Space Merchant

@sami Tragically, @Cos is not a fan of and or very weak regarding biblical Strong's (be it Hebrew or Greek), for he takes issue with even 4352 in order to make claim to a belief that is unsure, yet sparks both the audacity and hypocrisy to make accusations that defeat his own attempt every step of the way.

At times it isn't easy for a blind and lost one, such as him, to find out what is really true, for sooner or later, he will learn the hard way.

On 7/29/2018 at 1:37 PM, Jack Ryan said:

Waits several thousand years before destroying Satan. But the Bible says god is not slow? Please explain.

What @Gone Away has said just now. Also look at this verse:

Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

Surely you do not want to be caught when that day comes because it will be swift and catch everyone off guard and by that time it will be too late. Even before that, End Time Tribulations will be cranked up to the MAX and that would also tell you that it is too late before the actual day of Judgement is executed on to mankind. 

Therefore, we should be enduring, vigilant, watchful, for we do not know when he will send his Son, we do not know when the Tribulations will begin, we do not know a whole lot of what would even take place before the Tribulations.

So in a simple sense, don't let the Boss catch you in His executive office in His luxurious chair because 100% chance He will deal with you and you will soon see yourself out the door, without a job, a massively broken reputation and no income, possibly an angry wife when you go home. Not the best of my examples, but the point is there: Do not be lollygagging about and let God's Day sudden stumble upon you, for it will come like a thief in the night and it will be FAR worse than Noah's Day, FAR worse than Sodom and Gomorrah and it will make the day when 185,000 Assyrian Soldiers taken out by one angel look like Child's Play.

Stay in your lane or end up going the one way as to which you cannot make a U-Turn on, friend.

 

On 7/29/2018 at 1:20 PM, Jack Ryan said:

But he sends angels to protect women at a door preaching from a potential bad householder? Wouldn't we often here of this experience?

Does anyone have a copy of the illustrations of angels protecting JW's during the preaching work?

Pedophilia is a serious thing, so be very wise in word choice to not include mockery. That being said, the Jehovah's Witnesses are not immune to pedophilia, for such has been around for a very, very long time and it is known that pedophiles target educational and religious institutions of all kinds for a reason, but it would seem you and others are trying it as if it is a JW only thing. What you also fail to realize is that this faith adheres to the 1st church, therefore, it is not easy for them to deal with such things when you have secular and religious laws you try not to conflict and or mess around with, therefore, not as easy for them to handle such things, in some cases, some are well in-tuned on the matter of abuse as well as stranger danger than others, some even contribute experience and the like to help others, be it a child who can teach another, or an adult.

What you and JW opponents do not realize is prompting JWs as an easy target, this goes for pedophiles, who are mostly women in educational institutions, to set their eyes on areas that they believe they can get away with said crime.

The root of the problem is to gun for the change in the system itself, to add more strictness to and against pedophiles as well as contain such ones before they can even act. But sadly, such ones like you allow them to win, as we speak, pedophilia is on the massive increase, even to the point children are forced to marry said abuser by secular law.

So if you really want to help people out, as said before, there are better ways to fight pedophilia, but such ones like you dwell on not doing anything and expecting it to end, news flash Jack, pedophilia is global and everywhere and anywhere.

That being said, I myself speak to a lot of children, some who are now older, some I even grew up with who are now my age, and they say the same thing too, you do not fight against a school, a church, a club, you fight the source itself at the same time do not be among those who prompt abusers to target a person and or group, you only make the matter worse for a potential victim and or those who are in the victim's circle of friends and family.It is one of those things I hate, and the fact people are ridiculously blind to fighting the root of the problem itself baffles me. Just know this, pedophilia and those who support it is slowly making such a thing legal even in parts of the US, therefore, you have give the rifles and the ammo to the enemy at this point, how does that help anyone?

Other than that, there is a reason why there is talk about Civil War in the US, read on up on such and know what is being talked about.

@sami 

Trying to remove falsehood from a Trinitarian who dwells in apollinarianism is like trying to cure cancer from a patient. Some would accept what is true, but not all of them, for it is not always at times a success, but in this sense, the ignorance is truly there. The very reason why the Trinity itself is the sole purpose of why the Christian faith has declined so strongly, and the attacks done by Trinitarians to Christian minorities.

 

It is.... very pathetic and they know it too.

17 minutes ago, UcyImd1 said:

Reread Saturday's Daily text. For those who seem to be negative we all are imperfect. When the light gets brighter.....we change according to the new knowledge 

Some men assume that we are not imperfect, for they are dead wrong. Imperfection is a price we pay for the disobedience of our early parents.

1 hour ago, Gone Away said:

Bit confused. Was this your experience? Or did you make it up?

Unfortunately, the belief by someone of their own experience somehow justifies for the masses. It is a mentality like this that ruins the society.

17 hours ago, Cos said:

No bible version translates the Greek word ?????????? as “yielded up” no matter how some try to twist translations; they just like to build an argument around what is not there. But of course those that read their ideas into Scripture will continue to do so regardless. The meaning of the word ?????????? is, “the keeping of”.

That is quite the response, but no cigar to claim whatsoever. We are not talking about Translations as you are seen here saying, but rather the expression itself. But let's say we include Translations of any kind, regardless of the Translations, the Strong's still stand, the very reason we have the Strong's to begin with, so it shows us if something is exact and or in total respects to the manuscripts of which we have, namely the Septuagint, no Johannine Comma or Textus Receptus nonsense, just the 4th century source and nothing but.

The irony is in regards to I commend my Spirit and or Yielded up, even the Strong's agree with what I said and it predates both you and me, this goes for the other forms of commentary of said verse as well as an explicit explanation of what Jesus met before he expired, the very reason why some verses from the Gospel of Mark had been mentioned by some. But last I recall, you were twisting a specific word from the Strong's to follow a belief of the very people you rant and rave about on a random child-like basis - Arians. They, perhaps, love Jesus worship instead of God himself as much as you do, therefore, you not being aware of shooting shots at your own points to you acting and being hypocritical and being ignorant of any knowledge based on such one's Christology - remember, they also believe Jesus, as well as the Spirit are Gods also.

I gave you a link straight to Bible Hub which shows you the Strong's itself, of which my information points to, thus making you fail to proof I am saying such out of the blue. Simply addressing the Strong's and the full as well as in context of a passage, verse, phrase, word and or expression points people to truth.

That being said, this is why your Greek was called into question before, as it was done months ago because you lack it, and show for it. I haven't skipped a beat with a Language I have actually studied for over a decade now and I would never make such a mistake when it comes to a word, an expression, and or a phrase, etc. used, thus I am able to point out a violation of Language as they say in regards to what you have said. No facts you can bring sparks any agreement as to hat you have said regarding this word, therefore, it is only you pulling your own opinions out of your Hat of Magic tricks, Cos or perhaps some word-pad on the device you are using. Furthermore, there is a verse that would put an end to your view, but surely you know of what verse is that, but you choose to ignore and or avoid it, as most mainstreamers do.

You've also proven yourself to not only just be a Trinitarian, but perhaps adhere a bit of Islam for they do not agree that Jesus actually died, moreover, Jesus crucifixion. You also do not address and or speak of anything pertaining to prophecy, which means something - why devalue what the sacrifice means or the Resurrection? This is something you wouldn't even expect from the radical Trinitarian known as Jesus Defender, therefore, you are in sheer denial of what the Resurrection means and or what was foretold.

Also would like to see you speak of verses in the Bible that speaks of Jesus actually expiring from his ordeal via crucifixion.

NOTE: "He expired [took his last breathe]." Perhaps the exertion of uttering this great cry ruptured some organ of the body. We know from the effect of the piercing of his side that his sacred heart was previously broken; and thus he verily and really died.

For if Jesus was indeed somewhere immediately after his Death, surely it would have been mentioned by the writers, especially those who wrote the four Gospel Accounts, but in reality, they point to what Jesus himself had said, It has been finished and or accomplish, before he yielded up his spirit to God,

• John 19:29-30 - (29) A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. (30) When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

NOTE: Nicodemus played a big role in preparation of Jesus' body and Burial, all according to the customs of the Jews.

Plus the whole teaching of Immortal Soul and or Afterlife Doctrine defeats the very purpose of the Resurrection, let alone teaching that Judgement is immediate upon Death, these are clear heresies, for that conflicts with what Jesus was given (Matthew 28:18). It also sparks the teaching that God can claim and or take anyone he chooses, thus giving more fuel to enemies of God who sees him in a bad light, moreover, you have lunatics who commit acts of Christian Terrorism, with a hint of insanity to believe that killing a man, woman or child in cold blood immediately brings them to Heaven to be with God and Jesus, and any wicked man slain by their hand or even a repentant sinner is, by such ones, sent to burn for Eternity (The Hell Torment is also a false doctrine if you see how God feels, emotionally, in the Torah). Other than that, your own belief in the Immortal Soul Doctrine defeats you easily where you stand, Cos, the same can be said of a literal 3rd God being a being of his own, also a heresy, therefore, regarding Jesus, he didn't go anywhere upon death, only when he had risen, he spoke to the Spirits in Prison, did what he had to do with his followers, telling them to remain in Jerusalem, and eventually is send off by 2 angels and taken by a cloud, ascending into Heaven and from there we see what took place in Acts 2.

As for Christian Terrorism, I have seen such in the world, and it's aftermath even in person, and I can tell you, it is not something that makes people happy and or at peace, it is sheer radicalized based teaching that has nothing to do with the Church, makes one no different from that of radicalized Islam who thinks such action brings some sort of Salvation, the very sauce to ISIS' rice, if I may add.

17 hours ago, Cos said:

Now the excuse that the passages that prove the Holy Spirit a Person, that these are just personification fails on many levels, in fact there are so many problems with this ‘blanket” excuse which ignores the context and fails to exegete the passages.

And back to the Holy Spirit. You were not able to proof anywhere that the Holy Spirit is a person and you have purposely avoided a verse 3 of a specific passage you only address the first 2 verses of, for the 3rd clearly defeats your own view, and this 3rd verse I pointed out to correct you.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

Simon Peter, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, leaders of the early Christian Great Church.

I wouldn't call such as a fail, per-say, I see it as a Try-Hard attempt to paint something into the text that is not true, to which I have, as did others, corrected you on, and as we speak, even some of your own is correcting you elsewhere regarding the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, that in itself, is quite a shame. You could not even prove what you call God knows the great day of Judgement, even thought asked 3 times, you never addressed it, nor speak of any passage mentioned. You try to speak of several verses and taking them out of context when the answer has already been made,even re-posted you to read.

What is also evident you clearly do not like Acts chapters 1 and 2 for some odd reason, despite it being mention to you here and even months ago on several occasions, what is it of these chapters that alis you, Cos?

That being said, I agree with Stephen though, he, before his death, recognize the two individuals, God the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ. For if the Holy Spirit was indeed a God, a 3rd would have been mention by him prior to Stephen's death, let alone when one knows of Stephen's history.

17 hours ago, Cos said:

Really, how do they know that these passages are personification?

Already addressed, but you repeat yourself, once again. Your responses, elsewhere,people are having a field day with them, thought that you would like to know this.

How many times you wish to be corrected and or given a re-post to said correction?

17 hours ago, Cos said:

Because they have already assumed the Holy Spirit is a power. This is called reasoning in a circle. They need to show that the Holy Spirit is a power before they can even begin talking about supposed personifications. But this is exactly what they cannot do! All they can do is read into certain passages that fake idea.

It is not a matter of they say or said by them, it is a matter of what the Early Church itself sees what the Holy Spirit truly is.

The Holy Spirit is Power, no matter how you try to knock it, look what it did to Samson, Mary, Zechariah, Paul, the list goes on. This is why I bring up Mary, by the Power of the Holy Spirit she was enabled to conceive a child, that child being Jesus, a person did not show up to cause her to become pregnant to conceive the child, mainly a Spirit Person, granted of how well we know that God is not something who condones Spirit Beings mating with daughters of men.

No one is trying to show the Holy Spirit is Power, for they need not because it is expressed in the Bible clearly, starting with Genesis 1 in the very beginning. Clearly I o not see how you missed that, then again, Trinitarians tend to brush over the Genesis Act of Creation.

When God speak's things into existence, what do you think happen? When God, who is our molder, as the Bible says, how do you suppose he molded man into his image and likeness? God the Father is great and for us as men for him and his Son to dwell in us, we must have the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

And just like Jesus we are filled with Holy Spirit that is poured on to us should we accept it and the Power by which God is with us and because of such, we have the ability to learn and seek truth and do all that is good, for some people, to adhere to the ministry which is is total consideration of the Great Commission itself, clearly we are able to do this physically on earth, hence preaching the gospel to all of mankind.

That being said, what do you expect to happen when someone, even you included, has the Holy Spirit within you? Surely it isn't standing besides you, mainly when such is outpoured to men.

I will mention this again because you are astray, blind and lost in this regard:

I will quote as well as link the re-post, yet again:

The Holy Spirit is indeed God's Power, I do not see why the denial, for there is only 2 camps on this matter.

• A: Holy Spirit (Breathe, Hand of God, Finger, Power, Nature) - Those who believe that one of God's nature is the Holy Spirit and that the Spirit is not a person, it is, as what the bible descibres the Spirit is to be and what it can do, example, causing Mary to become pregnant to even give birth to Jesus. Such ones believe that God can bestow the spirit on people, just as he did for Jesus and many others, and such one respects the Greek Lanugage pretaining to what the Holy Spirit is about.
•  B: Holy Spirit (As a Person) - Only those who believe in a Triune God, as in God in 3 persons. They believe The Father is God, so is Jesus and The Spirit. They believe that the bible speaks of the Spirit as a person, disregarding the Greek Language, example, Jay Smith, a Trinitarian Christain, believes the Holy Spirit is indeed a person, said person played a role in empowering people, Mary's preganacy, and a list of other things, clearly the so called personhood is incorrect when one realizes the Greek Language gender forms.

As seen here:

 

I sort of predict this would have to be re-post again, what a shame.

17 hours ago, Cos said:

Realistically there are many instances that cannot be explained away as a “personification”. For example, why is it that what we do supposedly generates a “personified” characteristic in a thing?

Perhaps because such things are not the Holy Spirit, that one Spirit of which originates from God himself...

Therefore, attempting to preach the doctrine of the Triune Being is not going to cut it for you. You could not even address the 3rd God in which you believe in knowing the day of Judegment, to make matters worse, you watered down what Jesus' death and ressrrrection entails and proven 100% true, according to others, Trinitarians want nothing to do with the expression (First Born out of the Dead)

I will address such for any guest who reads on the final response to your claims, perhaps mention a brief snippet of such vs. a 4 year study on the matter.

17 hours ago, Cos said:

“But they were the ones who rebelled, and they grieved his Holy Spirit.” (Isa. 63:10)

“Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30).

And who is grieving the Holy Spirit if I am ask? A Man who speaks of what the bible says an what the Early Church, of which our brothers and sisters were a part of in an Age that can be traced? Or a man who speaks of the Holy Spirit being another God, literal person, a separate person of which somehow was around when the Holy Spirit is given to the people only to see nowhere in the bible we see a man, being, person appear to such ones, let alone ignoring context, references and a specific verse of which was professed by such one?

Clearly everyone here knows who is in the right, even our guests.

The Early Church belief is simple. The Holy Spirit is of God, not actually and or literally a God, in addition, God cannot even be seen to begin with. The Holy Spirit is described as many things and was given a bodily form to represent purity and holiness, and such form being a Dove. Why? Because Doves were seen as something very special, as see and mentioned in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Holy Spirit enabled people to do things and help them, even enables people to speak by means and or through the Holy Spirit, hence it is what is being poured out to the people. We also know that Jesus himself blew his breathe to his followers, which gave them the Holy Spirit and later on, God the Father granted a great amount of people the Holy Spirit, which is the spoken Helper that would come to the people.

It is nothing far-fetched and or extra, simply Christian Primitivity regarding this belief.

Ephesians 4:30 is a direct cross-references to Isaiah 63:10. These verses also have other cross-references that gives us more context, such as Deuteronomy  9:7, 28:63, Acts 7:51 as well as Leviticus 26:14, 17 and Jeremiah 21:5, in addition, we have 1 Thessalonians 5:19 for quenching and or resisting the Holy Spirit alludes to what is being talked about.
Clearly no one is grieving the Holy Spirit here, only addressing the beliefs of those of the Apostolic Age regarding the Holy Spirit and nothing more and I do not see why is it an issue for one to apply what the first Church's view of the Holy Spirit vs. that of what originated in the 4th century, if anything, I agree with the Church Paul was very close with rather than such ones who do not. They never view something that is outpoured as a literal person and will never use the words of a man who affirmed the foremost command of recognizing and knowing who God is really, which throws the Holy Spirit being a separate God out of the window and seen as a heresy belief.

Now one can grieve the Holy Spirit unless they do not live by and or walk by the Spirit itself, and with all things taking place in the world, it is easy for a Christian to dwell and be led astray, as you are doing, thus not walking by means of the Spirit. Another factor is desires of the flesh (brazen conduct, immortality, etc) and other conduct that is not suppose to be among any of us, which enables the manifestation of ungodly-like traits, see Galatians 5:16, 25, 26. This also goes for swearing to and the Spirit, all actions, can lead to Unforgivable Sin, of which the bible does speak on this matter, this also goes for taking in a belief that is not true and professing it as truth, i.e. speaking of the Holy Spirit as a person, another God compared to the Father himself when clearly no one is above and or equal to God. However, one could need not worry if he or she strays and they can make change and not be fully condemning of God's Spirit, which will also result in commending God himself, who is the source of which the Holy Spirit came, which is something one needs to avoid. Therefore, verse 30, to be more precise, Ephesians 4:25-32, informs us how we should conduct ourselves in a positive light, and help us to avoid such grieving of the Spirit, in turn, help us avoid being astray from said Spirit and God.

17 hours ago, Cos said:

Why is it, because of what we do, that that generates a “personified” characteristic in a thing? <><?

What we should be doing is applying that of what the early Church practices, not what originated from man later on and eventually becoming something of which you can be shamed, persecuted and or killed for not accepting. What a day it was, very violent too all because they wanted to put on a pedestal a heresy that is forced to the people itself when originally, nothing of sort was taught prior.

You really need to open your eyes Cos, but you are keeping them shut, and sleeping on what is true will not reap good fruit for you. The Bible attempts to speak, give you context, you forcefully keep it closed with your cold sweaty hands.

Anyways, as promised for the guests and visitors as well as members here, since this topic was addressed elsewhere, and to my surprise, such ones do see what I say in a positive light I will state the following of which Trinitarians, even those who reveal themselves as adhering to practices of Apollinarism (New Agers)

Quote

Those who believe Jesus did not truly die avoid the term such as Firstborn from the Dead, when in the Bible we see this mention not once, but several times.

It is very explicit on this term in regards to Jesus,
 

• Revelations 1:5, 7 - (5) and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood (7) Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus not only being the Firstborn out of the Dead, but Jesus being the the first of the Firstfruits.
 

• Colossians 1:18 - And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

 

• 1 Corinthians 15:23 - But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

And well over several verses point to such. The very reason as to why Jesus is even referred to as the Firstborn out of the Dead [of the Dead] is because he was the only one to have died, only to be resurrected and become not like us mortal men (anymore for he was a man, flesh, and died in the flesh only to be raised in the Spirit),

NOTE: The Bible (1 Peter 3:18, Acts 13:34, Romans 8:11, 1 Cor. 15:45, 2 Cor. 5:16) informs us that Lord Jesus was indeed put to death in the flesh (for he was a man, born as a man) but made alive (resurrected by God) in the spirit.

moreover, he, compared to us men, has been made incorruptible, being immortal. This puts him in a position of being the First of his brothers, the firstfruits, according to Paul. It is only afterwards those destined for Priesthood makeup those of the Firstfruits, as we can already see in Revelations, these men are the 144,000 chosen ones who are of the Spiritual House itself, those in the New Covenant who has such a role in contrast to those who remain on the earth and receive Eternal Life.
 

Jesus has indeed died, if one takes such things seriously and he has truly be resurrected, being made Lord and Christ, in addition to being alive forever and ever.

• Revelations 1:18 - and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

NOTE: Apostle Paul not only affirmed the a Law, which is a foremost command as Jesus have (Mark 12:28-34), who was a born Jew in the Law (Galatians 4:4), Paul also made it clear of who Jesus' Father is and how His Father played a role in the Resurrection, primarily seen in a simple sense in Acts 2:32 -  God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses. He was not shy of letting the early Church, our brothers and sisters of that Church, know who God is and who Jesus is either (Galatians 1:1, 1 Thess. 1:1, Romans 10:9-13, etc+ an that is only a few out of a dozen)

Any man who makes the claim that Jesus somehow appeared in some afterlife, is kidding themselves, for it defeats the purpose of what the Resurrection and or what Prophecy has said of the Christ/Messiah. Such persons fail to take in fully as to what the Bible says and clearly ignoring of what Jesus is called and or part of entails.

• Hebrews 5:7 - In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

One cannot deny any of what the Spiritual House means and or points to, fact and true.
 

NOTE: The expression Firstfruits, which is used both figurative and symbolic, was also used figuratively of Christ and his followers, his Disciples, chosen for Priesthood in the Messnaic Kingdom, for instance, this includes people like Thomas, Matthias, etc, granted such ones were present in the city when the reward from the Father was given. These men are of the remnant of which Paul himself had spoken about, the faithful remnant of Jews who became the first Christian brothers to be among the Firstfruits,

• Romans 11:16 - If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

The information on this is vast and very in-depth, but this is just a brief cookie out of the whole jar, perhaps a thread soon on what this all points to.

At this rate, I do not know what you try to prove with expressing your own opinion of a heresy, let alone making the claim that Jesus never really died, thus ignoring what the Resurrection entails, the New Covenant and a list of others things, that is something very rare to see a mainstream speak of, therefore, it puts you on the light of New Age practices.Clearly you do not like to be wrong, but, you are just another tragic soul who adheres to false teachings.

At this point I do not know if you are afraid of Jehovah's Witnesses or Muslims who read the Bible and understands it or someone who is educated with high discipline in Biblical Studies, the study of Religion, History and Christology, etc. who is correcting you, be lucky it isn't a man of Islam who is well educated in the Bible and it's history, such persons proved James White wrong on a number of occasions - not refuted, but brutally confuted on several points.

A response will always be expected. Lastly, I recall you made the attempt to use John 8:44 only for it to backfire on you in public. Slowly you are making that jump for there are literal biblical verses, in context,I have yet to address that pretty much shatter several points made now and before, perhaps onward in the future as well - very evident.

Best to save thyself and learn from error rather than break thyself in error.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. The 7,500,000 may be an error on their part, but the 8.45 million adherents is accurate as of late and it is still going up. Around 2019 probably, they may be near the 9 million mark,as for groups outside of the Christendom minority, that may be at an all time low and the numbers for adherents for this faith may most likely go up faster.

 

That being said, Fox News?! I am not a fan of them at all, but the small snippet of respect I have is for one person there, be it at times agree/disagree with him in some cases, and that is Tucker Carlson. As for the rest of the Fox troop, they make Alex Jones look like a saint.

9 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

"Probably most of us would have exclaimed similarly if in Thomas's position, but maybe not just for the reason you have cited , more in the spirit of 1Cor.13:4! John's account would not present contradictory material when he stated the purpose of his writing at John 20:31."

Thomas knew exactly of what he was talking about because he was in doubt for he was not present when Jesus had risen. Thomas didn't see Jesus as God for a number of reason, an example would be when he was present with Jesus and Mary prior to Jesus bring Lazarus out of death, for if he thought of the Christ to be God surely he would have said something to Mary. Another factor is that his presence at Pentocost.

Actually this sole chapter is in regards to seeing and believing, of which I spoken of before. Thomas, as stated didn't see the Christ when he had risen nor did was he aware that the man he followed is somehow alive again. We only understand fully pertaining to what Jesus had said right after verse 28 to Thomas and John 20:31 can easily be understood by any honest man - and surprise surprise, the cross-references solidifies this very information.

But it would seem that people forget that Thomas was among the disciples of Jesus and make it seem he was not paying attention at all.

9 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

IF what thomas said WAS an exclamation of shock, he blasphemed and the penalty was stoning to death on the spot.

He was in shock, he didn't know about Jesus being brought out of death until Jesus appeared to him, if you read the chapter fully, you even see the other disciples, who had already met with Jesus and told to remain in the city, meet up with Thomas and the risen Jesus appeared out of the blue in the Thomas' dwelling. Before Jesus appeared, we can see this in the following verses in this cahtper:

John 20:24-31 - (24) Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. (25) So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” (26) Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” (27) Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” (28) Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (29) Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (30) Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; (31) but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

An that my friend, is merely the last few verses of this chapter, we have yet to begin talking about the cross-references regarding these verses that are above a dozen.

9 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

Just Jesus pick up stones?

NO, He CONGRATULATED and AGREED with thomas!

Granted Thomas was a disciples and understood what Jesus was talking about, for Thomas didn't believe and he was in doubt, mainly in regards to the resurrection when he and Jesus meet with Mary prior to raising Lazarus out of death. Thomas, like the others, expect Judas, listen carefully of what Jesus had talked about throughout his travels and ministry and he would not do a complete 180 on what Jesus has taught, in fact, as said before, Thomas was indeed present at Pentocost, which speaks more in of itself in regards to what Thomas believed - on that day, he among many, got the promise of which Jesus speaks that comes from God the Father, Thomas, and the others received the Holy Spirit.

9 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

HAHA. Your first attempt to answer totally FAILS at the first hurdle!

He didn't fail. Just has Anna didn't fail either.

9 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

STOP LISTENING TO THE WATCHTOWER.

THEY ARE A COMPLETELY SATANIC CULT

And yet the Bible and the cross-references, once again, speaks for itself, not the Watchtower and it is unfounded that a religious group that are Restorationist to the core to be even considered as a cult, mind you with their numbers and how they operate, for you can break their legs and they still continue to serve God, that alone should tell you something for me and others who study religions, we can even see that.

Deserter, you speak of cults yet you believe in 3 Gods (Triune Being), you make the Cult of Attis look like saints.

 

That being said, you've yet to prove John 1:1 (including cross-references) promotes Jesus being God when we clearly see this in the verse: Θεόν and Θεὸς

And for that reason, your so called proof is rendered empty and plain as a blank sheet of paper.

Late 2016 to early 2017 they were 8.3 million adherents and as time progresses they went on to 8.34 million adherents. As we speak as of 2018, they have increased to 8.45 million adherents and growing still.

Granted on how mainstream Christianity is on a rapid decline, Christian minorities have increased in numbers, which also includes the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Islam has also increased by a larger percentage and may in the coming years, and or perhaps months, surpass that of mainstream Christendom, since mid 2015, mainstream Christendom has been on a rapid decline around the globe, even even bigger in the EU and Asian countries while Islam is more dominant in the majority of the EU.

In the US, mainstream Christendom is declining even faster and the common White American Christian has also declined too.

Also there has been a study that only 4% of young people to young adults actually read the bible while the rest is.... meh.... There has also been churches being closed now, not relocated sold and or moved, just shut down completely. Elsewhere we even have some pastors trying to maintain converts by integrating bars and or yoga fitness areas inside a church, that is pretty much breaking what a church and or congregation even means, perhaps next they will have cross-fit for Jesus session inside the church if they feel like it.

There are other numbers, these things can be looked up in articles from 2015 to now.

And guess who the churches are blaming? These guys:

 

They did kill off Toys R Us after all.

 

That being said, that is what mainstream Christianity gets for teaching that God became a man when the bible says God cannot be a man, or teaching that Jesus is God when the Bible says Jesus is the Son of God - it was bound to happen and the breaking point was mid 2015.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. There are ways, but these videos are totally purged from YouTube, therefore JW opponents, who realized they were lying, now paint JW's are the culprit since the 3 individuals, the artist, the gay man and the former bible student, all of their videos gone because they have been harassed and received threats from the JW opponent communities, one of them known as the Great Apostate, insulted and spoke negatively of these people, this same British bloke was not just fat shaming the man, he even told him to go kill himself, and those liking what was said was clearly on this British man's side. At the same time, both counties, Orange County where Warwick is located, and the Passaic County were against the actions of the JW opponents and such a thing has never been seen before in their communities, mainly after this so called protest took place immediately after an attack on a Jewish Cemetery an the whole ANTIFA thing.

Russian videos have surface, but what they do not tell you, well if you look hard enough, is there are videos of JWs solely being targeted in Russia. There was a website that tracked religious individuals as well as political opponents referred to as "heroes" and their picture address and vk (similar to Facebook) was listed. The FSB had operated several websites, so far I was able to salvage one before the other ones were changed.

That being said, it is not looking too good for anyone in Russia who is not a fan of the RoC, Duma, and Kremlin. The crazy thing is during the World Cup while everyone was distracted, there has been things going on that took place without anyone knowing, all that can be said is the Soviet Era is slowly creeping up on the Russians and there isn't a thing they could do about it, on the other side of the spectrum, Russian allies are clearly not a fan of Americans, for Israel is like a trigger happy gunmen who is quick to take shots that will slowly intensify the situation of things.

This is the best I can salvage, the Russian FSB changed the links to the other websites, which tracked religious people, but this is an example of what I have spoke about before, but compared to the others, this one was used to track heroes, those who are against the Kremlin: https://jesuismaidan.com

But yeah, the software in question was intended to find family and friends, at times used by creepy people on the internet to find women, but it would seem Russian police and FSB took this software to a whole other level and continue to do so as we speak for it now affects other social media forms in Russia now and not solely vk.

As for the current situation for JWs in Russia, you will not find as much information in English, you'd have to go to Russian and Ukrainian sources in order to find recent information that is clearly amissed by JW opponents and English media, for there is only a brief mention during World Cup in English and that is about it.

I have reliable sources in the EU as well as Russia still so anything credible I get from them. But as of late their focus is Tommy Robinson.

 

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If "souls" were immortal, every McDonalds would be surrounded by a thick dark cloud of angry cow ghosts.

Granted how many animals are wiped out for consumption, that would be quite the sight, but I have seen even prankster who manage to pull some things off to get in quite the scare on some folks. Other than that, the bad thing about the immortal soul belief is that it opens doors to believing in Spirits (not only that it is nearly in relation with that of Gnosticism and or Apollinarianism as well as Sorcery, believing and or communication with the dead), which helms very close to that of paganism practices of old, to people such as myself who is from the islands with Caribbean roots, such things is referred to in Black Magic practices, what I can say is demons tend to make people do the most craziest things therefore such ones are deemed evil persons. The rabbit hole gets far deeper than that and mainstream Christians actually believe this stuff to be true, that we live on when the reality is, we are as dead as a rock, in a sense, like pulling the plug from a Super Computer, thus it's soul (power) is gone an the computer is no longer functioning... And would possibly get you fired for such an action.

Other than that, the bible makes it clear, when we die, we die, this goes for Jesus as well for his temple, his body was brought down, but he conquered death and he had risen, for God raised him from the dead.

The irony here is most Trinitarians teach the life and resurrection, but here we see one among the fold who professes Jesus didn't really die, thus defeating the purpose of what the resurrection means and or what is included in the authority God has given Jesus as seen in Matthew 28:18.

Among all things, anything pertaining to Jesus being The Firstborn out of the dead (as well as the first of the firstfruits) is sure to send mainstream Trinitarians packing because any verse that mentions this defeats the purpose of many chunks of their doctrine. That of which Jesus is called is a very, very strong title, even Jesus himself makes mention to himself as such.

7 hours ago, Cos said:

Why would Jesus “yield up”, what was about to cease existing, into the hands of His father (Luke 23:46)? What is more revealing is the fact that the Greek word ?????????? is never translated “yield up” or “yielded up” nor does the word mean such a thing the word means “the keeping of”.

And yet the four accounts make the confirmation he ha expired, and eventually addressed that he is alive due to hang risen, the very reason why,a s said before since Trinitarians are afraid of this term (Firstborn of out of the dead), and it would seem it is true as to why you and majority of Trinitarians brush over this of which Jesus is called and every cross-references that pertain to it, yet have the ignorance to attempt to quote the very man who said this of Jesus and or Jesus saying such.

That being said, you continue to spark ignorance here and not only try to defend a Hersey that those who believe in Immortal Soul (and show a total disregard to the firstfruits, the first being Jesus) and or complete denial of what the resurrection entails, mainly when it is in regards to the Christ, who's body is in fact the Temple foundation.

We are not talking about words, Cos, we are talking about an expression used, and this is why your Greek has come into question before because it would seem even now, when corrected, you lack and continue to lack and dwell in your own pool of ideas and opinions - I can tell you this, the water is indeed murky.

As to why Jesus yield up his spirit, as it was prophesied in the Book of Psalms (which was mentioned but you do not like the OT very much as seen before) he willing gave up his life to God for it was to be fulfilled and for 3 days this man was in death only to be resurrected again, thus prompting his followers to believe in the life and resurrection, and eventually this is taught to others. God is the life giver and by means of God, through Jesus, God gives life to the Son, and the authority and power as seen in Matthew 28:18 which is God Given, just as the Father is able to grant life, the Son is able to do the same, hence during his Kingship, Jesus will be able to bring back a great multitude of people. When Jesus has risen, he did talk to spirits, evil spirits, therefore you were ultimately incorrect as to what you said before and Jesus did not do this in Hades, for anyone can check the scriptures and find out as to when this took place, when the Son has risen.

One can address the same thing when the expression used, "my spirit" which, for example we see this being said by the human mother of Jesus, Mary, but that is to be explain another day for you have butchered this saying and other expressions already, and it can be seen as evidence in everything you have posted on this topic.

When you mention a Greek word, show some respect.?????????? to our guests and visitors who cannot read it is paratithémi (par-at-ith'-ay-mee), it's Greek Strong's number is 3908 which can be seen here http://biblehub.com/greek/3908.htm and this word, a verb has about over a dozen occurrences in the Bible. The word in Luke 23:46 is in singular use, 1st person; present tense.

In some translations, the expression, in full, is read as Yield/ed up [I commend] my ghost, however, this, out of the occurrences, is seen primarily in the Four Gospel accounts and or Four Evangelists seen in the Bible and it is agreed by these writers that the use of this expression is more fitting than to simply say He [Jesus] died, but in some accounts, mainly in the Gospel of Mark, and I believe in Matthew as well, the addition of Jesus expired is seen in all translations.

FACT: Another saying for this expression is dismissed my [His] Spirit pertaining to the original Greek Text: ????? ?? ?????? (He left/dismissed the Spirit).

Other than that, this expression suits the very words of our Lord, Christ Jesus, as seen in the following verse below, which is indeed a cross-reference

• John 10:18 - No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

 

7 hours ago, Cos said:

Here once again is blatant reading into the Scriptures what is not there to try to make something say what it doesnÂ’t. The sheer nonsense can be seen by asking why would Jesus ??????????, what was to cease existing, into the hands of His Father.

Not a blatant reading as to what is said is true, no man who study and think otherwise of what is present in the scriptures, i.e. of what you stated before about Jesus speaking to spirits only to be corrected when the truth was Jesus spoke to this Spirits when he had risen, and these spirits were not of people, they were fallen ones, demons, in Tartarus who are reversed for Judgement.

Again, if you understood the expression used, you'd realize full and well of what the expression conveys, mainly in regards to context and cross-references. You have already shown yourself to show a total disregard to this therefore, your knowledge in Greek is as broken as totaled car, thus bearing no foundation to claim. But there are many examples of your ignorance here, therefore, the correction can and will be made.

7 hours ago, Cos said:

Steven PRAYED “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”. But according to some Jesus was asked to “receive” what ceased existing!

It is Stephen, not Steven. It is already explain as to whom Stephen was praying to by means of Jesus' name, and it is already explain as to how the expression was used. For our viewers, who do look into this stuff, they can see how you are butchering even the words of Stephen for it is known Trinitarians love to mess around with even this follower of the Lord and show hypocrisy as they do such.

The irony is you continue to prove my point, time and time again, you tend to repeat things like a broken record, only to be met with a correction of the same thing you have stated before:

 

7 hours ago, Cos said:

This type of irrational nonsense is typical of those that constantly read into Scripture their false view such as when they read into Zechariah 4:6, Micah 3:8 2, Tim. 1:7, Luke 4:14, Acts 1:8, Acts 10:38 and think that these say that the Holy Spirit is not a Person.

Not irrational for even with the proof before you, you show total ignorance to claim. You cannot convince a men to belief in a dying doctrine of a Triune God, therefore, any man who really knows God, who really knows Jesus, let alone the very practices of the Early Church, they know what the Holy Spirit is.

And as I last recall, not only you claim the Holy Spirit to be The God, you dodged, 3 times when given question as to if this God knows the day of Judgement, to which you had refused to answer, the same can be said with Deserter, for this is something such ones like yourself hope that no one brings up. The very reason why as to he Trinity doctrine in the EU is crumbling and many people are paying attention to such, me included since the very day it began.

7 hours ago, Cos said:

No matter how irrational and contradictive are the claims made, the typical response is “this has already been addressed” as can be seen by the continual jumping to other post which are claimed as “more in-depth”, when they are only a “more” incoherent tirade. Good luck to anyone trying to find any semblance to reason in them. <><

Actually it has already been addressed, because time and time again, as stated, like a broken record, you repeat yourself, and every time you repeat yourself I can bring correction to claim by briefly mentioning what has been addressed and or just share the link to what it is that has been addressed. Example, the number of times you used John 14 and 16 and the number of times which you have been corrected when met with the likes of Greek forms in regards to Masculine, Feminine, and Neutered words, you even quoted something that defeated your own opinion and belief and every time you bring this up, this can only be seen by both guests and visitors of who is in the right and who isn't. Just the other day I seen someone used your example and pointed out your flaws - that alone tells you something, and now we have here @sami who can even see your errors.

Your errors are indefensible.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

Our friend sami, whose other comments were shown to be, well, wrong, goes into a long winded accusation to try to maintain the false idea. Once again sami quotes passages where the idea that the Holy Spirit is a power must be read into them,

Actually @sami is in the correct. His head isn't buried in the sand compared to the likes of you., Cos, and your past discussions, it shows, not just here alone.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

What is more disturbing is the quoting out of context of some works, here is an example, the quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia;?

How so?

6 hours ago, Cos said:

“The OT [Old Testament] clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person?? .   .   .   God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly . . . The majority of NT [New Testament] texts reveal God’s spirit as some thing , not some one ; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God”?

This actual quote comes from this piece of literature, 1965, Vol. 13, "Spirit of God," pp. 574-576, which can be traced back to other sources as well. The irony here is you show a total disagreement to what the Holy Spirit is in description, only to see several of said descriptions in this quote alone from this Encyclopedia itself, regardless of belief, such is presented here - now that is being hypocritical to a very strong degree, Cos, when it comes to the actual description of the one Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

That being said, this quote is often brought up time and time again by several, mainly when it comes to what the Holy Spirit truly is and or the very teachings of the 1st Church.

Other than that, it would be best to read fully as to what @sami had addressed, from start to finish, therefore it would be understandable as to what he has quoted.

Plus it didn't stop you before, now did it? the Only difference between you two is one actual reads, and you, only pull what you can see and not address the conclusion.

I'd also like to point out the full quote makes no mention of the 13:13/13:14 confusion some translations have, however, this verse(s) is among many of which have already been put into context against the teachings of the Trinity, in full force years ago.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

As you can see, the (copy and paste) quote by sami deliberately and deceptively is selective on what the Catholic encyclopedia says, and ignores the fact that it clearly does states that the Bible outright teaches the personality of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.

It should be mentioned as to where said Encyclopedia got it's information from, why stop there? Also it is hypocrisy as to what you have stated because what @sami has done, it never stopped you from copying and pasting things before, mainly when when it was in regards to the discussion of Church Fathers.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

So when the whole article is read in context, yes the Holy Spirit is associated with God's power, but is often attributed clear personality.

And yet when questioned in regards to personality, you have failed to present, even trying to twist the Greek Forms of passages in order to prove something that is unfounded. This cannot help you nor give benefit, nor does it help anyone else, therefore, it is agreed by all about the current situation of mainstream Christendom.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

In another post our friend focuses on many quotes from a wide variety of sources. But before I address these our friendÂ’s gives a brief short history in the introduction prior to all the quotes which is false. As can be shown, the early Christians before the fourth century referred to Jesus as God, here are a few of the many examples.

You make the claim such information is false, but fail to prove otherwise?

6 hours ago, Cos said:

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50–117): “Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.” (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 19.3)

Justin Martyr (100–165): And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 128)

Tertullian (155-220) "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, ONE essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25).

And here we go again with Church Fathers, to which you have been brutally refuted on before, to spar our visitors and guests the whole ordeal, I will simply put the conclusion to the Church Father discussion of which not only you failed, but you revealed yourself to be the son of the deceiver by going back on a word of which you yourself stated.

 

6 hours ago, Cos said:

None of the above Christians were expelled from the Christian Church like Noetus who taught heresy. And even if you donÂ’t fully agree with what these Christians taught it would be nonsense to claim that the Deity of Christ was not taught until the fourth century.

This is the problem with you Trinitarians, you have not read any of these people's work from start to finish and yet you pull quotes from them without coming to the conclusion of their actual belief and or what they said perhaps in the next few paragraphs, you have been corrected brutally, if not, savagely on this topic before.

Tertullian, just like Noetus, was a Modalist (the practice of Sabellianism), despite misrepresenting Noetus before. Tertullian's Modalistic views, if you read is work in chronological order, is heavily expressed - but never, as did before and called out for such, you haven't read any of his works and or the works of others, even to the point as to you being called out for cutting and meshing paragraphs together to spark deception.

Other than that, it is said that Sabellianism is perhaps only known from their detractors for even scholars today are not in agreement as to what exactly Sabellius or Praxeas was all about. As said breifly here and before, both Tertullian and Hippolytus in some instances misrepresented the opinions of their opponents.

It is also good to mention the fact that Noetus originated from Smyrna, that alone should tell you something. That being said, I addressed before the original early Church, our early brothers and sisters believed that God the Father is One and Jesus being the Son of God, thus being a subordinate of God.

It was accepted in the 4th century, clearly it had a small belief circle around the late 2nd into the 3rd century and Trinitarians and Modalist pretty much tag-teamed to get the belief to mainstream, only very later on, this belief was enforced and anyone who is to deny this enforced belief, which had already dwell in Roman Paganism, were to be put to death. Surely God does not like it when people are forced to do things they do not see as right, and clearly not a fan of those who oppress such power which actual gets people to accept a belief out of fear, you have Empower Theodosius II to thank for that.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

Anyway, to keep this brief, which some don’t do, let me say that the majority of quotes which sami provides are taken out of context and chopped up to portray a false idea just like the above from the  Catholic encyclopedia.

Unfortunately they are not taken out of context. If you are going to bring up an explanation, now would be the time, Cos. Just be careful because this same Encyclopedia is being used by your own people, mainly those who are attempting to twist what the Four Marks of the Church means.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

The others fall into the category of self-quotes, that is, quoting from those who are Arian/Unitarian in the first place. <><

Here we go again comparing Unitarians to Arians, like I said before, Arians believe in Jesus to be God also, as well as the Holy Spirit, hence they share the same belief as you and you thrown your own kind under the bus, not once, not twice, not even 3 times, but a good number of times already, this just shows people like you do not know the Christology of others well despite their beliefs being slightly different. Trinitarians, like Oneness believers, Modalist, New Agers believe Jesus should be religious worshiped like God, once again you toss your own under the bus, therefore it shows you lack in your own Christology. Lastly, accepting Tridition of Men as well as Paganism, Arians among the mainstream Christianity space, and you, Trinity believers, accept such Traditions that have no folly with the early Church whatsoever. And like your Arian counterparts, you believe a literal Spirit Person was the one responsible for Mary's pregnancy, when Mary said in the following verse she clearly never had relations with a man so how was she suppose to become pregnant? But it would seem the Tomfoolery does not end and every time you response your you will be corrected and your own words will bite you.

It is no surprise that every claim you make is being refuted elsewhere and it is very chilling to see that even the non-religious is even correcting you, that alone is very sad.

What I have quoted are not of my own originality there is always a source to everything in which I speak, if not the Bible itself and or the very Language and forms of both Hebrew and Greek, but unlike you, I do not make up unfounded facts, as to which you have been, once again, called out for making such a fact up:

 

The irony is, the facts of which I made mention of can actually be looked up, as for yours, well.... It cannot be found, therefore, you tend to make up things as you go, just as you did before, and will continue to do again and again.

 

That being said, you are the first Trinitarian to not just allude to the Immortal Soul belief, but show a bit of Apollinarianism, far, far worse than what your Arian buddies believe.

 

Due to this topic, this only hastens a very detailed refutation to the erroneous Trinitarian view of the Holy Spirit and of Christ, which I have only given just cookie-like topics on, expect to receive the whole jar of it in full soon, coupled with various claims main here which had been refuted by those outside of the conversation.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. On the contrary, any contact and or touching/or simulation of the male and or female reproductive organs is sexual contact. It is considered as pornea, it is also in the same category of masturbation.

As for tight pants in Christendom, a lot of folks has taken issue with tight pants, just a few days ago some Christians went off on tight pants - unhinged, one of them even made a few, in addition to mainstream pastor gestures when on stage.

I myself take issue with inappropriate clothing for both male and female. You cannot praise God and appear as though you should be on stage with a K-pop girl group and or wear tight pants like a rock boy band of the 90s.

If I recall, the tend began when punkers began to wear the pants/jeans of girls, eventually the trend took flight from there. Now we have men wearing things like Rompers, you don't want to know what that is - but since it is public, it is obvious to everyone.

That being said, tight pants, is said to not be good for males anyways, it can cause problems for one's health -  ironically.

As for the joke about Caleb and Sophia dolls, truth be told, there are robot dolls in the works that resemble adult man and or women, as well as appear as children, hence Japanese slang. If you are familiar with the movies such as iRobot, Matrix and or perhaps the Terminator, expect in the next couple of years robot dolls will soon be a replacement for males and females who lack a romantic partner, the very reason why there is a war going on for people who are [A] against this stuff, be included because it would pose as a problem in the future, as it is now doing, for every dollar being made in production and selling of such things for ill purposes and a sole intent - brazen conduct  People who are for this stuff and think this is a future and they honestly believe they can relief the sexual cravings of such persons, even the likes of pedophiles, again, of what is being made by the Japanese, hence the Jap. slang used.

So in short, we see this in movies:

 

Now something of which has become a reality, as seen here (some robots more realistic than others for the one below is an early one):

A picture of this robot up-close shows that the intent of the creator is to make said robot look like the Actress, Scarlett Johansson.

Other than that, stuff like this is very serious. And someone like myself is very against such things mainly when it comes to what is being discussed via this topic and as to what Matthew have said.

It can get worse, outside of people using robotic dolls for brazen conduct, you also have the ones who will soon be taking your job:

A.I. and robots can and will be dangerous, in this sense, not only they will be taking jobs very soon and being 10 times if not more steps ahead of you, they will eventually replace even mates and or partners, at the same time encourage people to do ill intent, rapist, pedophiles, and a list of other things, thus promoting said things, which is can very, very bad for any and everyone.

The Book of Hebrews

Hebrews 1:8

But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

 

? Proof of Trinitarian Error

Trinitarians claim God the Father addresses Jesus as "God" in this verse.

? The Claims vs. The Facts

The facts show that the Trinitarian interpretation and translation is impossible and the writer is rather describing how the exalted Jesus now has the authority of God's throne.

? The Problems with the claims of Trinitarians

Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6.

Side-by-side

• Hebrews 1:8 - But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
• Psalms 45:6 - Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;

The above translation of Hebrews 1:8 is another example of Trinitarian translation bias. Here they outrageously try to claim that God the Father is addressing Jesus as "O God." This translation crudely violates the context for the sake of Trinitarian tradition.

1. The Greek Grammar and Intentional Translation Bias

Concerning Hebrews 1:8, Trinitarian apologists are somewhat pretentious and would have you believe their "O God" translation is the only possible translation. So they always cherry pick the vocative "O God" translation for their apologetic agenda. However, Trinitarian Greek translation scholars openly admit the Greek grammar does indeed allow for a different translation. Trinitarian scholars admit that "God is your throne (or Your throne is God) is grammatically correct (see Robertson or Westcott for example). Some of these scholars also concede that it makes theological sense. This is also evidenced by a review of various major translations. The RSV translates Psalm 45:6 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever." The NRSV footnote for Psalm 45:6 reads, "Your throne is a throne of God" and the Hebrews 1:8 footnote reads, "God is your throne."

NOTE: Some grammarians have even argued that the vocative is an artificial category created by translators. In other words, they argue that it is a category which is an English speaking convention which would have never been conceived in a Koine Greek speaker's mind.

The word "throne" in Scripture

With the exception of a few informed scholars, Trinitarians generally seem to dismiss the "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God," translation because they can't imagine how God could be Jesus Christ's throne. Some even conclude this is silly because, they object, it would have God being used as Jesus' chair (throne). However, the ignorance is actually their own. The problem is that they are equating the word "throne" with a chair to sit upon. This notion comes from ignorance concerning the use of the word "throne" in the Scripture.

David and Solomon sat on "the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah we see this in the 2 verses that will be mention below

• 1 Chronicles 29:23 - Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD [YHWH] as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.
• 2 Chronicles 9:8 - Blessed be the LORD [YHWH] your God, who has delighted in you and set you on his throne as king for the LORD [YHWH] your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them forever, he has made you king over them, that you may execute justice and righteousness.”

And these two sat over the Kingdom of God,

• 1 Chronicles 28:5 - And of all my sons (for the LORD [YHWH] has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD [YHWH] over Israel.

 

This does not mean they sat on God's chair in heaven. To sit on a throne means one assumes the authority signified by that throne. When David and Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah it meant they were given the right to execute the authority of God's throne over the nation of Israel, that is, God's authority over Israel. God promised David that He would establish his throne forever (2 Samuel 7:13,16) but it doesn't mean God is establishing a chair. It means God will establish David's Kingdom authority. When Benaiah says, "may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my Lord King David!" (1 Kings 1:36), he isn't suggesting that Solomon will have a better chair to sit on than David. When Gabriel informs Virgin Mary that God will give baby Jesus the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32), he wasn't suggesting that God was going to give a chair to Jesus. The word "throne" is a reference to kingly authority. Also see Colossians 1:16 were "thrones" are in a list of varies authorities. When Jesus said he sat down with his Father on His throne (Revelation 3:21), the main idea is not that Jesus squeezed up beside the Father on the Father's chair in heaven. The point is that Jesus assumed the authority signified by that throne and was given the right to execute his God's authority. And this is the concept expressed by the translations, "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God."

It is important to recognize how the word "throne" is used in the Bible and for the reader to see that the Trinitarian objection to the "God is your throne" translation is implicitly based on a false premise. A physical throne symbolizes kingly authority. The word "throne" at Hebrews 1:8 is being used to refer to authority not where Jesus is physically sitting. This is made obvious by the immediate context, "...the scepter of your Kingdom..." To be given a throne is a way of saying someone is given kingly authority. So a translation which says, "Your throne is God" would not be saying, "The place where you sit is God" as Trinitarians are necessarily presuming in their objections and or claims. Rather, this language would be a way of saying either:

• (1) Jesus' authority is God" (God is over Jesus in terms of authority), or
• (2) Jesus' authority is God's authority granted by God to Jesus to execute (just as Joseph's authority was Pharaoh's authority).

In context, the latter of the two would make the most sense. When it is clearly understood how the word "throne" is being used here, and in places like Luke 1:32, it is also clearly seen why the Trinitarian objection to the "God is your throne" translation is feeble at best.

2. Psalms 45:6

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation of the Septuagint translation of Psalm 45:6-7. The 45th Psalm celebrates an ancient Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia. This event occurred a several centuries before Jesus was born. The identity of the king in question is uncertain but most scholars think it is probably Solomon. So if we translated the Greek text as Trinitarians do, it would look like the following:

Quote

You are the fairest of the sons of men. Grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you forever. Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, In your splendor and your majesty! And in your majesty ride forth victoriously, for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness; Let your right hand teach you awesome things. Your arrows are sharp; the peoples fall under you. Your arrows are in the heart of the King's enemies. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy above your fellows. All your garments are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia; out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made you glad. Kings' daughters are among your noble ladies; at your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir. Listen, O daughter, give attention and incline your ear: Forget your people and your father's house; Then the King will desire your beauty. Because he is your Lord, bow down to him. The daughter of Tyre will come with a gift; the rich among the people will seek your favor. The King's daughter is all glorious within; her clothing is interwoven with gold. She will be led to the King in embroidered work; the virgins, her companions who follow her, will be brought to you. They will be led forth with gladness and rejoicing; they will enter into the King's palace. In place of your fathers will be your sons; you shall make them princes in all the earth. I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations; therefore the peoples will give you thanks forever and ever. (Psalm 45).

So shall we conclude that Solomon was being called "God"? To claim that Jesus is being called "God" at Hebrews 1:8 is to also claim Solomon is being called "God" at Psalm 45:6. That just isn't going to make any sense whatsoever. Or perhaps we should add Solomon to the Trinity and end up with a Quadrinity? An honest person will see the seriousness of the problem here, even to the point of calling out such problem, should need be.

"Dual" Prophecy

Like many Psalms, this refers to both the ancient Davidic King and the Messiah. This is common in Scripture and this type of thing is commonly called "dual prophecy" with a "near and far fulfillment." God's promise to David at 2 Samuel 7:11-14 is said in Scripture to be fulfilled in Solomon as well as Jesus.

• 2 Samuel 7:11-14 - (11) from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. (12) When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. (13) He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (14) I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,

Isaiah 7:14 was necessarily fulfilled in the days of King Ahaz, as a sign to Ahaz, but was also fulfilled when Jesus was born.

• Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 42:1 is obviously referring to Israel but Matthew applies the verse to Jesus (because he is the King of the Jews). Hosea 11:1 was fulfilled in both Israel and Jesus. These are but a few of several examples.

• Isaiah 42:1 - The Lord's Chosen Servant - Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.
• Hosea 11:1 - The Lord's Love for Israel - When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

Psalm 45:6 is referring to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. If we assume that King is Solomon, it would be disingenuous to say the language used here means "Jesus is God" but deny the same language means "Solomon is God." Hence, the only reasonable conclusion is that Solomon is not being called God and neither is Jesus.

David and Solomon were God's Christ, His Anointed One. This meant they were given the right to sit on the throne of God ruling over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:20-23). In other words, they ruled on God's behalf; they executed God's authority. This occurred because Israel had rejected God as their King (1 Samuel chapter 8th) and wanted a human king. The result was that God did his ruling through a human king. This fact is very significant to a thoughtful interpretation of Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8.

3. God's God

A very serious problem with the Trinitarian translation is the resulting implications of their translation.

• Hebrews 1:8-9 - (8) But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (9) You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

The result of this translation is that God has a God and God's God anoints God so that God's God would make God to be above God's peers. It's unbelievably ludicrous in multiple ways.

Even further, if we follow the "O God" translation to it's logical conclusion, we have even more preposterous consequences. Consider verses such as Psalm 43:4,

• Psalm 43:4 - Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy, and I will praise you with the lyre, O God, my God.

In Scripture, when anyone addresses the God of Israel as "O God" it means they are acknowledging that the addressee is their God. For this reason, it is absurd to suggest God the Father would address anyone as "O God" since it would imply the son is the Father's God.

The Trinitarian translation results in a situation where God addressed someone else as God and then says that God's God anoints God so that God will be above God's peers. Let the reader appreciate the utter implausibility of such a claim.

4. Translation Inconsistency

Another problem with the Trinitarian claim is translation inconsistency. At Hebrews 1:8-9, the Greek term ho theos ("the god") occurs 3 times. The term ho theos ("the God") is the usual Greek way of referring to God in the Bible and our English word "God" without the article is the normal way to translate this Greek term with the understanding that capital "G" God is an English way of referring to "the God" (although we sometimes translate it as "the God"). Trinitarians inconsistently translate ho theos as "O God" in verse 8 but as "God" in verse 9. More technically, they are inconsistently interpreting ho theos as "O God" in verse 8 but as "the God" in verse 9.

Quote

Your throne ho theos to the age of the age A scepter of righteousness the scepter of your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness Therefore ho theos, ho theos of you, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above your fellows. Now observe how Trinitarian translators interpret/translate ho theos in one way at verse 8 but another way in verse 9. Your throne O God to the age of the age A scepter of righteousness the scepter of your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness Therefore the God, the God of you, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above your fellows.

The Greek term ho theos normally means "the God" but Trinitarians would have it that here it means "O God." But there is no reason to translate this Greek term in this manner except to promote a man-made tradition, that is, the doctrine of the Trinity.

It should be clear to every reasonable and honest person that the above facts demonstrate that something is very amiss about Trinitarian claims concerning Hebrews 1:8-9 (Psalm 45:6-7). Trinitarians admit that "Your throne is God" is a grammatically viable translation. Some also confess it also makes contextual sense. And their standard objection to this translation is based on a naïve presumption. Hebrews 1:8-9 quotes Psalm 45:6-7 which is about an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. If these words identify Jesus as "God" then they also identify another human being as "God" who lived hundreds of years before Jesus. And if Jesus is being identified as God, then the Father is being identified as God's God which is ridiculous. The implications of the "O God" rendering catapults the passage into absurdity. By definition, God cannot have someone else as his God when there is only one God. And again, it is also clear that Trinitarians are inconsistently translating ho theos in two different ways within this selfsame passage. Even further, it is clear that this chapter is about a man who became superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4) not the one God who always is/was superior to His angels. Facts like these show us that the Trinitarian claim is based on spin rather than facts.

Analyzing the Facts

1. The Greek Text

Quote

'o qronoV sou 'o qeoV eiV ton aiwna tou aiwnoV ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiona tou ainos the throne of you the God to the age of the age

2. The Structure of Psalm 45:6-7 & Hebrews 1:8-9

 

Quote

"The throne of you ho theos to the age of the age. A sceptre of uprightness the sceptre of your Kingdom. You loved righteousness and hated lawlessness Therefore, God your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your partners."

Also note the parallelism between "the throne of you ho theos" and "God, your God, has anointed you." Each of the ancient Davidic Kings such as Saul, David, Solomon, were God's Anointed One. Each of these men were the Anointed as Kings of Israel, God's Chosen King, God's Anointed One. Read into these verses:

• 1 Samuel 2:10; 10:1, 12:3,5; 15:17, 16:12-13; 24:6,10, 26:9,11,16,23
• 2 Samuel 1:14,16,21
• 2 Samuel 23:1
• Psalm 2:2, 18:50, 89:20

Quote

O LORD God, do not turn away the face of Your Anointed One. Remember Your lovingkindness to Your servant David. 2 Chronicles 16:42 The LORD is a tower of deliverance to His (God's) King, and shows lovingkindness to His Anointed One, to David and his seed forever. Now these are the last words of David. David the son of Jesse declares, the man who was raised on high declares, the Anointed One of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, "The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue." 2 Samuel 22:51- 2 Samuel 23:2. I have exalted one chosen from the people. I have found David My servant. With My holy oil I have anointed him. Psalm 89:19-20.

God anointed David with the Holy Spirit and it was by this Spirit which David ruled and judged God's Kingdom of God, that is, the Kingdom of Israel. In this way, David and Solomon sat down on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah (1 Chronicles 29:23). This does not mean they sat on God's chair but they were given the authority of God's throne, the right to execute God's authority over His Kingdom, the nation of Israel. This throne authority was given to the Davidic King when God anointed these men with His Holy Spirit. Their throne was the fact that God had anointed them to rule as Kings and God accomplished this anointing by bestowing the Spirit upon them. Men anointed these Kings with actual oil and God anointed them with His Spirit. The authority of their throne was God Himself since they ruled and judged by the Spirit of God. An actual literal throne symbolizes a King's authority and the word "throne" simply refers to their Kingly authority.

For example, when Gabriel announces that God will give to Jesus the throne of his father David, it means that God will give that same Kingly authority to Jesus, God's Anointed One. That Kingly authority was the anointing of God's Holy Spirit, that is, God Himself. Their Kingly authority is God, that is, each of these men were God's Anointed One and they were anointed by God with the Spirit of God to rule and judge by the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God, God Himself, was their Kingly authority. Thus one could say to this Davidic King, "Your throne is God" or "God is your throne" since this means "Your Kingly authority is God Himself," or "God Himself is your Kingly authority."

Quote

Your [Kingly Authority] is God Himself. Your Throne is God.   Now notice also the following: Your throne ho theos to the age of the age. A sceptre of uprightness the sceptre of your Kingdom.

The Davidic King's throne is the righteousness of God, that is, His rule is the righteousness of God. His scepter is the righteousness of God. The Davidic King ruled and judged by the Spirit of God in which God had anointed him.

• 1 Samuel 16:13 - Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah.

Compare the following and note how Hebrews 1:8 is expressing the same idea:

Quote

Then David said to all the assembly, “Now bless the LORD your God.” And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed low and worshiped the LORD and the King.... Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as King instead of David his father... (1 Chronicles 29:20-23). Of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons), He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the Kingdom of the LORD over Israel. (1 Chronicles 28:5) Blessed be the LORD your God, who delighted in you to set you ON HIS THRONE, to be King for the LORD your God because your God loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore made he you King over them, to do judgment and justice.? (2 Chronicles 9:8)   Your throne ho theos to the age of the age. (Hebrews 1:8) Your throne the God to the age of the age. (Hebrews 1:8)

3. The Context

In the book of Hebrews, the writer refers to how Jesus sat down at the right hand of the throne of God several times:

Quote

"Having made purification for our sins, sat down at the right hand of Majesty on High having superior to the angels." (1:3). "To which of the angels did He ever say, "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet" (1:13).   "And the sum concerning the things having been said: we have such a high priest, who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" (8:1). "Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (12:2).   "And he, having offered one sacrifice for sin once for all time sat down on the right hand of God" (10:12)   "Having made a purification for our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High" (1:3). "To the Son He says, 'The throne of you the God to the age of the age. The sceptre of righteousness the sceptre of your kingdom/kingship" (1:8).

Now observe how Hebrews 1:8 fits into the immediate context of Hebrews chapter 1:

Quote

Having made purification for our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High having become superior to the angels." (1:3-4). Your throne the God to the age of the age." (1:5,8). "To which of the angels did He ever say, "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet" (1:13).

It should be clear to anyone that the same idea is being presented in all three of these verses. And the same idea is presented here as well:

Quote

"He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on His throne." (Revelation 3:21). Your throne the God to the age of the age. (Hebrews 1:8).

Let us not forget that these words were spoken to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day at Psalm 45:6. The Davidic King sat "on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah" over "the Kingdom of Yahweh/Jehovah" (1 Chronicles 29:23, 2 Chronicles 9:8, 1 Chronicles 28:5, 2 Chronicles 13:8). God had promised King David that his descendant would sit on this throne, that is, he would have this Kingly authority. And Gabriel confirms that this promise to David was about to be fulfilled when baby Jesus was born, the son of David. As David had sat down on God's throne, Jesus would sit down on God's throne. This throne is a divinely established throne because the Davidic King, whether David or Jesus, is Anointed by God to rule and judge in His name. He is God's representative and or spokesman, His chosen King. His Kingly authority is God Himself because this King is Anointed by God in the Holy Spirit to rule and judge in His name.

Quote

"The throne of you ho theos to the age of the age. A sceptre of uprightness the sceptre of your Kingdom. You loved righteousness and hated lawlessness For that reason, God your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your partners."

The Hebrew writer's point throughout this chapter is that God made the risen Jesus superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4,6,8-9,13). The word "throne" signifies kingly authority. The risen Jesus' authority is the authority of God's throne. Such authority is greater than the authority of the angels.

4. The Davidic Divine Throne: David, Solomon, Jesus the son of David

It also needs to be understood that the word "throne" does not simply mean a fancy chair to sit upon. For example, the angel Gabriel stated that Jesus would receive the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32-33; see also Psalm 94:20). This doesn't mean he would receive a chair to sit upon but that he would assume the position of the Davidic King just as David was King over Israel. The word "throne" refers to a position of authority and indicates Kingly authority.

• 1 Kings 1:37 -  As the Lord has been with my lord the king, even so may he be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord King David.”

At Hebrews 1:8, the throne in question is a reference to the Kingly authority of God. When he rose from the dead, Jesus sat down on his Father's throne (Revelations 3:21). To sit at "the right hand of God" means Jesus was given the right to execute God's authority, the authority of God's throne. The words "right hand of God" indicate that this authority is not inherently his to execute but that God has appointed him to execute this authority much like Pharaoh did with Joseph. In other words, Joseph ruled Egypt on behalf of Pharaoh and the risen Jesus now rules creation on behalf of God the Father. To be at the right hand of God means that the authority is inherently God the Father's but Jesus was given the right to execute that authority in the same way Joseph ruled on Pharaoh's behalf.

• Genesis 41:40-43 - (40) You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” (41) And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” (42) Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. (43) And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt.

Additionally, verse 9 indicates God anointed Jesus to be above his peers. This is a Biblical way of saying God anointed Jesus as King just as the ancient Davidic Kings were anointed to rule over Israel sitting on the throne of God. Jesus was anointed to sit on the throne in question in verse 8, that is, to execute the authority of the throne of God. In light of these facts, the words "the throne of you ho theos" is quite obviously to say that Jesus has been given the authority of his God's throne.

Quote

"The throne of you ho theos to the age of the age.... Therefore, God your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your partners."

The ancient Davidic Kings were anointed to sit on the throne of God over Israel; the risen Jesus, promised son of David, was anointed to sit on the throne of God over all creation - "your throne ho theos". Jesus sat down on his Father's throne (Revelations 3:21). Indeed, this concept is the main idea in this chapter and into the next (Hebrews 1:3,8,13; 2:5-9). The God (ho theos placed Jesus over all the works of His hands (Hebrews 1:1-13; 2:5-9). The way this is done is to grant him the authority of the Father's throne, God's throne, "Your throne ho theos."

5. Manuscript Evidence

There is a very important manuscript variant reading of verse 8 (p46; Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.). This is represented by the NASB which reads "HIS Kingdom instead of "your Kingdom." If this is the correct manuscript reading, it would mean the writer was quoting a version of the Septuagint with this reading. So should it read "Your Kingdom" or "His Kingdom"? This is very significant since the throne in question in this verse is the throne of the Kingdom, God's Kingly throne. It appears that the best manuscript evidence may favor "His Kingdom" which grammatically can be taken to refer to the Father's Kingdom. If "His Kingdom" is the correct reading, then it is even more clear that the first instance of ho theos in verse 8 refers to God the Father and the vocative translation "O God" is not correct. This fact has also been acknowledged by Trinitarian academics. The pronoun "His" would be referring back to the Father in the phrase "the throne of you ho theos" which means this phrase refers to the Father's Kingly throne which the risen Jesus sat down upon in order to rule God the Father's Kingdom. See verses Hebrews 1:10-13 and 2:7-8 (see Psalms 8:6) where it says the risen Jesus was placed over the works of the Father's hands. Since Psalms 45 is being quoted here, one should not overlook the fact that this is also the scenario when David and Solomon sat on the throne of God ruling over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:20, 23). It is no surprise then that the Hebrews writer is quoting Psalms 45:6-7 where the context shows us that it refers to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. Indeed, David/Solomon ruled over God's Kingdom ("His Kingdom") have sat down on God's throne.

Quote

But concerning the son, "Your throne ho theos is to the age of the age The scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His Kingdom." Notice that it says second person "the throne of you" but third person "His Kingdom." This strongly indicates that "His" does not refer to the son but to the Father. That being the case, the antecedent to "His" would be "ho theos," the Father, "the God," the God of Jesus, the God of all. But concerning the son, "Your throne [God the Father] is to the age of the age The scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His Kingdom." He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne. Revelation 3:21.

It is also interesting that the "throne of Yahweh/Jehovah" which David sat upon is also called the "throne of David" in the Scriptures. Notice how the same concept at Revelations 3:21.

The Old Testament tells us that God's Christ, David and/or Solomon, sat on the throne of God over the Kingdom of God. This means they were granted the right by God to execute the authority of their God's Kingly throne as His Christ, His Anointed One, that person whom God chose to rule over His Kingdom, the people of Israel. At Hebrews 1:8-9, writer is quoting Psalms 45 which is referring to an ancient Davidic King on His wedding day (see scholarly commentaries). These facts about the ancient Davidic King fit perfectly with God and His Christ, Jesus, the promised son of David. Read 2 Samuel 7:11-14.

With those particular Scriptural facts in mind, and since God's throne signifies His Kingly authority just as it did in the days of David, this would mean the risen Jesus was given the right to execute God the Father's authority. And that is what the rest of the verse is alluding to, "the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His Kingdom." This means Jesus is given the right to execute authority over all the works of the Father's hands. And that is precisely what the writer goes on to emphasize (Hebrews 2:5-9).

Quote

But concerning the son, "Your throne ho theos is to the age of the age The scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, Therefore ho theos, ho theos of you, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows." But concerning the son, "Your throne the God is to the age of the age The scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, Therefore the God, the God of you, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows."

6. God is your throne

Trinitarian apologists have illustrated their ignorance here many times. It is not uncommon to see them mocking, rave and rant over people, one of their primary targets being the Jehovah's Witnesses and their Watchtower translation (The New World Translation/NWT) by supposing it means Jesus' throne is God and Jesus therefore sits on God. The Trinitarian ignorance here is stunning, obvious and continues to be quite absurd for the sake of their doctrine. Regard the following verse for example:

• Luke 1:32 - He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,

The words "God is your throne" or "Your throne is God" mean that Jesus Christ's authority is the Kingly authority of God. He executes God the Father's authority. David sat on the throne of God over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:23). For that reason, all Israel bowed down and worshiped (proskuneo) Yahweh/Jehovah and King David (1 Chronicles 29:20). This means that David executed God's authority on God's behalf much like Joseph ruling on behalf of Pharaoh. This is also what is happening at Psalms 45:6-7 where the Psalmist is speaking to the Davidic King on his wedding day. He sits on the throne of God, the God of Israel. And that is what the language of Hebrews 1:8 means. "Your throne is God" means that he has been given the Kingly authority of God, his God.

Conclusion

When all the facts are laid out before us, the truth of the matter is plain and it should be evident to the reasonable mind that the weight of the evidence is heavily against the absurd Trinitarian translation. The Trinitarian translation not only results in an absurd statement concerning God's God, it results in an ancient Davidic King (Psalms 45) who lived long before Jesus being called "God." Trinitarians inconsistently translate ho theos at Hebrews 1:8-9 and the implications are that God has a God and God's God anoints God so that God will make God to be above God's peers. It's ridiculous on the face of it.

However, when we understand how Scripture uses the word "throne" to refer to Kingly authority, and when we understand that the Davidic King, whether David or Jesus, was anointed by God in His Holy Spirit to rule and judge, the verdict is clear and undeniable. The Davidic King's, throne, his Kingly authority to rule, is God Himself who rules and judges through his human King because He has anointed that King by His Spirit to do so (i.e. "God is your throne"). His Kingly authority is God, his throne is God. He executes the authority of God's throne, that is, the Davidic King executes his God's authority and he is anointed to do so by the Holy Spirit of God. The Kingly authority by which he rules is the authority/throne of God Himself. This Kingly authority means that the King's judgments are thereby God's judgment because God has given the King this authority to make these judgements. Hence it says, "Your throne ho theos." Moreover, the manuscript evidence strongly suggests the verse is not only referring to the Father's throne but to "His Kingdom". Since God's throne signifies His Kingdom authority, the verdict concerning this verse should be clear.

Quote

Give the King Your judgments, ho theos, and Your righteousness to the King’s son. May he judge Yourpeople with righteousness and Your afflicted with justice. Psalm 72:1-3 But concerning the son, "God is your throne... the scepter of HIS Kingdom." Heb 1:8 I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. Revelation 3:21

Additional Notes:

Quote

Note: "It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative [`your throne, O God'] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin ('is') understood: `God is thy throne' or `Thy throne is God.' Either makes good sense." - p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960. "45:6 O God. Possibly the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as 'god.'" - Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible. "The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (`thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...') or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (`God is Thy throne,' or `Thy throne is God...'), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (`Therefore God, even Thy God...') .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX [Septuagint]. Thus on the whole it seems BEST to adopt in the first clause the rendering: `God is thy throne' (or, `Thy throne is God'), that is, `Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.'" - B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26. Translations of Heb. 1:8 by trinitarians: "God is your throne" - AT (Dr. Goodspeed)  "God is thy throne" - Mo (Dr. James Moffatt)  "God is your throne" - Byington  "God is your throne" - Dr. Barclay  "God is thy throne" - Dr. Westcott  "God is thy throne" - A. T. Robertson (Alternate translation)  "God is thy throne" - Dr. Young (Alt.)  "God is thy throne" - RSV (Alt.)  "God is your throne" - NRSV (Alt.)  "God is thy throne" - NEB (Alt.)  "Thy throne is God" - ASV (Alt.)  "Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever..." (JPS) "Your divine throne is everlasting..." (NJPS) "Your throne, O judge, [will exist] forever and ever." (CJB) B. Translations of Ps. 45:6 by trinitarians:  "Your Divine throne" - RSV  "Your throne is like God's throne" - NEB  "God is your throne" - Byington  "The kingdom that God has given you" - GNB  "God has enthroned you" - REB  "Your throne is from God" - NJB  "Your throne is a throne of God" - NRSV (Alt.)  "Thy throne is the throne of God" - ASV (Alt.)Â

 

 

2 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

I hope they don't start supplying Caleb and Sophia dolls to the bethelites.

That is a negative remark, granted the topic at hand and what is discussed in regards to what you have said, mainly when one realizes that the characters used by JWs, Caleb and Sophia are children, thus your remark is basically alluding straight Shota/lolicon, which is Japanese slang for you-know-what. On the other side of the spectrum, the situation is far worse in this regard and a huge fight has been taking place since the reveal of what I am referring to. There is a war going on,  with those catering to pedophilia by means of actual dolls, even robots, that look like children for a sole ill purpose, in that same fight, such things is seen as a replacement for those who wish not to get into an actual relationship, i.e. if any males wish not to date, marry, mate with a female, the are catered the idea of robotic dolls, which is something that is very bad of which is being promoted as something as a good thing, when really it is not. As we speak such things are being mass-produced. This also draws into connection of human sex trafficking as well, the majority being minors being kidnapped and or forced into it.

It is comments like this that drives those against these things wildly mad. But it would seem it is only who make the remark assuming such is a joke, that my friend, is no joke, especially if you are aware of how grim things are in this domain, and who is actually ware and against such things, that being said, there is nothing to joke about.

@JW Insider This I will note because a source of my, Mr. Lite, among several of his sources CTR does not mention this (granted that his sources tend to be now dead-links since they are that old), never made any acknowledgment of this, well it was kind expected due how said source has been handled over the years.

Anyways, could it be possible also that Christian Teacher and Writer Henry Grew (1781-1862) also played a role in CTR being against the Doctrine of the Trinity as well? Grew's study in the Bible lead him to reject the teachings of mainstream Christendom, of which is practiced today by both mainstream and New Agers, which is, that he rejected the Trinity, Immortal Soul Doctrine (Immortality of the Soul), literal torment of Hellfire (Eternal torment) and a list of other things.

For people outside of the mainstream also share this view, if I may add.

A list of Grew's writings (there might be more, would have to check)

• Christian Loyalty: A Sermon on Matthew XXII:21
• Designed to Illustrate the Authority of Caesar and Jesus Christ (1810)
• An Examination of the Divine Testimony Concerning the Character of the Son of God (1824)
• A Tribute to the Memory of the Apostles, and an Exhibition of the First Christian Churches (1836)
• The Practices of the Early Christians Considered (1838)
• A Review of Phelps' Argument for the Perpetuity of the Sabbath (1844)
• The Intermediate State (1849), The Sabbath (1850)
• An Examination of the Divine Testimony on the Nature and Character of the Son of God (1855)
• An Appeal to Pious Trinitarians (1857)
• The Atonement (1859)
• Divine Dispensations, Past, Present and Future (1861)

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

Jesus died on the cross, but that does not mean He ceased to exist. What Jesus says in Luke 23:46, “into your hands I commit my spirit” means, in fact, that even though His body died His spirit continued existing. This can be seen from the stoning of Stephen.

I commit [yielded up] my spirit and or receive my spirit does not mean that a person lives on after death. Jesus was dead, his body, his temple ceased for 3 days, and you have already been corrected on Jesus speaking to evil spirits, which took place after he resurrected, warning them of incoming judgment to demons, who are the spirits that are in prison.

We as humans are not spirits. The situation is different for those who are raised back to life, those who are of the Firstfruits, with Jesus being the first one pertaining to the Revelation of John.

Hence the saying, Jesus being the First of the Firstfruits of the New Creation. Not only that, Jesus was the Firstborn out of the Death because he makes of those who benefit of the New CovenantÂ’s chosen ones for priesthood, with the Christ being the King chosen by God.

In that same verse it says Jesus expired, the temple, his body was broken down, but days later, the temple was built back up when he conquered death, God bringing Jesus back to life.

yielded up or commit my spirit means to be ceased to/of breathe. Some people make  suggestion that the saying yielded up/commit means that Jesus just stopped struggling to stay alive since all things had been accomplished, willingly pouring out his life even to death, only to later on, conquer it (Isaiah 53:12; John 10:11, 19:30).

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

“And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit’” (Acts 7:59). This verse virtually makes no sense if you interpret that Stephen ceased to exist at the moment of his death. Why would Stephen pray to Jesus to “receive” what was about to cease existing?

Stephen prayed to God in JesusÂ’ name in regards to those who are stoning him, those fooled by the religious leaders. Stephen was stoned to death and he cease when he was killed via stoning. He, being dead, did not go anywhere.

Yield up my spirit is the same as commit my spirit and or receive [up] my spirit, regardless of translation, there is no change to the actual meaning of what that points to.

Stephen, on the other hand, will be among the early ones to be resurrected, there is no question about that. For all who follow the Christ who is the only way to God the Father, these ones who have their names in the book of life, these persons will be resurrected, this ones will gain eternal life that is everlasting due to not being subjected to the likes of sickness, pain and lastly, death.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

Then there is the claim that “Jesus himself slept in Hades”. This claim ignores many Scriptures. Anyway let’s look at this; sleeping is NOT the cessation of personal existence as some seem to assume. Death is compared to sleep because the person “sleeping” is not aware of the physical realm.

Jesus did sleep in Hades aka in death, also known as Hell and or the Grave, to the Jews, Sheol - that is, if you take what has been spoken of in Psalms seriously.

The last point is indeed 100% true and I do agree with that, that death is like sleeping (Psalm 13:3, John 11:11-14, Acts 7:60), we all sleep in Hades, also referred to as Sheol in Hebrew and to some in the Western society, Hell. As for the death, they do not go to any realm and or some afterlife, they remain in death until the day of resurrection comes when the Kingdom of God executes the actions for mankind pertaining to GodÂ’s purpose and will, among them being giving life to those in death, and with his chosen Christ, the dead are able to return to life, according to Isaiah, he makes mention of being in death and await the resurrection and he will rise and sing, he also speaks of the those in death, who will be made alive, those powerless in the earth will live again, referring to those in death as residence of dust (Isaiah 26:19), there is a large list of cross-references that pretty much amounts to what I said for this point also, for instance, Jesus, GodÂ’s chosen one, with authority and power being able to resurrect those in death, both the righteous and the unrighteous.

Death is the opposite of Life and Death itself is spoken of to be an enemy, for the Bible says Death is the last enemy that will be dealt with (1 Corinthians 15:26)

The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

We see in the Bible that it shows a promise, a day will come when death will be no more (Revelation 21:4). God gives us many gifts, but among them is of high importance and it is something that mankind most certainly needs – That is, the Christ.

We learn in the Bible, also this should be very much known, that God sent his Son, Jesus, the one prophesied to come, the Horn of Salvation, have an actual chance to escape death by means of living forever, and by sending his Son to earth, who later gave his own life in places of ours by ransom, God has proved by means of this, that he loves us, for it is by means of God’s grace through the sacrifice of his Son to which we have this chance.

• Matthew 20:28 - even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (see John 3:16, 1 John 4:9, 10)

 

Death is a ceasing of function for in death a dead man, a corpse cannot move, cannot communicate, cannot think or ponder to thought for the mind itself has perish (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalm 146:4). In a way, to some, death is like when someone turns off a light, the spirit of which gives us life, of which God put in us being that power that enables to light to laminate, without said power, the function is gone, or perhaps like batteries in a devices that goes out. Us humans are corruptible, we succumb to death and sickness and can and will eventually die, thus being negated to the opposite of life, death, thus perishing.

All under the sun, can work, can enjoy themselves, can do this or that, but a dead man cannot do anything at all, for down to Sheol he has gone, and to dust he returns. Then again, of my experience, there has been Satan followers who dwell in the domain of sorcery, such things it is good you never see at all oppose to those that do and God is not cool with sorcery.

Some churches out there of the mainstream teach that we are spirits, but in reality, we are humans, for as God puts in Genesis 2:7, we are dust – and to dust we shall return. Spirit is what makes dust alive and makes it a soul. We are not spirits, angels are spirits, not humans, and therefore we do not go to some afterlife upon death. The spirit of which gives us life goes back to God; it is not any of us. The Bible also makes it clear that other than us humans, animals also, originate from dust, is given life and can and will die, thus returning to dust and it’s life, it’s spirit goes back to God (Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20).

Spirit is what makes this dust alive, and of what that is called is the Soul. Soul in the Bible is a translation of the Hebraic word nephesh (??????? Strong’s 5315) and in the Greek, word psuché  or psyche (???? Strong’s 5590). The Hebrew word means a creature that breathes, in the Greek word: a living being (a being that [is] lives [living]). The Soul is the entire living being itself, not something inside that survives the death of the body , be it from man or beast.

 

But what can be assured is Death is not the be all end all of things. The dead are not conscious of anything, as stated, yet, the Bible teaches that God can awaken the dead as if from sleep and give them life again, an enable function oppose to a ceasing of function (Job 14:13-15). For those whom God resurrects, death is not the end of everything and we should not consider it to be the end, at the time, we shouldnÂ’t be making mention of anything connected to Immortal Soul Doctrine or Afterlife based doctrine, for that did not originate with the early church, the same goes for Limbo and Purgatory, as said before, we are human, we are not spirits, the yielding of out spirit of which gives life simply goes back to God, not us.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

Anyway none of what the claimant says shows that death means the person ceases to exist.

First Born out of the Dead. I am Alive forever and ever. Firstfruits of the New Creation.

If a man who wants to learn about who Jesus is and speak of these things, how would you explain when you make the claim Jesus never really died? How can you remain to claim when prophecy said otherwise?

You will also have those question the resurrection if atonement has never really been made when no death has occurred, therefore, putting of one to seek, to learn and to believe.

To say Jesus did not die for his body being the Temple and it being raised up, by God who made him Lord and Christ, you automatically defeat the purpose of why Jesus is said of to be these things, even showing a total disregard to a foretold prophecy of the Christ.

There is a reason as to why the New Covenant came into affect prior to the death of Jesus and his Resurrection, and, Lord behold, we fall back to Acts chapter 2 for perhaps the 14^th time. Jesus, who being first of the fruits, the first out of death to be raised and be of glory, now we see the others, who will join him when the time comes, Jesus spoke of this before with his disciples when it was spoken of them being with Jesus again, these same disciples, Matthias included, were among those present when they received the Holy Spirit, numbering up to 3,000 in Jerusalem.

In a simple sense, the opposite of Life, is Death

Life - the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. the existence of an individual human being or animal.

Death - the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism. the state of being dead. the permanent ending of vital processes in a cell or tissue.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

Now, I am being accused of ignoring what actually is not stated.

That is because you are ignoring, you made it obvious with the verses for 1 Peter, before it and after it. For instance John 14 and 16 of which you made mention of, several times now you make claim that the Holy Spirit is a Person, only to be met with the information of Greek Language Forms in regards to Masculine, Feminine, Neutered words, which defeats the purpose to claim of which you made. You stated before somewhere as to why the Holy Spirit is called a HE/HIM and alluding to the Holy Spirit itself being a person, but the reality of the situation is in Greek, we know the Spirit has been modified from neutered to neuter-masculine, this is elementary in Greek, and the very reason as to why your Greek was called into question to begin with, for even some of the information you made mention of before makes that same conclusion briefly.

So it is not common for some to point that out. You also factor in Paul, Peter and John, when their own testimony, in of itself, counters nearly several points you are trying to convey, the only thing that is not mentioned as yet is GodÂ’s own testimony which is seen in the Hebrew Old Testament, that alone is a pretty strong one and it is known by majority of Christendom, it would seem you are not among those who know of what that testimony even is.

That being said, it can be said you are ignoring things because you are repeating over and over some points you made on the other pages of this thread, example, when corrected about the gospel of John, you continue with the same passage, over and over and over, what did you expect? And every time, it what was said has been made known, and even of which that has been made known, you continue on to claim. You do not only do this here, but you have done it elsewhere also.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

I hold that nowhere in Scripture does it say “the Holy Spirit is a power” or “the Holy Spirit is the power of God”. Nowhere! Every passage where the idea the Holy Spirit is a power must be read in into them.

Once again, this has already been addressed, I have linked this information 3 times for you, and I will surely not do it a 4th time because it is literally in the last response made. But I suppose according to your belief, God clearly had someone else doing the creating for him in the Genesis Act of Creation instead of He himself.

The Bible makes it clear of how God's divine power is expressed, in operation, in to and or through things, outpouring, aiding his followers, etc.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

First one that I supposedly ignored, Zechariah 4:6 “He then said to me: ‘This is the word of Jehovah to Zerubbabel: ‘“Not by force, nor by power, but by my Spirit,” says Jehovah of armies.’”

The source, as well as the verse, in connection with Micah 3:8, is in connection; rather than describing the Holy Spirit as a distinct person or entity, the references to connecting the Holy Spirit to that of God’s divine power, moreover, I also mentioned by means of my source that Jewish scholars, examining the references to it in the Hebrew Old Testament, have never really defined the Holy Spirit as anything but the power of God, again, fact and true – granted if one sees the description and actual instances where that one Spirit, the Holy Spirit is used and or in action, a primary example is filling up and or those having the outpouring of the Spirit, other situation as to what is enabled to speak because of the Spirit and or they speak because of the Holy Spirit and say what needs to be said.

Other than that, Zechariah 4:6 was mention very briefly, but the context and cross-references of such verses as well as what we have from the Jews who do study these things, in application.

Which begs the question, are you even aware of what this verse entails and everything in connection with it since you did mention it?

Again, you express your view vs. what the bible teaches of what the Holy Spirit is.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

Now I don’t see in this passage where it says the Holy Spirit is a power, unless one reads that idea into the verse, in fact just substitute the word “Spirit” with the word “power” and you will see how absurd such an idea actually is!

Did you even check to see of both [A] The description of the Holy Spirit which was mention several times now and As to what was shown via repost link of which you have not even checked out? Or is it the norm for the common mainstreamer to put upon his own understanding that God is somehow limited as they usually do?

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

Next is Micah 3:8, again the idea must be read into the verse, in fact being filled “with power BY the Spirit” shows that “power’ and the “Spirit” are NOT synonymous.

Again you are adding on to the verse of your own interpretation sacrificing the context of which is presented.

At this point, it is just you pulling any verse that has spirit in it and trying to speak of the verse, without context, with the addition of your own opinion of said verse. I have you know even some of your own say differently of said verses compared to you.

This verse, in connection with Zechariah 4:6, was mention briefly and it is in application of what is address from the same source of information posted on page 23 of this thread to which I will link: 

 

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

2 Tim. 1:7 again is reading into the passage that “a spirit” is supposedly the “the Spirit”. Here “a spirit” is the proper temperament and character formed in Paul and Timothy. Simple test; “for God gave us a power not of fear but of power…” once again an absurd idea read into 2 Tim 1:7.

I believe I had spoken of this to you before and or someone else and I even stated cross-references allows one to pick up the full context of the verse in question.

You consider it as absurd because you fail to apply context and what we see here is you are applying the thinking of man, your thinking in regards to your own opinions rather than what the verse is all about, in addition to other verses in connection with this verse.

In short, you are just pointing to the word Spirit and applying things that are clearly not pertaining to the verse itself, thus proves my point you do not adhere to cross-references, of which came from a guy who brought up cross-references to begin with, but made the choice to and or ignorantly avoiding it, which was the case with 1 Peter chapter 1Â’s verse 3.

What was addressed of this verse can be seen here:

 

 

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

It is claimed Luke 4:14 “records” that Jesus “began His ministry in the power of the {power}” Once again this demonstrates the absurdity of the idea that is being read into the passage of Luke 4:14.

It is not a claim, Jesus had the outpouring of the Holy Spirit immediately upon Baptism at the river, with John the Baptist who not only bore witness to what took place, but his own testimony made acknowledgment to GodÂ’s chosen one, Jesus Christ, as well as making known of who the Holy One is, God the Father.

I will say it again; the Holy Spirit is associated with the power by which God the Father was with Jesus and the power through which Jesus Christ performed mighty miracles during His earthly – that is if you take into account anything that Simon Peter has to say and or even understand it. During his ministry and travels, He did the good works in regards to the ministry and helping, healing the people and those who were affected by Satan the Devil, example, people being possessed by Demons who are of Satan, since they have all connections to Heaven cut and unable to become men thus prompting them to dwell within humans, this should be a no brainer to anyone who reads the four gospel accounts, mainly Matthew and Mark. As with Jesus, the same can be said about those who are servants of God like Jesus and his disciples are, hence Apostle Paul and what he had addressed about the church.

So therefore, I will say it again, the Holy Spirit is associated with the power by which God the Father was with Jesus and the power through which Jesus Christ performed.

Also I believe I made mention of fact in regards to Luke 4:14 of which I will address again:

FACT: In the gospel of Luke, Luke 4:14, it records that Jesus Christ began His ministry in the power of the Spirit. Luke 1:35 identifies the Holy Spirit with the power that is of the Highest. Speaking of the Holy Spirit, which would be given to His followers after His death, Jesus told them, You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.

In the Gospel of Luke, Luke 4:14, it records that Jesus Christ began His ministry in the power of the Spirit.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

Next claim is that Luke 1:35 “identifies the Holy Spirit with the power that is of the Highest” Let’s note that this verse is NOT saying that the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the “power”, that idea must be read into the verse.

  And yet we see in the verse the as seen below,

• Luke 1:35 - And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you (A), and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy (B)—the Son of God [GodÂ’s Son] (C).

Current and Additional CR: [Mt. 1:18, 3:3, Mk. 1:24, Lk.1:32, 34, 36, Jn. 1:34, 1:49, 20:31]

[A] Matthew 1:18, 20

John 6:68, 69, Hebrews 7:26

[C] Mt. 14:33, John 1:32, 34, 20:31

The Holy Spirit that has overshadowed Mary, is the same Holy Spirit that resulted in her pregnancy, is the very power of God, Mary, as some hold to belief, has never had any sexual relations at all until after Jesus was born, hence the birth of JesusÂ’ siblings, to say that a person other than Joseph and or to say a spirit person was somehow involved is accursed teachings, such that is practice by some in the mainstream as of today. We already know that Mary didnÂ’t have sexual relations whatsoever based on what she said just in the previous verse:

• Luke 1:34 - And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin? [I have not had sexual relations with a man?"]” (see Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:24, 25)

Spirit Beings are not suppose to have relations of any kind in this manner with daughters of men, that in itself is totally illegal in GodÂ’s perspective, for we know of this because of what Angels did before which resulted in the superhuman-like giants known as Nephilim.

Now, we can clearly see when an Angel of God is sent (Shliah Principle) they tend to send a message and or explain what is to come and or happen, in this case, it was Gabriel who was sent, who went to visit Mary as soon as he was done with speaking to Zechariah, who lost his ability to speak.

Quote

 

[1] Note: According to what you addressed about Jesus talking to Spirits in Prison, of which I corrected you on, The Bible states that the disobedient fallen angels, called demons, are referred to as spirits in prison. These fallen angels are prisoners having been thrown into Tartarus and they remain there and are reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day of God, the very reason why the risen Jesus said what he said, pertaining to my last response. This somewhat indicate that they are greatly restricted, unable to materialize as they did prior to the Flood in NoahÂ’s day (1 Peter 3:19, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6), moreover, which is also another reason as to why demons, who cannot materialize bodies to resemble like men, as Angels do, therefore, they take control and or possession of humans, dwelling in them, only to be expelled and or cast out by Jesus Christ verbally and coming out they did, and it did not cause harm to those who were under control of these demons, even legions of them in one person.

[2] Note: Ever since the fallen ones lost their position, the being in presence of God, they have been become minions, followers of Satan the Devil, in addition, they now on the side of the Devil have served his evil agenda. Fast-forward into time, the demons have no longer had the power to materialize human bodies since not being in the presence of God and losing the ability to do so, for in Noah’s day they were forced out, de-materialize back into Spirit Being prior to being cast out of Heaven, but, they can entice men and women to engage in various forms of things, ranging from corruption, violence, sexual immortality, and a list of things. They can also deceive mankind via spiritism, to us islanders this is called Black Magic (Vodou) which involves such things as magic spells and spirit mediums (the talking to spirits, and or the dead, raising the dead, etc.), something of which is illegal in God’s prospective (Deuteronomy 18:10-13; 2 Chronicles 33:6)  and it is practice by people today, in some case, the sorcery of which they produce can be grime, be it influence and or manifested into something literal, resulting in many victims, if I am not mistake some Americans and even JWs have become victims, but Magic practitioners of such darkness tend to pick targets or one of those wrong place wrong time situations. The destiny of the wicked fallen ones, these demons, is the same as that of the Devil, judgment and eternal destruction (or everlasting destruction), to be brought to nothing; wiped from existed and or ceasing from the plain of existence, in simple English, deleted/purged. (Matthew 25:41, Revelations 20:10, 2 Thessalonians 1:9) The good news is, we can stand up to demons, resist them even as well as Satan himself. We have to be both aware and wise to consider how powerful Satan is and how we can successfully put forth a resistance against him and his demons.

 

 

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

FACT; Luke 1:35 is not saying “The Holy Spirit is the power of the Highest”.

Did you make this fact up yourself and or pulled this fact from a cited source? The facts I bring up are from an actual source as well as what the Bible states, but it would seem what you have addressed is unfounded. When I did look this up, this is what can be found, mind you, a few from a Trinitarian source:

• [1] Fact: the Bible clearly defines that the Holy Spirit is “the Power of the Highest” [or Power of God the Father]

And another:

• [2] Fact: Clearly the Holy Spirit is the power of the Highest

And another:

• [3] Fact: The Holy Spirit is ‘the power of the Highest

And another:

• [4] Fact: the Holy Spirit is spoken of in the Bible as being God's divine power.

And another:

• [5] Fact: The power of the Holy Spirit is the power of God.

And another:

• [6] Fact: The Power of the Most High as the Holy SpiritÂ… Whereby the Power of the Most High spoken of is made identical to the Holy Spirit

The list goes on.

It would seem it is only you who make this claim and no other source makes mention of this fact at all. Perhaps a note, for yourself of course, but clearly not fact which has no clear and or direct source of origin but your own.

Now, on the contrary, the context and cross-references, once again, defeats your own opinion of the verse. Not only that, it defeats the belief by majority in Christendom that the Virgin Mary, not having sexual relations with no man is ever so evident, for the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, as said by Gabriel, no secondary person was present – this was the same case with Zechariah losing his ability to speak.

Also I will state an actual fact of which I posed before, not a made up fact of which you attempt to profess here, but rather, just a note of yours - this fact for Luke 1:35 has been addressed above, and before, no need to bring it up again when it is located in this response now and or the link to the other response.

This fact is proven true, that is, if you actually took the time to study, research and read these kinds of passages, you are simply yielding upon your own understanding when you are not really addressing the context of the verse itself.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

In Romans 1:16 the Scriptures are called the power of God; “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation…” but everyone knows that they are not used interchangeably synonymous in this verse but are two distinct things: "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God." Matt. 22:29.

Romans 1 (16, 17) is The Righteous Shall Live by Faith, when outlined, it is Righteous one will live by faith (16, 17). Now, this passage tells us that the Apostle was not to be ashamed of the task of which he is doing, even to the likes of those in the world who clearly is against what is true, moreover, he cannot be ashamed of what he is doing which will so greatly benefit him.

The gospel that the Apostle preaches is that the objective of which God the Father Himself has set in motion, and the core object of which is the Salvation of all who put their faith in it, regardless of nation and or race a person of either sex and or age belongs to, etc. This can also be in connection with Acts 17:32 (see 1 Corinthians 1:23).

The objective and or agency is, indeed, The Power of God, of which is put forth by God himself, in this sense, the very tool of which He would move this in his favor, which is also in connection with what is read in the references of the Christ, those taking into what the Christ himself professed, which originated from God the Father, hence the purpose and will of God. Salvation, being the core object of the gospel, an open blessing from the Messianic Kingdom, given as a promised gift to mankind.

For the Apostle was not ashamed at all of what JesusÂ’ death and resurrection entails, in fact, he does everything in his power to profess such in application and to teach the gospel to others and what they, those who hear, will be rewarded, should they accept. That is why the cross-reference tells us that people will hear the message of what the gospel entails, but they will ignore it, but there will be those, regardless of who they are, will hear it and accept it.

Matthew 22:29 is in connection with Mark 12:24-27 (in-depth study additional cross-references Mt. 22:28, John 20:9, 1 Cor. 15:34), this verse is in no connection with Romans 1:16. Moreover, this verse sheds light on what GodÂ’s power is capable of doing in regards to those who are dead and or held powerless by means of death (those in death). Such ones, who are to be resurrected out of death, will be made anew, in a sense, like angels as the cross-references says. The dead will be restored to life by means of what GodÂ’s power is capable of and these persons, obviously, will have eternal life. They will not be able to suffer as they did as imperfect person, but now perfect when GodÂ’s purpose and will has been accomplished, those who were powerless to the earth will no longer feel pain, injury, sickness and or death, for death itself, will be the last enemy that will be dealt with once and for all.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

 The Scriptures were the source of the Jews doctrinal misunderstandings and God's power would raise all men from the dead at the second coming. To demand that Scriptures and God's power are interchangeably synonymous in Matt. 22:29 is just as wrong as claiming the Holy Spirit and power are interchangeably synonymous in Luke 1:35.

And yet we are to ignore examples such as Mary and Zechariah, both of whom having been visited by the Angel of God, Gabriel?

The main source of the Jews was the Hebrew Old Testament thus the origin of their belief just as the origin of Baptism itself. The very reason when most of them, Virgin Mary, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Joseph, Simeon, and even Jesus, recited, read, observed the Law, as well as reading and putting into application the Hebrew Old Testament, learning of the God of Israel, the very reason why Jesus often quotes what is written and the laws the Jews of his day followed, both the good and those who are bad, those few who were influenced by the Devil thus using the law in twisted application and to act out things of lawlessness. In Jesus’ case, among the Laws, is a Law of which one acknowledges he has a God that is his Father, thus excluding Jesus being God for this Law, this commandment, is affirming the One True God, which all the Jews learn about in the Old Testament of their God, who is the God of Israel.

The Jews, who do follow the Tanakh, specifically the Torah, which is the same case with the Samaritans to some degree, however, the Samaritans tend to hold to and or be more strict and applying of Deuteronomy, awaiting for the prophet of God to come, the one who is the Abrahamic Seed – the very reason why we see what is said in John’s Introductory (John chapter 1) and how it is a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18 and or what is seen in John chapter 4 regarding the conversation with the Samaritan woman and Jesus at the Well of Jacob, near the base of Mount Gerizim.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

Acts 1:8 is another text I supposedly ignored; again one must read into this passage the idea that ‘power” and “the Holy Spirit” are interchangeably synonymous when the two are not.

For starters, you have been avoiding Acts 1 and 2 since previous discussion regarding the word proskuneos. That being said, Acts 1:8 has been addressed clearly to you and you are clearly not taking the context of what the verse is telling the reader, the same way you are not taking into context in regards to Greek Language in regards to a normal and or modified word.

Other than that, as said before regarding this verse and anything and everything pertaining to this verse: God was with him, Jesus, especially during his ministry and the like via said power.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

As can be seen these verses, which I supposedly ignored, must have the idea that the Holy Spirit is a “power” read into them.

As can be seen, this verses have been explained before as well, including the very basics deemed elementary when it comes to the Greek Language and how a neutered word can be modified.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Cos said:

Nowhere in Scripture does it say “the Holy Spirit is a power” or “the Holy Spirit is the power of God” unless one reads that idea into a passage or text. <><

You have said this many times, but every time you speak of any verse and or what the Holy Spirit actually is and what it is capable of, you solely put into application of your own opinions, personal interpretation and the like, furthermore, you base some of what you say of Trinitarian commentary, even when one source itself defeated your own words when it comes to the what we see previously. As stated before, the early Church 2,000+ years ago knew exactly what the Holy Spirit is, and what it can do, the very reason I have made mention of both Acts 1 and 2 several times to which you are failing to actually see in context, for the proof of such can be seen here and elsewhere.

I suggest you start reading into context the verses presented several times for you already, see the cross-references for if I last recall, you brought this up and it would seem you are not even taking a look, after all, you are relying on a 1984 JW bible that holds your hand in this sense and if additional cross-references is needed, you can simply find them on Biblehub.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:09 AM, Cos said:

Here is another claim, “most translations incorrectly translate ekeinos as ‘He.’”

The NWT translation at John 2:21 has; “But he (Greek ekeinos) was talking about the temple of his body”.

And? 100% all Translations is using He/His for this verse, John 2:21, in regards to Jesus, an actual person. if I am not mistake @sami was not referring to this verse, but rather, any verse of which a neutered word has been modified. He/His used in John 2:21 in regards to Temple is already masculine, even the word Temple is masculine.

Again we see you trying to point a finger without understanding of what is being addressed, the very reason why previously, your Greek was called into question, and once again we see why it was to begin with.

On 7/21/2018 at 2:09 AM, Cos said:

If “spirit” [pneuma] means “an impersonal force” as claimed by sami, WHY then are actual persons also deemed pneuma in Scripture?

Spirit is a neutered word, it is only referred to as a HE/HIM because it was modified for the person speaking, Jesus in John 14-16 chapters. I told you this time and time again and you being called out for ignoring is 100% true.

Examples of where this is addressed: 

I was more in-depth in this response found here:

 

 

 

On 7/21/2018 at 2:09 AM, Cos said:

The only blatant departure from the rules is reading a false premise in to bible text and then constructing straw man arguments to try and maintain that false premise.<><

Why should @sami ignore the rules of which the Greek Language is spoken and or applied? It is not a false premise because among a brief source of which you had posted addressed the same thing. That is what I call being hypocritical of actual truth, Cos, therefore, it is safe to say your Greek is to be called into question and that question has been answered, you do not know the Greek Language forms in regards to neutered and modified words.

 

(Don't mind the bold, on edits it auto-bolds for some reason)

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

to escape your objection how i don't answer on your question. Yes i did read OT. :))

But then the remarks and responses that contradict the the claims to which this was brought up to being with. Read up on Original Sin (The Fall of Man), Genesis 3:1-6 (outlined 1 to 13)

Since it is evident you are quite the fan of Biblehub, I did you the favor of zeroing in on the passage of Original Sin: http://biblehub.com/esv/genesis/3.htm

By default it is ESV, but you can use whatever translation that floats your boat on the big blue sea.

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You have explained before how all bad in the human today is because we are imperfect. And that we are imperfect because of Sin (Adam and Eve) If we sinning because we are IMPERFECT, then Adam and Eve have made sin because they are PERFECT? Mr devil made also sin not as imperfect but as perfect son of God.

And still you want from  me, the imperfect man, to prove you all with a Bible? :))))     

You cannot put the blame on imperfection of what you have said before. I simply told you that imperfection was not because of money, of which you have stated, imperfection was the result of what took place at the Garden of Eden, the Original Sin, Ancestral Sin, hence the Fall of Man. It was not money that caused the imperfection, it was the sin committed when Satan influenced a woman who had free will, which in turn got the man involved, for this man loved the woman dearly.

Basic prospective (being brief as possible here): God made Adam, then Eve and God is most certainly happy. Adam and Eve live in Garden of Eden and they loved each other a lot. Came along Satan posing as a snake influence Eve to eat from Tree, Eve got fruit from Tree had Adam Eve. God showed up and Adam was nervous tried to cover himself up and in fear because he was said he was, after all in his birthday suit, naked, God uttered, who told you that were naked and from there he found how they ate from the tree and questioned Adam, who started to throw blame on Eve and they both got lectured and or talked to, the snake gets the short end of the stick because it got cursed because of Satan using the animal for his own design. From there God not only blocked the Tree of Life, but he kicked them out of Eden and said they are to cultivate the earth and they will grow old and die, from the earth they came, to the earth they return to, thus being able to experience death and or pain is in subjection with being imperfect. And from there we have God speaking of one to come that will pretty much put his heel on the head of the snake and years upon years upon years later, the one who comes in the name of God the Father, is born to Virgin Mary an this one is the Horn of Salvation, and we know how the passages goes from there.

Adam and Eve didn't make since, they were originally sinless, perfect they were not subjected to aging and or dying. It was only have disobeying and eating from the Tree of Knowledge, because God did say what would take place should they eat from it, for he could have wiped out Adam and Eve, but he did not, therefore he set in motion for the coming of the Prophet who will speak his Word, the one who is the Seed, this man, who became flesh, Christ Jesus.

Jesus Christ is not imperfect, he is sinless and pure, you have any idea what that relates to? Jesus was conceived by means of the Holy Spirit, read the four gospel accounts, Luke 1 for instance.

Well granted you said that the bible makes indication that money is a product of Satan when it is not, and later on you say something along the lines that money is the reason of man's sin, when it is imperfection in conjunction with Free Will. Give or take.

Yes we are imperfect, but you can't blame imperfection on what you have addressed, that is like someone blaming and or complain about lag when it is not lag at all, just that the person is wildly in error and or inexperienced because he does not want to be painted as a loser.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You explain already how satan making influence on imperfect, sinful human. What else need explanation. Who influenced Widow, how should i know, because no bible verse, as to my knowledge, giving direct answer on this question. I am sure that you would know Bible verse if such exist.

But then you make the acknowledgment that Satan the Devil is behind the money. Surely the Widow was not of Satan, nor was Peter since they had money. Perhaps.... The fish? Now that be a tricky one, all jokes aside, good and bad people use money, simple as that.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Jesus made commentary on Widow act of putting all money she have. He not made any comment on why she put all her money. Jesus only established few facts; - that she is very poor and how other people who donate were very rich, and by his opinion she gave more then rich people because she gave all she had, and as result she had done, she had no money for food or drink.

Jesus was a born Jew, he knows why money is donated out of Free Will offering to the Temple of Jerusalem, he praised the Widow, I even made comment to that when I explained the verses, of which you yourself stated has nothing to do with Jesus or his Disciples before and the fact you do not see what is being expressed in the verse, and suddenly The Widow's Mite is known? But still you fail to see the lesson and or make application if it.

What you have put in bold pretty much proved my point as to what I had said before, I also mention how this is a foreshadowing. Thank you for actually agreeing with what I stated when before you were seen to be confused and unaware of what why I mentioned those verses.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Bible text said nothing that Jesus recommended such acting to his disciples and how all who follow Jesus teachings today must doing the same - to give last penny to Church.  - my answer :)) ------ or maybe i do not see  full context :))))

And yet the verse you agree with and what was presented in detail says otherwise. Clearly there is a reason as to why The Temple of Jerusalem exists today, what else you think kept it from becoming ruins?

 

Video of the Old City Today:

 

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.

Alas poor Srecko Sostar, this was already mention, and your other response can be seen when this was brought up:

Quote

 

You stated the following: I do not see here that Jesus support economic and money system of Jew, Greek or Roman people. He was not willing to support that.

You said this because of this: FACT: Jesus taught that a legitimate use of money is to support the Lord's work (The Great Commission) through the religious institutions the Lord established, the early Church/Christians (Matthew 23:23?; Mark 12:41-44?; Luke 8:1-3?).

The response: That is because you truly do not understand what is being said, I chose this fact specifically which includes those verses.Context is key, understanding of passages is crucial.

 

Mark 12:41-44 – In this passage, Jesus is located, specifically, at the Temple of Jerusalem, the same Temple as to where he was speaking with and teaching the people. But the focus will be on this passage (which is also equal to the Luke’s witnesses as seen in the Gospel of Luke 21:1-4), the passages are identified as The Widow’s Mite (The Widow's Offering).

Jesus himself goes to where they make offerings, donations of money to the Temple (Temple of Jerusalem) as to what he sat next down to was the Treasury Chest/Boxes (also known as Treasury Chambers), and there we see a widow making an offering to which Jesus gave her praise because she has donated as seen in verse 42, that what the widow has donated is far larger than the donations made by the rich and we can see the continuation of Jesus’ response in verses 43 and 44. The Widow gives two lepta, copper coins, the smallest amount at that time. Jesus contrasts her offering as the greater sacrifice because it is all she had, as opposed to the rich persons who only gave what was convenient. Her total sacrifice foreshadows Jesus' total sacrifice of his life via crucifixion. We also find out that Jesus even makes a response to those who speak of how expensive the Temple looks, granted of what was integrated within the vast temple itself , he also makes mention that a day will come where the temple itself, if reading the passage in the gospel of Luke (referencing Luke 19:44). Those who spoke of how expensive the temple was then questioned him, and here we see Jesus speak of what is to happen, what is to come.

I am sure you are aware of what the First Temple, the Second Temple and the Third Temple is, as well as Jesus equaling such to the of another Temple – His body, The Body of Christ.

The Temple of Jerusalem had Treasury Chests. In the ancient history of the Jews, it is said say that these chests and boxes, or receptacles (Treasury Chambers), were in the shape of and/or like horns or trumpets with small openings at the top of it. People donated various donations in them, pieces of coin, copper, etc.. The total amount of Treasury boxes found in such Temples amount to 13 around the walls of the court itself. Among the 13, it’s believed that the temple contained a primary treasury chest/box where the money donations from all other the treasury chests was brought, being placed in the primary one. Granted on how big the Temple of Jerusalem was, it is no surprise that they would have this many. It is very obvious as to what they use the money for, to care for the temple itself, its people, feeding the poor and put into work of the gospel is being spread on to the people, for those who teach travel and do not travel empty handed. It should also occur to us that Jesus never hinted at His needs. Money that was given to Jesus and His disciples was held for the purposes already made known in the last sentence.

 

 

 

You tell me, you didn't understand what was said, and now you are showing a bit of understanding of what I have been talking about.

19 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Is there some Bible report about how Jesus and apostles doing the same, giving donation money in temple box? 

YouÂ’ve made only a quote to verse 42, so how does that help your resolve? The WidowÂ’s Mite passage is in regards to those making contributions to the Temple of Jerusalem, for Jesus gave praise to her because what she donated to be greater than that of the wealthy, furthermore, The Temple itself is the main base of operation of Jesus and his Disciples at the time. If you have forgotten I stated several passages in regards to JesusÂ’ working regards to the gospel, hence why I made brief summary of each passage as well as making known of a passage you refuse to make acknowledgment of in terms of context. If you have not noticed, I spoke of the passage in full to which you thought at verse met nothing.

Jesus and his Disciples not only had replacement sandals at the time, they had knapsacks, such as food pouches and moneybags, for in some of their travels such was necessary because traveling on foot is a daunting task, granted if you are aware of the amount of time it takes from point A to B, city to city, village to village, etc.

It is also mentioned, as in my previous comment of Temple Tax, which is something totally different from making free will offerings via treasury chest, which amounts to not even you being able to understand the passage, hence not making the application. In the early days of JesusÂ’ ministry, there were religious leaders that were testing Jesus, not realizing who he is and they knew Simon PeterÂ’s affiliation with him, and we see the lesson of that passage that God provides, which resulted in payment of both Peter and Jesus, despite the fact that Jesus, who is of the FatherÂ’s House, being exempt. You also fail to see that Simon Peter was the earliest of JesusÂ’ Disciples.

Lastly, I would mention the whole passage about Judas, despite him being a thief, Jesus gave him a moneybag to watch over and we know what took place from there. This I will address somewhere below in full colored text.

That being said, the main source of their moneybag derive from the Temples and Synagogues that has well over a dozen treasury chests and a main one where all funds are put into, said money is used for the Temple, for the community of said Temple, to feed the poor, to provide for the ministry, and a list of other things. Other things, however, were given out of hospitality and the like.

I really do not see what you are not getting and or not understanding.

How else you think they were being kept up in the ministry? How do you think they fed the poor and helped them? How do you think they maintained the Temple upon a list of other things? Surely the Treasury Chest/Boxes were not for show, mainly with how big the Temple was and how many boxes were present in the walls of the Temple.

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

.... and now back to "money issue"

Back to money issue? I concur, friend, if you have forgotten, this topic is of several things, Rick Fearon and the conspiracy crowd, Pearl, Trust and Funds in regards to money use and handling, misapplication of scripture to use against people and make claim to them being owner of something when in reality they are merely beneficiaries.

We only dwell into secondary things because of you bringing up things that leads into something else, i.e. Glasgow of which you made claim to and believe only to be proven as a lie, in fact, the video you posted (your post has been saved) defeats your own claim. You bring up Business Number lists as prove of something only to result in being known as a Registry of both education, financial and or religious institutions, you make claim as this is prove of something, but it is not and merely a registry and solely based in Australia.

Granted I used to work with Registry based frameworks before, I can spot this without really making much of an effort.

But anything to get me to response, yeah?

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

with your upper thoughts as light that bring clarification to me.  

My upper thoughts as light? You couldnÂ’t even make any proof of such is of my own thoughts being integrated into what I say when everything said and expressed is of the Bible and nothing but, in addition to Christian history, manuscripts, the Greek/Hebrew language, etc. and outside of that actual fact based on careful research and or anything my sources have professed, should a situation that calls for it, in this case, it is solely the Bible and history of the Jews in addition to information about funds/trusts pertaining to the original argument in conversation with you.

The only time I raised my own concern, twice actually, was when I was discussing with Mr. Butler on this forum a while back in order to ease the situation and bring forth comfort based on my current experience in the matter and it was only that time, but that didn’t turn out so well because the person in question started to make accusations of someone else and it led to two threads with such being expressed, so what you are addressing – is unfounded.

The other time was in regards to Textual Criticism, hence by view of the KJV bible being a negative one and the fact that some out there consider the uninspired as inspired, regardless of who they are, it should be called out, at least one time someone tried to use a typo against me, granted I am a fast-typer and tend not to overlook what I write at times, attempted to make a claim I believe the KJV is 100% true when even before that I was being strict with Textual Criticism, even towards Allen when he mentioned the long version of a specific gospel, let alone nearly 2 decades of being against uninspired text and errors made in the KJV, the very reason I got into Hebrew and Greek to begin with. Moreover, I have given you quite the information on several occasions and even here, but you clearly do not make the application, even when said information originates from manuscripts of the Hebrew Text of which you yourself were not really accepting of it at first.

That being said, I told you this before, and like your other claims – such remains to be seen and what has been seen, as of recently, has been deleted, purposely, for if it had not been mention, such would have remained.

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Money is product due to our inheritance of Sin...

You continue to make the claim that money is a product due to inheritance of sin, so where in the bible does it indicates as such when we inherited sin the day Adam and Eve disobeyed and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden? Mind you, money in its earliest stages was the bartering system, trading of goods and resources in number, value, greater, lesser, so you cannot leave that out either, but maintain a focus to solely the successor of the system itself when they are technically two identical fruits of the same tree.

Now, as I have stated, but you keep egging on your own view of money that is a currency used and not what the bible speaks of money itself. That is where you are incorrect, thus the reason as to why I called your response as incorrect.

Money is not the sole cause of men to dwell in imperfection and or the cause of it, the fact that you make that remark just shows you clearly not understand properly what the Bible teaches on such a matter, you clearly do not take into account the events that took place in the Garden of Eden, hence your confusion in this domain shows just as clearly just as oneÂ’s reflect on a mirror.

Man has become imperfect due to sin (The Original Sin) and it is a result because of Adam and EveÂ’s disobedience, for originally, both Adam and then Eve were perfect and sinless prior to the original, Ancestral Sin, they didnÂ’t become imperfect due to the second money becoming a currency (money and or the bartering system didnÂ’t come into play until afterwards) because all they had was the Garden of Eden of which they had cultivated and lived in, the free will to dwell in parts of Eden, and later on, they, now imperfect, dwell outside of Eden until they grew old and eventually perished, all the children that Adam and Eve gave life to, all of them inherited sin from their parents, all the way down to this day, to you, to me, and to all here, born sinners, and due to free will, some use said free will to do bad intent with whatever means open to them, hence why I made an accurate response to people who become lovers of money instead of God as well as those who are of God who do good.

So in short:

• How did we become imperfect? Original Ancestral Sin in the days of Adam and Eve.
• How do we inherit imperfection? Our first parents were Adam and Eve who had already been kicked out of Eden.
• Who caused them to sin? Satan the Devil who spoke by means of a snake found in the Garden.
• How did they sin? Satan the Devil, as the snake, influenced Eve when she was alone, he influenced her by means of deception to have a desire to eat from the Tree of Knowledge (The Tree of Good and Bad), which was in the Garden itself, he even told her she will be like God if she ate from it, knowing good and bad, and we all know what took place from there.
• Why they were not supposed to eat from the Tree? Because God made such known, and should fruit be taken to eat from said tree, they will surely die. Death is of imperfection because incorruptibility is not corruptibility, hence why man is mortal and succumb to and to taste death.

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Money is product because man dwell in imperfection   and the cause for man to dwell in imperfection was Satan the Devil

Money is product because Satan can influence man to do things that is not of any good?

Well who standing in the background, behind of human who do things that is not of any good?

So by your logic, since I am following:

• Did money influence man to build the Temple of Jerusalem where Jesus and the others had as a base of operation, only later on for 3,000 persons in said temple built due to money to have the outpouring of the Holy Spirit?
• Was Jesus influenced when he gave out moneybags to even the likes of Judas?
• Was the Widow influenced when she contributed a small amount of coins vs. all the wealthy persons in to the Temple of Jerusalem, which was only built by means of money because it was said to be very expensive looking?
• And why would Jesus himself be in the Temple to begin with, sitting near the treasury chest, if the money use to build the temple was a product of Satan and or Jesus giving praise to a Widow?
• What of the Temple Tax verse (Matthew 17:27) that you appear to show application for, there was a coin in the mouth of a fish, if money was a product of Satan, why would Peter and Jesus use that to pay Temple Tax knowing that money is the root of, as you claim, imperfection?
• Moreover, why even use that passage and make it a verse of which you abide by when you are clearly contradicting yourself by saying the opposite?

See how that sounds? That sounds silly and it just shows you are still dwelling in utter confusion and or just ignoring the truth itself in this domain.

But according to you, everything is a product of Satan, but for some odd reason the Internet you are using is somehow not a product of Satan. Unless you have some unknown biblical indication as to why money is only of Satan but the Internet itself is excluded, which costs money to both use and operate. Hence I consider such to be hypocritical of your last response vs. your other one:

The fact you mention the Temple Tax verse and I quote: This verse "proving" my view and understanding on Jesus act: -------------- “But so that we may not offend them, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish you catch. When you open its mouth, you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for you” and Me.??

 

You clearly said money is a product of Satan and yet you see here how the Temple Tax was taken care of to, no pun indented; get Peter and Jesus off-the-hook, so to speak. What is the sudden difference between this coin and other coin(s) used when both are a source of currency?

All that aside,

Imperfection didnÂ’t begin when money came into the world (granted it is wise to consider what money was made out of, which came of the earth itself), it was the original sin that caused imperfection and coupled with our free will, Satan was/is able to exploit people and or influence them once he is able to get his hands on them. An example would be like Judas Iscariot:

Quote

 

Jesus in fact, gave him a moneybag (John 13:29), but unlike the others, Judas was known to be a thief (John 12:6). Judas, after getting rebuked by Jesus, he was later influenced by Satan, for the Devil had entered into him (Luke 22:3) and Jesus was already knew that down the road, one of the 12 is going to betray him, and it turned out to be Judas – obviously (John 13:18-30, see Ps. 41:1-13, Mt. 26:17-25, Mk. 14:12-21, Lk. 22:7-13). It is also known Judas, one of the 12 at the time was also a slanderer (John 6:70) and makes bargains with those who are clearly enemies of Jesus, even those who seek to kill him. So clearly the disciples benefited from money bags, all of them are not bad expect one who is considered to be a thief, granted that we know where the money came from, and only one among them is clearly a lover of money for the very reason he didn’t really care about teachings and helping the poor, only cared about getting a few pieces of coin from the moneybag the group was in possession of, for instance, Judas sold out Jesus for a couple pieces of silver and went on his way and eventually committed suicide. Prior to his suicide, on the day of Jesus’ arrest, Judas arrived by leading a large mob armed with weapons. He knew where to find Jesus because they had often gone to the Garden of Gethsemane, customarily visited by all of them occasionally. Judas had told the soldiers that he would identify Jesus for them also and he went up to Jesus greeted and kissed him and from there he went on his own way and Jesus had been taken.

Later on, being regretful after learning about the crucifixion, the same pieces of silver Judas received in compromising Jesus' location, which lead to his arrest, later on to his death, Judas tried to return said money; donated the silver to the Temple but was stopped because the pieces of silver was consider the price of blood, since said money was give by those who contributed to JesusÂ’ capture and eventual death, from there, Judas went on to commit suicide, killing himself via hanging, but the rest is a bit more graphic for it is said his insides and or internal intestines gusted out, for he did use a rope, but it would seem the branch of the tree on which Judas hanged himself was not able to hold the dead weight, therefore it snapped, and what we read in Acts is of what happened (Mt. 27:5 and Acts 1:18). The blood money itself was in contribution to Akeldama (The Field of Blood), the Aramaic name for a place in Jerusalem associated with Judas Iscariot, for it was a place to bury the dead who are deemed foreigners, paid for by religious leaders with the inclusion of the same pieces of silver Judas had before his suicide.

 

With that explanation out of the way money is used by both the good and the bad, money does not influence all men to do bad and or is the root of imperfection, for instance, you accept the situation with Peter and Jesus, they technically used money to cover Temple Tax, it does not make the both of them automatically evil when by the law the tax was paid, Jesus himself was not only exempt because it is His FatherÂ’s House, but Jesus was a born Jew, clearly above the age of 20. And it is obvious that Satan was not behind them when the money taken and used and I doubt Satan was behind the fish in the first place that just so happens to end up on a hook out of mere coincidence.

Satan can influence those with greed and or given into such, as well as corruption, again, the same case with Judas for we know he is a thief and didn’t really care for the poor, nor did he care for the ministry and or anything connected to Jesus, all he cared about was the money – therefore, Judas being a lover of money, and we know Satan entered Judas only after the fact Jesus rebuked him. For the other 11 took money to do good while only him, Judas, took the money for himself.

This applies to us in the modern day:

Quote

 

For example: You and I are working with the likes of some man in a corporate facility; let’s say we work for Amazon in the financial and banking branch. The both of us can be doing our jobs well to earn to provide for each of our families, but the other guy in our branch is not only working with us, but he is involved in money gaining schemes and use said money for lawless and brazen conduct of which we have no clue of because he is two-faced, living a double life, this man is driven by greed and his desire for gain more money because he is a lover of money, and with said money who knows what this man can do with it, he can be into drugs, he can be into the market of selling illegal things, service from sex workers, he can be contributing money into gambling and or racketeering schemes, perhaps he could have paid a someone, or the likes of a hit-man to do some misdeeds,  the list goes on, at the same time all 3 of us earn money from the same company, only you and me use said money to provided for our families while the other is using money to dwell in misdeeds and lawless acts, unrighteous riches.

• Am I influenced by Satan because I use money to care for my family and myself?
• Are you influenced by Satan because you use money to take care of your family and yourself?
• Or is it the other guy who influenced by Satan because he uses money for the most vile and craziest things?

 

We are all born sinners, yes, we all have free will, understandable, we are all also imperfect, for last I check, there isnÂ’t a human alive who I exempt from injury and death.

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Well who stand in the background, behind  of money??

:))

Nobody is standing behind money, lawless acts regarding money is only done by those who have the intent to do bad with said money and do bad to obtain it, hence my response on influence and those being lovers of money.

I told you already, if money is a product of Satan, where in the Bible does it say that? You refuse to answer this for a number of times now and as predicted you will make claim to such again without merit. If it is a product of Satan, why are people seen using it mainly those who follow the teachings, mainly those who are in application of the church Jesus built more than 2,000 years ago are doing? You refuse to answer that also.

We can remove money from the world 100% but now you have the predecessor, The Bartering System which is a form of trading products and or goods, you never made response as to such if that was also removed since it has connect to currency use. What of it then, Srecko? Clearly without such there would be utter chaos and worldwide thievery at a grand scale, for if we cannot get something for it is someone else, it will be stolen and simple to the most grime situations will unfolded due to such. I am pretty sure a thief will not come to you and ask you nicely he is going to take your livestock, he will take it by force, even if it means cutting you down, and since there is no money or bartering, you might end up in a similar situation yourself, hence term, dog eat dog is quite fitting in such a situation, and even to this day there is an area in this world, I will give you a hint, it is a Hispanic country as to which currency from an online fantasy video game has even surpassed them for it is that bad there and the only dollar there is literally used as toilet paper. Why is this so? Corrupt men who run the country.

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Dear SM no one is neutral  , even if you consider self as neutral, at specific moment of situation you will put yourself on some side, actively or passively.

On the contrary, there are many, many people who are neutral, including me, always have been since I left the islands as a child, and I know of others due to my experience, mainly to places I have been and traveled to. Neutrality in a sense to not falsely accuse and or make some false accusation that holds no proof, hence my response on this topic and as to others in addition to other things. I can make a distinction of who is of Babylon and who is not based on mainstream vs. actual Christendom itself, and those who make the attempt to and or strive to follow actual Christianity compared to those who are too relaxed, lukewarm, ignorant, confused, new aged, or not even making an attempt.

I do not pick sides, though, I speak up when someone speaks of conspiracy and or misconceptions of a belief and or practice, and the main thing I am usually against is those that consider the uninspired and heresy to be true, when in reality it is not as well as the primary core of mainstream Christianity itself which is not biblical – The Trinity. The refutation and fight against the Trinity has increased since mid 2015 and onward, look at the percentage of mainstream Christianity now around the world, people are starting to see who God really is and not what mainstream Christians are teaching of who God is.

If you are forgetting, you were considering the Glasgow incident as legitimate proof, and I, analyzing the information pointed out your so called proof was indeed false, and perhaps you only removed said comment so it would not be mentioned again, no worries, I have the quote here:

Srecko Sostar Quote - July 17th, 2018

Quote

video reveal JWorg in sport and business events, Glasgow 2014. OR UK TV news  REPORTERS WERE LIE?

 

 Among some Scottish Products :))) is JWorg

 

How many JW rank and files surfed on you-tube, in 2014 and after, to find out what was been actual in 2014, and be in time with activities of their religion? 

 

 

The December 9, 2017 post of which you pulled your own information from makes the claim that:

Srecko Sostar Quote - December 9th, 2017

Quote

JWorg attracted thousands of people and millions of pounds to Scotland on XX Commonwealth Games, Glasgow 2014

You believed this is 100% truth and was duped into this belief, thus claiming it to be true by both comments made by you, you make mention of it a year later, 3 days ago in fact to me, but when actual true is spoken and revealed the fact that you didn't pay attention to what the video had said, thus making you the type of person to believe a lie without even doing the research, mainly as to if said lie was sold to you because it looked that good, that is eating fruit from a tainted fig tree, my friend. And the result?

Srecko Sostar Quote - July 18th, 2018

Quote

thanks for info. For that reason i was deleted my post.

It was both posts (2 not 1) that was deleted and I do not suppose it would have been removed if I never went into full, typical Space Merchant strict detail with all of words boring teacher mode, on the matter. This shows that you are willing to even make acknowledgement of what is true and what is not true when corrected, and this time, it didn't take the rank and file of JW, as you made mention of, to point that out for you, granted all comments of true was wiped out by the person who posted the video and misguided people.

I called you out and we can see the mention of Glasgow is deleted here and it the December post in early 2017, the 9th, you also deleted at the same time, but it would seem you got rid of the other one before the recent one, hence the information I was able to pull, the proof is here:

So if you say JWs got money from a sporting event and think it is the true, why should I remain in silence about this claim you made by bringing up the truth to begin with? You cannot give say something is apple pie only for the person to bite into the pie and realize it is peach, they will call you out on the mix up of which you bring forth claim to.

You seriously think someone would sit back and accept this lie? Clearly things like this do not sit well with me of course, I will speak up. Not only you deleted the post here, but you went as far back to December 2017 to remove the thread itself, even thought I never made mention of it under after the fact; you made claim about the faith gaining thousands of dollars from sporting events, when that information is untrue, and even the video itself is further proof of both you and the poster of the video being false about the information when the Watchtower was only in Glasgow for a Convention (There is proof of this too), nearly 2 weeks AFTER to use the SSE Hydro, the same place the sporting events took place way before the gathering of the faith even took place. So of course, I will speak of the truth and nothing that, as well as rooting out the truth from conspiracy, untruths and misconceptions.

So it is not a matter of taking sides, for I can agree with a man who says God is One, but I cannot agree with a man who says Jesus is God, therefore, the unlearning of lies must take place. I can agree with a woman who speaks about a passage and make application of scripture, but I do not agree with her when she makes an application that does not connect with someone and or it is used to target someone or something. If I am not mistaken, you yourself took a side and in believing the information of Glasgow to be true, even making mention to money earn by the faith when said money never existed and or was made known, that information didn’t exist, the true to the lie you believed in prompted you to go back in time to erase any traces of it, but my friend, this information is immortalized (the thread cannot be seen by anyone because of your action, but the quote I saved from you and what Admin can see is enough proof to the untrue claims you made - then again, you fell for conspiracy from the get-go and changed your mind instantly over night when corrected), just as those who also called this out only to have their comments removed by the poster of that video, as well as removing traces of the actual bbc uk news lengthier version of the video. This also goes for your Registry links which turn out to only defeat the purpose of which you attempted to represent to claim. The truth itself has been revealed, and there is no question you made the application to be proven wrong on the Glasgow situation.

I also found the actual video of Jehovah’s Witnesses using SSE Hydro, nearly two weeks after the sporting event, the same venue used by the Commonwealth Games about weeks before (the date of which the convention was held, before was a wild shooting in the dark but the date I got correct) You tell me as to where the profit from sporting event is coming from, and or what you have said back in December" JWorg attracted thousands of people and millions of pounds to Scotland on XX Commonwealth Games, Glasgow 2014"

As for the original subject at hand, Witness brings up things in regards to Rick Fearon, to which I made the call out that Rick Fearon is considered both false and a fraud, not only by former JWS, but others, even atheist and for a list of reasons this can be said, even to the point I repost information from Rick Fearon Supporters themselves. Onward, Witness bring up information to make it seem the Watchtower is the one and true owner of the several companies and Trust funds, I did the research and found out that most if not all turned out to be conspiracy and or a hoax, even said by former members of the faith, moreover, found out and gave information, from the source itself, that the faith is not an owner, but a beneficiary, from an investors standpoint of said information I gave you the information also, even the investor website links and quote but you ignored it.

We can speak on their belief all day if you’d like, clearly there would have to be another topic for that or that of Bible Discussion, but to say of them that they own this or that and there is no proof, it should be expected someone to say something when they make the research, after all, that large quote came from a former JW, who knows everything about funds, yielding on his information what did you expect the outcome to be? According to a former JW who spent his time looking into this issue – He wants to settle this whole trust fund thing once and for all, and of which he successfully did with each point made. The same way a few people brought up the tax return vs. tax by means of charitable trust.

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

My need is in that because i see you read a lot and think a lot. So, as you are man of a book and deep thinking it is quite normal how you might have conclusions and can describe WTJWorg in light of your understanding of what Bible say on religious institutions around the World. Question is not complicated and you are able, because of your great knowledge on issue, to give respond on such ask.

Granted that I spent most of my time reading and studying as a child rather than waste time in from of a TV and spend hours upon hours upon games like Super Mario Bros. and Final Fantasy. When it came to the Bible, it was in strict application to the point by the age of 5, reading the Bible for hours, meditation, research, application and examples, etc. The first Bible I was ever given was The American Standard Bible, in both English and French, and in those days it is very uncommon for a child who has not even hit the age of 6 yet, who is of color and an islander, to have such knowledge in reading, as well as biblical knowledge at that age. I was able to recite passages from memory and or have an outline in my mind of what verse and or passage is saying, eventually even learning both Greek and Hebrew, again due to what I had learned about the KJV, on a basic level, aside from English, Spanish, French, and Creole, later on, being a bit more intermediate, perhaps high when excelled in Greek and Hebrew, therefore, knowing a total of 6 languages. Another thing about me is at first I didnÂ’t believe Jesus pre-existence until after I read the whole Bible for the first time, for originally I was a Unitarian that didnÂ’t believe in pre-existence, but application of context of the Bible and learning the actual Christology changed that. And ever since then to now, I have read the bible from Genesis to Revelations several times now, for the Bible says to read the word day and night and to not cease in doing so, even if it is just a verse, I was always told, at least I take something of the word and mediate on it for that day, this goes for doing something for God also, for even a second we cannot get back so everyday something for God has to be done, whether it is a minor and or major thing, big or small, but what is done is for God on that day for a day we cannot take back once it is gone, an hour, a minute, second, even a millisecond, so I do take biblical things very seriously and base application in response of the scripture and historical fact in terms of Christianity and eventually took part in the CSE community and many branches to said community, to which I was a total newbie there until eventually I wised up to what I am now in a space that is trying to learn what the Church had taught as well as history among other things. Over my studies, I was also introduced to Judaism and Islam as well, despite my sole belief of originate is actual Christianity, oppose to the mainstream Christianity, which is largely followed by those in the United Sates. I myself have also confronted and befriended members of Judaism, Islam, and even JehovahÂ’s Witnesses. Some Trinity believers are friends of mine, even then I teach them of how the Trinity is not biblical. I even met those who have no idea what a Bible is and people who met such ones overseas, those of other kinds of authority. So I have quoted the portfolio.

As for my conclusions about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, as I stated before, I know of them because I did study about Restorationism, denominations who practice as such, as well as Non-Trinitarianism. The discussion of this thread is whether the Watchtower is actually of what Rick Fearon says they are, one of his primary  things his supporters bring up is that they deny Jesus, which is false. His audience believes that Jehovah’s Witnesses stash weapons under their churches and even their main facilities, weapons to be used when the end times conclude, but this information is unfounded for a number of reasons, JWs are not known to carry out Christian Terrorism that resembles the likes of Radicalized Islam (in comparison to the likes of Christian Militants, The Westboro Church, The Ku Klux Klan, The Crusaders, and actual religious Extremist, etc.) It is also spoken of that followers of Fearon will state that The Watchtower had sent boxes of poisons to each and every JW church so that the JWs of the church are to consume it in secret, to add more fuel to the fire, JW opponents believed this to be true and even made conspiracy and other forms of media about such, comparing this unfounded belief coming from Fearon supporters to be true who compare the actions that all JWs will be forced to a commit mass-suicide by means of poisoning equaling it to the Jim Jones situation of the 1970s whereas Jones subsequently committed a mass murder-suicide of 918 followers, 304 of whom were children, almost all by cyanide poisoning by means of Flavor Aid, this prompted the saying drinking the Kool-Aid. For someone to believe that, to make such a comparison and make it truth just shows that it is nonsense and total conspiracy. No one is going to believe JWs harbor weapons that their religious leaders teach them to kill those who do not believe since they are not part of the military and or take affiliation, perhaps members who join are either former military and or about to leave the service of the military. No one is going to believe JWs will drink poison on a day of great tribulation by means of the end times and or use against those who do not believe what they believe and or spreading interfaith beliefs. We can go as far back as to the pastor of Bible Students, no one is going to believe he is a Freemason and or included by them when no Masonry Registry even shows his information, tenet and or Lodge information as well as status, not even current Masons consider him to be one of them, and a source, 2 in fact, who had studied the matter for more than 60+ years also say the same thing. So that is why I draw conclusions to fact, only one side is stating such conspiracy without proof, the other side provides proof that counters conspiracy.

In a sense, for example,

Quote

it is like I can say and speak of you and say you were the one who murdered an unarmed teen of color, and get people to believe it because on that day you were present in the vicinity. I make the claim based off of what I gather, but there are others who will come in your defense to speak against me, to bring up actual information and fact in your defense vs. me and everyone who believes what I say and when in the face of judgment, you and your followers will do everything in your power to prove innocent and reveal actual truths as to where by true of which I follow and my followers follow is to put you in the electric chair and or observe you getting a lethal injection.

This is why I do the research and get my conclusions based on facts and nothing but the facts. This is the same with what Witness brought up in his list whereas most turns out to be conspiracy and or a hoax and reveal that the Riley Trust owner is not the Watchtower, Rand is not of the Watchtower either because the Watchtower does not harbor Navy based contracts, and all others listed turns out to be false.

That being said, no man with a straight face and not a drop of sweat on his brow, would make claim that the Watchtower owns a company and is in support of selling and buying by means of stocks and bonds of WomenÂ’s Lingerie, as JW opponents did make the claim among the list that the Watchtower is involved with stocks and bonds of VictoriaÂ’s Secret as with others, proven to be unfounded. That claim, in of itself, is as absurd as saying pigs can fly, claiming such as truth. Therefore, people will say things, and expect a response. It is one thing to speak on how they do things, but to bring up conspiracy that holds no truth to it, a call out to those who make false claim will be met with a response.

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I can not answer on all your question because i might do not know answer, (or my answer can be wrong, but what? Next day my answer can be right, heheehe) in this moment.

I only asked you a few questions, a primary one is to make proof of indication, of which you made no acknowledgment of. You can address it here now, but it is unlikely you can make the attempt and simply ignore it another time.

Aside from the biblical indication that money is a product of Satan

Quote

• [Question 1] What and where is the indication as to point that anything to do with the use of currency, be it money in form of gold/silver, etc., shekels and or other various form of coin, in addition the the trading system of which is both a practice and a predecessor of money seen as a product of Satan? Granted that both good people and bad people, both of which mentioned in the Bible to have use such a design?

 

• [Question 2] You make claim that money is a product of Satan, but never state anything, inasmuch of what Peter used to deal with Temple Tax for both him and Jesus, who is exempt for the only reason of being part of the Father's House to which you are in total acceptance of the verse in question, it is the not the fact that a man of God's House is obligated, it is more of much of the lesson learned from the passage itself. Moreover, not only you contradict yourself on what you consider as your own personal view vs. an acceptance of a single passage, why show clear oblivious attitude to other people who, in scripture, also used coin(s) to do things that are and or not in any connection with Lawless Acts/Unrighteous Riches? Provided that Satan was not behind the actions of the Widow, or of Abraham, or of anyone else, but it is clear he was behind Judas, for both the good people who follow God and those who turn away from God both use money and or a form of the bartering system, granted both being different come each other originates from the same degree of trade and commerce in regards to goods and resources.

 

• [Question 3] Was Satan, according to you, was behind every man, woman and child when they use both currency and the system of trade to earn a living, to survive, provide, etc? Examples would be like that of Jesus' human Father, who was a carpenter, a trade he was good at, a trade he uses to provide for him and his family, for Jesus was not the only child of the household.

 

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But,? you see irony? You criticize me how i not answer your question and in same time  you refuse to explain your stand about WT, by saying,  "i am neutral... there is no need to ask me again". :)) Do you support your view of Bible truth or you are supporter of WT? What else, except neutrality keep you from commenting this? Judgmental day? If so, then will be better for all of us to spend life in silence.  

How is this irony if I made an answer to such? If someone says the Watchtower has guns and poisons, of course I know it is untrue so I will speak. If someone says the Watchtower owns stocks and bonds, and it is found out to be untrue, I will speak. I do the same in defense of those who are blamed for murders in the Middle East and elsewhere when the reality is they are not all enemies, Sunnis, Shias are not all terrorist as the media makes them out to believe, fear mongering leaving to an up spike in Knife killings in the EU, specifically the UK. For instance, I made mention before that it was not terrorist that put the bodies of Christians at the bottom of a Well, it was US supporting allies that did it, and the US is shifting blame on to someone else getting people to believe it, thus removing any form of prove outside of mainstream media. When it comes to the Bible, if someone says another man and or group does not follow the Christ or make the attempt, and knowing the Christology and History, I will speak of the group and correct the misconceptions and untruths said, at sometimes I tend to be briefly strict, that is how we islanders role anyways. In this sense, your claim on Glasgow, of which you think you wiped out in order to cover yourself – you are the first here to delete something of which you said not of this year, but of last year when a correction has been coined.

I am a supporter of the Bible and if a man says Jesus is God, he will be dealt with true and fact, not believing in the Trinity is not an automatic support of the Watchtower, it does not automatically make one denying Christ (the expression “You Deny the Christ if you don’t believe he is God”, as mainstream ones say) because in the early days of the 1^st Church, they never believed Jesus to be God, but the Son of God, the Watchtower itself clearly does not support the Trinity either, and the only reason they are structured the way they are because they are not mainstream Christians, but rather, Restorationist Christians and how the church was structured in those days they make an attempt to apply such, the same can be said with others, if not all Non-Trinitarians who make the application of what the Church had done in both teachings and the actions of which Jesus entrusted, they even admit to such, albeit some do it better than others, while others tend to have the mainstream Christendom get the best of them. The same can be said about the whole Jesus being Michael, you believed for at least I assume, in the other thread, that this was of Watchtower origin and or allude to such, but it was also mentioned by me and a few others, the belief that Jesus being Michael predates the JWs by centuries, fragments in the 2^nd century and between the 6^th-9^th century, only began and looked around centuries later and onward to present day. So it is not a matter of who supports who, it is a matter of who is making the application of what is true vs. what is not true.

I am neutral because as a God fearing man, I do not want to falsely accuse and be judged in front of the Great White Throne, if you do not know what the Great White Throne is, than clearly you havenÂ’t read into what Judgment involves, hence why I am in all seriousness of what is said in Revelations 20. I do speak up when someone speaks of ill-information of something, someone and or of a group and I do speak up when one speaks of uninspired things and or of the accursed, but to any man who makes application of the early church, I tend to be careful with because the slightest of error can land you in the face of judgment.

No, it is not about living a life of silence, it is about speaking up of untruths. Clearly you made the claim that the Glasgow thing was a profit for the Watchtower, it was called out to be a lie of which you believed, which you tried to paint as truth and when such call out was made, you deleted both the July 2018 post as well as the December 2017 post at the same time on the same day, I guarantee if nothing was said, you would have kept it up and stuck with it. The same can be said of trying to make some kind of proof of a Registry based in Australia that covers institutions involved in businesses, religion, education and or other in solely Australia, what you avoided in those links of which you posted was not just it being a Registry of information, but the very fact that it points to the group of some Charitable and Non-profit status. I even made a remark to this, you evaded it. The same claim can be made by those who attempt to paint someone as those being of Babylon, when in the end, it is unfounded, for the faith in question is a target of Babylon, for Babylon will root out those who try and or make an attempt to follow the Bible in the end times and tribulations and eventually the nation will turn on Babylon and the hunt for those who make an attempt to follow the Bible will take place. Last I checked, JWs were not involved with Kairos, LT, Peak and all connecting branches to the E.I.I. Granted that I am aware and observant of what is happening in Russia and other areas, mainly the EU, and take information from a good source there, it is clear with said information in mind from in-depth research of who is really of Babylon and who isnÂ’t, moreover, who is doing the bidding of the Spiritual Mother who is on a conquest for both Peace and Conquest to defile GodÂ’s teachings and imprint their own form of religion and faith on to those of the world.

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Another think what i would like to say you is this. My perception after our conversations is that you want from other people to prove all what they have said, have to say (their thoughts, beliefs, conclusions, understanding, emotions if you want, etc), with Bible verses.

I simply asked you to make proof of a couple of things. You were wise into to deleting what you claim as proof. Never have I challenged oneÂ’s emotions, in fact, the only time my thoughts were in implication was when I eased someone here on the matter and the situation of things regarding what we see in the world. I can get strict at times, however the end result is the same.

I speak against biblical heresies as well as misapplication of verses, yes, but as you can see I have a corral with those who think Jesus to be God and not the Son, or those who believe in a Triune God, which was the case with Jesus Defender the Deserter for clearly he was not just blind, he shed greater ignorance to that surpasses his own ego. The only reason my responses tend to be long was the result of the Trinitarian who now resides solely in Bible Discussion, Cos, who likes to take jabs at beliefs vs. making the Trinity seem superior, he only stop when his own lie came back to bite him in the end, but even still he makes passive remarks in his belief regarding the holy spirit. Other than that, I am aware of situations and the unlike some who are quick to yield upon their own understandings of what others profess, I do the research of historical evidence and or by means of the Bible, when it comes to other forms of media, I rely on very credible sources of where I get information from, one of them being very accurate in the current things taking place around the world.

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

All must be confirmed with some Bible verses, according to your expectation (at least in my case with "devil and money", hehheehe) . That looks to me how you believe, my perception of you, how things that are not written, mentioned in Bible and Bible only, in fact not existing in humans World, on Earth. Things are; material or spiritual or mental or intellectual, someones claims, perceptions, beliefs, teachings, thoughts on something. Famous example of that is in our conversation on my belief how "money is devil product".

And yet for the Glasgow claim of yours and try to point out as actucal truth, not a single verse was used when a correction had been made. What of it then?

So if money is a product of Satan, could you please explain why money was used by GodÂ’s followers throughout biblical and historical history? We can exclude Judas because your observation consist solely on any man using money is using a product of Satan, of which an unfounded bible indication, that you made a remark about, has yet to be seen.

Another factor is: Why are you using the internet to use this forum if it takes money to even allow you to be here in the first place? After all, money was involved in the internet being a thing in the first place as well as keeping it running, $100-$200+ billion dollars a year, minus the inclusion of ISP of which any of them equals to that of your provider who also bears responsibility in revenue going back and forth, which you and I both know the both of us are using – therefore, it defeats the purpose to claim, of which you made, mainly if we are talking in regards to money itself.

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

?And because you can not find Bible verse where is written, "Money is from satan", then you strongly claim how this conclusion of mine is wrong, false teaching, not reality, not supported with this or that, by his or him.??

You said it yourself, it is based on your conclusion of what is being addressed, therefore I merely told you that you are incorrect, nowhere did I make mention of false teachings - anywhere. I also pointed out that the Bible makes no indication that money itself is a product of Satan, for if it was a product of Satan than all who used money is in an endless loop of hypocrisy as well as use of the bartering system, ruled out to be of the Devil as you allude to in terms of currency usage and or forms of trade.

I told you specifically money is used by the good and the bad. The good use money to provide and survive. The bad use money for lawless acts and will commit lawless acts to gain and or receive more money. Such ones become lovers of money, on the other side of the spectrum, God makes approval of those who use money for is of good things, even if it means in support of him, as in ministry, feeding the poor, etc.

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Do you want be "fanatical" and claim how all things (material or immaterial) if Bible not mentioned them, not existing and they are not true?  Because with your insisting on Bible verse for proving this or that (what other people say), you have in fact, such irrational need.

Greetings.

I am not being fanatical just for making call outs and saying what is indeed true, simply stating the truth and the facts to each point, even bring forth into what is actually said over that of conspiracy and I am not one to be in favor of conspiracy, as you may already know from our past discussions, mainly on the subject of Religious Rights. I stated time and time again and even before that there are those who do things with bad intent, be it to people in order to have some sort of gain, in this case either material and or money. These type of people make money their God, thus the verse I mention about Two Masters.

The Bible makes an indication of things that are used and how people tend to use them, that is why I pointed out how you are incorrect to say that money is a product of Satan, if that were the case, it would make us all hypocrites, moreover, you put yourself in a hypocritical light for 2 points:

Quote

[Point A] You say money is a product of Satan and make claim to the bibleÂ’s indication of this fact of you yourself also stating this is of your own thinking. But somehow you ignore the fact that money is the only reason that is

• [1] Keeping you alive by means of food and water
• [2] Keeping you from being in your birthday suit (I can see in your avatar you are well dressed)
• [3] Allows you to have a roof over your head and clearly covers the rent/mortgage
• [4] Allows you to use a device of some sort to even be on this forum
• [5] money is being used to even allow  your device to connect to the internet to use this forum and respond to me (Birds cannot provide internet, friend).
• [6] If having dependents, assuming, you use money to care for them, eat them, cloth them, etc.
• [7] Money is used to over expense, such as medical, and or other, in the worse cases should anything happen to you or someone who is of blood relative and or relations, money will be involved.

The list goes onÂ… And

 

[Point B] You agree with what a verses says, which points how to Jesus, who is clearly exempt from Temple Tax because he is part of his FatherÂ’s House, the religious leaders view of Jesus, and only see him as PeterÂ’s teacher. We see how the situation was handled with Temple Tax payment, with coin, money. What you didnÂ’t see was the lesson learned from this passage and the fact that the people at the time had the Law of the Jews and clearly the only person who is of the FatherÂ’s House, hence being sent (Shaliah) is Jesus. We later find out of what Jesus spoke of in regards to authority and taxes in the Mark verse, coupled with cross-references. Since you agree to this, but turn around and say money is of Satan, then clearly the fish should have stayed in the Water and not get hooked, and the position Peter and Jesus were in would be far different because of the religious leaders themselves. Which leads to you clearly are using money be it knowingly and or unknowingly, so why make the contradiction in what you think in the right and deem other things in the wrong?

So to say you agree with one passage about money use and to disagree with several if not others, that shows a contradiction right there.

Clearly, you are not using money for lawless acts and or misdeeds that result in unrighteous riches and or wealth, something of which I know the both of us can agree on since you coined the term to begin with prior to the Glasgow comment. However, clearly you are confused on the matter, but you are a good person and wise with spending and usage of money, that same money is the very reason you are able to login today and make a comment, let alone that same money you pay for goes to your ISP, to its workers and the other form of revenue goes to other sources, with the primary source keeping the Internet afloat (well until anti net-neutrality changes are made of course in the US) therefore to say money is a product of Satan and to assume all men who have money by means of payment, donation, and or other means as having Satan behind them, is ridiculous, I do not see how a Father buying a Spider-Man action figure for his Son and on the same day, buy a chocolate sundae with sprinkles on top for his Daughter, and finally paying for medication to help his wife cope with injury, all having to do with Satanic intent and or backing. Nor was it the case with Peter and Jesus, taking a coin from a fish, to be a product of Satan when used to over taxes of the temple, according to the Law.

What is very true is that people CAN be lovers of money (in the father example another father can us the money to buy a large amount of alcohol and drink drunken-like effects kicks in), hence Judas Iscariot or the merchants of the temple, which in the merchants case they were not suppose to make the house of God into a place of commerce, and it is the only time in the Bible Jesus was actually angry.

So therefore, this is why I consider this personal claim of yours of be as unfounded, which in turn, be incorrect, just as the Glasgow remark and what I have expressed to be the truth of the matter, men can be lovers of money, yes, but men can also use money wisely, in a sense for good, and at times in a way God approves.

Just remember that you said it yourself, you pretty much agree with Matthew 17:27.

Other than that, what I addressed about money on page 2 I will leave it here because just mentioning it is not enough for you it seems.

 

You are most definitely, undeniably, welcome.

5 hours ago, Gone Away said:

There you go! Unfortunately not tired, as I had hoped. 

Misquoting, misleading, blundering blather.... I'm not sure how to suggest a remedy for this kind of penchant for misrepresentation, other than to quote from your own post: " it sets the tone of the remainder of your opinion"

What some also fail to see is that Child Abuse is all over, at the same time, people are trying to make Pedophilia legal, and the firestorm that will ensues should such ones succeed in their conquest for such a thing will cause quite the chaos in the states, we already have the drag-queen situation among children already and they have won.

The same way we teach kids about strangers, we do the same on teaching them about Child Abuse early, for this is something of high importance, for even children teach others on the matter. But it would seem instead of fighting the issue in itself, people will often gun for the a whole community for the actions of a single person.

As I always have said, no one is immune to child abuse, even Jehovah's Witnesses for Pedophilia is common and is unexpected, and it is known that abusers always, 100% targets religious and education institutions as well as clubs for the majority of the abuse case is done by a member of the family and or a close friend of the family. If the abuser is a woman, they tend to get not a strong of a sentence vs. an abuser who is a man, mind you, there have been some abusers that have gotten off the hook or a very small sentence depending on how good they look, for if said abuser looks like a Barbie, expect the judge to obviously take it easier on her, which sparks conversation of double standards within the justice and legal systems, this also goes for the race of the individual as well at times.

Learning of the signs and to teach it to others if they are not well equipped for this is the best course of factions, mainly when it comes to finding a way to mix this in a way of out a community already operates, but sadly to others, they would have to learn after the crime was committed. Weeks ago a man whom people looked up to be a hero among children and helping them out, turned out to be a a man who took a very uneasy interest in kids, turned out to be a Pedophile.

But the thing is here this is among the states that have quite the rules for age of consenting ones, another factor, mainly for this case is if the minor victim is male and the older person is female, cases in this sense whereas the abuser is an adult female tends to be tricky ones because of double standards in sentencing.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

The problem with this is that the state considers the age of consent to be over 16. Not only that but according to a legal website: "Delaware considers having sex with someone under 16 rape. Having sex with someone under 18, if the offender is over 30, is also considered rape. Compared to some other states, the penalties for violating Delaware's age of consent laws are very harsh".

So in view of that, the fact that the 14 year old boy is considered a "consensual participant" by Jehovah's Witnesses, isn't going to go down too well.....

Well Delaware after all is a tricky state when it comes to law, order, rules and regulations, they are for Child Marriages at one point and suddenly turn the tables on themselves, even though on the low-low such is still done, when all 49 states maintain all legal thought of such a practice, mainly when it comes to young girls. Another thing is anyone caught within the realm of child abuse and or within the circle itself, those individuals tend to end up going to training sessions in this regard.

If anything, though, the US tends to have a problem with abusers who are of the opposite sex, women, and tends to let them off easy at times, granted on the levels of child abuse that takes place in Delaware, as well as parts of the US.

Another thing to also look at is the number of interactions both of these individuals had until the day of discovery.

I didn't see this until now, so I leave it up to those of Hyde Park to make claim to:

• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx420FfPBbEboBvnYjIemzw
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnZPtuya_yUUqGZGHk1nEOA
• https://www.facebook.com/efdawah/
• https://www.facebook.com/SCDawah/
• Since you make yourself an equal to Bob the Builder, who shares your views, it can bee seen here: LINK

 

@Srecko Sostar Of what has been expressed has already been address in my previous response, I do not see why there is a need to ask of such again when it amounts to the same thing, granted you want people to answer you but you never answer them. For instance, in their Christology, as with Restoration and Non-Trinitarian counterparts, they do not believe in a Triune God, they do not believe Jesus to be God and such minorities are often said to be deniers of Jesus because they do not believe he is God. The truth of the matter is in further study and tracing back to our Apostolic brothers and sisters, what they believe, what others like them believe, me included, is that the Trinity as well as Modalisim is not biblical, thus being a heresy, which turns the tables on claims made by those who spread misconception and or lies when the truth itself regarding Jesus Christ is made known. Others profess that same-sex relations and or marriage should be accepted by such ones, but that is not in their Christology, let alone, that is not a thing that would cross the mind of the early church and or those who try to follow it, as for the mainstream Christians, they make a justification to say God is approving same-sex marriage and or relations even going as far as to twist law or use translations that do not respect the Strong's to prove it, which was brought up in the Barker vs Gay couple case some days ago. In this sense, the bible says to respect all man, but not to dwell in their conduct that who result in a negative effect and or outcome in terms of God's Law

Another thing is they do not believe God can die, but mainstream Christendom teaches God can die, the truth of the matter to put this error to rest is the fact that the Bible makes it clear the Invisible Father is incorruptible, in a simple sense, Immortal, for God is the life giver and source of life itself who gave life to all who roam in the heaven and on earth, he even gave life to his Son, Jesus when he was crucified.

The bottom-line is, anyone who's Christology emulates that of the Early Church and what our early brothers and sisters have done, it is absurd to make claims of such and say they are not like the mainstream Christians, for the reality is, they are not of the mainstream and follow the teachings of the church. As I have said before, if Restorationist and other Non-Trinitarians follow things that is not of the church than that in itself would be a BIG problem.

Therefore, when it comes to the studies of Christology, even to an Apostolic sense, I look for truth in the midst of errors some people tend to bring up among the mainstream.

At the same time I remain in total neutrality because I know any misstep can cause judgement in front of the white throne so I am not quick to make accusations like some people here and or accepting of it, even to the point of using verses for the wrong reasons to make a justification of accusation. But rather, I look for the truth of the matter and see things for myself, look into both sides.

29 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Would someone love the money if money would not exist? Would someone be in position to serve  to money, would money be master over him,  if money would not exist? 

But then you have the predecessor of money, The Bartering system, the trading of goods for X amount of this or that, a Y of this and a Z of that, so to speak. Before the time money came into use, there was this system, which involved the trading of said goods, which included gold and silver, cloth, etc.

It is very evident in Abraham's Day if you read the passage.

29 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Delete money from human life and you will be solve two problems that Bible said is burden in people's life. No money= less devil's influence on man :))))) 

Bartering system.

So I ask you, a Widow has money, she is influenced despite being praised by Jesus? I believe I asked you this before but you are not trying to answer that question - this is understandable because the contradictions is seen.

Also delete money? You'd have to remove the Bartering System as well, but then the break down of civilization you would have to explain for it would be not possible to get something and or give. The logic of which you express here sort of makes no sense.

So I ask you this: remove money, remove the bartering system, what of it then? Man is still imperfect and what do you think will happen if they cannot get want they want, albeit, all men?

 

Also I told you twice, now 3 times, I made an explanation of money lovers and use of money by means of God's approval on page 2 with solely using the bible itself in respects to biblical hermeneutics.