7 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

It is bad form to vote only for one party or another solely just because of party affiliation, that is when your in danger of voting strictly for politics rather than substance. Voting also doesn't mean you are choosing party or person over God, that is absurd to think that way. If that were true my favorite color would mean more to me than God because I voted green my favorite color.

What of Paul's dealing with the Temple of Artemis?

That being said, Christians will go to Civil Disobedience should their faith be in subjection to things that can effect it. As we can see here, no political ploy going about such ones, for it is an act of defending their faith to those who are attempting to halt said faith.

And it has been done by all persons, for instance, the whole situation with Christians vs. Satanist activities for the last couple of years, even that one situation in Detroit, the other being at a Cemetery. When it comes to defending what is deemed true, like Paul, anything in the realm of Spiritual Warfare and Civil Disobedience will be in total usage.

That being said, this is Russia we are talking about. The same country that has removed all personnel who will influence others to not pick any side whatsoever, and to not partake in an event that glorifies violence.

On 8/9/2018 at 3:21 PM, Shiwiii said:

Interesting. The opposite is no number. 

As in? It is a number, granted as to the amount of those of the New Holy City seen standing on Zion.

On 8/9/2018 at 3:21 PM, Shiwiii said:

In Galatians chapter 4 starting at verse 21, we are told of Abraham's two sets of children. Children of the free woman (Sarah) and children of the bondwoman (Hagar). Specifically telling the reader that these two groups belong to two different camps, one from Jerusalem on Earth and the other from the Jerusalem from above. The Jerusalem from above are those who belong to the freewoman. Verse 27 quotes the OT Isiah 54:1 in which speaks of how the children of the barren woman (Sarah) will outnumber those of the "wife" (Hagar). 

Its verse 22 for 21 [Paul] speaks in question of of the Law, but all in all it is included in Apostle Paul using the bondwoman and free woman in this symbolic example. For 22, in this verse, the Slave Girl points to Genesis 16:15 which references to Hagar, while Free Woman points to Genesis 21:2, 3, referencing Sarah. Verses 21–31, the title being, Example of Hagar and Sarah, [outlined: Hagar and Sarah: two covenants (21-31) Jerusalem above, our mother, is free (26)] Apostle Paul indicates 2 Covenants, of which he had spoken of symbolically (algorism as some point out). Moreover, Apostle Paul also shows us that Ishmael was the one to taunt and make fun of his half-brother, Isaac, mocking him, as some know it to be regarding heir-ship:

For Ishmael was born naturally by normal means (nature descent) and we already know of his mother, Hagar, was a slave girl/handmaid/servant. As for Isaac, he was born due to God enabling the elderly Sarah to conceive a child in her late age, for she was 90 years of age when he bore Isaac, being obviously overjoyed by his birth, hence why back in Galatians, Sarah spoken of as a free woman, not bonded as a slave compared to Hagar, for Apostle Paul showed the symbolic differences in the birth of Ishmael and Isaac. Now, after some time we see how Ishmael treats his young half-brother on occasion and Sarah herself was the one who witnessed such things of Hagar’s son. For she was in fear of what may come for Isaac, she was concerned and had told her husband, Abraham to send Hagar and her son off, to dismiss them. For at first, Abraham didn't want to do that, but God spoke to him and said to Abraham to listen to Sarah, in addition, he also stated he will take care of Ishmael and Hagar, informing him not to worry, lastly, stating that it is through Isaac , his son/Sarah's son that His Promises will come true - (Genesis 21:1-14). From this information alone, the reader can see what is being seen here should they apply context.

Yes, Jerusalem from above is of the free woman, hence why Paul used the example, and everyone is also aware that Apostle Paul knows that such ones who are of this fold, even heirs of it, are of Abraham’s offspring, that being Abraham to Isaac, to Jacob (Israel), to his sons (of the 12 tribes), including those who have been lost to Paul’s day. For last anyone could recall, we do not see any mention of Ishmael being given the Promise, however, God did not leave him hanging when he took up a part of the Wilderness, The Desert of Paran and was a hunter.

Prophet Isaiah and The Psalmist prophesied of a barren woman whose reproach and shame are to be forgotten, for she will bring forth many sons, all of them taught by God as seen in Psalms 113:9 and Isaiah 54:1, of which you had mention, with the addition of verses 2 to 15. The Apostle Paul applies Prophet Isaiah’s words to the free woman, The Jerusalem Above as seen in Galatians 4:26-31, for such one is bounded by no one.

Also this is not much, minor information, but Ishmael had 12 sons of his own, all of which of whom points to today’s Arab people.

On 8/9/2018 at 3:21 PM, Shiwiii said:

So how does this line up with the 144k or does it? It can't. The reason why I say it can't, is because those of earthly Jerusalem (even at the time of the writing) were already greater than 144k. So then these from the Jerusalem from above must be greater than 144k, so those who belong to the Jerusalem from above cannot be one and the same as the 144k mentioned in Revelation. Revelation 21 talks also of this new Jerusalem coming from above and coming down to earth. If you look into all of the places where a new Jerusalem is written about you will not find ANY mention of 144k or any other definite number belonging to it, but rather a number greater than those of Jerusalem from the Earth, which leaves almost an open ended count. 

On the contrary, this does line up with the 144,000 chosen ones, mainly when you take into account that the New Covenant of which the early Christians were bounded to immediately after Jesus’ death was in effect and what we read regarding Pentecost that took place in the city of which the disciples were told to remain in.

Of what you have said could be agreed with, however, before the New Covenant itself, no person of any kind were of the firstfruits within the Jerusalem Above, that is, if we take into account Paul’s example of what he has written to the Galatians, when we know the choosing had already begun in his day, granted Paul’s determination to sail to Ephesus, of which is spoken of in the Bible. There numbers were indeed great, yes, but as we can see no Covenant came that would replace the Law Covenant entirely, only after Jesus, who is the mediator of the New Covenant, came along, having been subjected to death, purchasing us, and later resurrected, and has ascended. Since we know Jesus Christ as the very first of the firstfruits, eventually those who are of this fold will be among this fold, as said before.

Jesus being the firstborn out of death and having been resurrected, returning to God, and it is said in the bible that those who belong to him during his presence, for these people, chosen were brought up from among the people and are among the firstfruits, both to God and to Jesus. So in regards to Pentecost, those receiving the Promise that comes from the Father, everyone present, men and women, including the disciples, having been given the Holy Spirit are the very ones to become the firstfruits or the heirs as Paul mentioned to the Galatians in chapter 3, and Jesus himself is already said to be the first among them. Afterwards they began to prophesied publicly, as in preach the gospel of the coming Messianic Age and the gospel of the good news regarding the Kingdom.

New Jerusalem (Zion), otherwise known as Heavenly Jerusalem, also referred to as The [New] Holy City or The Bride [of The Lamb]. New Jerusalem is also referred to as The 3^rd Temple of which having unknown measurements as seen in the Book of Ezekiel, or in this case, Ezekiel’s vision. Although not a literal woman, the Bible speaks of her and her church, her people, that is, those among the Priesthood who will reside with The Lamb and rule as Priestly Kings and Judges, as well as sing a Song that is unknown to use of which they can only sing. They will also bear the name of God and the Lamb on their foreheads, for as we can see of John’s expression, he had seen them with Jesus, all 144,000 of them standing on Mount Zion.

Yes, this Holy City will come down on earth, although it is spoken of as spiritual and not physical, and will be an established centralized government of which God will put in place, with God’s chosen King, to be Jesus who is accompanied by those of Priesthood who will appear as some say in Spirit form, like that of an angel or that of the Christ himself. Not everyone can reside in this temple despite being under those of the Holy City, for only those chosen for Priesthood will remain while others will at most remain on earth, hence Eternal Life being given to the people who survived/saved and or having been resurrected. Revelations 21, specifically verses 9 to 27 speak of the city’s description in detail, from its very gates to its geometry, in addition to the sacredness and holiness of such in full description.

It is not about looking to see if 144,000 are there or not, it is about application of context and references. That being said, those of Priesthood are in connection with The Bride and we see of her riddled throughout Revelations, and the very context and references are there, for such who is of this Bride consist of men and women since the days of Pentecost up until now and it is unknown as to how many are left, who is chosen and who is not, for the choosing of such ones is of invitation from God himself, and like any invitation, it can be revoked.

One would say that, but you have to consider those 2 groups of the smaller flock and those of the crowd of people who will inherit Eternal Life, all of which subject themselves to one Shepherd, that is, Christ Jesus.

Other than that, I spoke of the Spiritual House extensively before here, of which is also in connection for the Spiritual House’ foundation is the mediator of the New Covenant himself, Lord Jesus Christ, both those of Priesthood and those to have Eternal Life are of this House, and part of the very foundation they are in union with, the Christ.

This is indeed true; those of Earthly Jerusalem, the ones not free and or in bondage, were indeed in great numbers, we also cannot forget that they, among them are the same ones to have rejected the Messiah, but not those of Heavenly Jerusalem, the chosen ones and as well as those to inherit Eternal Life, believed Jesus.

On 8/9/2018 at 3:21 PM, Shiwiii said:

I don't disagree with your position on the already 3000 chosen, nor the "more firstfruits", I just do not see how this description in Galatians can be dismissed and replaced by the 144k mentioned in Revelation. 

Granted Apostle Paul was using symbolism regarding Hagar and Sarah and he knew very well of what was to happen and what took place during Pentecost, granted he was determined make it to Jerusalem on the day of The Festival of Pentecost.

Other than that if you are in agreement with the 3,000 men and women out of the number that is being discussed and those who are with Jesus among the firstfruits, why do you assume otherwise and on your take if those giving the Holy Spirit were not of the destined since the New Covenant is in effect then who is? There is but a selected few of whom John had seen with his own eyes by means of a vision.

Other than that, a lot of people believe in actual chosen ones, however, it has become a thing of a sole race and or people are chosen only after the End Times and such ones preach that what took place in Pentecost was not where it started, however, they are incorrect.

Also this is off the charts and a tad bit random, green isn't your color anymore?

28 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Space Merchant:

Again, I would like to congratulate you on you excellent choice of Avatar Icon for your log in, here.  It is appropriate to your posting above.

The logic and reasoning you use is dangerously close to "prior restraint" , which is in the realm of tyrants and despots.

I disagree with your premises, reasoning, and conclusions.  They "sound reasonable", until translated into real world action.

I consider ALL competent and sane men of good intent to be armed, at all times, everywhere, to be a VERY GOOD THING.

What you are suggesting is tantamount to making the assumption that because all men have penises, they should all be be viewed as potential rapists, and treated accordingly.

 

 

 

No worries. It is just that I see things for what they really are, mainly when at times growing up you witness and hear things, you begin to learn and grow and understand and connect the dots from there. There is a lot I know of which I rarely speak of here so I tend to keep it to a limit, mainly on topics that is of an extreme level, unless it is of the bible of course.

Not all men are bad, as I have said many times around here, there is the good and there is the bad, those of the bad will do things with ill intent, and they do this on the daily and even to good people, at times oppress them. Some of these people play the system in order to do these bad things.

The sad reality is what I speak of is indeed true, for that is within the realm of corruption around the world and mainly the US. The system is corrupted in a way that is allows for double standards and it allows for people to get hurt when they are not suppose to begin with, get the help they need or else such things like their water supply will cause injury to them because corrupt people didn't do anything to stop the water from spoiling and a list of other things. Weapons are bought by people who do not have records and they end up doing bad things as what can be seen in our history already. At the same time there is a war going on with the NRA in this regard and clearly both sides in this fight is at fault. Which also allows why there are those in the shadow government that want to alter the 1st and 2nd amendment. Like I said, I have no care for politics, but things of this nature can cause the chaos to crank up to 11 and result in very bad things to come.

That being said, it is the same case with these church arson, damaging churches even using assault rifles on to an empty church out of hatred and or sending a message, such things will cause concern, fear and people to question, mainly in a community and or in this case, communities that never seen anything like this and it never stops at one, or two, or three, or four, for such things will continue until a time comes where it will cease.

As for this particular case, the is no telling what a man cornered in the dark will do, but as I see it, it is clearly out of hatred here, until then the investigation has to be done so we have more information, as is the case with the other similar incidents.

30 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Do you use "voice to text" software such as "Dragon Naturally Speaking"?

Your very long posts seem to be a LOT of work .... but then again, I cannot "touch type".

 

I simply type too fast for my own good, perhaps a bit too fast. Normally I do not make long post as such but I grew into them after that one thread a while back regarding religious church fathers, granted I defend church history and the bible's history I become way too overly detailed, I believe this is in a thread where you and I believe tom was talking about unicorns in the bible. I guess I would say the one who was trying to twist the information of the church's history and actual belief resulted in somewhat long lecturous posts.

I try to reduce the amount at times, but there is always someone who has a response to a claim, and such claims needs to be fact checked and corrected, for the last time I was extremely brief in information, the someone tried to twist passages regarding Bereans and the holy spirit, at that rate, things must be said and information must be shown.

But other than that, it takes me 4-5 minutes or less depending on what is being discussed in a response and or claim, exegesis, etc. of which I have read, at times a few typos, for since I am from CSE forums, everything that one has to say must have information backing it up or else it would be problematic.

For as you can see, this is the community I have come from, and even these people are like me and have a lot to say at times. People are serious, perhaps far more serious beyond me because I was like a small ant to them in the past, but now I am similar to them in some way.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I wish I knew exactly what you are saying. I haven't kept up with any hate crime issues in the UK. I think I follow a lot of what you have said, but I can't tell if I am reading you as intended, and I can't say that I totally agree with some apparent assumptions of yours.

I think you are saying that it may very well be the case that the perpetrator will turn out to be a disfellowshipped person. I meant the kind of disfellowshipped person who doesn't feel that he can come back to the fold, therefore I also called him an ex-JW. The idea that he has psychological issues seems obvious to me, based on the type of crime, although I really don't know much of anything about psychiatry.

But then you responded that I might be right because "it is stated by former exjws known as anti-jws, having both jws and exjws (pretty much atheists) that a stabbing of a jw in the UK somewhere was a hate crime by means of influence . . ." I think you are saying (in the next part of the sentence) that the UK has acknowledged that there are hate crimes against Muslims that are influenced from anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate speech. Perhaps you are saying that exjws who are anti-JWs are also influenced by anti-JW hate speech. This is always possible, although I would guess that the combination of factors influencing a person to do this crime will not be clearly traceable to influence by others. My guess is that he is mentally unstable and that whatever action was taken against him personally is perceived as a humiliation or rejection that he perceives he cannot or will not be able to overcome. Rather than merely producing anger, he is lashing out wildly and perceives himself to be punishing the system that is humiliating him, rejecting him, or treating him unjustly.

What you speak about is another possibility, that of a person (likely unstable) being influenced by others to lash out based on a frenzy whipped up by others. And another possibility is that the person really was treated unjustly and knows no other world, or feels trapped that he has no other means of survival but to to lash back at the "power" over him.

What I don't believe is a generalization that exjws are pretty much atheists. Perhaps the most vocal online are, and even there I wouldn't know. I suspect that out of one million exJWs in the world, that 990,000 just drifted into a different type of belief in God that didn't require certain activities that they no longer believe are a requirement from God. Of the other remaining 10,000, many of those are quite angry at policies that left them without access to their loved ones, or made them angry enough to look for reasons to dismiss religion altogether. This same group would be expected to produce the online opposers.

I was being very brief, but yes, in the EU, mainly the UK, hate crimes have been on an all time high and it is mostly directed by people of a specific race and or religious belief, other situations it is of a radicalized person killing anyone in his or her path. Hate Crimes are usually carried out by both acid and knife attacks, for knife attacks end up causing the great injury and or death. Granted with the up in religious violence nowadays, pretty much anyone can and will be a target.

Yes, this might be the case, but we have to take into account of how much hate you guys get also, and despite such action of what this person, as with the others, are doing, such ones against you will pin the blame on you without having all the facts together and should something bad do happen, they will point the finger easily, as is of what has taken place in some situations already; several arson, a church of yours riddled with assault rifle fire, etc.

All in all, influence is also a factor, and such influence can drive people to do things be it physically and or verbally, from minor to major, being of the cause in question they are against and or for something. Granted on the actions of the arsonist, and others, already it is clear such ones hatred, and is fully aware of what they are doing, and what we see on the other side of the spectrum are those mocking and attacking such ones like yourself and making the claim that you people deserve what is coming, and of course comments like this will only result in those who will come forth clearly against the man's actions and what is being said by those who see you as an opponent, as is the gassing with the political gassing some months ago.

No need for psychiatry. The actions and ill intent of such ones is obvious, for if people like that are all knowing about their own actions of causing that much damage on to one church and the next, it is already seen, even by some, as hatred and disgust for the church and it's people, of which as already put that small community on the edge as it is, and this is but one of several attacks already.

There is a lot of hate speech about religion in the UK, even towards you, after the death of one jw inside the church he was in, it was ruled out as a hate crime, which resulted in the PM talking about hate crimes and censoring media due to influence that comes from such things. This was done but was only minimized slightly, thus people are still on the edge and are vigilant, such had taken place as of last year, and since then, the hate crimes just spiked towards those of religious background and or a specific race, mainly with the whole immigration thing that is another factor in the EU.

I guess when more comes form the investigation we will see, for if this person was able to get this far and what he has done, one can say it is out of hatred and such put such a person into this course to enact such. That being said, we can say this, yes, but even a trapped man will go forth with actions that is deemed crazy and wrong by others.

I am talking about anti-jws, these guys hate both jws and exjws. I would consider them more of a wild card for they are not a fan of anything to do with God and or the Bible whatsoever. Despite this, towards jws and exjws, it is either extreme hatred and constant mocking of them and brutal attacking and insult, of which can be seen on another thread similar to here but in full force, on the other side of the spectrum, they want nothing to do with both groups, but will often speak their peace in terms of using logic and fact checking anyone who speaks ill. These guys adhere to and carefully listen to famous atheists, for instance, Hemant Mehta (The Amazing Atheist) being the go to guy and the only person they tend to get their information from, at the same time others have gone to people like him in order to get information to use against a group and or a person they dislike.

But yes, as for exjws, not all of them are bad, in fact, some of them defend jws and fact check those who speak badly, and end up being the very ones to be attacked.

Yes, but you'd be surprised, the more angry ones wish to see a faith burn down to the ground, some of them even attempt to get the current President to help them do it, granted Trump is an avid Twitter poster, as they have done several times last year.

In the end though, the biggest concern here is safety, do what you can and be vigilant and aware, for such ones are quite angry and there is no telling what a concerned man in the dark will do. So it is very goo to see that community in that town actually stepping up to find this guy, as is the other affected areas.

But I was right about what I say bounty hunters, you may not know this but whenever money is involved, there are people who try to look for such persons themselves, for that is what they see, any information and or tip, etc that will enable them to be a step closer to the reward they want and the US has a lot of bounty hunters, even among the police force.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

First of all, I was making a joke about mounting radar operated machine guns on Kingdom Halls to deter arsonists.

Second, you obviously have NO experience buying firearms from reputable licensed dealers.

You are speaking about things you do not know ... about.

With Criminals, and criminally minded vendors, of course ANYTHING could be the case.

I know I do not. But with the rate of gang stalking and religious hate rimes on the rise, this seems to be the case. The thing is here along with the arson, jw churches have been shot up by a specific firearm, that being, an assault rifle, of which is in connection with the church arson and said to have been done by the same person, such a person clearly has no bad history and or record and still conceals himself, for with no record and a license to carry, it makes such a person very elusive and hard to track and or find, which seems to be the case.

Guns store owners will sell guns to anyone anytime, mainly if the record is clean, granted the culprit manage to get by this easy by damaging the churches via fire and on other occasion bullets, thankfully no one inside, it speaks in volumes.

I do not have experience in firearms, but I know to some extend the law of the land in regards of guns and those who carry them, those against them, at the same time having a corral with the state and government

I tend to speak on this to point of what is actually true and there is no question that such things are connected: https://www.kiro7.com/news/south-sound-news/shots-fired-into-kingdom-hall-of-jehovahs-witnesses/750155526

It is easy to catch a man who has some sort of record and or history, it is far more difficult to find a man who has a clean record, and any man with ill intent can easily get their hands on such things, of which was indeed true, granted you can only acquire such things from an actual Gun Store.

In a small town like that, it is unlikely criminals would be selling guns on the street, mainly if you take into account the area's history, if anything, such is possible in areas in the Southern parts of the US.

But what is said is very much true in regards to those who upheld the 2nd amendment in order to get their hands on a weapon and use said weapon  for ill intent (hence the whole situation with government and the NRA several months ago), be it for something minor as sending a message and or something major.

Should this man end up being exposed and caught, it is without question we will see the history and we will see of where he bought the gun in the first place, again, a small area like that, you wouldn't catch criminals who sell illegal weapons in such a place compared to other areas,mainly when criminal activity is on a high percentage on a daily.

3 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

So is this a number? Is it 144k? The reason why I ask is I don't see anywhere where in scripture where a number is correlated to this group. I see just the opposite actually.  

It is a number of individuals chosen, yes. This number is mentioned 3 times in Revelations and everywhere of where it is mentioned, is a direct references to those chosen to co-rule within the Messianic Kingdom. When the New Covenant came into effect, you already have those of Pentecost, which included the Disciples of Jesus, and Judas' replacement, Matthias, which totals up to 3,000, and from there more of the firstfruits are chosen up to present day and onward.

And the opposite of such would be?

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Radar controlled machine guns?

Most likely a purchased firearm. Gun Store Owner will only raise a brow if you have a crazy history, but a Mr. Clean record allows you to pick any gun from the candy shop, as long as your license to carry is clean or if you speak highly 2nd amendment, the owner will give you a high five and allow you to buy.

Things can get bad to worse and set to easy mode for the US.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If there are surveillance videos, I think they will catch him, and most US KH I know have such systems now. Probably will turn out to be a DF'd ex-JW with some pscyhological issues. Making fake suspicious-looking devices is usually helpful to investigators, although investigation might have to be done privately if police put their "forensic" budget only into homicide investigations.

It may as well be the case for it is stated by former exjws known as anti-jws, having both jws and exjws (pretty much atheists) that a stabbing of a jw in the UK somewhere was a hate crime by means of influence, and this was even stated by the UK gov't, of all people, Theresa May, who is aware of religious hate crime due to influence, granted the hate spreading of muslims in the UK, it is done to jws too.

Sooner or later it will lead to injury and or death. It is one thing to agree/disagree with a faith, but to take it this step far, it insane. On the other side of the spectrum, there are bounty hunters who are only wanting to find this arson because they want a payout so at this point pressure to the culprit will be going from green to red.

But that being said, Religious Violence has been on the rise lately compared to the Christian vs. Satanist ordeal that took place about a yea or two ago.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

This Heavenly Jerusalem consists of those called/chosen, do you subscribe to the same views as the jws on this? That this consists of only a select number of folks, say the 144k? 

This view predates the JWs and it is believed by those who know of what it entails, mainly in regards to such ones who studied the bible and the church extensively. Although some have a different view of the chosen ones, some even suggest it is only a race and or a nation of people (especially when I had to deal with those who say I am from the tribe(s) of Simeon/Levi/Benjamin of which they have no proof of) when the reality is it is a collection of persons who are chosen by God and or those destined for such a service.

It is believed and is true that only a few of these people are left and some will be alive until the End Times conclusion and eventually into the days of Great Tribulations.

Other than that, I actually had some information in detail somewhere, regarding these tribes and what happen to the tribe of Dan, if I do find it I most likely would post it on bible discussion though.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

This kind of addresses my first question in this response. Both groups become one under this Spiritual house, but is there still a separation of sorts? 

Those chosen are of the Priesthood, to co-rule as kings and or judges.

The other is those, the heirs, being given eternal life.

Both of them are of the Spiritual House and make up the House. Both of them are of the New Covenant, both of them are of the Seed, only one of them, those of Priesthood,is of the Bride, is of the Firstfruits for we know Jesus is the first and eventually we see 3,000 others and onward of this fold.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

now that's funny. Sort of reminds me of Allen Smith.

Probably because when I checked the guy, Grey Reformer, joined the other day, to be exact Tuesday at 12:50pm on August 7, 2018. I think, or as of what I had seen, think has already made another name for himself weeks ago, but I cannot be too sure.

53 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

now i am in dilemma. To be fan of you or of Abraham? :)))) 

2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

As I recall, which was recent, of what was said when I defended Abraham and what the Promise of that God had made to him. Apostle Paul spoke of this the very reason such is in direct references to being One in Christ what it implies and why Abraham, who was not killed for what he did and he kept alive, even his wife, as I said before, was seen as a hero, for she complied with her husband of whom she called lord in order for God's Promise to continue into the days of David well into the days of both Joseph and Mary and what come to have the Prophet, Jesus, of whom is of that Seed along with the heirs, Those One in Christ.

I never asked you to be a fan of me, for of such I do not care, I simply care for the Bible, the History and anything pertaining to such as well as God's Law, and I care for those who are oppressed and or other as well as those of my own people who do suffer. Other than that, I simply corrected you on Abraham and you responded by saying something as if what he had done was a selfish act when it was his reasoning and his knowledge of the land that caused him to be in such a position to begin with, and this is not the first time, and now when we have a verse of which you quoted that speaks in direct references to the Promised Seed in attempt to use salvation vs. what Bible spoke on about the church, is obscene nor have you really poured the actual context itself, but at least you make the effort in knowing what One in Christ means but fail to see that it is direct in what is spoken of Salvation for both men and women, no talk about religious leadership in anything he has said in that passage alone.

You also didn't show much kindness to the truth about Adam and Eve, even when corrected in that domain also.

And please, if you really cared about Abraham, what you said many times before would not have been in an attempt to be against him, now that, is being hypocritical.

With that of which amounts here, even when it comes to the church itself, you are as you always have been and choose to be.

Therefore, what Jesus has entrusted, cannot be changed. He is the Firstborn out of the dead, The Firstfruits of the New Creation, the Cornerstone of the church of which he is the foundation of, he is the head of the church and has given he ability to the church to bind and loosen, for the people make up the church and under him they abide by this and they abide by not only his command, but in total religious servitude in God is Father of whom such ones give praise and service to.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

pick for yourself what you like more

The truth and nothing but the truth, and always the truth that comes from the Bible and the History of the early church in Christendom and nothing but this truth. At least such is accurate, in this sense rather that fabrications like hydro or that of thinking a registry is an indication owning something when it is pretty much nothing more than a institution census.

That being said, I have told you, just as I have told Witness, go do the research of the History of the Church, and learn it, mainly in God's view, what Jesus entrusted and what Apostle Paul had said, for he spoke of creation for a reason regards to how the church has been structured as well as the family.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

i think how you are not entitled do hear more privileged information then I already said  in public, details about. So i will not tell a "lie", "half truth", "white lie" or "misleading information", but "be in silence" and suffer consequences (verbal persecution) of such decision :)))))   

Speaking the truth is not entitlement nor is a privilege. There are many people around the world, even those of whom I met, those sick, those poor, those lost, who make the effort to actually read and understand their Bible, for as I had said to you before, better to be close to and or have the truth rather than be far from it. If you do not even know the history of the church, let alone the history of the Bible, how can you speak to such persons? How can you refute the accursed? And the list goes on.

That being said, you have and always have come upon as a cryptic individual, mysterious at times, but at the same time even when corrected, you still dwell on feelings and opinions rather than what the Bible says itself, and when something has been pointed out as a lie it vanishes and should it be brought up for such of what you profess ends up being false and or untrue, other times a showy nature of not understanding something and thinking differently of what is written, even outside of the bible somethings mention by you is seen as unfounded, and well, we know how that turned out and in some situation you continue to egg on this and show some flaws in some responses, and you tend to contradict yourself at times, which is evident.

But it seems even when someone speaks the truth, for you, and majority of others, it goes into one ear and leaves out the other.

That being said, clearly you have not read the brief detail of what was stated in page 2, therefore, it shows that someone people are either ignorant or unaware of the history of the church in ancient Bible times and such ones will try and attempt to use Salvation passages (of which had seen and refuted nearly 2 decades now) to make claim to something that is unrelated.

To make it brief so you better understand:

The structured is, and has been and forever will be as it were. Adam was created first, Eve came later on and is second, therefore we have the first man and woman. The family had always been Structured as man, woman, child, which in turn when the churches were a thing in biblical times, the church, physically, had all persons, young and old, but because the head of the Christ is God for he had made Adam and Eve, and that the Christ is the head of the church, we see what Paul had stressed in regards of said structured in terms of leadership in the church under the Christ. From religious leaders of authority, to servants, ministers and teachers, to members and converts and we see Paul even speaking of men of authority and to which position such ones take in the church.

Even though women cannot and will not be religious leaders, their role in the church is not significant, for it still impacts the church because the church is the people and that community of people build themselves up. They help in the ministry, they teach, they question and answer, they pray and a list of other things, women were included in the day of Pentecost as well for they too take part in the gospel preaching and converting people for baptism in the church and such ones uphold God's Law with total seriousness, hence why the head covering is very important. Both men of any age, sex or race are ALL under and in union with Christ because Salvation is not for one person or a nation, it is for all, hence the New Covenant, for we know because of Abraham, Jesus came to be for he was of this promise, and his heirs, those selected for Priesthood that is neither male or female and until he returns, His church of which He has built will remain intact by those who hold true to Scripture and not try to change it in any way shape or form for any many who speaks differently and or teaches and practices something else that, let him be accursed.

Know this, real Christian men and women know this, and if we want to those some more logs into the blaze, Jews know this, Muslims know this, Agnostics know this and a list of other people, whoa re we to change what God has set up in terms of his purpose and will? The answer should be, no one is to do such a thing.

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Could not a Prophetess also be a housemaid? 

I assume they have to work for a living.

I wouldn't say housemaid for Prophetess were not such ones to clean homes of other people, rather, some of them were deemed ones in maidenhood, meaning who had not have had any sexual relations with a man and or virgins, but some are not. Some examples would be Prophet Isaiah's wife, although unnamed, her she was a Prophetess, for this was professed by Isaiah. She and her husband had children together. Next we have Anna, the one who met with Joseph and Mary. She is The daughter of Penuel, of the Tribe of Asher, and she was married until she became a widow when her husband had passed. We also have evil ones who are for brazen conduct who originate, we can take example of what is said of Ba'laam and Jezebel and how those replicate them, in this case, how such ones replicate Jezebel, which seems to be the case with one church mention in the Bible.

Other than that, everything spoken of is indeed true, but it would seem people nowadays do not like History, or that of even social studies when it comes to things of old, History of the Church 101 was clearly an elective that was no selected this semester for such ones and therefore, their knowledge in this domain is lacking.

@Srecko Sostar Comparing of what you had told Gone Away in regards to your former affilation with the faith, can you be more specific of the year at least in estimate? Is the son is now 70 years of age (2018), that means he was born around the late 1940s, so counting back from 2018, it would be the year 1948, around the time of World War II, also around the same year several of this events were taking place as listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_in_the_United_States

So who passed away first, the husband or the wife? For if she had a husband, perhaps the husband was the first to go before she did.

As far as I know, JWs, who are still fresh Bible Students has and always have been this way since the Great Awakening compared to mainstream Christendom, as far as I see it, of the Priesthood or not, we do not see this woman, Zorica in this narrative, a religious leader, let alone the one leading the church. She can speak, she can teach and make disciples, she can minister, she can question and answer, but we do not see her as a religious leader whatsoever. Women can make comment to a sermon in the church, they cannot give a sermon to the church, so therefore anything of the like, does not add truth to your claim of authority, simply an role in play by means of this person of the church she resided in.

It is not an adoption of "spirit of gentleness and silence" as you claim (once again you've proven to not even read for context), for if that was the case, why would she be doing the things she is doing? In fact, why would those in the 1st century, women, do what they were doing? The remark of silence, as addressed by Apostle Paul, was in seriousness to those who followed Artemis, and resided in the area for the Temple of Artemis was in the same area Paul was at the time, and women of Artemis were usually the ones to show up at the church and such ones remain silent.

She spoke yes, but where is it she held an office of authority in religious leadership of the church? I say this time and time again and every time you and Witness will come up with something else to say, even going as far as to go the route of comparing church/family scripture with that of verses that speak on Salvation, for last I check Salvation has nothing to do with religious leadership yet the both of you bring up such verses, and in your case, you are not a fan of Abraham due to what can be seen in our last discussion, of which I addressed the One in Christ passage to you and your response is vastly different on what you are and or attempting to convey here, again, this is coming from a guy who has told me God is not the type of person to care should one change their gender.

And what of her son? You were just talking about the woman, a destined one who clearly never ran and or lead the church in that faith, in fact, you never see any women of the faith lead a church, but a fail-safe situation is as it ever was for all try to abide by what the church actually is, as did our church fathers, as is Apostle Paul.

I leave you with this, for a woman who is anointed, also what year she became chosen, how long she has been in the faith and when did she die, granted her son was born around the late 1940s since you said he is now 70 years of age or is this another one of your mind games as you have done with the sse hydro venue, of which you swept under the rug when corrected? Surely if this woman was of high importance in your former faith, as you stated to Gone Away, you would have shared this information, and since it is the 1940s, this information would have been easily brought up, granted of how religious folks were back then, before and after World War II.

 

As I said, despite not having a religious leadership of authority, women could teach and minister outside, as well as outside of the church for they are and can be ministers, as seen with the example of Apollos, they are teachers of what is good and their efforts help out the church as seen in Titus 2:3-5, as stated before, 3 times. The woman was not to exercise authority over a man of authority in the church for she does not and cannot lead the church.

 

I suggest you read what is said and go learn the history of the church, as I told Witness, there was a reason why Apostle Paul spoke of Creation itself when referring to the church.

 

And next time, as said to Witness, do not try to mix passages together and expect to me in the right, but it is kind of a low blow to equal of what is said with Salvation of being One in Christ. granted I was critical of this with you before, and of Abraham's Seed. Give Galatians 3:29 a read to ring some bells.

 

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Anytime. For me I learn to be very cautious. That Yvette woman I saw her in person once surrounded by her people, for people like her attack first and claim you are a Nazi, hopefully she is still in jail but rumors of her being out is being talked about, but there are others who take her examples and many who would go crazy, and it won't end anytime soon.

My only hope it that it does not lead to another death as it did in Virginia an the very fact the United Nations attempt to deal with the first amendment because of it. Although I am not a fan of politicians, if the UN did do something to the 1st amendment that would prove devastating to a lot of people and cause an uproar, as it nearly did back in the Charlottesville incident in Virginia. 

But yeah, I guess because of your comment now I would have to go do the research and find the deeper truth of this matter.Better to know that be unaware and be caught off guard.

To quote the words of a good person I know who still to this day is effect by the whole 9/11 event: Safety and security is that of like placebo effect, for even in your own home, you are not safe.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

I remember reading it like this.  And "man" wasn't capitalized.  (I'm really getting a good picture of how you perceive women)

Granted that I have to keep going back and forth all the time I do not have much time to make corrections, copying and pasting as I go and I spoke of the verse from memory, so clearly I am not trying to prove anything by means of punctuation and pronunciation, simply stating what the passage says from memory , and if you want to play that card, you had shown before a total disrespect in confusing Heavenly Jerusalem with Earthly Jerusalem, for confusing the two, by some is seen as a violation.

I am not belittling and or putting women in a bad light, I am simply stating what is true by means of the church and what the bible says and it would seem even the truth you are against, especially as to what Paul says.

That being said, men and women have roles in the church and only one of them have religious leadership in the church, under the Christ. It is not a matter of favoritism, it is not a matter of who is better than who, it is a matter of how and what the structure of things are within the church and only the church and what such derives from, hence the mention of Adam and Eve.

Wanting to accuse now? I can tell you this so you know exactly of how I view my fellow men and fellow women, the very culture which my people  I abide by would literally scatter your perception, for we do not do things like you in the west do for we are not of such a life, for us it is family, peace, truth and all that is good for what is good, headstrong in safeguarding our people, even in the face of danger and disaster, even when the US president disgraces us, it does not hinder us because we do not take the side of such a man or anyone who is of that fold, and most importantly, we have a total high regard and care God and his Word and read it constantly,  all of such has been taught  by the time we could walk, in my case, it was taken a step further, learning a Languages, history, Christology and a list of other things and so forth, so I suggest you not make an attempt to cash check you know you cannot cash in this regard because the way I see it, you do not really take into account fully of what the Bible says, what God's Word says, the very reason you are being informed in what the church and family is and what it is based on, according to Apostle Paul.

Anyone man or woman who dishonors another among my people's culture is seen as a disgraced one, as it is said in my language, Personne disgraciée. For what we see here no one is disgracing women here, what is simply being said is a biblical truth and nothing but that truth as well as correcting what your current view is which is clearly of mainstream Christendom, and it is evident that you never dwell outside anything in regards of the history of either the Bible or the church and this has been seen.

It is also clear that I will never, ever break and tweak the Bible for the sake of Traditions of men of which mainstream Christendom professes (mainly as to what is spoken of in this topic in an attempt to make changes to what is said), so if you want to make such a bold claim, I allow you try, it will not help you, nor will it help Sostar because apparently you guys have no idea of anything to say about the church, granted of how the both of you already view the Great Commission.

But I can already see such shifting to those of the Priesthood when we are talking about those of the church who has the abilities to bind and loosen, such ones of authority under the head of the Church, the Christ.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Do you know that the Greek meaning for “man” ( anēr)   can be  “used generically of a group of both men and women”?

Granted I am capable of reading and speaking as well as understanding words and expressions in both Greek and Hebrew, it is not unknown to me. In the manuscript and Greek Strong's that is a 435.

QUOTE: with a reference to sex, and so to distinguish a man from a woman; either a. as a male: Acts 8:12; Acts 17:12; 1 Timothy 2:12; or b. as a husband: Matthew 1:16; Mark 10:2; John 4:16; Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Galatians 4:27; 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6, etc.; a betrothed or future husband: Matthew 1:19; Revelation 21:2, etc.

Outline:

Quote

1. with reference to sex

   1. of a male

   2. of a husband

   3. of a betrothed or future husband

2. with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy

3. any male

4. used generically of a group of both men and women

So it would be better to tell me something I do not know rather than attempting to and or thinking I do not know what is already known, so that will not do you as much.

so let me tell you something you may not know about this word, it has an occurrence totaling up to 216 with it appearing inasmuch as around occurs 193 verses in the Greek New Testament alone.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

“But I want you to know that the head of every group of both men and women is Christ…”

According to the scripture, it does not say, so do not add to the text as is the very reason I brought up Deuteronomy 4:2.

But I see what you are doing with the verses, you are attempting to mix the structure of the family and the church with that of being one in Christ - Salvation (the common game that mainstreamers like to play when they want to put opinion and feeling into a believe that is never professed); as you can see, there is no time for games, only the Bible, in my case play little, read more. That being said, as already mention,  it speaks of those who are able to have salvation, this is not the first time someone has attempt this, for I have ran into people of the mainstream who tried this for over 8 years now because they attempt to add traditions of men and political based ideas and opinions by means of feeling into the church so that women can hold some office of authority.

Also looking that up only points back to you and nowhere else, for that claim is unheard.

You were right to speak on maidservants and Prophetesses, but you show yourself to be completely blind on the church structure itself, even when taught by someone who has studied the church itself for a long, long time, you, still remain think otherwise of what the Bible says and clearly you expect people to not see that, well you are mistaken, as if every time I spoke of the church it should have been known to you by now of someone who is and willing to speak this historic truth of a structure based on that of God's view in terms of creation, after all, it was addressed by Paul (for I had mentioned the verse strongly on page 2), not you or Sostar even dwell upon what is said by Paul in his other writings, mainly that of First Timothy and Romans, let alone application of context.

But it would seem the both of you like mixing that of Salvation, being on in Christ with how the church's hierarchy layout, addressed by Paul even, is, for there is a reason as to why Paul said what he said about our first human parents, what can be said is he was not dwelling on culture, but rather, creation and how he equaled that to that of the church and family, for it is in direct connection with God's view and what Jesus entrusted the church to do. The mixing of Pentecost into the mix was as well a total failure in this sense let alone referring to someone who was not called and or mention to be a Prophetess.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Does any male religious leader have higher authority over a woman than the man she is married to?  Line ten “christian” men up in front of a woman; one of them being her husband.  Who should she listen to?  Which male “head” should she choose?  Obviously, she would most likely listen to her fleshly husband.

This just shows you lack knowledge of the church and in defense of what you cannot even defend.

Men who hold a religious leadership in the church, as seen in biblical accounts are in a position of authority to everyone of that church, a good example is when Apostle Paul had to deal with those who were followers of Artemis and how critical he was in this regard. Paul even speaks of position and roles of men in the church and it is clear here he is referring to men of which can hold some sort of religious office and authority in the church, and clearly the early brothers of the church, some were married and some were not. Women on the other hand, of that church, as others who are not in a position of authority listen to those who are in the lead, but they too help the church by means of ministry and teaching, but never have any woman in the Greek New Testament is spoke of and or seen to hold a religious leadership, for we only see this position held by men, granted with what is said by Paul in scripture.

And now we see here, by this response, you didn't do yourself a favor to even study and or look this up, and yet we see you dwell upon your own opinions and feelings in order to not adhere to what even the Bible says, or perhaps you are among those in the mainstream who is in total opposition of Apostle Paul, for those I have dealt with too in the past, even in person?

2 hours ago, Witness said:

BUT, if that wife decides she must leave the so-called “christian” religion she is in, realizing it preaches  “another Jesus”, should the husband stop her from doing so, since he does not share that opinion?  Since she realizes the difference between a truth and a lie, and is unable to spiritually “live” the lie any longer, should she do what her heart tells her and turn to Christ for guidance?  Of course!  She doesn’t need permission from her fleshly husband to heed Christ’s words of Matt 11:28.

You can speak on the modern day faiths all you want, but the focus here is what the Bible says of the early church, for I see here of what you are already attempting to do for the resolve, it is not going to help you for even people today, even women will speak of the church as I have because they know the biblical evidence and history, some even know The Didache by heart, for these women are true women of the church, women of Christ because compared to you they do not try to twist in their own reasoning to justify something that totally different. This is why I invite you to actually read up on the history rather than dwell on your own feelings, perhaps send question to the one you adhere to, the one you follow and maybe you will find an answer in regards to the church, but most likely even the view of this person shows.

That being said, the church, as said before, cannot change, nor can it be tweaked, abandon and or molded into something else. It has been in place for a very long time an the early Church, since one of you mentioned Matthew 16, was always and will forever be what it is, and those who adhere to it are in the right vs. the mainstream who makes ANYONE a pastor nowadays when the bible makes it clear.

As for lies and true, what is true is what has always been said, and I agree with Paul on every regard, especially as to his example of using creation, that of Adam and Eve in references to the church, to avoid this truth only proves one to be in the wrong here.

There is no other Jesus also, there is only one Jesus. For this one, the Christ, is the Son of God, he came from God and has returned to him, only soon to return again.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Since she has chosen to listen to Christ, he is her only spiritual Head.  Her fleshly husband has no authority over her spiritual well-being. No religious leader has authority over her decision to serve Christ the way she feels is proper.  That is between Christ and herself, although she can certainly share what she learns, since marriage mates are “partners” and would work out their religious differences, giving respect to each other’s spiritual needs, as well as fleshly needs.

So what would be the point to bring up Matthew 16 when clearly there is a direct references to what Jesus had entrusted the church with? To say otherwise is like gambling with an Agnostic at this point.

Christ set an example for us and he is the head of the church, no one else but him is the stone that is the foundation of the church and that stone cannot be broken and or changed. Apostle Paul was right to what he said and will always be in the right no matter how some Christians now a days paint him as the villain.

Religious leaders of authority are in charge of teaching, in the church, helping out, in the church, and other things such as offering question to what needs to be answered and a list of other things, most importantly, what they teach must be accurate to what the Bible says and by means of what is says that must be practiced, and I have already spoken about the role of women and it is silly to stress it time and time again only for such ones to make a defense that is indefensible followed by depleted sources.

The irony here,a s mention before, even true Christian women who abide by what the scriptures say know exactly of which is being stressed about religious leadership, and they also know despite not being in a position of authority they are not left out for they too have roles to help the church even though they cannot lead in the church, for they to are for the Christ. And all members of the church have respect for one another and their neighbor, and obviously if anything is accursed, something will be said.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

“Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?”  Rom 6:16

And? From slaves of sin to slaves of God, those of righteousness (15-23). This is in regards to an Epistle to the Romans when Paul was addressing those who are gripped by Sin, but a path for them to become servants of God is possible by means of that very gift God gifts, that is, Lord Jesus Christ, and by means of this gift God gives, in turn, Eternal Life,hence that of which is spoken of by Paul and everyone in the churches afterwards, Salvation.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

We cannot serve two Masters.  Our fleshly marriage must be in balance with our commitment to Christ.  We spiritually serve only God and Christ.  If we, male or female, put obeying men above Jesus, we will succumb to devoting our time, energy and resources to men (and what they desire to build), instead of Christ.  Matt 6:24

Granted that Jesus gave the church the ability to bind and loosen, he had everything set in motion for a reason 2,000 years ago when the foundation was put in place.

Once again, using a verse in order to compete with that of the structure of the church, of which Jesus' church operates, or that of what Paul had already professed regarding the church.

For if those given who had been entrusted with what is suppose to be done to the church simply abandon it, what do you suppose the position they will be in with the head of the church himself?

Clearly no one wants to be in that position.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Col 1:18 - And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Tell me something I do not know, granted I stressed this verse over and over here mainly to the very person here who thinks Jesus is God. You should have put in bold Firstborn from the Dead, for that was spoken of in the church as well and is in connection with Jesus being of the first fruits, of the Spiritual House, etc.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Anointed women are part of the body of Christ, the church.  They are not sitting on the bench or in some other zone you have created mentally,  but are equal in all respects, to men.

This is already known, but the focus, as said over and over and over again is the church structure, the very reason Apostle Paul was speaking in terms of not culture, but creation in regards to the church's structure and that of the family. I do not see the issue here of which you are trying to avoid.

If you speak of Paul you say everything he has said, this includes the church, itself, if you want to talk and discussed about the Spiritual House, we can do that, but I recall I have corrected you on this also several times.

If I believe women did nothing why would have I mention roles of women who actually can minister, can teach and the like, women having the gifts and so forth? But I guess it is what they say of people in the US at times, because one follows the bible seriously, they see things differently.

The reality is women are just as valued as men, but never would a women,  attempt to break the church structure, ever, as I said, there are women who would say the same thing as me, those who are not of mainstream Christendom and when I traveled I have met them an their families, so please, if you want to stress the idea that I would betray my own in our culture of respect, I allow you try, I won't also let you add on to the bible as you have already.

Indeed, equal, but according to God's view, what is said of Jesus, and of Paul and Church Fathers, the roles of which both sides have within the church is as it will ever be, granted if you take what Paul stated in 1 Timothy seriously.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Mary

Acts 1:12-14 - Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk^[c] from the city. ¹³ When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. ¹⁴ They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Yes, I know of Mary and I stressed Pentecost as well as Acts 1 and 2 over a dozen times here, especially on Bible Discussion.

But as you can see, your response of saying Mary is a Prophetess, when such is never mention of her to even be one, has been proven false. Therefore, do not add to the text, for in doing so, you only paint yourself to believe what is accursed within the mainstream Christendom, on second thought, never have I seen anyone say Mary is and or called a Prophetess, for if Modalist and Trinitarians wouldn't dare say such, that is how you know someone is clearly in the wrong, and you make such persons look like saints.

Like I said, Mary and other women had roles in the church, they can minister, they can teach, it does not stop them from praying or following God's Law, for both men and women work together under Christ, all of which, under God and have the utmost respect for God's Purpose and Will and will not make the attempt to change it, be it the church, be it those of the Spiritual House, or those of Priesthood (for such ones claim only a certain race is of this group, which is false). You clearly do not see Mary as a Prophetess here, nor do you see her and or any woman leading a church in biblical times - they were members of the church, handmaids, servants, etc they help out, they minister and the like. Mary was indeed a good woman of faith and is highly respected, as I had told Sostar before, just like Sarah, Mary is seen as a Hero for she carried the burden on protecting, teaching and being their for Jesus as he grew up, she even taught Jesus the Law, and Jesus spoke of and taught of his human mother with a high regard, so if anyone were to say otherwise of her will be corrected.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Do you think there was chance they were prophesying?  I do.   Please, don’t limit the ability of God, His Son Jesus Christ, and the gift of Holy Spirit.

Granted with what took place after Pentecost and what the cross-references say , of which I had already made mention of in First Corinthians, as of what was quoted before: 1 Corinthians 12:8, 10

• 1 Corinthians 12:8, 10 - [8] For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, [10]  to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.

In short, for everything and all points to the spreading of the gospel, as well as the Messianic Age.

They spoke of the Messianic Age and as they spoke of it, they taught and converted people, bringing them into the church, baptizing them and so forth and their students, now turned disciples, do the same thing that is to come, clearly you do not see them predicting events that will lead up to it, therefore, the Great Commission is in place, the gospel for what is written of what is to come, which includes the good news gospel as seen in the Four Evangelicalist accounts that record Jesus' ministry.

Why would I limit God for speaking of His truth that come from the bible? Dare I speak in full blown out context it would not put you in a good light for what is already said is enough evidence of what we see by means of the church's history. I am not  and will never limit God in any way shape or form so do not make the accusation before it will end up hurting you in the end. you already hurt yourself by comparing a Prophetess to a handmaid when we know clearly by means of the Strong's such are not even the same. Nowhere would I limit Jesus because I am and will always be in high amounts of defense in regards of who the Son of God is and will defend the Christ as I have done for nearly 2 decades, defend him from those who teach falsely of who he is and or make an attempt to speak of him being a God when Jesus is clearly the Son. Nor do I speak ill of the Holy Spirit, as some attempt to claim it is a person when it is not, I speak truth of the Holy Spirit because among other things, this one is number one on needing to be defended for people have such ill views and or doctrines in regard of the Holy Spirit that is of minor to major absurdity ever seen, mainly when it comes to dealing with those who have the most brazen view of the Spirit.

Therefore, accurate knowledge of things is the only thing I care about, even if at times detail and strictness must come into play but in the end, it is important that such ones know the truth and nothing but the truth, it is also important for people to not dwell on false information, of a bible passage, verse, historic account, a faith, a teaching, a tradition, and things on the outside when it comes to correcting those who dwell on conspiracy, those who believe in aggressive behavior to find resolve, those who are wanting to make something seen as illegal, legal, and a list of other things, for I have been around a lot of stuff, technically as some would said, molded by fire, if you will. So if any deceit is spoken, it will be corrected, regardless of who said it and where it came from. I'd say a Caribbean proverb on this matter, but I will say it for a strong response later on.

I invite you to read up on the early church because clearly you lack it and show you confuse that of the church hierarchy with salvation. For at least learn something rather than dwell on your own understanding because as of right now, historic accounts and biblical evidence stack up against you. You may not be a person who goes to church or whatever, but you be wise to not think otherwise of the early church and the early Christians on how they did things.

For if you truly knew of the Holy Spirit and what took place in regards to Pentecost, you would not be ignoring the context and references of what the people did, including Mary.

That being said, I guess I'd have to teach both you and Srecko Sostar in full detail of what is being stressed here, so expect here soon, you've only seen what was addressed in page 2 of which both of you really have to read upon and understand, perhaps what a Prophetess is, of which is also mentioned on page 2.

Next time, do not confuse Salvation with that of the family and church structure, it is not a good move to make, granted when one knows what a verse and a passage speaks of in context, references, evidence and or other. But as always, a lot of people ignore references anyways, hence why it is brought up to correct such persons.

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It's probably giving you too many hints, but .... now you know the REAL reason the Society's Headquarters were moved from New York City ....

In short, I'd find you a video source that is somewhat PG, but that is hard to come by as things are brewing up, but some brief information and some key players will be mentioned and noted below, in the best way I can:

Q is in regards to a collection of people and key players in this political threatre that is at play here.

I have only spent brief time on this whole Q thing an I know Q has nothing to do with them, in fact, Q might rough them up if that were the case. Q is in connection with the ones who call themselves ANTIFA, as well as the whole feud with Leftist and The Right, it also has anything and everything to do with those among this such groups to side with Trump and a list of others such as White Supremacist, The Feminist, the Militia Groups, and a whole list of other things who all stem from a single root and will end up doing the exact same thing they did at Berkeley and in Virginia.

For your sake wherever you see a punkster in all black with a black mask (turn around, walk really fast, perhaps flee elsewhere), do not stick around for if they flock in numbers, they will call you a fascist and or a Nazi, a pedophile, a trump supporter, a support of the Shadow government, a counter protester, someone from either side [left or right], etc. and will attempt to provoke you be it you say or do something or not and when they take surround you, it is too late. You even look at them funny and they will see that as a sign to attack, and they show no mercy til they see blood. These guys can't fight alone and never will fight alone that is why it is a hazard if they gang up on you.

Granted these guys are not the best of fighters, do not stick around to find out because such ones carry weapons like bats, bars and other things to assault you.

There is also more talk about Civil War again, and the whole ordeal with Alex Jones being banned and that angering people

So technically small sparks of Proud Boys vs. ANTIFA around the US in some rallies, the same can be said elsewhere in the EU which includes a collection of other groups and people, which only come around when a protest is active, which results in protesters vs. counter-protesters and as always the mainstream media like CNN and others TWIST the information in order to be in full support of one side.

It's literally a war on earthen soil, but not done by known enemies, it is being done by people who live in the states and or country of that nation.

we see

ANTIFA (Far Left)

Quote

VS

 

The Proud Boys (Far Right)

Quote

 

VS

TINY (Far Right)

Quote

 

VS

White Supremacist

Quote

Again, I have not dived deep into the whole Q business, so I am aware of the basic surface stuff. Usually I go more in-depth with research only if something has gone out of control and or needs to be fact checked.

 

The only person missing from the whole House Party is Yvette Felarca, for the last I have heard of her, be being very critical of this she-devil, crazed dragon lady, she was sent to jail and is a disgraced English and History teacher at the Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School, and is the leader of a foolish group of mischievous and violent goons known as By Any Means Necessary" otherwise known as BAMN.

I think the rumors are true, she is out of jail, but I have yet to see her crawl out of the crevess of a cave she comes out of.

Do not let her face fool you, she is crazed, wild and evil, so it is no question she will be another pawn of Q's table chess war games.

Quote

Yvette's Nemesis is a homosexual guy by the name of Milo Yiannopoulos

Quote

It is a mad house, technically.

42 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

In your opinion is this "God's Kingdom" ? I mean the new heaven and the new earth? 

Logically speaking, I would say yes it is. However what I mean is, God's kingdom will and does consist of everything He has made, but more specifically will heaven and earth be a combination?  

Indeed. The heavens and the earth will be made anew. God will put in place the Messianic King that will be in the God's Kingdom, that will replace the Kingdoms of Man with it's own heavenly governmental hierarchy  and alongside him will be those of whom are called the chosen ones, those who are of Heavenly Jerusalem, the Priesthood, that will rule alongside him. The people of the earth will not have to deal with the wicked and will not be and never be hinder by them, oppressed by them or harmed by them, and those on this earth, cleansed of wickedness, will have Eternal Life, for they as well as those among the Priesthood are of the New Covenant, The Spiritual House. We also know that when all things is said and done, when the last enemy has been dealt with, God's Purpose and Will will 100% be accomplished and the Eternal King, the Invisible Father himself will reign.

I believe I have talked about something similar regarding the Spiritual House, before, one my responses to Witness, for this House that it's very foundation being the Christ consist of both groups, and consist what we know about the new heavens and the earth deemed the new creation.

Edit:

It would also seem that the New Guy, is taking a liking of you.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. At times the sad reality of all things is regardless of one's educational achievements and or accolades in order to get a job and or career position, the barrier still remains: the race, nationality and sex of the individual.

They do not tell you, but deep down inside they do care about this stuff, mainly if the guy who does the hiring leaves it to someone of his inner circle, they will judge you before you can even put your foot in the door.

Other than that, the core importance of having currency and a job is simple.

To care for yourself, an or any among your household, as well as relatives. To put food on the table so you do not starve, to but clothing on your back so you do not bare your nakedness and dwell in the cold (also you have to wash your clothes or they will smell), to keep a roof over your head because those bills have to be paid, and a list of other things, perhaps buying that new air fresher to put around the home so it smells like roses. All in all, things of that nature, to use money wisely and spend it wisely for things of good intent, which makes us different from those who are lovers of money and that Ralph Lauren, Jordan's wearing, Side strutting neighbor that likes to brag that he has a 250k Lamborghini 2018 costs more than your house - next thing you know he goes broke and files for bankruptcy and has debt.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Galatians 3:28 New International Version (NIV)

²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 

This same Paul here said very advanced and almost innovative thought. He abolishes all the social divisions that are characteristic of the society in which they lives. I primarily think of Jewish society and religion as an indivisible part of the Jew people. Eliminates the difference on the basis of nationality. Eliminates the difference of status on a social scale caused by position or origin in society. Eliminates differences caused by belonging to sex, gender. (It not surprised if some talking how First Christians was the Religious Communist with the ideas of a classless, egalitarian society that shared their land and their other property and similar.)

I know of what he is talking about, I know what being one in Christ implies, but we clearly do not see Paul addressing religious leadership for women by means of the head of the church. This is what you fail to see because both you and Witness are not that knowledgeable of the church.

The irony here is what Paul said in verse 29, for we already know about how you view Abraham in his dealings with the ruler of Gerar and the Egyptian Pharaoh, to speak of this passage that is in connection with the Abrahamic Seed only makes you seem hypocritical of what has been talked about, to you, several times before, even recently.

We are indeed One in Christ, and our union allows both him and God to dwell in us - should we accept. In Jesus' case, it means taking in and accepting of what he had entrusted the church to do, of which you were in opposition of for several months, if not more. So if you really adhere to this passage, this verse, mind you, you best take a good look at everything that came from you in the past up to now.

That being said, none of which you stated in your attempt at an exegesis has no resolve to the main issue at hand regarding church leadership and authority of the church, and the funny thing is, you have not taken into account of whom these letters of Paul were present to, it should be obvious.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Why these 3 stumbling stone are connected and put "in one bag" with clear  answer on problems that this 3 listed items causing till today?  

And what point are you trying to make when there was no resolve to begin with, Srecko Sostar? You are trying to mesh 2 things together to create a Frankenstein here as is of what was stated by you above.

One of the reason why it is what they say,  people lack in the history of the church, of which is said by both men and women and what they say is indeed true, and were we see this from both you and Witness.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

When he talking about "you are all one in Christ", he undoubtedly talking about New Religious System of that NEW SOCIETY that try to forming New Congregation. Not New "Jew Congregation". Of course they are not been able to escape all obstacles and traps which drag them into the old system of worship of God and the religious hierarchy that existed in Jewish religion for so many centuries. They were not so strong to cut all ties with old things. Because "new light" that shined on them, for short time, was to much new for them to be that something what would be possible to incorporate into something new formed. And that they themselves did not know how this newly-found faith should actually look like in structure, in the relationship between the members, between the sexes.

The Church had already existed prior to that message being posed, in fact, the Epistles/Letters were sent to these Churches. Such has existed since God's Temples were still movable Tabernacles and the hierarchy has always remained the same. It is only later on centuries after, people began to and wanted to change the church, for they put into application that of what the world adheres to inside the church, therefore religious leadership and authority has been changed to include women when the Bible has never made the indication, as they say, it is as if they see it as God making Eve first and Adam second.

Apostle Paul was not talking about a New Religious System, learn your history and understand the facts, nor would I diminish what is read to be called a new society, it is more respectful to say those of the Spiritual House. This Church had both the Jews and the Gentiles and both of them believed in the same truths and accepted it, therefore, they are one in Christ because they understand what the truth entails, and they knew what was to be done to profess the truth by means of spreading the gospel.

There was no old system either because it has been as it ever was since creation of man. They never cut ties with old things, despite being of the New Covenant, as I last recall, the Jews and the Gentiles still profess Shema and other commandments.

Actually they are aware, have you not read the the other portions of Paul's letters? Or are you simply picking and choosing at this point without foundation to claim?

As I said, if the churches had already existed which is pretty much the predecessors of the Temples, how is it that they did not know? After all, you are aware of what a Temple is, judging by your other response elsewhere an there is no question you know what a Tabernacle is and or a Tent of Worship. Nothing has changed, Sostar, the Jews and the Gentiles are one in Christ and are part of the Church, they in turn being part of the Spiritual House, for they are the stones that make the house.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Perhaps Paul was highly "Inspired" while he dare to talking about such taboo theme - male and female are equal to the such point, to such level,  that sex/gender even not existing in Congregation of God, not existing as question, as principle, as stumbling stone, as difference, as controversy.

I concur, the focus here is the church, although male and female are of the church, both being one in the Christ, it does not change how the church has always been structured from the very beginning, unless you choose to avoid and ignore what Paul had stated in regards of Adam and Eve as you have done with what he said of Abraham?

Paul was inspired, but a lot of people seem to paint Paul as an enemy when they find out Paul does not agree with them. Paul was a good person and believed and followed the Christ, he knew of Jesus' God hence why he affirmed the ancient Law of the Jews to the Corinthians in full respects, in addition to alluding to the Law in his other letters, something of which those who claim Jesus to be God avoid saying because it breaks their doctrine.

Other than that, the Church will always be the Church. What Jesus had entrusted will remain despite some seeing it as burdensome. The structure of leadership and authority will remain the same for if anyone takes into account what was build 2,000 years ago they would not be ignorant of the facts and the information as well as the amount of evidence that is spoke by those who read and understand their Bibles. That being said, both men and women have roles in the church, but only one gender has a position of leadership, regardless all persons are under the head of the church for they are in union with him.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So they mixed old thoughts with new thoughts. Paul is one example. We find his commands to congregation about "silenced woman" and on other hand with full confidence he talking how "we are all one an equal".   :))

In terms of women not being in a position of leadership, hence why it speaks of silent women (ever bothered to check the references? No, you never have to begin with). Paul also shows us that he cares for women who do the works by means of teaching in the ministry as of which was presented in detail above. We clearly do not see anywhere Paul being okay and or making an indication to women leadership in the church, unless you are forgetting the madness  at the Temple of Artemis, that is, of which some like to bring up to make a case.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Here is context of verse i mentioned in the beginning, to see "whole picture" how he ( and I/me, hehehe) came to unity of sexes :)) because we are all: 

You have not put anything into context, this is also the same verse I mention to you that you were clearly not a fan of, so is this being hypocritical and or ignorant here?

Also it is a surprise to me you would include verse 29, you were not the type to be a fan of Abraham last I checked.

Other than that, your twisted exegesis in regards to how the church and the family was structured cannot change what is as hard as a diamond. It is no surprise Witness agrees with you here, the both of you need to learn, understand and educate yourselves on the history of the Church itself, learn of what the Bible says rather than yield upon your own understanding, other than that it is the Great Commission discussion over again but this time in regards to women and church leadership.

Despite combined efforts by the both of you, none of you cannot change anything in regards to God's Purpose and Will, through Jesus, to the people of the Church, who in fact have both God and Jesus dwelling in them.

That being said, unity is known, yes, but to twist what the has been entrusted, what has been built on to the foundation, only makes you exposed to be a person to adhere to the accursed, like I told you before, Srecko Sostar, our church fathers would be spinning in their graves, for what you, and even now, have stated is beyond baffling, therefore, I encourage you to learn, should you accept it, I encourage you to do the research, should you accept it. I even encourage you, if you are someone who travels, to go to those who read their Bible, perhaps speak to of such, and they will tell you, should you accept it.

But know this, you do not accept what is in the Bible, mainly in regards to the church, you will be the one to make answer for attempt to change what is highly sacred and what the Christ had built and what he is in regards of the church.

5 hours ago, Witness said:

My thoughts on this matter concur with the article, and I cannot see pursuing the point with you any further, SP. 

It is relevant to the topic because one has to realize that a woman can be a minister in the preaching and teaching of the gospel, a woman can be a teacher, a woman can put into application the gifts of which has been given and a list of other things, but it is known and cannot be changed of the church's hierarchy, it's structure, for of God we have the Christ and the Christ is the head of the Church. The head of the Woman is the Man.

• The Head of the Christ is God
• The head of the Church is the Christ
• The head of the Man is the Christ
• The head of the woman is the Man

A man is of God's glory and a woman is of Man's glory, for man comes from God and a woman comes from man, and as so the Scriptures go.

Stuff like this is important because should you be in a position to explain this stuff you have to be very accurate, a small misstep will drive one to dwell on what is not spoken of in the Bible or not making something known in full will cause confusion and contradiction.

Before you listed Mary as a Prophetess, if you are bringing forth information of her being a maidservant/slave girl, why refer to her as a Prophetess when the distinction between the two are not the same? For this is why the Strong's exist, this is why we have manuscripts.

A Prophetess is a woman and or women who is able to prophesies or carries on action by means of their work and what they say for they are a prophetess (male counterparts simply called Prophet). A Prophetess speaks of prophecy, prophesying  by means of inspiration, speaking of and or telling forth of messages from God for like angels, a Prophetess, as well as Prophets, are under Shaliah Principle (Also refereed to as Angelic Agency), they reveal the comes from God, of what his purpose and will entails. They are capable of predicting events that is to come. Even as there were both true and false prophets, so some prophetesses were used by Jehovah and were moved by his spirit while others were false prophetesses, disapproved by Him.

In Mary's case,

Mary was a handmaiden, which is also a maidservant and or slave/slave girl, she was not and is not a Prophetess, never was spoken to be one or called one as is the others, the same goes for any person who makes claim to Prophets when it has never been addressed, for even in Greek there is a distinction between these two and the very words itself. For Mary, the human mother of Jesus is referred also as the maidservant or handmaid of the Lord or servant of the Lord or slave girl, etc., such as which are titles of honour for she is the mother of Jesus, the mother of the Prophet who have been prophesied to come and that Prophet being the Son of God himself. In the Gospel of Luke it describes and mentions Mary as the maidservant/handmaid/slave girl when she gives her consent to the message of the Angel of whom God sent, Gabriel (Angel of YHWH) as seen in Luke 1:38, and when she proclaims how great the Lord is and because of the great things he has worked in her, as seen in Luke 1:49.

We also know (well I am sure everyone here knows) that after the prophecies of Simeon and the Prophetess Anna seen in Luke 2:25-38  and it being concluded, Joseph and Mary took young Jesus and returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth, seen in Luke 2:39. For if Mary was indeed a Prophetess, the aid from these two would not have been needed to begin with while she and her husband, Joseph, was with baby Jesus at the Temple of God.

Moreover, it is no surprise to anyone of why God had chosen Mary and Mary's actual history, as is the history of those of her household - her relatives. But nowhere in the scriptures it is seen hat Mary is spoken of as a Prophetess, for any talk about a Prophetess is explicit and attempting to mix a handmaid/maidservant/slave with a Prophetess will not do you any good, as for your verses, it would have been wise to check out the references also to even show you of what has been stated.

As for Mary, she had always been God fearing, never in scripture we see her predict upcoming events, what she knows is what her people knows and what they lived by, this being of God's Laws and what God had said, for Mary was the type of young person to give praise to God constantly for she not only knows who the God of Israel is, but she gives praise every on occasion. She had knew the Law and she applied this and she taught the Law to her young, which was the way it was for the people.

It would have been fairly easy and understandable if the Bible says she was a Prophetess and or makes claim to such, granted of how that role is for some women and the very fact it is mention a few times in the Greek New Testament, perhaps 2-3 times, but nowhere we see any occurrences of the Prophetess title in connection with Mary, so we should not be adding to the word (Deuteronomy 4:2).
 

Know the difference, I recommend Bible Hub (I've only pulled up the Greek, for there is no need for the Hebrew at this moment):

• https://biblehub.com/topical/m/maidservant.htm
• https://biblehub.com/topical/m/maidenhood.htm
• https://biblehub.com/greek/1401.htm (bondband/handmaid/slave)
• https://biblehub.com/greek/4398.htm (Prophetess)
• https://biblehub.com/greek/1399.htm (female slave/maidservant/handmaid)
   

5 hours ago, Witness said:

I will, though, touch on Mary.

When keeping in mind this scripture first proclaimed by Joel…

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.”  Acts 2:17,18

First off, bear in mind the references for verse 17 (Joel 2:28) and references for verse 18 (1 Corinthians 12:8, 10).

We must also bear in mind that Pentecost was a day that the helper came to the people after Jesus had ascended, this helper being the Holy Spirit that having been outpoured to the early Christians. The Bible shows us that Pentecost is given in the Acts 2 as well as including Peter's Sermon at Pentecost (14-41) that puts major importance to The Resurrection and Exaltation. In his sermon, Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32, as well as Psalms 16 to indicate that first Pentecost marks the start of an age, The Messianic Age, this age being a time where there will be a period of time when the Messiah will reign as King and bring peace to all, those among his co-ruling fold, persons destined for Priesthood and those who benefit from Eternal Life, for these persons are the stones, as for the wicked and evil, they will be nowhere to be found nor will hinder any man, woman or child, for all there will be is peace and tranquility among the people and all that is good - all of which is of God's purpose and will for mankind and will soon be accomplished by means of his chosen one.

And what do we find out about those among Pentecost and what they did afterwards? The references for verse 18 speaks for itself. We also know that these persons went out of their way to teach, to make disciples of people and to baptize them and all of these persons, given the  Holy Spirit did the works, and spoke by means of the Spirit, wisdom, and these persons speak of the Messianic Age. Furthermore, these people, who of the New Covenant, as discussed with you before, are part of the Spiritual House themselves, as said, they are the stones of that house.

This includes, the disciples, all men and women in attendance, and anyone in connection with the Christ and listened, even Mary.

We do not see any indication of Mary being called a Prophetess, a maidservant yes, but not a Prophet of any kind, granted when one is capable of understanding the difference.

5 hours ago, Witness said:

Eph 5:23 -   “For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.”

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body."  KJV

This is already known. What is not really mention by some is that God's glory is the man, and Man's glory is the woman. For a man came from God and man exist because of God, for a woman came from man and a woman exist because of a man (1 Corinthians 11:2-16).

6 hours ago, Witness said:

This is a comparison of “heads”.  Christ is head of the church.  The church is the anointed Body.  (Matt 16:18)

Indeed, the Spiritual House, those who make up the House are the Living Stones. For this we had talked about before, despite the corrections being made in your response.

But was missed was what Jesus entrusted to the Church, something of which a majority of the mainstream Christians are against and or attempt to change because they deem what is entrusted to be too burdensome. Which seems to be the case with most.

6 hours ago, Witness said:

He is the only Head of all within the Body, that is comprised of both male and female.  He is the spiritual “husband” of the Body/Bride.  The comparison of this husband/bride arrangement is made to a physical marriage of a man and a woman. 

As is so, as well as it's direct connection to that of the church and the family structure itself, therefore, when it comes to religious authority, such a position is not in the woman's grasp, despite that position being for the men, woman can help out in the church itself even though they cannot be leaders.

6 hours ago, Witness said:

This doesn’t give room for any man to acts as go between for Christ concerning anointed woman. Concerning ALL women.   Though, you believe so, just as the governing body believes so.  Yet, they also believe they are head over every anointed one, male or female, since they must fully obey the wicked slave, and their own “body” of elders that they “govern” over,  built outside of God’s intentions.  Matt 24:48-51

And yet Jesus entrusted the Church to bind and loosen, of which given to the Disciples and they to their students, who in turn not only become followers of the Christ, but Disciples themselves. Unless you have forgotten what has been said about the Spiritual House?

Yes, we can speak of anointed women, but the focus here is leadership in the church itself and the structure itself and what God has set in motion and what the Christ, the head of the church entrusted to those in his inner circle.

The belief has nothing to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses, in fact it predates even them, the belief is solely based on the early Church structure and the very indication of it that comes from he Bible. This is why I stated that even True Christian women will not agree with you on several points, and they themselves no leadership of authority in the church is not a role for them, nor any role that gives them authority over men.

6 hours ago, Witness said:

We have only one saviour, Christ. We are only to be Christ's servant, not man's.   For anyone to stand between Christ and another, and expect obedience to their "decrees", they take on the role of saviour, and the role of judge.   The governing body has successfully accomplished this.

Yes, we do have one savior, but at the same time our savior gave instruction and entrusted various things to the people of the church which is still practiced into this very day by only some.

This is the very reason why many people speak of the early church 2,000 years ago, as some would say and hold to a high importance of what it entails.

No one is standing between the Christ, people are merely defend His church and what His church is structured, as if our history is ever so clear, but the mainstream think otherwise.

In the end it has never been proven and or practiced, by Jesus' church that women are to be religious leaders of authority, therefore we shouldn't be in a position to alter such things.

16 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I wonder if in Mexico, when a woman temporarily substitutes for a man in the Congregation, if she has to wear a sombrero?

Not quite. They will where a head covering that appears to be somewhat looking as though it is a Hijab. As long as the head is cover, which is in respects to God's Law and biblical standards, it should be A-OK, at least these young girls and women have respect compared to the mainstream, new age and charismatic movements in the US.

Mexico is rather dangerous also if you do not know where you are and or going, for any man who the Cartel sees as a threat will be dealt with. The Cartel show no purpose to a popular Mexican kid on YouTube who had quite the colorful words for them, only for the next day, this kid, is no more and was done away with by the group he insulted, this can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1595444/Mexican-Youtube-star-killed-insulting-drug-lord.html 

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

NO INDICATION how God was said anything about a hierarchy that favors a male over a female.

Did you not read the above and or choose at your own will to avoid of actual truth in this matter? And so I cometh, to invite ye, to gaze upon what is written above in response.

It's not a matter of favoritism, Sostar, it is a matter of how Adam and then Eve had came about on to the earth as to how the church and family is structured, of which is heavily explained above in full detail.

A female cannot be above the man, a child cannot be above his father and or mother, mainly in regards to the father who is present and is of authority to the family household for he is the head, or as the Americans say, The Man of the House.

If you think of such in this regard, show me where in the bible that the woman is the head of the man? Unfounded and indefensible.

For it would seem in the realm of the church by means of history, you are not strong in this domain here.

For as your other comments, you've already crashed your new car before it has even left the Dealer's Lot.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WHY this chapter told that God made some soft of omission, when 1 chapter say that God create both of them without time gap. How could be that Creator made all in pairs, but missed to see how male man would be lost, lonely, unsuccessful without female man "Helper". If male need helper in person of female, then he (Adam and all Adam till today) needs HELP in ALL what he/they need, have to do. According to verse, he need to have HELPER AS PARTNER. NOT helper as female servant, female slave, female mute.

Adam was made first and only later on when Adam was in subjection of wanting a mate of his own after seeing the animals, Eve had been , made when Adam went into a deep sleep and a rib was take out of his body and used by God to make another human being, a female, of whom is called and name Eve (for she was named by Adam himself).

So to say there was no time gap, clearly you haven't really read into Genesis that much.For chapter 1 of Genesis is of the beginning of creation in an introductory form, for if God was spoken of to make man and woman and yet in chapter 2 we see him only now making Adam, you are only going to run into a problem here. This is the same case with John 1 and Mark 1 for some people, apparently yours, it is Genesis.

Perhaps because man was made in his image and likeness only after every other thing in the heavens and the sea has been created? Granted of when God created the first man, that alone is a clue of which is in place for you to follow.

Helper and or Partner is irrelevant to the discussion and I rather not go out of discussion. Today, Sostar, the key phrase is being focused, so no more games, giggles and convoluted statements form this point on.

Lastly, you fail to see that the women is clearly no mute, the focus here is religious leadership, after all you were in agreement some points before, why the change?

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

A man is incomplete without a woman! Verse said so! So how we come to the point that woman must be in "silent" in all things, not only in so called "spiritual" things connected with faith, beliefs,  worshiping.  

Clearly you haven't read and or taken into context of what was stated. This time take into account biblical facts and information, mainly that of the historic position of the early church itself.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In WT religion husband or male must to have last/final word on anything, according to GB bible scholars teachings. With or without "helper" help/helping :))))

At this point, the Watchtower is as irrelevant as a fly on the wall for they know their stance in regard of the early church nor making mention of them will help your resolve here - granted of how strong the historical ascpets of the church that comes from the Bible is made known to us, therefore, even predates JWs for them and all of us were not alive or even existing during the days of the early church, for even anything from them will save you from what is being talked about - Church History, something of which those who claim to be Christians and yet adhere to the mainstream do not have a grasp of knowledge in. Today you'll learn and you will learn it the hard way.

As is said before, we only see the virgin Mary meeting a Prophetess, Mary is never spoken of to be a Prophetess, granted her position in all this, as is Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist.

We know women can be ministers, teachers, prophetess, which is absolutely true, but NEVER we see in the church's structure that a women holds office to and or religious leadership of authority within the church's history and it is yet unseen by means of the biblical accounts of anyone who makes claim and or attempts to connect something that is not there, putting a puzzle piece in the wrong spot, so to speak.

We know of dire situations that will put women to task, but such is not permanent and or everlasting, and if oversea affairs has taught us anything, we see such being done, and I o not need to post any sources from Syria again because I have already and mention such over and over, even to you.

That being said, you can go about and speak your peace, you cannot do anything to alter and or try to refute that of the early church's position in regards to religious leadership and authority and the roles and position of men and women of the church.

You can go about speaking of women ministers and the like, but clearly when it comes to the church's authority, you are merely throwing pebbles at a titanium wall right now, a fight that cannot be finished, a fight that cannot be won, case and point, Sostar. Other than that, I find your lack in giggles disturbing this time around.

The only people to fight for religious leadership of authority to be held by women are only those of the mainstream Christendom, for they think if a man can do it, they can do it too, having a total disregard of what the Bible says and the history of the church as seen in the Bible. To make matters worse, they do not even take into account of head coverings.

So it is wise to not cross a line that you yourself knows is not right.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Yeah, I don't think they are the type to vote and or pick sides in the realm of politics, but even if they never were neutral, having the option of Trump and or Hilary is a nightmare, granted we have a nightmare in the White House right now. But that being said, they've been neutral for a long time an their neutrality was only brought forth in the 1940s when JW kids refused to stand for the flag that resulted in JWs being hunted down by angry mobs that is of ku klux klan levels of crazy, moreover, the Bellamy Salute (Nazi Salute) had been changed after some time, probably after World War II. Present day because of the whole kneeling thing in the NFL, people are tailing about the JWs' neutrality in this regard, and because of the nations of JWs, a lot of people do not stand for the flag for various reasons, but mostly religious reasons, like a child who months back refused to stand for the flag and says he only stands for God only to be roughhoused by a Teacher who is a Patriotic Nationalist.

But it makes you think, what if kids today were still suppose to o the Nazi Salute/Bellamy Salute even after World War II has long since ended? That would be quite the sight and very eerie, mainly to those who had family members fought in that war to have flashbacks.

If I am not mistaken, I think those who uphold neutrality are often attacked, mainly in African countries where political theatre is at play.

 

This is what the Bellamy Salute looks like back in those says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

When I swim in the Ocean .. I AM shark repellent!

Grrrrrrr !

But when it wears off, you have to do what Adam West did, fight off the shark

 

@Srecko Sostar Even without the Bible, the instruction of the church's hierarchy is clear and concise and is of God on to his Son, to the people of whom he entrusted the abilities of the church to, which is clear of leadership authority of the church, therefore, to speak as though women held such a position over a men is both unfounded and accursed - that is, if we take God's  purpose and will of which is included of the church itself seriously.

Also why re-link this thread when you are posting on this thread? Other than that, both you and Witness have a lot of history to catch up on in regards of church hierarchy and why it is of whom is to assume role of religious leadership. 

We should not being attempting to change what is in place, or tweak what is in place as if it was a game of The Sims, this is serious stuff and should be taken seriously. For if ye cannot stand the heat that cometh from the kitchen, ye must make haste and leave.

Other than that, both of you have not proven any women being of religious authority and or leadership by means of the church's core structure of which is professed in scripture and in historical evidence of the early church, let alone the claim of Mary 

@James Thomas Rook Jr.  Well it is better than being a stuffed-human being and positioned in a chair, a motorcycle and or a gaming seat with a bag of soda and chips next to your body during a viewing, or perhaps being sent to space.

Yeah, I never understood how some in the US, perhaps elsewhere flush a fish down a bathroom toilet. For us it is usually literal burial in the dirt or casting the fish aside into the sea.

Other than that, never fall a sleep in water period, you'd be amaze how people think they are Sponge-bob or Aquaman, believing they can breathe as well as sleep and live underwater, and boy were they wrong. Better to sleep near the shoreline away from the water that can easily send you off, for water is the worse way to go and as said by others, very painful.

Also it is a good idea to bring the shark repellent.