Space Merchant

13 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

Who said, "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36)

God or Jesus Christ?

The problem here is Trinitarians, well at this point, the James White Tribe, will say God only knows and they accept that God is the Father, which is understandable, but at the same time, they will say Jesus knows and they will contradict their own belief regarding Jesus being God, as well as the Holy Spirit, of which they make-believe into the text to be regarded as a person. Furthermore, it kills the notion of them saying Jesus is all knowing, for if Jesus was indeed all knowing, the day and hour would be a piece of cake, being able to make mention of it without hesitation.

Acts 1:7 even says it does not belong to know what the Father knows about what He has already scheduled.

This is why when they attempt to teach the idea of a Triune God, small things like this they twist in order to keep their sinking boat of a belief afloat and it is a shame too, for such ones do not understand what their bible says.

@Jesus.defender You do realize using the “@” function allows you to mention the person right, not solely quotations alone? I was not speaking with you; I was informing the other commenter about you. All in all, I really do not care if you are ignoring me or not, for the lack of such care is not in me, I only care about truth and untruths and will response to such directly should need be – direct or indirectly for falsehood in terms of scripture, in regards to the Church, in regards to Christology, as well as Christology of others who actually make the attempt to adhere to what the early Christian, the early Church has done, a response can and always will be made, as if that was not clear to begin with. That being said, it didn't stop you from making the same action in terms of response, so it would be wise to not pose yourself as an even bigger hypocrite who is above the rest and last I checked, you dove into the deep end of the pool because it wasn’t anyone else but a JW responding to Trinitarian heresy, should anyone else have said such you would not have made such responses afterwards, which was evident elsewhere. I only mentioned you, if you noticed, not much of a direct response because with how you operate, I know you will not really be able to answer @ShariKind, however, I too await to see what you will say granted by your actions, Deserter. When it comes to anything regarding the Bible, ones such as yourself have no strength against anyone who is literal of non-denominational following, but such ones such as yourself will go out of their way to go after JWs (mind you guys only for the inexperienced JWs for if met with an educated and well aware JW be it current or former, you shake and quake).

Also the fact that you are a follower of James White, The Trinitarian Theologian who has written well over 20 books, been in 160 or so moderated debate, kills your credibility for James White has been exposed as a false teacher by most, even by those in Islam, just as David Wood, just as Jay Smith, etc. Furthermore, even the non-religious are not fans either, and actually pointed out Trinitarians as well as KJV-Onlyist follow this man like moths to a fire.

• James White had been question and defeated by Hamza Myatt
• James White had debated and had been defeated by a Jehovah’s Witness
• James White had been debated and defeated both times by Adnan Rashid the first in regards to Bible corruption
• The Second run in with Mr. Rashid was regarding Salvation/Jesus' Crucifixion
• James White had debated and had been defeated by a Fellowship Unitarian, Anthony Buzzard
• Moreover, Anthony Buzzard spoke of how the Trinitarians do not agree with the Shema, even informing James White has brushed over what the Shema actually is
• James White's debate with Buzzard had been talked about even by those neutral with JWs
• This same person also broke down 3 parts to specific points made by the two men: First | Second | Third
• James White had been exposed in regards to the his acceptance of uninspired biblical text that was NOT part of the Oldest Source
• Simon Brown, who follows no denomination also spoke about the White v. Stafford debate

The list goes on...

Also if you are aware like us at CSE, you would also know about Mr. White’s bad behavior online, known as a bully, sends his people after others, provokes people and the most silly thing he does should one becomes provoked and says something ignorant or stupid, he captures such and puts it on his social media and this behavior of his has been happening for YEARS.

That being said, I will say it again, you can babying around JWs all you want, but it is FACT that Trinitarians or in this case, a disgruntled JW such as yourself, is and will always act foolish, and the fact you support James White, well, that is further beyond of what can be seen of you. It is even more horrendous when met with the likes of an Agnostic.

So it is clear, the only God is the Father (to which you agree on this and it would be stupid to go back on what you have said for all that you said in this regard has been quoted).

Jesus is NOT God for Jesus is a man who professed the Law, he is the In-between for God and men to mankind, as if the story of Moses made that any clear. If you still want to play the God Card, why not call Moses God, that is, if you accept what the Trinitarians make of Exodus 7:1?

The Holy Spirit is not God and or a Person either, for the Bible never makes any mention of the Holy Spirit being a person. This is why we have problems with Trinitarians who attempt to use John 14 and 16 when the Greek Language Form is evident, for we know why Holy Spirit is referred to as a HE/Him the same way we understand why Jerusalem is referred to as a SHE/HER. They will attempt to use Paul when Paul, John and several others own testimony kills the Personhood belief. Moreover, a sane man will not accept your belief that The Holy Spirit caused Mary conceive Jesus for Mary herself stated she had no relations with a man, no one is going to take it from you that a Person came to visit 3,000 people on that faithful day at Pentecost, no one is going to take it from you that the Holy Spirit is aware of the day and hour of judgment, let alone this so called Personhood that has no seat around God, when the Bible makes it clear God  in his dwelling place has His Throne and the only one next to him is Jesus, at God’s right hand.

@Jack Ryan Anything having to do with stimulating the genital sex organ is 100% masturbation (self-gratification). According to the community that deals with helping those who find themselves in a battle with pornography and masturbation: Masturbation is stimulating ourselves for sexual pleasure.

The Reboot member who had said this is 100% correct to what he had said.

another thing to note is one should not be wasting away something of which they can literally create life with to a pixel-screen.

As for the whole Pillow ordeal, it is one of the things talked about by this community also known as the Reboot from Masturbation/Pornography Movement.

As stated before, such things is not a joke, regardless of who practices such or watches vile things, it leaves such ones broken and addicted for the dopamine levels get to a point that the habit becomes that of a drug, and often find themselves even more broken when such a habits destroys their life and or relationships, thus kicking in the low-esteem, depression and a list of other things.

I would go more in depth in this regard, since such a topic I am not shy about speaking about because I have spoke to people who are dealing with such, even one family member of mine who won his battle, but such things that can be said in the darkest places cannot be said here for information can be very explicit at times, mainly when it is critical to combating sch a problem.

That being said, the pillow action is also in connection with those suffering from wet dreams and the like.

Before you want to follow the band wagon and make allude to such jokes, I rather you pay a visit to the community that knows a whole lot about such things, you can look up the pillow stuff there also.

• The Community's Reddit page
• Their Website

There is also Ted Talks about such things, you can review the information, however, I warn you now, what will be said is not PG Disney friendly even though what is being said is to help combat the addiction to masturbation and pornography, you have been warned.

• Gary Wilson Speech

Other then that, the practice of such is very common and the industry who produces the material knows of whom they are targeting, they tend to target males more as much than they do females because males can easily subdued by an image/video of a woman who partake in such a vile industry, it is no question that all people, even among Jehovah's Witnesses, are not immune to such.

Proverbs 5:8 and 7:8 are really good verses in such matters, we can even take example from Joseph (Not the Husband of Mary, the OTHER one).

Should one fall, it should not be the end of the world for them, for if something causes you to fall, simply stand back up, the community I linked are not that religious, some are, not all of them, but some have relapsed in their fight, but with determination and motivation, they get back up, they fall and rise up again until eventually they break free from the chains of that sin.

All and all, the picture is very lame, granted to what can be seen of the community in question who, as I said, deals with this stuff, look up pillows regarding this community, that alone should tell you more than you need to know. For such ones provide a bit more help should one chooses to seek it, in addition to testimony and stories of others of others, regardless of their sex and age, they speak up. Stuff like this some of is around the world DO NOT joke about and we have a good reason as to why this is, but people are ignorant to the demons people are fighting within themselves, especially in a world who thinks such is okay or teaching sodomy to children as if it is normal - very sickening.

The whole dopamine stuff we can get into another time, for that alone seems basic, but truly it is vast regarding this category.

@ShariKind Alright, but always expect surprises that do not connect with what is being asked.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is a very legitimate way to read John 1:1, although it is not the way we read it as JWs. It would not make much difference if it were read this way. I see a possible small problem with the way we read it, but it doesn't mean we are reading it wrong. I think the main thing that some Witnesses do (which is not the intention of the verse) is making a big emphasis on the words "A god," and then saying, SEE?!?!?! -- It only says "A" god, therefore Jesus can't be THE [Almighty] God. This is a true statement, based on other scriptures. But this scripture is going as far as possible to RAISE the level of divinity and near "universal" authority by which Christians should understand Jesus -- and it's a misuse of the intention of the verse to use it to prove he is LESS. It is only by Jesus that we can begin to understand the full range of the power and authority if the Father. Jesus therefore allows us to "SEE" God. 

I know it's a little off topic for this discussion, so I'll wait until another John 1:1 discussion.

Indeed it is, however when I spoke of John 1:1, there was a specific passage in the Torah I was referring to of what God had made known about the one who is to come, we know this clearly as what we see in John chapter 4 when Jesus met the Samaritan woman, for he revealed himself to be that Prophet, the Messiah, the very man who speaks the Word of God.

And I do not think anyone is reading it wrong, however there are those thinking this is the silver bullet to making Jesus out to be God himself, such ones show a total disregard to not just the cross-references, but of what God himself said in the Old Testament.

That is also true for Any man who had seen Jesus had seen the Father in terms of the things Jesus did. God is Life and Jesus fully expressed that Life in the words he spoke and the works that he had done. God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he had said and and in regards to his actions, etc. Jesus is indeed Divine, but he problem is such ones will attack others for not seeing Jesus as God and automatically pull the "You Deny Jesus being God/Trinity, you deny the Christ" card, a hat-trick that gets old fast.

When I get back to my main computer with all my notes and research, I will probably post another gospel of John thread in Bible Discussion about John 1:1, for there is a lot I can say about this verse, but the focus on my last response was based on w cross-reference to John 1:1 regarding what God the Father had said as seen in the Old Testament.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

Some have clearly revealed a typical double standard in the face of illogical claims. Frankly I have no problem with using the divine name in Scripture, but this is all about adding what does not have manuscript support. And then there is the hermeneutic (method of Bible interpretation) argument; but proper hermeneutics is NOT the practice that Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that one passage corrects or even militates against another as proposed. This type of Bible interpretation is to be expected because, like it or not, that’s the only way they can make what the Bible says ‘fit” their brand of theology. <><

There is no double standard, mainly if one is aware of what is present outside of the 1245 and of course, it is no problem to any man, regardless of faith background to use God's personal name in scripture and or professing it, mainly if you take into account how sacred the Jews held the name of Hashem (God), for there is a reason as to WHY they made YHWH Adonai.

As for manuscripts, it is no surprise you are not aware of what has been in connection with the Septuagint, something of which that has been pulled up with vast information, evidence and other form of connection, something of which will take up 2-3 pages should I post said information -  in a sense, from 5 years of research and study, I can literally drop a book on you to that response of yours, and the hypocrisy here is you only make mention of the Jehovah's Witnesses in this regard, yet you do not attack your own for restoring said name because JWs and others have done it, in fact, Trinitarians have stronghold on the internet in this regard, mainly after being called out in the past for the removal of the name for more than 2,519+ times in the OT in the KJV/NKJV (excluding the recent KJV with the restored name).

It's called hermeneutics, a method or theory of interpretation, furthermore, the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, when it comes to the Bible and or literary texts, it has nothing to do with argument, rather, it has more to do with accepting biblical context of said passages, seeing the connection and coming to the most accurate conclusion possible, example, you brought up 1 Peter 1:1-2 to support your belief, yet with little bit of hermeneutics, anyone can see the context of what Peter was conveying and bring up verse 3, which in turn, destroys the very claim you have made mention of such verse. hermeneutics is the bane of existence to those who practice a false doctrine that is not of the early Church, this goes for Trinitarians, Modalist, Gnostics, Calvanist, and or any individual and or group that follows something that the Bible does not teach, this goes for any and every claim you make about the Holy Spirit as well as dozens upon dozens of verses of which you make a reference to, it has already been dealt with, the very reason why I made mention to a number of passages here and elsewhere, in addition to twisting what those before us have written.

And no, it is not the only way of biblical interpretation. You are a Trinitarian, the only thing you have in common with Non-Trinitarian is the forms of biblical study and theology, the fact you made no mention to the others because hermeneutics regarding passages of the Bible, only shows that you also lack in this domain, the irony is, I made mention to the other methods as well, I put hermeneutics first in respects of the passages and the context such passages profess, but to the very core of such study, never ever one such as myself apply man-made understanding of a passage, for we are to heed the understanding of the passages in full context as the Bible reveals to us, example, if the Bible says God is not like us men, we should hold to what the Bible says, not turn around and say God suddenly changed his mind and became a man, God Almighty who is incorruptible being able to taste death when the Bible says he cannot, things of that nature, the very reason why people are critical of truth, context, passages, cross-references and a strong conclusion that is of the Bible and not of mere man understanding.

 That being said, it does not really take hermeneutics to realize Greek Language Forms, I mean, that should be obvious, mainly when we take into account the speaker and what the speaker is talking about, etc.

@ShariKind He will not answer. Trinitarians like @Jesus.defender are known to tap-dance around such things, like football players with butter fingers cannot catch a ball at all. They say things they cannot prove and will reduce to a child-like state and resort to insult, false accusations and silliness, something of which is being in full display here - When proven wrong he will say utter nonsense, when proven wrong by a JW, he resorts to bashing JWs.

On 7/6/2018 at 12:54 AM, Jesus.defender said:

And thats EXACTLY what cults like jehovahs witnesses do.

More correctly, they bear witness against a FALSE Jesus.

Lets stop all these videos in the text, ok? I can do that too. Lets TALK.

But days ago you disrespected what Jesus said what was written, so who is really for Jesus and who is not? And JWs are not a cult, they are Restorationist, they differ from mainstream Christianity because they apply the practices and abilities of the 1st century church, as well as take the Bible with seriousness.

A real cult would be that of the Crusaders, or perhaps the Ku Klux Klan (The KKK) who justify he killing of Christians clearly against the Trinity and those of a racial background or those who defense ones with racial backgrounds. Modern cults would be the Christian Militants or Radicalized Westboro Baptist Church for violence is the motive for them and hate, as well as Christian-Infighting, a practice of which you are displaying here, for Christian-Infighting is a massive problem with mainstreamers.

So in short, you are false for:

• A-Religious Infighting (Christian)
• B-Bearing a false Witness, trying to say Jesus is God, as well as the Holy Spirit being God when everyone knows that the pre-nicene ones and those of the Apostolic Age were NOT Trinitarians.
• C- You deny what Jesus said what was written, even when I called you out for it several times elsewhere before JW Insider moved said response.

The list goes on.

14 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

We are talking about "firstborn".

 ‘Firstborn’ (Greek: prototokos) does NOT mean ‘first-created’ (Greek: protoktisis). First-created (Protoktisis) is never used of Christ in New Testament.

Actually it does. That is if you take into account of root words and or words of origin regarding the Greek Language and that of the Strong's.

Your next problem is Jesus being refereed to as The Promised Seed aka Abrahamic Seed, which puts further emphasis on this firstborn notion, moreover, the cross-references to Genesis 1:26.

I suggest you read up more on Strong's because clearly you lack just like the other guy who believes the Holy Spirit is a person. Trinitarians or disgruntled JWs like yourself, lack Greek and or Hebrew knowledge, you simply read what the word means but never shed any like on Strong's connections, occurrences and root words/meaning.

Surely you are grown, Deserter, you do not need someone to baby you by holding your hand in regards to such basic research.

You really do not know Jesus, for if you have, you'd realize a Jewish custom and a law alone literally disproves Jesus being God 100%, something of which not just True Christians know, but even Jews and Muslims, to even Buddhist know this, for it is THAT well known.

It is 100% fact that Trinitarians are ignorant to such, to which you have already displayed, hence the verses you have typed, location but not quoted, you not knowing what such even means.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WT have interesting answer, statement on question. Interesting? YES, because John 1:1 gave INFORMATION that Jesus is/was WORD ( "Word" as name or as title or both?) in his prehuman existence --- NOT MICHAEL The archangel :)))).

Indeed, Jesus is the Word because he is the Prophet of whom God puts His Word in and such applies to the Christ because he is a Prophet.

The Word is God because it is God's Spoken Word. Jesus is the Word because he speaks God's Spoken Word, professes the Father. The Word is God because the Word itself originated with God, not Jesus mainly if you understand John's Introductory and what is seen in Deuteronomy and Isaiah.

As for gods/godlike ones, God the Father refers to His children as such, in heaven and on earth, Jesus is in that same category and even quoted the law in John chapter 10, Apostle Paul himself also made reference to the Most High calling his children gods/godlike ones, and in Jesus case, it is applied to the Jews. So the JWs position on The Word (the flesh named Jesus) is correct, Jesus is refereed to as a god, he is not God, for this god, also called the Word, speaks/professes The Word, that is of God as seen in the beginning.

What some also fail to believe is that they ignore the fact of what the Light means and of whom it is referring to, and John the Baptist, for we know John himself was not even existing in the Genesis Act of Creation.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WORD have Ultimate status that is much, much higher then just of angel, even archangel status is. Or does some of you think that archangel was somehow participated in creation of life and all that existing, as Word did? 

Yes because prior to his resurrection, God has made Jesus Lord and exalted him above the angels, according to Apostle Paul, even with this higher authority and power, Jesus is still refereed to as the Word, just as he is still refereed to as the Christ/Messiah.

The Bible only speaks of one Archangel, and that is Michael, even before that this one Archangel had existed for there are clues in the Old Testament.Plus it is clear that Jesus was not Jesus at all, for God sent an angel to have the child named Jesus, we knowing Jesus is a Prince even before he was on earth, it is safe to say he was indeed the one who was sent and before that he was just working by his Father's side, being the only one of whom God took high delight in and the like.

As for the Word, it would depend on what you are referring to, Jesus or that of God's Spoken Word that is the Word, of which we see in the Genesis Act of Creation.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If WT said Jesus is Michael, why i have never hear or read that WT said Word is Michael???

Probably because they are making it know and professing Jesus' role on earth rather than his role in Heaven. Jesus is only known as the Word because he professes God's purpose and will - that is, if you paid attention to what God himself had said in the Old Testament and that of those who profess the coming of the Prophet sent by God, God's Son. That being said, Jesus/Michael is refereed to as The Word of God (The Word) in Revelations as well.

I am pretty sure WT knows that Jesus/Michael, is the Word, this is but a snippet of what they have said:

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called “the Word.” (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God” (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, “Who Is Like God?” points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Who was in the beginning?? Michael or Word? According to this Bible text of course.

The Word, if you take into account of John's Introductory, as well as Mark's, being identical to that of Genesis 1:1. God's Word was in the beginning because he spoke everything into existence, in combination with his great limitless power. The Light John refers to was indeed God's Son for Jesus is indeed the Light of this World, in addition, he is refereed to as well as the morning star.

Yes according to the Bible, only if you take everything into context, for anyone can read John 1:1 and ignore the verses after it, anyone can just read John 1:1 and not make an effort to see the cross references and passages that makes such a verse understandable, it comes to a point where even the non religious have to correct those of mainstream Christendom on this matter.

In the end, people can say they read the Bible everyday but remain ignorant to context, such ones will also not make the effort to study and realize what a verse means, example would be the captured women, to which some today refer to as sex slaves or that of cannibalism, people will read into the passages and not take in context, thus, not knowing what such passages mean or as to what came about of such, for the answer, to be brief, is the sex slave one is due to vengeance and it is not what the modern mind of men think vs Bible times, for the women were not cursed compared to their original captors. The other was due to a great famine, the reason as to why cannibalism was even present, in the end, such ones had quite the outcome. Not taking things into context with research only makes one not aware of what a passage even means, even to the point of rejecting half and or all of the Old Testament or saying that Apostle Paul was not a follower of Jesus, but of Satan. Therefore, we have to really understand what John 1:1 means otherwise the one would fit the category of Bible readers who are not serious about context and research. Only those who take the Bible serious can tackle such passages.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Surely John would named Him (Word , God or god with The or A, what ever you like) as Michael if he was been under inspiration of holy ghost, spirit while he was writing verses.

One answer is wrong. Or both are wrong? :))))  

Well the Septuagint and Coptic Text gives you a very obvious clue to John's Introductory - check the cross-references and see what God said to His people regarding the one who is to come who will speak His Word.

Last I check, Jesus had the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as soon as he got out of the water during Baptism, so of course he had the Holy Spirit as well as the works and hat he says not being of His own, but of the Father, for the Father abides in Jesus, and in True Christians.

John also knew the law of the Jews, just as Jesus have, since Jesus was a born Jew, and just like Paul, in addition to others. So it is no surprise John knows who God is, John knowing who Jesus is, those who followed Jesus, moreover, John clear awareness of the practices of such ones like the Jews and Samaritans and others.

The real question is, if you accept what John is truly trying to convey rather than accepting something without bearing any understanding of what is being said. This also goes for those who do not truly understand the Revelation of John also.

@Srecko Sostar They continued it because early Christians also maintain this view despite some of them breaking off into other odd teachings, an example would be molding the Trinity into the mix, referring to Jesus/Michael as God. But to be brief, people see Jesus as not only the Son of God, but as a Mighty Warrior as well, and it is understandable by many as to whom did God put to lead the legion of Angels that will fight against they wicked.

@Malum Intellectus Yep. I'll be able to post more information when I get back to my main location, for I do have a lot of findings on such information.

@Gone Away I'll have to be brief because I have no access to my research information to post it here. The belief started centuries ago. Some will say around the 7th-9th century, others have information going centuries back, but such info is small. Most information we have today is in regards to the 16th-18th century, with such ones like John Calvin who also has this belief, as with others, which also reflects that of biblical passages that seem to equal Jesus to Michael in both title and or action, perhaps even more things.

Moreover, there is a literal counterpart to JWs, known as SDAs, who also has this view, but maintain an Orthodoxy approach and they not only see Micheal as Jesus, but they see him as God,f or such ones are Trinitarians.

When I do get back, I'll be happy to post here my findings from a few years back regarding this whole Jesus/Michael thing and the view of others on this matter.

@Malum Intellectus Yep, even today such things take place, we even have those who worship people as gods, and even the specifics to the human sex organs and or other parts of the body. There are those who also worship those of fame, those who have the most wealth and the like, even to the point of self inflicted injury.

The world is indeed a madhouse, with small safe zones here and there containing only the sane and aware, separating such from the insane and crazed.

@Gone Away Trinitarians are oblivious to the Septuagint and the source of that even has God's name on it. @Cos problem is with the JWs, but ironically, he is not aware of even Trinitarians who made an attempt to use and or restore the name Yahweh/Jehovah into the scriptures themselves, despite trying to erroneously say and or compare Jesus to God the Father, some of them even calling Jesus Jehovah, when clearly both the Father and the Son are different from each other, despite both being Lords, one clearly has higher authority than the other.

The hypocrisy is when Trinitarians also attack Muslims to say hat God's name is in the New Testament, which is the case in the majority of the EU, mainly the UK, but here we see a defective Trinitarian doing loop-de-loops on his own kind.

@Cos Buddy, I wish it was nonsense or mere opinion, but everything said and mention is with hermeneutics, a thing Trinitarians do not like at all, mainly when it reveals what certain verses mean in context, example, an exegesis on John 10:30, but with use of hermeneutics and context we can see John 10:16, or perhaps what Jesus said in response several verses from 30, and what he met that points directly to John 17 verses and even beyond the four gospel accounts.

If we are speaking about attitudes, it is known by view towards you already, mainly with how you welcomed me here after being exposed as slandering against your own word, I rather not remind you or repost what was on full display, therefore, keep in mind as to what you said before I made many response towards you, that my friend, is being hypocritical.

Like I said, no one is going to believe the young virgin Mary had relations with a Spirit being granted she herself said the following in Matthew 1:24, 25, Luke 1:34 (see Isaiah 7:14) when her and Joseph had not even had a child at the time. No one is going to believe that a Spirit appeared to more than 3,000 people (remember when I kept directing you to Acts 1 and 2?), when we clearly see that that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was taking place, no being in sight, granted key witnesses who were there who are also the same ones who bore witness about God, the one who sent Jesus. Like I said, it would be understandable if what you believe is indeed obvious in the Bible, yet this belief causes confusion and conflict in both the Old and New Testament, hence the absurdities. That being said, every verse that Trinitarians have used over the years have been exposed by means of sheer hermeneutics and utter context of said verses, even the false verses and the forged ones Trinitarians love to use, or that of the 1245, the JC and or TR, its been exposed already, if we are to take into account that God knows the day and hour, and then call Jesus God and then go about calling the so called Holy Spirit, a person, a God, then you have a problem of whose who who knows what and the like, and it does not stop there only. Let's not forget your clear confusion about Greek Language Forms, only to use your own information against yourself to further prove what I have been saying this whole time.

As for God's name, it is obvious you are a 1245er who has no idea of the Septuagint.

@Jesus.defender Again, not only JWs see this in regards to what firstborn is and what it means.

Jesus is also the first of the fruits as well as the firstborn out of the dead, the only one to pull Jesus out of the pangs of death was God, as explicitly stated in Acts, Galatians, Romans, etc, pretty much anything that Paul has utter and or written.

You also have to realize the occurrences of Firstborn, but normal and unique.

Such ones also believe a child is a God if said child succumbs to major birth defects, as seen in India and the like.

https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/only-in-india-are-kids-with-birth-defects-worshipped-as-gods-244764.html

If some of you guys cannot stomach the images consider this bold text as a warning: Warning!!!

ARC talks again? 

 

A lot of ARC stuff has been talked about even address months ago.

@Jesus.defender You already posted this elsewhere.

Other than that, Jesus being Michael did not start with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Sheesh.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones ho abstain from blood from either animal or man, such ones are of the New Covenant and the only blood that is of concern for such ones, is the one Jesus shed when he was crucified. Another problem you face is those bounded by culture of not accepting blood or giving blood, regardless. You do realize some, mainly those in Caribbean countries, abstain from blood and majority of them are not that religion, they do this due to avoidance of superstitious things, such as sorcery and the like, one country, namely Jamaica and Haiti, tend to avoid Black Magic which also involves blood rituals, it is called Vodou, Voodoo in English. The US/EU tend to force or trick a few of these people to accept blood, the irony is they never accept blood from such people. In some countries they do not even accept blood from those who practice homosexuality, namely Russia.

So in short, abstain means abstain, but in the end, it is the choice of the individual, regardless if they are Jehovah's Witnesses or not. There has been a huge debate on this in Christendom and the majority will even say abstaining from blood also includes blood from man.

So in short, it would be total hypocrisy to only say this of JWs and other Christians also avoid blood of any kind, the same could be said about nations who adhere to culture who abstain from blood.

This was talked about at CSE a while back: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/410/blood-transfusions-and-christianity

Also it is already known on the JW stance on this issue.

Also blood opens door to diseases and whatnot, mainly sexual transmitted diseases and the like via blood, something of which several if not over a dozen kids got infected with such as of last year and this.

True Christians believe in what God will bring by means of His Son, what is Son had died for by shedding His blood. We should not forget such.

As for me, I am bounded by such by means of cultural reasons, more than religious reasons, hence it is unlikely you will pull the racial and or discrimination card on those with such views, now can you?

@Jesus.defender Another problem you have is the very fact that the belief that Jesus is Micheal did not originate with the Jehovah's Witnesses. This belief, with evidence and information, dates back to the 8th and or 9th century. Another factor is that Paul refers to Jesus as an Angel, and we know that Angel also means Messenger (malak), Jesus himself is refereed to as a Messenger as well as a Prophet. The next issue is that both Jesus, and if you do not count them as the same, Michael, both led God's army into battle with Satan and his Demons, and it is known the chosen one of God cast Satan out of Heaven, the one deemed chef of God's army.

There are many, many people who believe Jesus is Michael, and yet you only target JWs, which is total hypocrisy. I'd like to see you preach to people, deep in the Congo or in some parts of South Korea, who believe the mighty warrior of God the chef of His army, that is Jesus, also known as Michael as some.

We must also remember that the name Jesus was given when Jesus was still in Mary's womb.

The only problem with the Jesus/Michael belief is that some people believe in the Trinity, and consider Michael aka Jesus as a Triune God.

@Gone Away Usually when people want to take a shot at anyone, even at JWs, they will bring up God's name and the New Testament. Clearly such ones has never heard of anything outside of the 1245, it is the same situation dealing with those who want to react negatively to the name of God's Son.

Other times such ones will say that Jesus/Yeshua is Jehovah/Yahweh, which is another annoying situation on its own.

@Gone Away Indeed, we must not add to His Word.

Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:5, 6, John 10:35, Revelations 22:18, 19 

And most certainly His Word does not create confusion, 1 Corinthians 14:33.

1 hour ago, Jesus.defender said:

Father is called ‘the only true God’, then Jesus Christ cannot be the true God.

Of course. But you seem to contradict yourself before, to where you have called Jesus as well as the Holy Spirit being God as well, which excludes the only God being the Father. For it is 100% true only the Father is God, but clearly you do not accept that, you do not even accept anything in regards to what Jesus had said "that is written".

1 hour ago, Jesus.defender said:

a) The context is Jesus as a man praying the great High Priestly prayer to the Father, and as such it was proper for the man Christ Jesus to call the Father ‘the only true God’. Christ would not have said this if it was spoken from the viewpoint of His deity.

Indeed, it is surely called the The High Priestly Prayer, moreover, it is the most famous for it being the very last prayer of Lord Jesus Christ. For Jesus had done this prayer in behalf of his disciples, for the current time and age they were in now and of the future, since it was very soon that of what will become of Jesus. As for the last sentence of yours, you seem to be missing the point.

Jesus wanted his disciples to know who the true God is, hence why he said for them to come to know you "that they know you" or "for they coming to know you" in some translations, it varies, all in all equals to them taking in knowledge of the true God and continuing to know who the true God is, in addition to that, we see the Greek verb being used in this passage, γινώσκωσιν (ginōskōsin), Strong's is 1097, also meaning to perceive and or recognize.

It alludes to denote a process of taking in said knowledge about someone and or getting to know someone and eventually becoming better acquainted with someone, in this case, the disciples to God the Father. What we also see when we put this passage in context is it refers to developing a personal relationship with God by means of by continuous increase in knowledge of God and Christ and a growing trust in them both. However, it takes more than just knowing who a person is or knowing his name, therefore, it would also involve knowing what that person has an interest in as well as their disinterests, knowing his standards, values, actions, etc.

2 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

b) If Jesus’ reference to the Father as ‘the only true God’ was meant to exclude the Son from deity, then the same principle of interpretation would have to apply to Jude 4 where Jesus Christ is called ‘our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ’ (NWT).

Hence the reason Jesus was born into the Law. He knew of the Father ever since he was a child for all Jews were to learn of the God of Israel, the very reason why Jesus had said what he said in regards to what he professed as a child, and as an adult (Mark 12:28-34). For Jesus was sent (Shaliah) to represent the Father and to teach things that is not of his own, but of the Father, and such includes the good news gospel of which we can see in the four gospel accounts. 

The disciples of Jesus already knew and used God, even by his name. They saw and read it in the Hebrew Old Testament and or scrolls available in very synagogues they dwell in, this also includes the oldest and most reliable source, the very source of what the Bible Translations we have today is based on, nothing pertaining to that of the 16th century, moreover, this source is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was used in teaching.

Lord Jesus made the Father's name known not only by just using it, however, by revealing the one who bears that name, His purposes and the like. For it is known that Jesus himself is the one who had been at the Father’s side, Jesus could explain the Father in a way that no one else could (Matthew 11:27, John 1:18). The knowing of who God is and his name and what God is all about, of this, Jesus' disciples take great importance of.

Are you sure about that? Scriptural Principle and application when there is a lack of connection?

Jude 4 speaks of those who dwell in the churches to do vile things and brazen conduct, such ones who do not adhere to God's laws, those who are inviting of sexual misconduct, accursed teachings, idolatry, unkindness, and a list of other things. The reason as to why this specific point in this passage says the following:

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

This verse also direct to Acts 20:29, 30 and 2 Peter 2:1, that being said, there is a lack in principle of what you are attempting to apply, in addition, this verse alone also alludes to the very fact that of such ones, people, sinning because they know God will forgive them, in a sense, abusing God's forgiveness.

2 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

This would have to exclude the Father from Lordship and ownership. No JW (or anyone else) would accept this.

I concur. Jesus is indeed Lord, and the Father is Lord, and clearly we can recognize who is above who. This goes for any Lords of Masters of mankind compared to the Christ and or God himself, in addition, God has indeed made Jesus himself Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36, cf. see 1 Corinthians 6:14), the very reason Jesus speaks of his God given authority and power as seen in the Gospel of Matthew.

I have also made a response to such in the past here already. For the true one God is indeed Lord but that does not mean someone who is Lord is God, for the scriptures speak of many Lords, example Abraham to Sarah, The 2 Angels to Lot, The Philippian Jailer to both Paul and Silas, David's servants to David himself, etc., we also have Jesus, and the one above all, being God himself.

If anyone understand JW Christology, I believe they're aware of this already, the same can be said about those who take time to read and research passages and taking high importance to context. But it would seem you have it the other way around, for such in the opposite view is said of Mainstream Christians of mainstream Christendom.

2 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

They speak of the Father as ‘the Lord Jehovah’, even though Jude 4 calls Jesus ‘our
only Lord’.

You do realize God is Lord and His Son is Lord? Like I said, there are many Lords/Masters in scripture, some above others, and I made mention of this in the past already in full detail.

2 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

The Holy Spirit is also called ‘Lord’ in II Corinthians 3:17, ‘the Lord is that Spirit’.

If you are aware of what the oldest source even is, that of the 4th century, you would realize the Lord being talked about here, is God himself. We know that the Holy Spirit is of God and wherever it is, there is freedom.

The cross-references also make this very clear: Isaiah 61:1, John 4:24, Romans 6:14, 8:15, Galatians 5:1, 13.

2 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

The use of the word ‘only’ is not used exclusively of the Father, nor of the Son,
nor of the Holy Spirit. Jesus being called our ‘only’ Lord does not exclude the Father or Holy Spirit being Lord.

And?

2 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

The Father being called ‘the only true God’ does not exclude the Son or Holy Spirit from
deity.

Then you have failed to take in, in full context, of what this final prayer of Jesus is about. For as stated already, Jesus identifies his one and only God, the Father alone, which thereby excludes everyone else including himself.

That being said, we are not talking about godlike ones (I do not consider the Holy Spirit as a person for such have already been confuted elsewhere), the focus is on the bene elohim himself, Jesus, who speaks of El Shaddai as being the only true God.

@Cos I believe what you have addressed has been said before, and a response has already been made. It seems we are taking laps around the track field, in this sense.

@Jesus.defender It's also alluded to in the New Testament, whereas Jesus made mention of God not having much of a form at all, since he is a Spirit after all. Indeed one verses, but there are several.

1 hour ago, Jesus.defender said:

When YOU see the word "God", you automatically in your mind that word is translated to "God the father".

To a Christian, "God" means the Godhead.

3068 says otherwise.

And nowhere in the bible does it say there are 3 who consist of being one God. The bible is explicit, that the only God is the Father, even God's own testimony makes such even true in addition to the very laws upon laws that consist of such that has been brought forth in Moses' day.