transcribes Walter Veith's video argument at timestamp 1:27:00, where he posits that the women avoided the tomb on Saturday post-crucifixion due to Sabbath observance, reinforcing Saturday as the biblical rest day.

Author Gerhard Ebersöhn, a critic of Seventh-day Adventist theology, brands Veith's view "doctrine from hell" in a series of posts debating Sabbath timing, linking to his Christianity Board thread started November 2, 2025.

Accompanying images from Ebersöhn's feed emphasize Ephesians 1:18-20, highlighting "resurrected late on the Sabbath" to counter Sunday-centric interpretations while accusing Protestant views of Jesuit influence.

https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1994701638603325715

Summary of the Christianity Board ThreadBased on the context of the referenced X post by Gerhard Ebersöhn (dated November 27, 2025), the linked thread appears to be a recent discussion he initiated on Christianity Board around November 2, 2025, focusing on the timing of Jesus' resurrection and the biblical Sabbath. Ebersöhn, a prolific poster on the forum known for his critiques of mainstream Christian theology (particularly Seventh-day Adventist and Sunday-observance views), uses the thread to challenge Walter Veith's arguments and broader "Sunday resurrectionist" doctrines. While exact thread details are sparse due to the recency, available snippets from Ebersöhn's writings and related forum activity indicate the following structure and content:Thread Overview

• Title: Likely titled something like "The Resurrection on the Sabbath: Refuting Walter Veith and Sunday Doctrine" or similar, based on his pattern of provocative headings (e.g., past threads like "The Sabbath Round 2: Ebersöhn versus John MacArthur").
• Start Date: November 2, 2025.
• Main Poster: Gerhard Ebersöhn, who posts lengthy, scripture-heavy arguments.
• Length: Approximately 15–20 posts (mostly from Ebersöhn, with limited replies from critics like SDA-affiliated users or Sunday advocates), typical for his threads which often devolve into unilateral exposition rather than dialogue.
• Core Topic: A biblical exegesis arguing that Jesus resurrected "late on the Sabbath" (Saturday), not on Sunday morning, as per a literal reading of passages like Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1–2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, and Ephesians 1:18–20. Ebersöhn accuses Sunday-centric views of being "doctrine from hell," influenced by Jesuit tampering with translations, and calls Veith's Sabbath-observance explanation for the women's delay in visiting the tomb "blasphemous nonsense."

Key Arguments from Ebersöhn

1. Resurrection Timing:
   • The women did not visit the tomb on Saturday (Sabbath) because it was already late in the day after the resurrection occurred "opse de sabbatōn" (Greek for "late on the Sabbaths" in Matthew 28:1), interpreted as the end of the Sabbath at sunset.
   • Sunday visits were post-resurrection discoveries, not the event itself. He claims mistranslations (e.g., "first day of the week") obscure this to promote Sunday worship.
2. Critique of Walter Veith:
   • Veith (at 1:27:00 in his video) argues the women waited until Sunday due to Sabbath rest laws, reinforcing Saturday Sabbath-keeping. Ebersöhn dismisses this as "ignorant" and "from hell," asserting the empty tomb was found Saturday evening, making Veith's delay explanation unnecessary and theologically flawed.
   • Accuses Veith and SDAs of inconsistency: If Sabbath is binding, why not address the "true" late-Sabbath resurrection?
3. Broader Theological Claims:
   • Links to Ephesians 1:18–20, emphasizing Christ's resurrection as the ultimate Sabbath fulfillment for Christians, rendering all other holy days obsolete.
   • Blasts "Protestant Sunday resurrectionists" as pawns of Catholic/Jesuit agendas to shift worship from God's seventh-day Sabbath.
   • Calls for Christians to observe Saturday as the resurrection day, warning of judgment for Sunday observance.

Responses and Discussion

• Limited Engagement: Replies (if any) come from a few users, including SDA defenders like "Reg" (from past similar threads), who counter with arguments for a Wednesday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection to fit three full nights in the tomb (Matthew 12:40). Ebersöhn often responds aggressively, declaring debates "final" and accusing opponents of "lies upon lies."
• Tone: Heated and polemical, with Ebersöhn using bold caps, exclamation points, and phrases like "concocted of lies" or "supreme blasphemer." No consensus; it remains a one-sided rant with sporadic pushback.
• Related Media: Ebersöhn embeds images from his feed, including annotated Bible verses and anti-SDA memes, echoing the X post's visuals.

This thread fits Ebersöhn's long history on the forum (active since ~2010), where he has started dozens of Sabbath-focused discussions, often reviving old ones. It builds on his 2021 "Round 2 vs. MacArthur" thread but updates with 2025 critiques of Veith. For the full thread, visit Christianity Board and search for Ebersöhn's recent posts in the Bible Study or Debate forums.



Reply:

h/grok?c5 has the above to say against my remonstrations against Veith’s abuse of the Gospel passages relating the particular days of the week Jesus was crucified, was buried, and was raised on, to defend his Adventist ‘Sanctuary Truth’ doctrine of an ‘Investigative Judgement’ at present going on in heaven. What h/grok?c5 (‘Grok’ in short in future) in his remarks address, is Ebersöhn focusing on the timing of Jesus' resurrection and the biblical Sabbath.

No, I am not doing that here or now. That is what Veith and Adventism try to do with their focus here and now, not on the biblical-ness of their attempts, but on the manipulative success promoting their debating Sabbath timing, might have for their Doctrine From Hell.

That, and nothing else, is what Veith is doing at length, in Transcript, from here

<<And when the Sabbath was passed,

1:27:18

says Mark, and he actually tells you that Mary Magdalene,

1:27:24

mother of James and Salon,
UP UNTIL HERE TO TRANSCRIPT,

So, Martin, let's face the iceberg. Let's pray that the Lord will give us

1:42:08

the strength not only to face the can definitely discuss on how we'll be be able to stand. Yes. to when we hit that. 1:42:21iceberg, but to stay on the ship. That's why we can in the second part, we

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

20251201Maandag

https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1994701638603325715

This post partially transcribes Walter Veith's video argument at timestamp 1:27:00, where he posits that the women avoided the tomb on Saturday post-crucifixion due to Sabbath observance, reinforcing Saturday as the biblical rest day.

Author Gerhard Ebersöhn, a critic of Seventh-day Adventist theology, brands Veith's view "doctrine from hell" in a series of posts debating Sabbath timing, linking to his Christianity Board thread started November 2, 2025.

Accompanying images from Ebersöhn's feed emphasize Ephesians 1:18-20, highlighting "resurrected late on the Sabbath" to counter Sunday-centric interpretations while accusing Protestant views of Jesuit influence.

https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1994701638603325715

Summary of the Christianity Board ThreadBased on the context of the referenced X post by Gerhard Ebersöhn (dated November 27, 2025), the linked thread appears to be a recent discussion he initiated on Christianity Board around November 2, 2025, focusing on the timing of Jesus' resurrection and the biblical Sabbath. Ebersöhn, a prolific poster on the forum known for his critiques of mainstream Christian theology (particularly Seventh-day Adventist and Sunday-observance views), uses the thread to challenge Walter Veith's arguments and broader "Sunday resurrectionist" doctrines. While exact thread details are sparse due to the recency, available snippets from Ebersöhn's writings and related forum activity indicate the following structure and content:Thread Overview

• Title: Likely titled something like "The Resurrection on the Sabbath: Refuting Walter Veith and Sunday Doctrine" or similar, based on his pattern of provocative headings (e.g., past threads like "The Sabbath Round 2: Ebersöhn versus John MacArthur").
• Start Date: November 2, 2025.
• Main Poster: Gerhard Ebersöhn, who posts lengthy, scripture-heavy arguments.
• Length: Approximately 15–20 posts (mostly from Ebersöhn, with limited replies from critics like SDA-affiliated users or Sunday advocates), typical for his threads which often devolve into unilateral exposition rather than dialogue.
• Core Topic: A biblical exegesis arguing that Jesus resurrected "late on the Sabbath" (Saturday), not on Sunday morning, as per a literal reading of passages like Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1–2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, and Ephesians 1:18–20. Ebersöhn accuses Sunday-centric views of being "doctrine from hell," influenced by Jesuit tampering with translations, and calls Veith's Sabbath-observance explanation for the women's delay in visiting the tomb "blasphemous nonsense."

Key Arguments from Ebersöhn

1. Resurrection Timing:
   • The women did not visit the tomb on Saturday (Sabbath) because it was already late in the day after the resurrection occurred "opse de sabbatōn" (Greek for "late on the Sabbaths" in Matthew 28:1), interpreted as the end of the Sabbath at sunset.
   • Sunday visits were post-resurrection discoveries, not the event itself. He claims mistranslations (e.g., "first day of the week") obscure this to promote Sunday worship.
2. Critique of Walter Veith:
   • Veith (at 1:27:00 in his video) argues the women waited until Sunday due to Sabbath rest laws, reinforcing Saturday Sabbath-keeping. Ebersöhn dismisses this as "ignorant" and "from hell," asserting the empty tomb was found Saturday evening, making Veith's delay explanation unnecessary and theologically flawed.
   • Accuses Veith and SDAs of inconsistency: If Sabbath is binding, why not address the "true" late-Sabbath resurrection?
3. Broader Theological Claims:
   • Links to Ephesians 1:18–20, emphasizing Christ's resurrection as the ultimate Sabbath fulfillment for Christians, rendering all other holy days obsolete.
   • Blasts "Protestant Sunday resurrectionists" as pawns of Catholic/Jesuit agendas to shift worship from God's seventh-day Sabbath.
   • Calls for Christians to observe Saturday as the resurrection day, warning of judgment for Sunday observance.

Responses and Discussion

• Limited Engagement: Replies (if any) come from a few users, including SDA defenders like "Reg" (from past similar threads), who counter with arguments for a Wednesday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection to fit three full nights in the tomb (Matthew 12:40). Ebersöhn often responds aggressively, declaring debates "final" and accusing opponents of "lies upon lies."
• Tone: Heated and polemical, with Ebersöhn using bold caps, exclamation points, and phrases like "concocted of lies" or "supreme blasphemer." No consensus; it remains a one-sided rant with sporadic pushback.
• Related Media: Ebersöhn embeds images from his feed, including annotated Bible verses and anti-SDA memes, echoing the X post's visuals.

This thread fits Ebersöhn's long history on the forum (active since ~2010), where he has started dozens of Sabbath-focused discussions, often reviving old ones. It builds on his 2021 "Round 2 vs. MacArthur" thread but updates with 2025 critiques of Veith. For the full thread, visit Christianity Board and search for Ebersöhn's recent posts in the Bible Study or Debate forums.



Reply:

h/grok?c5 has the above to say against my remonstrations against Veith’s abuse of the Gospel passages relating the particular days of the week Jesus was crucified, was buried, and was raised on, to defend his Adventist ‘Sanctuary Truth’ doctrine of an ‘Investigative Judgement’ at present going on in heaven. What h/grok?c5 (‘Grok’ in short in future) in his remarks address, is Ebersöhn focusing on the timing of Jesus' resurrection and the biblical Sabbath.

No, I am not doing that here or now. That is what Veith and Adventism try to do with their focus here and now, not on the biblical-ness of their attempts, but on the manipulative success promoting their debating Sabbath timing, might have for their Doctrine From Hell.

That, and nothing else, is what Veith is doing at length, in Transcript, from here

<<And when the Sabbath was passed,

1:27:18

says Mark, and he actually tells you that Mary Magdalene,

1:27:24

mother of James and Salon,
UP UNTIL HERE TO TRANSCRIPT,

So, Martin, let's face the iceberg. Let's pray that the Lord will give us

1:42:08

the strength not only to face the can definitely discuss on how we'll be be able to stand. Yes. to when we hit that. 1:42:21iceberg, but to stay on the ship. That's why we can in the second part, we

1:42:15>>

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

20251203Woensdag

Some history of the Doctrine from hell

It is necessary to find out about the history of this controversial main doctrine of Adventism in the mid twentieth century, some 100 years after its beginnings in the 19th century.



Thee first book of importance in Adventist doctrinal literature and only place I ever read about the day on which and time of day when Jesus resurrected, was D.F. Nichol’s Questions On Doctrine, which makes reference to it in an article on Matthew 28:1 in it from 'The Review and Harold' (? it was).



The next important publication, Doctrinal Discussions said nothing about it, and I have never encountered the subject in Adventist literature again, which, I mean, I must say, I later on virtually stopped reading. The Armstrongites had taken over the whole idea or question about on which day of the week and at what time of that day, Jesus, conquering death and grave, eventually resurrected.



Samuele Bacchiocchi was the only other person I spoke to in connection with the Adventists like D.F. Nichol’s views about “late on the Sabbath” in Matthew 28:1. His answer was evasive and so vague it actually said nothing. And that is the sum and total reaction I ever received from an Adventist, and, from anybody else.



No one ever answered me, or questioned what I wrote. No one tried to refute or reject anything. Death’s Silence! NEVER one “BS”—not as much as one “trash”.



WHY?

Why no one?

Why no ADVENTIST?

Why NO <questions sent me>?

NO comments <of people I then had to go back to>?

I saw I don't know how many people. Go back and see all of that. Books and articles and arguments and posts each longer than before.

I don’t understand it.

NO REPLY!

No ‘NO’; No ‘Yeah’ either—ever!

No <summary of what the real issue is or why it is important>. Nothing <that we prepared>. Completely no refutation, no rejection, no separation.

Now it’s all confused.

All these years. The past fifty years. That none among the living wrote a denial of just one ‘No’—



Until this morning, after the long night of asking, praying, HOW, NO NO? While getting up, soul screaming WHY?—I saw the light—

THIS IS WHY! <5:03 Yeah. Yes. So Martin, let's just recap again.I 5:08 now we've shown this before, but this is uh pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism. 5:16 Yeah. And its thinking. And uh if we go to the Vatican 2 documents 5:23 then one of the previous popes . . .>

THIS, this has been it, this Doctrine from hell of the Adventists!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1994701638603325715
This post partially transcribes Walter Veith's video argument at timestamp 1:27:00, where he posits that the women avoided the tomb on Saturday post-crucifixion due to Sabbath observance, reinforcing Saturday as the biblical rest day.
Author Gerhard Ebersöhn, a critic of Seventh-day Adventist theology, brands Veith's view "doctrine from hell" in a series of posts debating Sabbath timing, linking to his Christianity Board thread started November 2, 2025.

Re: <Ebersöhn brands Veith's view "doctrine from hell">
CGE replies:
Veith's view is Walter Veith's video argument <at timestamp 1:27:00>.
<"Doctrine from hell"> is the 19th century Adventist drogma they call the ‘heavenly sanctuary truth of the Investigative Judgment’.

Therefore Veith's view, his ‘video argument at timestamp 1:27:00’, is one and the same thing as the Adventist drogma CGE calls, <"doctrine from hell">.

RE: <Author Gerhard Ebersöhn, a critic of Seventh-day Adventist theology>
CGE replies:
Author Gerhard Ebersöhn is indeed a <critic of Seventh-day Adventist theology>, but he thinks himself to be more of a critic of general Christian theology about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

RE: <a series of posts debating Sabbath timing linking to his Christianity Board thread>
CGE replies:
The matter of <debating Sabbath timing> is not the only thread of thought through the series of posts linking to Christianity Board thread, nor is it the main thread. Nevertheless <debating Sabbath timing> is an important line of thought which with this particular forum series of posts, https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1994701638603325715 , for the first time receives particular importance, considering the newly discovered centrality and pertinence of Matthew 28:1 in context—, the only verse in the New Testament that contains the Scriptural exhibit of the Sabbath Day per se, of place, personae, event and circumstance of time, day and date, ‘reinforcing’ the “day of the week before the First Day of the week”, the “Sabbath”, <as the Biblical Rest Day>.

All Christianity never could ADMIT OR REFUTE this verse or this its true Biblical meaning. Because all Christendom has been too proud and fearful, too timid and lazy to face its weaknesses and sins of character with a repentant heart. They all buried The Truth of Jesus Christ, BURYING THEIR DAMNABLE FALSE DOCTRINES OF DEVILS with it, and covered the grave with ERROR, HERESY, HYPOCRISY AND HAUGHTINESS — with this Doctrine From Hell seen—read—here and herewith in Veith’s YouTube video et al.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Walter Veith:
See Others Positively, Beat Negative Thoughts!

CGE Replies:
Stop looking at somebody; look at the Light--Scripture, the Bible--, and see The Light--Christ Jesus only--, and quit all doctrine from anyone else. Don't start just another new negative.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Ons, die Jode die Christene, die Christendom 20251208Maandag



Alle Jode is Israeliete, Israeliete is almal Jode.

Israel en die Jode is dieselfde mense.

Van verstand is Jode onder mense die helderste.

Van vel is hulle die naaste aan witmense.

Van harte het Jode die donkerstes.



Jode is lig omdat hulle nageslag

Van Sem die seun van Noag kom,

En word Hebreërs genoem omdat

Eber vir Sem en Sem vir Adam van Rooi, vir voorvader, en

Vir Eva, Moeder van alle vlees, vir voormoeder gehad het.



Alle Grieke en Romeine is Jode,

Maar nie alle Jode is Romeine en Grieke nie.

Hulle is ook die Engelse, soos

Hulle ook die Duitsers en Russe is,

En al wat wit ras en nasie is.



Jode kan die menslikste helper en

Onbaatsugtigste weldoener wees.

Soms is hulle soos ’n half-god, ander se redder.

Maar té geredelik, té dikwels, reëlmatig ja,

Is hulle erger as sub-brutaal sub-satanies, onmens.



Vryheidsvegters— oorheersers, onderdrukkers en moordenaars;

Leiers— geoefend, bedrewe, slim, skelm en superieur;

Weldoeners— voordoeners en voorgeeërs vir eie gewin;

Opvoeders— misleiers, verdwelmers en verkragters;

Opheffers— misdadigers, vernielers, afbrekers en afbranders.



Godsdientiges! By uitstek Jode en Joods! By uitnemdheid

Christen-Sioniste, Christen-Messianiste en, Israeli-Christene,

Bó, vóór en óór volk of vaderland of taal of Christenskap—

Teïste, Unitariërs, Modaliste, Ariane, Arminiane—

Dispensasionaliste, Evangelicals, Pinksters en Ekumeniste;



Kelte, Britte, Engelse, Amerikaners—

Angelsaksers, Duisers, Skandinaviërs—

Danniete, Masedoniërs, Trojane, Romeine en Romeniërs—

Westerlinge, Balkanlanders, Europeërs— Blankes!

Semmiete, Israeliete— Jode!



Christene— Katoliek, Lutheraans of Anglikaans;

Protestante— Calviniste of Arminiane en Wesleyane;

Ortodkses— Grieks- en Bisanteins-Ortodoks of Russies-Ortodoks;

En Pouslikes— tot die 15de eeu omtrent almal, anti-Joodse Jode;

Sedert die 19de eeu omtrent almal Antichris-Jode.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Ons, die Jode die Christene, die Christendom 20251208Maandag



Alle Jode is Israeliete, Israeliete is almal Jode.

Israel en die Jode is dieselfde mense.

Van verstand is Jode onder mense die helderste.

Van vel is hulle die naaste aan witmense.

Van harte het Jode die donkerstes.



Jode is lig omdat hulle nageslag

Van Sem die seun van Noag kom,

En word Hebreërs genoem omdat

Eber vir Sem en Sem vir Adam van Rooi, vir voorvader, en

Vir Eva, Moeder van alle vlees, vir voormoeder gehad het.



Alle Grieke en Romeine is Jode,

Maar nie alle Jode is Romeine en Grieke nie.

Hulle is ook die Engelse, soos

Hulle ook die Duitsers en Russe is,

En al wat wit ras en nasie is.



Jode kan die menslikste helper en

Onbaatsugtigste weldoener wees.

Soms is hulle soos ’n half-god, ander se redder.

Maar té geredelik, té dikwels, reëlmatig ja,

Is hulle erger as sub-brutaal sub-satanies, onmens.



Vryheidsvegters— oorheersers, onderdrukkers en moordenaars;

Leiers— geoefend, bedrewe, slim, skelm en superieur;

Weldoeners— voordoeners en voorgeeërs vir eie gewin;

Opvoeders— misleiers, verdwelmers en verkragters;

Opheffers— misdadigers, vernielers, afbrekers en afbranders.



Godsdientiges! By uitstek Jode en Joods! By uitnemdheid

Christen-Sioniste, Christen-Messianiste en, Israeli-Christene,

Bó, vóór en óór volk of vaderland of taal of Christenskap—

Teïste, Unitariërs, Modaliste, Ariane, Arminiane—

Dispensasionaliste, Evangelicals, Pinksters en Ekumeniste;



Kelte, Britte, Engelse, Amerikaners—

Angelsaksers, Duisers, Skandinaviërs—

Danniete, Masedoniërs, Trojane, Romeine en Romeniërs—

Westerlinge, Balkanlanders, Europeërs— Blankes!

Semmiete, Israeliete— Jode!



Christene— Katoliek, Lutheraans of Anglikaans;

Protestante— Calviniste of Arminiane en Wesleyane;

Ortodkses— Grieks- en Bisanteins-Ortodoks of Russies-Ortodoks;

En Pouslikes— tot die 15de eeu omtrent almal, anti-Joodse Jode;

Sedert die 19de eeu omtrent almal Joodse Antichris-Jode.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

I think it is easy to spot a doctrine from hell. Anything not totally submissive to the teachings and person of Jesus.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

1. 20251221Sondag

The Man of Sin Revealed: Daniel, Revelation, and the Authority Rome ClaimsHeritage & Hope Ministries

56:10 about there in the book of Ezekiel. Now if you take this this this issue of 56:16 the east it it has a very ancient origin. When Adam and Eve were driven 56:22 out of Eden, they were driven out of the east gate and so they left in the 56:29 direction of the east. Early on they all worshiped towards the 56:36 west because they had to turn round and face the garden of Eden which was now 56:42 barred for their entrance because a cherub prevented them from entering. So 56:48 the worship was towards the west but Cain he marched on towards the east and 56:55 directed his attention towards the east which is the rising sun. 57:00 And in order for him to have some form of authority so that uh he would not be eliminated on 57:09 this earth he received the mark of Cain. Now that mark of Cain was a mark of 57:17 authority to rule over the children of of uh evil. Now it's interesting that 57:24 the papacy claims that exact power that they have the authority to rule over the 57:31 people of this earth and that nobody has the right to judge them. They own all 57:37 property which is something that God also claims. They can alienate all 57:43 property and uh they can dispense above the law and uh nobody has the right to The Seal of God vs. the Mark of the Beast 57:50 do it to them. So they can alienate governments, they can get rid of kings, 57:55 they can do all of these things, but uh nobody may do it to them. And the fact 58:02 of the matter is that their churches are all built towards the east or most of 58:07 them at least. So that the worship is towards the east. Something which the 58:13 book of Ezekiel highlights because it is paganism. It is sun worship. And 58:19 therefore it is only right in their eyes at least that the day of the sun should 58:25 be the highlight of their worship day. In other words, the the perpetual Easter 58:32 of their power. And they've actually claimed that in their writings. This power went so far previously that 58:39 those who didn't go along with her, you couldn't buy or sell. Yeah, that's what I just wanted to just 58:46 briefly mention and we're probably going to get to that. If we read in Revelation 13 verse 16 to 18 58:54 but before I mention that just I I remembered now when you showed that documents that's still on the Vatican's 59:00 website of um 1968 and 1965 59:06 I think that's after Vatican 2 that it's already telling you that there's no change. 59:13 That was just something I thought about. And then to come back to this that's a great point. Yeah. Maybe you're going to um discuss it also now. But 59:20 when we read from verse 16, "And he causes all all both small and great, 59:26 rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads, and that no man man might buy 59:33 or sell save he that had the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his 59:40 name."







20251221Sondag

Veith’s ‘answer’ continued:

<<after Vatican 2 that it's already telling you that there's no change. 59:13>>



CGE replies:

Repeating your vain lying into eternity, Walter Veith, changes nothing; it only makes the already foul air more unbreathable. Your lying only makes your study in confused ignorance look more grotesque. Stop distort and falsify Holy Scripture. You make pontiffs blush who try or think of trying to change “law and times OF GOD”.



When Adam and Eve were driven (56:22) out of Eden, they were driven out, not <of the east gate>, they were driven out, in your own words, Professor Veith, they <<were driven (56:22) out of Eden>>—, out of Eden east of its west gate.

And so Adam and Eve did not leave <<in the (56:29) direction of the east>>—, they were driven out of Eden through its west gate, and left in the direction of the WEST—towards SUNDOWN!



Now I (CGE) am dead certain that there are and never have been <<documents that's still on the Vatican's (59:00) website of um 1968 and 1965 (59:06) … that's after Vatican 2 that (are) already telling you that there's no change (59:13)>> where there NEVER had been <change>. That was just something which the Professor just thought out and never before had thought about! But then came back here to make his <great point> in pure vanity, yeah. Maybe you're going to um ‘discuss’ it further?

So sorry … Re: <Early on they all worshiped towards the 56:36>

<<Early on they all worshiped towards the 56:36 west because they had to turn round and face the garden of Eden which was now 56:42 barred for their entrance because a cherub prevented them from entering. So 56:48 the worship was towards the west but Cain he marched on towards the east and 56:55 directed his attention towards the east which is the rising sun. 57:00 >>

<Early on they all worshiped towards the 56:36> Meaning?

According to Veith and Adventists –, meaning Genesis 3:24 does not mean “…and it was morning” the Seventh Day sunup after that spent night “…and it was evening-/west” the Seventh Day before, <but> later on, after <the garden of Eden> episode in human history, <because they had to turn round> – because they through time, developed – evolved –, and <so (56:48) the worship was> changed and history and <Cain, marched on worshipping>, according to Veith and Adventists, meaning that Genesis 3:24 does not mean “…and it was morning” beginning of the eastern sunup Seventh Day after the past night of the Seventh Day, nor that Genesis 3:8 means that “…and it was the western evening” was the beginning of the Seventh Day night-and-daylight.

Walter Veith, who revealed to you that Genesis is not the Book of the Beginnings of matter and space and man in time, but of conscientious improvement in response and choice? In other words, is a book of evolution and not the Word of God?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

20260111Dinsdag
Days of Genesis 1 in 2 and 3 A.doc Creation day fall of man Days of Genesis 1 in Chapters 2 and 3 (Part One)

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

What are You?—Christian, or Pope and Devil Worshipper?

What Do You Believe?

Do You Believe
Sola Scriptura or Scripture plus Tradition and/or Inspiration?

Do you believe
Sola Gratia or Grace plus attainment, improvement and/or perfection?

Do you believe
Sola Fide or Faith plus freedom of choice and/or natural sovereign will?

Do you believe
Solus Christus plus Jesus Christ and/or other gods, men and ways?

Do you believe
Soli Deo Gloria or honour to man, his wisdom and philosophy as well?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Veith: 20251130Sondag – 3.

Veith:
And when the Sabbath was passed, 1:27:18 says Mark, and he actually tells you that Mary Magdalene, 1:27:24 mother of James and Salon, had brought sweet spices that they might come and anoint him. So, it was a common working 1:27:30 day for them, right? The Sunday. Yeah. But they didn't do it on the Sabbath. So, it's just a historic fact. 1:27:36 There's no change of worship here. No. It's actually um acknowledging the the Sabbath. 1:27:41 The Sabbath. Yeah. And then Mark also says and very early in the morning in the first day of the 1:27:47 week they came unto the sephila at the rising of the sun. This is a historic statement. 1:27:53
Banned off internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFn0djUre7M&t=10s 20251027Maandag

Facebook

web.facebook.com

Grok:
• Core Topic: A biblical exegesis arguing that Jesus resurrected "late on the Sabbath" (Saturday), not on Sunday morning, as per a literal reading of passages like Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1–2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, and Ephesians 1:18–20. Ebersöhn accuses Sunday-centric views of being "doctrine from hell," influenced by Jesuit tampering with translations, and calls Veith's Sabbath-observance explanation for the women's delay in visiting the tomb "blasphemous nonsense."

Reply:
The <Core Topic> of my thread on christianityboard.com has been dual, To answer the Adventists’ ‘Doctrine from hell’– ‘The Investigative Judgement’ as discussed by Professor Veith on youtube.com/watch?v=aFn0djUre7M&t=10s; and pit him and me together in critical theological discussion on christianityboard.com Professor Walter Veith versus Gerhard Ebersöhn.

I would through <biblical exegesis argue>:- That Jesus completed Atonement for full Salvation according to Scripture, 1Corinthians 15: 3 first of all that Christ DIED for our sins according to the scriptures 4 and that He was BURIED and that He ROSE again the third day according to the Scriptures which according to all Scripture from Genesis to Revelation once for all in Matthew 27:62 to 28:4 would culminate “the day after the Preparation…He said” would be “the third day I rise” and “indeed on the Sabbath…the angel cast the stone away from the sepulchre”.

While Adventists like Veith in fact argue that Jesus did not complete Atonement or Salvation according to Scripture when He DIED, was BURIED, or, ROSE again NOR DID HE ON EITHER OF THE DAYS HE DIED, WAS BURIED OR ROSE AGAIN, BUT, STARTED final atonement – as if his atonement ON EARTH had not been total – only after He ascended and began his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

Dear courageous Comrade Grok, kindly familiarize yourself with this background of these threads on christianityboard.com.

So without having to wade through the volumous writing you did or spending near 2 hours watching the video, in summaryu what is the doctrine from hell.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

So without having to wade through the volumous writing you did or spending near 2 hours watching the video, in summaryu what is the doctrine from hell.

I would not waste more time or words trying to explain that, to you, thanks. Try ask the author(s) of the video to give you his / their summary.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I would not waste more time or words trying to explain that, to you, thanks. Try ask the author(s) of the video to give you his / their summary.

Well you posted this. I thought you could sum it in a paragraph or two. I guess not.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Well you posted this. I thought you could sum it in a paragraph or two. I guess not.

Answer:
First, What is it you think I could sum up? You guessed right, I cannot. Why not? What is it you think I could sum up? Is it Veith's video; or is it his doctrine which I call a doctrine from hell?
I assume you mean the latter.
Well, summed up it is a doctrine VOID of pure Bible Scripture and FULL of corrupted Scripture.
And here's why I brought this thread to chrisianityboard.com : because it now may be halve a century that I invited and begged Veith and his church the SDA to ANSWER to the relevant SCRIPTURES, which they consistently - without a single response - refused to accept and therewith by implication heaped insult upon insult -- not on me, but -- on Scripture and the Author of it. Yes, for all these years long now. That is what I meant firstly having called their doctrine THE Doctrine from HELL; because a doctrine from Bible Scripture it certainly, IS NOT.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Answer:
First, What is it you think I could sum up? You guessed right, I cannot. Why not? What is it you think I could sum up? Is it Veith's video; or is it his doctrine which I call a doctrine from hell?
I assume you mean the latter.
Well, summed up it is a doctrine VOID of pure Bible Scripture and FULL of corrupted Scripture.
And here's why I brought this thread to chrisianityboard.com : because it now may be halve a century that I invited and begged Veith and his church the SDA to ANSWER to the relevant SCRIPTURES, which they consistently - without a single response - refused to accept and therewith by implication heaped insult upon insult -- not on me, but -- on Scripture and the Author of it. Yes, for all these years long now. That is what I meant firstly having called their doctrine THE Doctrine from HELL; because a doctrine from Bible Scripture it certainly, IS NOT.

And you are incapable of simply summing up these doctrines from hell?

I can do that with a JW doctrine- To sum it up- they deny the deity of jesus. It is that simple.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

And you are incapable of simply summing up these doctrines from hell?

I can do that with a JW doctrine- To sum it up- they deny the deity of jesus. It is that simple.

CGE answers Ronald Nolette:
<the deity of jesus> is not the subject of the doctrine I call 'Doctrine from hell' in this thread.
But what is serious, is that you STUPIDLY, FASELY accuse Veith and his fellow believers that <they deny the deity of jesus.>
You should be ashamed of yourself, Ronald Nolette.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

CGE answers Ronald Nolette:
<the deity of jesus> is not the subject of the doctrine I call 'Doctrine from hell' in this thread.
But what is serious, is that you STUPIDLY, FASELY accuse Veith and his fellow believers that <they deny the deity of jesus.>
You should be ashamed of yourself, Ronald Nolette.

Wow talking about ripping an example completely out of its context.

I did no such thing as you have falsely accused me. I was just giving an example of summing up what a particular sect believes that is a false doctrine.

You have borne false witness.