Space Merchant
-
Posts
3,129 -
Joined
-
Days Won
26
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Space Merchant
-
-
@Kosonen The problem is they embrace the Trinity Doctrine. Granted Interfaith is also involved, that is quite the force to combat with the backing of higher powers. What we can do, as Christians is preach the truth, avoid the distractions of mainstream Christianity. Among all things, I have a strong disdain for the Trinity Doctrine, granted the centuries long battle of Non-Trinitarian vs Trinitarian is something that will commit others to defend what is true, that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, clear as day in Scripture.
The good news is, granted it is the mainstream Christian faith, it is on a strong decline. But despite this, it does pose a problem, for their falsehood results in people not wanting to truly know God, even discourages them, mainly the coming generation. Reasons why mainstream Christianity is connected with higher powers because they reap benefit, hence Kairos, PEAK, Together, and a list of others who are among this Interfaith fold.
-
Can't edit so I'll update. Even former members of the faith agrees with this wording, hence the root derives from stead, behalf, and a few other words, and some commentary reflects the same context. Strong's also match, therefore, valid.
-
On 6/16/2020 at 4:36 AM, 4Jah2me said:
Now this is where we need Truthers. I wonder if @Space Merchant will investigate this as a Truther ? Or if @JW Insider will investigate it as an 'insider' ?
Just seeing now you have mentioned me here. Other than that, we always know about CSA, 24/7/365, granted us Truthers are aware of sexual and violent abuse done to a mate and or child, this is no different. They already know of this situation, granted, the notion of an Gangstalking season concerning religion, JW is also on that menu apparently.
As for the subject matter this is an accusation, the faith community being accused of something, therefore further information is indeed needed. Even the notion points to alleged, therefore, more information is needed, as for the community I am of, they are already seeing the accusation through, likewise, to other things they are viewing.
That being said, it should be known to you, the website that @Witness cited is right-centered bias, for that alone should speak volumes here, especially when it comes to conveyance. So anyone is capable of jumping to conclusions when such is deemed an accusation, which is no different from the accused regardless of whatever institution, and in this regard, it is quite the accusation, granted the second-handedness.
On 6/16/2020 at 4:36 AM, 4Jah2me said:Contrary to 'popular opinion' I do not want to see the CCJW 'go down' completely. What I want to see is honesty and mercy and justice for CSA victims, and to see the Org 'made clean'.
They are aware of CSA, however, the problem is that pedophilia is damningly problematic, that is plagues any institution like that of a virus. Actions can be taken, however, it is a hit or miss, hence, solutions are needed to teach not just the children, but the adults as well. So far, no one proposes the as much as I do.
On 6/16/2020 at 3:21 PM, César Chávez said:When news media receive their news from secondhand accounts rather than investigating a substance on their own? It just becomes unsubstantiated news propaganda to appease former members of the Watchtower. A ploy that Trump uses to satisfy his base. 😏
Yes. Granted the source that is linked points to an accusation, and usually from right-centered bias websites, the push credibility by wording, as the website in question has a history.
Are you a Jehovah's Witness? For those that are aware of things they are not easily fazed. Likewise, not all former Witnesses are fazed by this, due to the fact they themselves are an enemy to disgruntled former Witnesses, for there is ample evidence of that since the whole 2017 fiasco whereas former Jehovah's Witnesses were at odds with disgruntled former Witnesses, i.e. accusing JWs of stopping an event, when in realize, it was a former JW or Bible Student, a friend of Cedars, that stopped it, but he was sent death threats and fat shamed due to the fact he had a role in stopping the disgruntled ones, likewise, with people of the community who also stopped the disgruntled ones, branding them extremist, along with someone's angry boyfriend.
That being said, it would not surprise anyone who will push an accusation as a truth out of the pool of hatred and disdainfulness. Likewise to 4Jah2me, a lot of Truthers are already aware, but as you pointed out, we are skeptical of second-hand sources; it is Info Wars all over again.
On 6/15/2020 at 11:38 PM, JJJ-AUSTRALIA said:In Australia not sure in the other parts of the world all congregations banks accounts were emptied and funds were redirected overseas now congregations only are allowed to keep $5000 in their accounts funny enough this information was not read to the JWs was only Elders knowledge.
What source is this? Also this is no surprise, granted some institutions, when it comes to revenue have a limit, a capacity, likewise to corporate having limits on branches, and or other outside of that spectrum.
On 6/16/2020 at 11:16 AM, Witness said:JWs are a stubborn people, afraid to move from their false comfort of “peace and security”, and stand for decency and righteousness. 1 Thess 5:1-3; Rev 18:4-8
Not all of them are stubborn. Also granted the existence of two groups, one looking for peace, and one looking for security, this is something people are looking at with extreme vigilance. L.T.'s branches, it's very existence is a major, major red flag! For this entity can easily take anyone of any group, of any faith without notice if not careful.
No man, woman or child is safe if they take the wrong step, for once this entity has you, it is not easy to get out, it is difficult, very difficult to escape.
-
@Jack Ryan Normally you would have something to say at this point... Will this end up like the misconceptions you proposed in the Islam Club in regards to Muhammad and his wife, the Qu'ran, likewise with not being aware of Ehud?
That being said, be it The Bible or the Qu'ran, does not matter if you agree with it or disagree with it, at least get the facts straight.
-
@Arauna Well a portion of that is due to the economical mafia that runs things globally. Money is pushed to befit their agenda whereas money is taken out to weaken whatever it is they deem unnecessary and or a loose end.
-
On 6/16/2020 at 2:37 PM, Matthew9969 said:
"You say this is a tactic, yet as I recall, you did the same thing (with falsehood), for WE can prove that Jesus is the Son of God. In your case: You defended paganism several times, as is with you defended several verses deem both a forgery and false, let alone your favor of a pastor who has put himself in this world as an inspired prophet, when in reality, as I told 4Jah2me, the last of the inspired ones died with the last Apostles, not even their students were inspired, but rather, like Christians then and now, are spirit led ones. You committed yourself to being prideful of your church over others due to the actions they take, when Christian are free willing offerers and or givers (every read the passage of the Widow's Mite). The list goes on, so if you want to state "tactic" we can simply bring you up if need be."
Unfortunately for you, Matthew, all those assertions are indeed 100% true, for I can quote or cite anything pertaining to you in regards to the highlighted items above.
That being said, as for the following:
On 6/16/2020 at 2:37 PM, Matthew9969 said:Do what you good little jw's like to do, quote people out of context....
The Trinitarian mind games do not work it, to deem everyone as a Jehovah's Witness when you can see who is one or who is not here already. Just because we hold to the Non-Trinitarian view does not mean we are of the same faith community.
If I apply this logic I can call you a member of Attis, a member of Tammuz and a list of other Triune believing communities, who, like you, dwell on pagan teachings. But I haven't have I? You are a Trinitarian, and are of mainstream Christianity.
By the way, those 2 chapters were from a documentation of Christian church practices in the 1st century, and as far as I know, Jehovah Witnesses, let alone their predecessors, Bible Students, existed around 60-120 A.D. Non-Trinitarians, especially that of Asia Minor were primarily Subornationist before the Councils, of which your teachings were birthed from.
That being said, I believe I asked you a question
in regards to John 17:3, granted the evidence before you which is clear as day:
Point out to where either me, @4Jah2me or @Srecko Sostar is wrong here? Likewise with Deserter, if the latter, and you said the information is incorrect, point it out. The marginal references speak for itself.
To deem something wrong without case only shows you to be the one who is in wrong, or incapable of, as all with most Trinitarians, not try to contradict themselves when it comes to their explanation because as far as I know, for instance, John 2:19, you end up having a 4th God if you profess your exegesis, something that is seen in a lot of debate regarding this verse, as is with not being able to avoid the notion of Christians being deemed "God(s)" without the dismantlement of the referenced verse.
-
5 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:
Unfortunately, this is how Jehovah's Witnesses act, even though the gentleman insist he is not a jw, this type of behavior speaks otherwise. At least he didn't totally change the subject, which is another tactic they use when their understanding of a subject is confusing to them.
4Jah2me is a former Jehovah's Witness, he has made this clear time and time again despite some of this points being questionable. Granted he is Non-Trinitarian with no affiliation to Jehovah's Witnesses, does not negate him to be one, regardless if he agrees/disagrees with whatever Jehovah's Witnesses profess - for all persons differ from each other, as is with experience. As predicted, Trinitarians deem those who do not believe in 3 Gods as the same, for the reality is, JW or not, they can see your folly, even the Muslims can see your folly, the very reason Trinitarians do not go to speaker's corner in the UK as they use to.
You say this is a tactic, yet as I recall, you did the same thing (with falsehood), for WE can prove that Jesus is the Son of God. In your case: You defended paganism several times, as is with you defended several verses deem both a forgery and false, let alone your favor of a pastor who has put himself in this world as an inspired prophet, when in reality, as I told 4Jah2me, the last of the inspired ones died with the last Apostles, not even their students were inspired, but rather, like Christians then and now, are spirit led ones. You committed yourself to being prideful of your church over others due to the actions they take, when Christian are free willing offerers and or givers (every read the passage of the Widow's Mite). The list goes on, so if you want to state "tactic" we can simply bring you up if need be.
Granted you jumped into the fray, can you point out as to anything Srecko, 4Jah2me, or I myself are in the wrong for? What is confusing?
Do you find Simon Peter's statement confusing when he said what he said at Pentecost 33 A.D. (Acts 2:24, 36)? I wonder what makes Peter's sermon confusing to Jew and Gentile Christians when he, as Paul also stated, that Jesus returned to life by means of God, who he himself, raised Jesus from the dead? How is it confusing to the fact an anointer anointed someone (God making Jesus the Christ)?
The spotlight is on you and the Deserter. So far, as can be seen and most likely unfounded, both you cannot prove what Shiwii and CoS has failed to do - the notion of the Christ being Firstborn out of the Dead, which in of itself, like Pentecost, can defend the narrative you attempt to spin.
That being said, you make want to check your history. Early Christians were fine, never believed in the Triune or got their math wrong to think 3 means 1, granted the below that predates the Trinity itself, they seem to thing otherwise, and this is just a small portion, mind you.
QuoteChapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist)
Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus (Yeshua) Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus (Yeshua) Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus (Yeshua) Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Matthew 7:6
Chapter 10. Prayer After Communion
But after you are filled, thus give thanks: We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus (Yeshua) Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name's sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant. Before all things we thank You that You are mighty; to You be the glory forever. Remember, Lord, Your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it; for Yours is the power and the glory forever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the [God of] son of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.
The Trinity came long afterwards near and or around the 4th century, you have Creeds, True Christendom never had Creeds, we simply had a few commands and commandments to follow, for as followers of Christ. Nowhere in Scripture does it even state believe Jesus is God or be sentenced to enteral hellfire by God (who mind you, punished 2 Kings for reacting Fire Torment of children, for God in this situation reacted emotionally).
To deem something as wrong, when there is ample evidence speaks volumes. No way to disprove it if you ignore Strong's and roots, marginal referecnes and context.
-
@4Jah2me As stated it is a rendering of the root, likewise with the word "[in] stead", granted the word in question derives from "for" in this verse. As for the verses in Ephesians, I think you misunderstood what I have said, for regarding representatives who take up after the Christ since he is not here, are mentioned as such in reference.
As for context, it is clear, even when combined with the marginal reference.
-
The term, Scripturally, states that the Ambassadors that Apostle Paul is mentioning here are the followers of the Christ. He refers to himself and his fellow Christians as such [ambassadors] substituting for and or partaking in behalf of for Christ. In Bible times, ambassadors and other messengers could be dispatched for several reasons. In Greek, it notes and or points to to be aged, act as an ambassador. From the base of presbuteros; to be a senior, i.e. act as a representative. - hence Philippians 3:20.
Granted even the references show us that Christians are indeed representatives to the Christ in regards to spreading the gospel.
The same term in question is used in Ephesians 6:19, 20.
Again with the Strong's "substituting" is a rending, likewise, to behalf, etc. https://biblehub.com/greek/5228.htm
Huper means the following:
- 1) in behalf of, for the sake of
- 2) over, beyond, more than
- 3) more, beyond, over
-
20 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:
Wrong. Only those indoctrinated by men or organisations.
If you had READ the article, which i know as a JW you are not allowed to, Jesus IS referred to as Almighty God.
You show yourself to be credible, but you are not, for these same assertions people have proven you to be in err here.
To 4Jah2me's credit, you are the one who is incorrect here. He knows, as with the JWs, or any Non-Trinitarian, that Jesus is the Son of the True God, nowhere in Scripture is Jesus spoken of as "Almighty God" let alone did he even take plunder to being God, as pointed out in Philippians 2:6, which points out that did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, (the MS states did not take plunder and or equality to being equal to him [God], that is even critical proven by the evidence even in the Strong's Concordances to, to which Trinitarians are known to misuse and or ignore).
That being said, you cannot disprove the Non-Trinitarian view, which is indeed, the true one, not the 4th century Creed induced assertion you profess.
20 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:When did He say this? Oh, WHEN HE WAS ON EARTH where He humbled Himself.
In John 14:28 Jesus is not speaking about His nature or being (Christ had earlier said in John 10:30, ‘I and the Father are one’), but about His lowly position of incarnation as a man. The Athanasian Creed says that Christ is ‘equal to the Father as touching His Godhood, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood’. Christ was here contrasting His human humiliation, shame, suffering, rejection, opposition by enemies, and soon crucifixion, with the Father’s majesty, glory and worship by the angels in heaven.
The Quicumque Vult (The Athanasian Creed) was never practiced by the early Christians, it came long time after that. Citing this is your next mistake for the verse in question. The idea deeming Jesus to be literally equal to God is in your Creeds, but no in Scripture.
The writer was describing The Son of Man here, Jesus, who was indeed on the earth for he was a man born in the Law, was he not (Galatians 4:4)?
One of your citations hints of that somehow The Angels forgot who God is, again, another Trinity based contradiction and a cup of confusion.
In John 14:28, as is with numerous occasions, Jesus acknowledged his Father’s absolute greatness, as is with the Father’s authority, and position of sovereignty, which all can be found in the following cited verses
- Matthew 4:9, 10; 20:23
- Lu 22:41, 42
- John 5:19; 8:42; 13:16
After the ascension of the Christ, into heaven, Jesus’ followers, his Apostles, described the God our Father as having a distinct superior position compared to his only-begotten son, Jesus, which can also be found here:
- 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:20, 24-28
- 1 Peter 1:3
- 1 John 2:1; 4:9, 10
In the Greek Language, you have the word meizon, which Greek Strong’s # 3185. The word in question is rendered greater depending on the translation, and it is in a comparative form of the word for great, which in Greek is megas, Greek Strong’s # 3173. In many contexts where one person or thing is said to be greater and or superior to another
- Matthew 18:1; 23:17
- Mark 9:34; 12:31
- Luke 22:24
- John 13:16
- 1 Corinthians 13:13
Also one can see the Strong's you mentioned is not even in the verse, otherwise that would have been a Greek violation. You cannot compare words like that, especially when there is no root connections with no genitive connections even, therefore, despite the wording, to do this on your own is silly. By the way, that is that word is Greek Strong's #2909, not used in the verse in question, and or has any connection. Stop with the thinking of man when it comes to this.
Therefore, in context, even by means of even the marginal references, which can be found cited in nearly every translation, Jesus here is telling us that the Father, who is his God, who is is Father, according to him in John 20:17, 30, is greater than him.
In the Didache itself, is mirrors the same thing, therefore, you are in error, Deserter.
20 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:Jesus said, ‘The Father is greater (Greek: meizon) than I’, not ‘The Father is better (Greek: kreitton) than I’. ‘Greater’ refers to the Father’s greater position (in heaven), not to a greater nature. If the word ‘better’ had been used, this would indicate that the Father had a better nature than Jesus.
i) The distinction is made clear in Hebrews 1:4 where ‘better’ (Gk: kreitton) is used to teach Jesus’ superiority over the angels in His nature and position.
ii) This difference between ‘greater’ and ‘better’ is seen in this example:
‘The President of a country is greater (Greek: meizon) in position than his people, but as a human being he is not better (Greek: kreitton) in nature than his people’.
iii) Jesus in becoming a man, not only took on a lower position than the Father, but also took on a lower position than the angels. ‘But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death’. (Hebrews 2:9)As addressed of what the context and the Strong's convey, we can see here you are adding your own exegesis, spinning the context and the Strong's to befit your Trinitarian concept. As I recall you had 3 persons being God, not two, therefore, granted you cannot assert the 3rd person of the Trinity here, this failure is coupled with the latter statement.
That being said, when it comes to Strong's, pay attention to the wording, context and the grammatical usage. The number is correct, however, one must pay attention to it's usage and where and how it is used. The other one you added to make yourself seem right to confuse the others.
19 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:Jesus said, ‘The Father is greater (Greek: meizon) than I’, not ‘The Father is better (Greek: kreitton) than I’. ‘Greater’ refers to the Father’s greater position (in heaven), not to a greater nature. If the word ‘better’ had been used, this would indicate that the Father had a better nature than Jesus.
i) The distinction is made clear in Hebrews 1:4 where ‘better’ (Gk: kreitton) is used to teach Jesus’ superiority over the angels in His nature and position.
ii) This difference between ‘greater’ and ‘better’ is seen in this example:
‘The President of a country is greater (Greek: meizon) in position than his people, but as a human being he is not better (Greek: kreitton) in nature than his people’.
iii) Jesus in becoming a man, not only took on a lower position than the Father, but also took on a lower position than the angels. ‘But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death’. (Hebrews 2:9)You are basing your example in order to spin the Strong's Concordances. That will not work in your favor when the evidence can be found on Biblehub and elsewhere. To add more fuel to the fire, you dodged both the context of the verse in what Jesus truly means, as is with references that solidifies this truth.
As for Hebrews 1:4, nowhere in that verse was G#3185 used (not even in French translations they'd make that mistake, as is with all translations, if anything the error lies in one man - you). Evidence here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/1-4.htm
According to Jesus, he does have a God, in fact, Jesus says a number of times in Scripture he has a God, even acknowledged it, even upon the brink of death, he called out to God, which was prophetical, due to what is read in Psalms.
Jesus was on earth because he was sent to not do his Will, according to John 14:10 and the verses found in John chapter 6, but the Will of the Father. He also points out the people are deemed happy for knowing that he is indeed The Son of God, granted pretty much everyone knew, even the demons and Satan knew, that God had sent him.
20 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:No need to be sorry, i am enjoying this polite and friendly discussion. Thank you.
Yes, the quotes you use are all of when Jesus WAS ON EARTH.
There are marginal references of Jesus after his course on earth. Why ignore this?
20 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:It was Jehovah the father speaking to Jehovah the son.
Elohim (El Shaddai) cannot be his own Bene Elohim. The Most High, be it Yahweh or Jehovah to the modern English speaker, is not his own Son. The Bible tells us that Yahweh/Jehovah is the Father, in both the Old and New Testament.
God was speaking to Jesus, all 3 occasions, there were witnesses to account for this experience, the latter, being found in John 12, whereas Jesus was indeed troubled of what is to come, the people, a crowd, witnessed the talk between a Father and his Son.
That being said.... Jehovah The Son???? That is a new one. What happen to "God the Son"? Did that term fashion trend die out?
20 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:Wrong.
The Holy Spirit is fully God and has personality as He can be blasphemed.
The Holy Spirit has the three attributes of personality, those being: mind, emotions and will.
An ‘active force’ does not have personal attributes. Your claim of the Holy Spirit being an active force is disproven if the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit has mind,emotions & will.
The Holy Spirit intercedes or prays for believers.‘The Spirit itself makes intercession for us with groanings’. (Romans 8:26).
The Holy Spirit hears. ‘Whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.’ (John 16:13)
The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed.‘he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost’.Mk3:29
People cannot be blasphemed. We can only be slandered. Only God can be blasphemed.
The Holy Spirit uses personal pronouns to describe Himself: John 15:26; 16:13;(he):
‘The Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabus. . .’ (Acts 13:2).
Actually you are wrong. Using Spirit when the Greek Grammar Form points to Neuter-Masculine does not prove person-hood. Likewise with cities, and or objects, even death referred to as either He/Him/His or She/Her, etc. None of the which translates even close to person hood.
That being said, blood cries, and a rock speaks, a city gives herself into prostitution, etc. All these examples do not prove to be literal, likewise to a neutered word - Spirit. Which you have been refuted on in the past, as is with Cos, who said exactly the same thing as you have done.
Therefore, the spirit is an energy, a force, etc, even spoken of as God's hand/finger and or breathe, never in the Bible or in the Didache, is the Holy Spirit deemed a person. Ever.
That being said, you and the other Trinitarian CoS, were told this before, granted you believe this to be true, you were not able to even defend it in the past, even to the point you unknowingly attacked your own.
You may want to check the references for the verses you cited too, but obvious you refuse because it can prove your claim here to 4Jah2me as incorrect, thus exposing you to be in error.
20 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:A brilliant question, my friend.
Let's see what the Bible says.
God the father. Acts 10:40 "τοῦτον ὁ θεὸς ἤγειρεν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν ἐμφανῆ γενέσθαι" ) "Him God raised up the third day and shewed him openly"
God raised Jesus from the dead. God took him out of the pangs of death. This is said in Scripture a good number of times, even during Pentecost 33 A.D.
Jesus is spoken of to be the Firstborn out of the Dead (a title that no Trinitarian can prove connects to God succumbing to death hence the ideology),
On 8/3/2018 at 12:45 PM, Space Merchant said:Jesus called Risen Christ and or Risen Jesus (Lord), as well as the other title known as Firstborn out of the Dead [out of Death].
for God himself cannot die, he isn't even a man, he is a spirit and is incorruptible (immortal), I agree with Paul, Job and countless others - God is indeed not a man.
20 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:Jesus. John 2:19,21 "ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν", "Jesus answered and said unto them Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" 21 "ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ", "But he spake of the temple of his body"
The Holy Spirit. Romans 8:11 "εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν ὁ ἐγείρας τὸν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ Πνεῦμα ἐν ὑμῖν", "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you"Jesus was talking about what is take place.
In context, the verses show us that Jesus' body was the Temple of God; the Word tabernacled in human flesh and that flesh was the Father's Temple. He, this body of flesh, was the Father's Word and he spoke the words of the Father. This account is about the Father's house, the Temple. Jesus' words were not his own but the Father's who sent him.
This body of flesh, His Temple, was His Word to the world. Since he was the Father's Word, there were two witnesses as according to the Law. Jesus tells us many times in John's Gospel that he spoke the words of the Father. He kept his Father's word for eternal life.
He says, for I did not speak from myself, but the Father Himself who sent me has given me commandment as to what to say and what to speak. I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
- John 3:34
- John 6:30-36
- John 12:50
- John 14:10 (once again)
- There in note, Jesus is God’s Representative, enacting shaliah principle. Jesus always listens to God’s voice and speaks what God directs, hence the Jewish term, shaliah.
The words of Jesus at John 2:19 were the words of the Father. The Father's word is the word of life (1 John 1:1). In the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Father's word tabernacled in human flesh. Therefore, being the Father's word, what then did you expect the Father to say when these men asked Jesus by what authority he had cleared the Temple? Destroy this Temple and in 3 days I will raise it up.As for Romans 8:11.... It alludes to the same thing, and it also adds the fact that those mentioned will also be raised up by God as well. You ignore this part of the verse for a reason, which is obvious. Because by means of your logic it would deem Christians to be God(s) in this sense, if you were to include that part, but the reality is, God has the ability to raise the dead, even entrusting said abilities to his own Son, Jesus, who can raise the dead (praying to God/asking him prior to resurrecting people), it also adds on to the fact that Christians because of God are made alive in the spirit, together in Christ.
Also it is best to remember the following: In he full passage, it says Jesus was given the authority to take it up again by a command of the Father. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to claim John 2:19 means Jesus is God because he raised his own body if he needed to be given the authority to do so by God.
Shiwii, who is also a Trinitarian, brought up this verse, John 2:19 (as well as Hebrews 8:11), same conclusion, for the Firstborn out of the dead cannot raise himself, the Living God is the one who raised him, as his enabling him to raise the dead, as is with him enabling his followers. Whereas the latter, like Cos had the same outcome.
20 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:Remember that Jesus condescended Himself to take on the likeness (form, appearance) of man and the form of a servant. (Phil 2:7). His becoming a man involved gaining human attributes (subject to weakness, pain, sorrow and temptation), but not giving up his divine attributes.
This is concerning Jesus becoming a man, not God. The marginal references to the verse you mention points this out. Evidence of this is that it even points to John 1:14 (and cf.).
That being said, to say something incorruptible became corruptible is a contradiction granted the Bible itself said God is not a man, even confirmed by Jesus at the Well of Jacob.
On 5/13/2018 at 7:39 PM, Space Merchant said:- Numbers 23:19 - God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
- 1 Samuel 15:29 - And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.”
20 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:If you wish to talk about other standard passages the watchtower uses like John 20:28, John 20:17, John 17:3, I Corinthians 8:6, Psalm 110:1, etc. i would be more than happy to have a friendly, polite non-confrontational discussion.
I think most of your above points, i have done short videos on.
Unfortunately for you, Non-Trinitarianism is not isolated to Jehovah's Witnesses alone, even Restorationism that predates the JWs before they existed, granted Christians today and even 1st century Christians did not believe in the Trinity, and there is ample evidence to this, some of which refuted your assertions 6 ways through Sunday, in the past.
As for those verses you mentioned, you cited them several times to spin the narrative into Trinitarianism, all of which, were dis-proven with the actual and legitimate truth.
That being said, you are, this time around as hard boiled as the Trinitarian David Wood, or that of Bob The Builder.
-
19 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:
I knew you were not worth talking to
Oh and by the way I am NOT a JW. So from the beginning you were wrong.
Now you see why I am strict and critical when it comes to misconceptions and Bible Strong's - being caught off guard it can easily be used against you when someone of the latter viewpoint is attempting to prove Jesus is God (Yahweh/Jehovah).
Jesus.Deserter is an example of a mainstream Christian affiliated with the belief the The Trinity and as pointed out in the thread you started, you can see how vastly the view differs. Lucky for you he is a low level Trinitarian, for he targets JWs, not just to lure them out, but anyone who does not believe Jesus to be God.
To the common Trinitarian, if you believe Jesus is not God, you are against the truth of the Scriptures, and you are deem someone who is in denial of Jesus' Deity and or that of him being God - therefore, destined for eternal hellfire torment, as they believe also.
Trinitarians view us, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, as false and or incorrect and deem us as prophets of falsehood, moreover, their influenced is spread to those who, the majority to produce falsehood, misinformation and twisting information. It is nothing to do with teachings of anything else, but rather, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit alone (The very core of Christianity itself, as is with anything that predates Christianity), hence this "war" I have been talking about is the whole Non-Trinitarian vs. Trinitarian situation we've been at since like the 4th century, and even in present day it is far more critical and serious due to the fact that mainstream Christianity is on a decline due to Christian minorities and Islam.
That being said, regardless if you are among Jehovah's Witnesses or not, granted JWs themselves are Non-Trinitarian as is among Restorationism (something Masons and Trinitarians often go after), you will still be branded as such, they even often brand Muslims as JWs outside of conversation or debate of the Crucifixion, since you are in the UK, this is often the tactic used in Speaker's Corner there.
Anyone who is not up there in Bible knowledge, they also mock by saying "running away", unlike the notion of proving claims granted they deem the latter as cowardly.
That being said, he used a Greek word and Strong's in his response to you, for there is good reason he skipped over me. In this case, you legitimately have a chance to prove the Trinitarian wrong here.
@Srecko Sostar That will not do because as I told 4Jah2me, Trinitarian can easily use those verses against you. This is why you need to utilize marginal references, as I said elsewhere, even Strong's can help you here, mainly in regards to John 1:1.
To the both of you, to combat The Trinity Doctrine as Non-Trinitarians, you really need to build up that muscle, that muscle being Scripture.
Like I said, in this situation you are dealing with Trinitarianism now. Therefore Bible verses/passages you have to know what connects to it, the references, this also goes for Hebrew and Greek Strong's as well and context because John 14:28 can easily be spun around to their favor if you do not go about things with discernment and or unprepared. That being said, the narrative here, on his part is the ideology, the view of this verse being seen as Jesus having 2 natures that correlates with the view of Godhood.
Granted he is err, his view is an obvious one (The Creed he quoted).
-
@Arauna The EU is more favorable towards Islam, for a number of reasons, and is often the most protected, which was very evident with various events that had taken place regarding God (Allah) and Jesus (Isa) in the Islamic faith vs. that of the Christian faith.
Plus, Islam is an increasing faith whereas mainstream Christian belief has been declining for a while now since 2015, ironically enough, Christian minorities are barely touched.
That being said, there are those in Islam that has been doing bad, something of which even those within the faith brought up, especially during the time when people of almost every other faith as well as onlookers use to congregate at Speaker's Corner before the pandemic and protesting.
Well China and Russia are allies and opponents of the US and the UK. The United Nations, although wanting them to somewhat comply, is like that of an anchor in regards to them.
As for these movements, it is a problem, and will continue to do so. Another issue is as with all ministers, even for you Jehovah's Witnesses, as time progresses, gospel spreading will be difficult due to the fact that today's world are normalizing things that even the Bible deems as incorrect and or bad, to the point of brazen conduct, so to find people who want to know about God will be a bit more challenging, as is, mainstream Christianity is also another obstacle, granted they are declining, they have become far more aggressive.
So areas you can preach in, some you cannot, other times, if the person in question and or contact is allowing it, you can visit so and so, something of which I faced in my ministry trips in Africa.
-
@JW Insider Yes. James O'Keefe is someone who is often talked about in the Truther Community by some, for the focus in regards to him is when it comes to bringing forth to light the actions of the MSM in some cases, granted, in said community everyone does not like the MSM narrative.
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:Didn’t someone say of them that they were the enemy of the American people?
Only those who are aware and the Truther Community. The MSM deem them as the good guys, as they did for ANTIFA for a long time now.Check out this Snippet from CNN with the mayor. This is what the MSM is producing.That being said, as the count of officers are on the decline, it makes you think what if there is no police? The answer to that is an obvious one.I'm also hearing things, this is a rumor so cannot confirm it yet, that ANTIFA's next target is Texas.
-
50 minutes ago, Witness said:
I almost choked on a piece of watermelon reading this. Any anointed one who desires to load every JW onto an airplane and fly them to the wilderness in Australia, possesses a very unstable view of the spiritual fulfillment in Revelation. But if the two of you work well together, that’s great!
Interesting, may need to quote things you say in the past, in addition, the latter is not JW. The notion of rulership concerning the heirs is not unstable, it is what it is - truth. Same can be said as to where they will be ruling from - hence, the Heavenly Kingdom itself is in Heaven.
To Edward Andrews' credit, he also points out that the context of the verse in question, Revelations 5:10, to which he stated that regardless, the reader would be able to see for themselves Jesus, as is with the heirs, will rule over the inhabitants who are on the earth.
That is one of several scholarly notes, which is identical to the viewpoint in question.
That being said, it is also more than that obvious granted others, before I even made mention to it calls such into question, namely some of the interpretations you pose.
Not really, granted your discussion with Kosonen is evident. The Chosen Ones normally do not call out to others, however, they are capable of discernment.
50 minutes ago, Witness said:Great Commission? SM, I was a JW, not part of the Unification Church. I’m sorry, but you will never get it!
That is an interesting remark, perhaps you may need to read Matthew Matthew 28:16-20, which is the notion of The Great Commission. The preaching of the good news gospel and the spread of the Messianic Age. The church Christians are of, that of the Christ, which connects well with the living stones discussion. Things of that nature you should know, be it JW or not. It can also be noted that this correlates with the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread the gospel to all the nations of the world. The most famous version of The Great Commission is in is in the cited verse, as is, with the context (again with this passage, wording differs in translation, but the Strong's are correct), where on a mountain in Galilee Jesus calls on his followers to make disciples of and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Then we have the events of Pentecost 33 A.D, and onward regarding Christians of the early apostolic church, those in union with Christ, Jesus.
Christians are the ones to profess Scripture and truth, enable those to learn about God, about Christ in order to gain eternal life (John 17:3), as is with learning all things pertaining to the promises of God's Kingdom, as is with his purpose...
That was an obvious one, thought you would have noted that one.
That being said, no different from what we both stated in the past, regarding heavenly Jerusalem, the Christians and those of the Priesthood.
59 minutes ago, Witness said:I think you really need to lighten up. Your determination to be beyond minutely critical of everyone's use of scripture, will only cause you health issues. I think you should pray about it. But, even though my own life is incredibly crazy busy, I will attempt to “learn Concordances”, and I expect you will keep me in line about it. I can’t promise anything though, since I go where the wind takes me. 🙂
Take the time to do so, for such things are indeed important. The basics can be learnt in under 10 minutes, as both links and the example tutorial shown to Screko. Surely sparing 10 minutes would not commit injury. To ignore the genitive when the verb is in use is evident on your account, therefore, it is something important.
My focus is primarily the verse in the subject itself, granted with 100% evidence in this regard, but you and the latter deem otherwise, even when there is ample evidence of the matter.
That being said, you did this last time, and like every time, it is the same situation... Also yes, but as a follower of the Christ, he gave command did he not concerning the Great Commission did he not? That is something we as Christians must adhere to.
-
2 minutes ago, Witness said:
As I said, I read only a partial amount of your lengthy comments. If you agree with something I have said here, I have overlooked it.
Granted the discussion of the spiritual house and the living stones, I doubt it is overlooked. You were spot on with the position of the heirs, where they will be and their role, as is those on the earth, granted despite both groups being different, they are still of that house, of which The Most High is their God and these people follow the Christ, the one who is their King - Jesus.
4 minutes ago, Witness said:Dare I say this, because at least one booklet from you will emerge from it;
Granted I lessen it, as I did several times, you will often say I do not Scriptural support of this or that. When Scriptural support is pointed out, all marginal references of a verse and or passage must be laid out before us so the understanding itself can be found, as is with the conclusion. You are no different from what I do, the only difference is I break them down.
5 minutes ago, Witness said:but why Kosonen is involved, beats me.
Because Kosonen, and I had called to question of you stating you are among the chosen due to past remarks, one instance I even told you if you were not as you are now, you'd do a lot more to benefit from the Great Commission, hence the commission itself, you were a bit confused about the context of that in the past. But several times we can see the mix and or misapplication of Scripture and applying it for the wrong reasons and or far from what the subject connects to. You even made claims whereas the latter information state otherwise and use sources outside of Scripture to bring support to misleading information.
Hence, this is why I share that same skepticism as the latter, and to Kosonen's credit, was seeking other chosen ones without normal to odd views.
10 minutes ago, Witness said:How about this time, you tell me what you agree with that I have said here.
You haven't really said much on the verse in question and stated something else regarding the chosen ones that is deemed true. The focus, however, is the verse in question, the context, which is summed up in a single sentence, as is the wording, whereas there is no violation whatsoever. You were incorrect about the Concordance though, as, you did the past. Granted the concordance, it is unfounded and impossible to deem the latter as false or teaching something different when the view of the majority is the same, as I told JB, the only view that is opposite is the Trinitarian view of the chosen ones, which includes Revelations 5:10.
The thing is you, as with the others do not really know what a Greek violation is in Scripture. I cited to JB an example, for you I will show you what I had address to which you guys are ignoring.
A Text violation, be it Hebrew or Greek is when a word is add/removed, which does not match the Strong's in question, which can prove problematic when it comes to translation of the bible and or revision. The Bible is also clear on the matter, found in Deuteronomy 4:2 as with references for the verse.
1 Timothy 3:16, there is a text violation of the Greek Language, THEOS, meaning God. The earliest MS does not contain the word THEOS at all, therefore it being in the verse is a violation, which results in a another view, the Trinitarian view. It is verse errors like this that makes them assume and preach that Jesus is not the Son, but God himself. It is problematic because you have people questioning as to why God's angels do not recognize him and a list of other things. Check it out on Biblehub, for I invite you to see what I see.
The other is Revelations 1:11. similar to the first example, but there is a full sentence added with Strong's and the like that are not found in the earliest MS. Again, our last discussion you were fully aware of who and what the Alpha and Omega entails, as I do because the both of us are Non-Trinitarian. But our counterparts, like 1 Timothy 3:16 and Revelations 5:10, they see this verse as legitimate proof that Jesus is God, for they say that only God is A&O, so that makes Jesus this too, when we ourselves know the truth of the matter. again, check Biblehub, you will see the difference.
A violation of text can easily shift a viewpoint, even another teaching that correlates with belief, however, granted the verse in question, as stated, there is no violation, scholars point to the same thing, the commentary and the majority of Non-Trinitarian Christians, to the Jehovah's Witnesses credit, they see this too, even before they existed, they, as is all Restorationist hold this view, be it a single soul or organized.
That being said, Concordances and a legitimate study of Scripture is the reason we were able to find forgeries, textual alternations, added and or removed narratives in Scripture, as is with refuting the false views that is professed by mainstream Christian, i.e. the soul living when the body is dead, the teaching of God being cruel, etc. This of that nature. And most importantly, the notion of Jesus being God, which you and I both know that is an err.
Like I said, there is put 2 views on Revelations 5:10, therefore, the latter cannot have a different teaching when even their own website states the view, deem Non-Trinitarian. As for the wording itself, no violation whatsoever. Again, in the past, I encouraged you to learn Concordances, and I am telling you this now if you, like JB, are interjecting the Modern English Language to reverse ill-defined Greek Prepositions.
-
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:
"Yes. This person fully well believes that the wording in the verse, as I mentioned to you, changes everything, he even deems the Non-Trinitarian view as false."
Did you see the reply? There is only one view, to think Non-Trinitarians in general have a different belief and or viewpoint is deeming the latter as false, when it is only the Trinitarian view of the matter which is the negative one.
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:I believe that SM was talking to someone else about me here in this conversation, on a different forum..
Only the question raised, I even told you from the get go after citing 1 John 4:1, granted it is a serious verse to use.
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:UM, he seems to KNOW exactly what I'm thinking or believing.
Because you are a Non-Trinitarian yourself, that is why. You know the position of those who will reign with Christ, yet if the latter has the exact same view, you deem it is a different viewpoint, which is incorrect. Even here it can be seen that you are one, just as I am, Witness and the others.
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:Does he think he is now God ?
You can't be this serious....
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:I would imagine his intent was to get me a bad reputation.
Clearly no. The thing is here I am telling you credible truth, but the problem here is you deem otherwise. Granted it is 100% true, the problem here is because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach it. You think this is about reputation? That is exactly what Butler said when it comes to facts to which he previous deem as true, but later false - a spun around contradiction engineered by one's own hand.
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:So sad when people have to go to such extremes.
No one is going to extremes, it is not like the latter does any different anyways.
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:And he says he is a Christian ?
Because I am one. As is the others. The difference, in the core, is that I do not believe Jesus is God himself.
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:He never even asked me exactly what i believed,
Your responses on this forum shows that you are a Non-Trinitarian. You Believe God is the Father, do you not? That Jesus is his Son whom he sent, do you not? Clearly you do not share the viewpoint of our opposites, this goes for everyone on this thread alone.
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:he just made guesses.
How is it a guess when you riddled this forum if the Non-Trinitarian view outside of anything pertaining to JWs or CSA? Must I quote you now?
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:Does he even show any proof of his claims against me ?
I have. The claim of yours is that Jehovah's Witnesses have their own teaching concerning Revelations 5:10, to which the viewpoint is exactly the same as all Non-Trinitarians, Biblehub, Bible Gateway, Blue Letter, even Witness' comment from an older discussion I added on purpose, to which you deem as incorrect. Srecko, being as he is agreed with the other Christians, when I said the same thing, to which he deem as wrong.
The Non-Trinitarian view is not primarily associated with Jehovah's Witnesses due to the fact this view has been here for a long, long time on opposition to the latter view.
Next we have the wording. There is no issue with the wording because due to the fact there was no violation of the Greek Language, from commentary to scholarly notes, all stating the same thing, and understand clearly the focus of the verse in question - rulership and authority. The irony here is all marginal references for verses 9 and 10 points to the same conclusion. But you are reading the verse as normal as possible granted, an honest Bible reader can see the conveyance.
Thus both claims have, easily been rectified with Biblehub only - literally. It only took one commentary note and a Strong's number.
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:But if he finds it necessary to do this type of thing to people then he will likely be judged on it by God or Christ.
Judged for telling and speaking the truth? Seriously?
Perhaps it is not the verse in question that needs the context explained, but rather, your convolution.
The context is clearly for anyone to understand? So you must I quote a former JW then? She's Non-Trinitarian by the way:
-
Quote
: I'd hate to be a naysayer, but I believe that the NWT is taking epi + gen. NP as a genitive of subordination, which is technically valid. You can find this usage in a number of texts where epi is used to indicate authority and power over another party: "God who is over all (epi pantón) blessed forever" (Romans 9:5), "One God and Father of all, who is over all (epi pantón), and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:6), "I will give him authority over the nations (epi tón ethnón)" (Revelation 2:26), etc. Since the verb basileuousin "we shall be reigning" is specifically concerned with authority over others, I would say that the NWT rendering is probably as valid as the alternative. Another example with this verb can be found in Luke 19:14: "We will not have this man to reign over us (basileusai eph' hémas)".
Must I go on some more?
- [Qoute:] Actually, you make a good point..... the word "over" is ambiguous in English. Just like the word "with", which can be used for both instrumental ("I cut the bread with a knife") and accompaniment senses ("I went to the park with John"). The same goes with "over". In English, "over" can indicate a spatial location ("The astronauts were orbiting over Africa when they received the transmission"), as well as a non-spatial relation of power ("The king ruled over his subjects"). Epi is not used to indicate a spatial relation of "over" (its spatial relation is "on" or "upon"), the proper word for that is huper. So if the Society uses the probable genitive of subordination in Revelation 5:10 as indicating a location of the anointed rulers over the earth, i.e. in heaven, then that would be a misinterpretation of the given text (even if the NWT rendering is permissible).
Again? Seems like her points mirror mine as with the Bible reading Christians, as is with the commentary, as is with the scholarly notes.
- [Quote:] Likewise, at Revelation 5:10, those entrusted with rulership are in charge of the earth, exercising dominion over those dwelling on it. The subject matter of this text is rulership, and logically, therefore, the Greek word epi calls attention, not to the location of the rulers, but to the area over which they exercise authority. That they rule "over the earth" agrees with the rest of the Scriptures, which reveal that God’s kingdom by Christ is heavenly and that Jesus’ associate rulers are promised heavenly life.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Edward D. Andrews, Robert Bratcher, Kelly, Liddell & Scott, Thyer, Friberg, Godspeed, Beck, etc. ALL address the same thing, as I do, as do those who believe that Jesus is God's Son, ALL of them pointing to the Greek proposition word "epi" All of them stating the same conclusion regarding Revelations 5:10.
Now there ARE those out there that say otherwise, these persons are primarily Trinitarians. They take this verse and justify both wording and context as incorrect, the view that is held by Non-Trinitarians.
-
-
3 hours ago, Witness said:
My view has not wavered one bit.
You say this, but our discussion on the living stones and the spiritual house when it was addressed regarding the chosen ones, remained the same, yet on here, even if I took a snippet of from you in said discussion, it is deemed wrong now.
Granted you say this, to which Kosnen and I are skeptical, you should know your position as that of the priesthood, but to agree with him, I am starting to see why the view is held to which he seeks others like him. So the latter was right.
-
@JW Insider @Arauna So you both are familier with James O'Keefe? That is nice to hear. I never met him, but I had seen him a few times.
Another update, police officers around the states are resigning, some even going back home to hang up the uniform and badge. There was an entire SWAT team that quit. Fake crimes are being committed to lure out police officers to target them. The Truthers are saying that in CHAZ, there is crime running all over the place since there is pretty much total lawlessness. Beatdowns, women being raped in tents, people getting robbed, etc. Looks like the rapper is not in control and most likely if people get too crazy they will usurp him. Concerning rape, it is said they are not suppose to say anything because they do not want the outside world to know that they cannot stop the problem, and should the MSM hear about it, they won't say a word because they defended this narrative and support it.
There are opportunist out there who will go to CHAZ to commit any type of crime they desire.
The UK is a powder keg, granted there are black vs. white confrontation in small number. Which can expand as the days go by.
That being said, in the Truther community, we are bombarded with update after update after update, mainly when the MSM says something
-
@4Jah2me @Arauna Since the start of the Coronavirus pandemic, the rich and powerful have been moving out of the states, specifically New York. They have secondary homes outside of the states, those that got out evaded the early lockdowns, now we have the protests. Some of them even encourage protesting, but best know if the rioters and looters come to heir doorstep, they will fight back or tell them to attack somewhere else. Some of these rich folks, their children, high school and college, are part of some far-left movements, for instance, ANTIFA.
So technically how they sound "BLM! Yeah! burn and loot everything to the ground.... But don't attack my property, bob is up the street, go to him instead".
Black Israelites, however, I had quite the history with them.
-
37 minutes ago, Witness said:
Incredible. I wonder what its like to be that self-assured before God and Christ.
1 Cor 10:12
You already based an assumption regarding manuscripts? At the time I was dealing with a Trinitarian problem involving manuscripts that prove the Lord, your Lord, our Lord is the Son of God, and not God himself. For during that time, I was very quick to knock down points of Trinitarianism regarding several manuscripts in question to which based off of memory at the time of my earlier days, I had stated something otherwise only to realize the error.
That being said, clearly, I was not going to let the onlooker become enticed by the teachings of the mainstream, granted the conclusion, she sided with me granted the onlooker herself wanted to become a Christian but was confused on who the Christ is.
In this regard, the verse in question is quite clear, therefore, regarding what Kosnen said to you, I, being skeptical, side with the one who understands some verses in Revelations.
If you are wondering as to what pointed out earlier, it was your own wording from an earlier discussion regarding the chosen ones, that same notion, when pointed out differently, but still concise, you deem it as wrong, likewise to Srecko regarding the quotes.
You of all people should know the context of Revelations 5:10, granted past remarks shows that you do.
14 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:#8e44ad;">Perhaps if go on JW broadcasting there is same level of self-confidence and self-assured visible. :))
That is quite the statement, granted the woman became a minister because had shown her that Jesus is indeed the Son of the Living God. Perhaps you can come to that same conclusion, but as we already know, just by this verse alone, the MS would not be an easy task for you.
That being said, you said the other Christians were right, so to deem the response as wrong, as you have done mine, is unfounded now by you due to the fact the same thing said about Revelations 5:10, was exactly what they said. Oh there's more, I'm just saying it however.
You said it best, hence, you played into your own hand without me doing anything.
13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:they answered me on questions
What I have been saying compared to theirs:
On 6/12/2020 at 1:40 PM, Space Merchant said:Christians who believe that Jesus is the Son of God knows that God has chosen him as King. As a King, he has those under him, the Chosen Ones who bear God's name and Jesus' name on their foreheads, who will rule with our Lord, our Christ - Jesus. The Kingdom of which God gives to his Son, he will be stationed their with the Chosen ones to reign over the earth from there.
Look at similar that is:
19 hours ago, Space Merchant said:Normal readers who are not too good with reading the bible, if that is the case, will see it as they read it, but, us as bible readers, we can see the word in question is used properly. So, Revelation 5 verse 10 is alright. If it is an interlinear to the modern language, the wording will be a little different to make it readable and easily digestible to the honest reader."on the earth", "over the earth", "upon the earth", "above the earth", we know what the verse means so any translations that looks like this does not change the viewpoint of what I am about to say next. God's Kingdom is above us after all, and the Messiah and his ruling buddies are reigning upon the earth [from God's Kingdom], well, soon of course :p. The verse is also telling us that this is about ruler-ship, for the heirs of the Kingdom will co-rule as little kings and judges upon those who are living on the earth, make sense right?
19 hours ago, Space Merchant said:So from what I am reading, is they believe that the 144,000 faithful servants will rule with the Lamb of God over the earth, some translations reign will sometimes show as they reign, and over can sometimes be seen as on, upon, whatever, but what the verse is telling us is clear, The Jdubs even made note of this without even talking about strongs, it is on their website. I do not believe the wording changes what the Bible is telling us, unless, you have been too busy in the Devil's world to realize it 😛. So the Jehovah's Witnesses holds the view that I have, and I am sure you as well because we all know there are some out there who hate it, but they are right tho."
We all hold this view.
So if you say and state I am in the wrong, but agree with them for they saying exactly the same thing I am saying, and now when this is pointed out, is that not willful hypocrisy on your part? If you want I can quote even scholars and some former members of the faith if that is not enough for your plate.
-
10 minutes ago, Arauna said:
It is CSA-OCD lol.
Video....... empty-headed......people........... but they want chaos...... a revolution.
They want no police so they can traffic children, loot and just be lawless.
That is going to be a problem, granted CSA is minimized, the idea of no police at all will result in would be abusers and current to come out of the woodwork, thus should one get any ideas, it will come to that. Essentially, you will have the purge, Mad Max, Gotham City, Deus Ex Prague all mixed into one, that is a recipe for disaster. This will result in Vigilante Justice to increase (There was literally a guy in a Batman suit walking about a few days ago, and a guy fending off attackers with a sword), granted the far-right are the types to, as what can be seen, practitioners of the second amendment and will use it. The irony is before COVID-19, people were buying guns in surplus, and still they continue. The guy at the fish market can be his own judge, jury and executioner, and granted these guys are locked and loaded, the bad guys are doing the same thing too, if it comes to that.
There is a possibility, for people are talking about Civil War, even my own brother says this, and he is not as up there in the updates compared to me.The rich moving out, etc. Well, if the Left and the Right clashes again but at a higher level, they have done so before, several times.
That being said, children are indeed vulnerable if it comes that not, not just CSA alone, but by influence, i.e. you have children attacking people, thinking they are justified and in the right. Look at the UK for example.
The bells of Lawlessness is ringing louder and louder by the day, as pestilence spreads throughout broken economical powers, as more and more people come out to play for the wrong reasons, but among it all, a new religion somehow is born.
Yikes, edit to come to the realization I may run into The Black Isrealites again.
-
12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:
Research from the University of Maryland and Michigan State University confirm the results of a more limited study a couple years ago of the Philly Police Dept—that the race of the officer is not a factor in who gets shot. Yet the MSM would all but have us believe that the entire purpose of the police is to shoot back people. One can only wonder at their motive.
https://research.msu.edu/the-truth-behind-racial-disparties-in-fatal-police-shootings/
Exactly. But the narrative is White to Black, which is sparking outrage. If it is Black to Black, or as the Black Community refers to it, Black on Black Crime, media is silent because the story would not sell, and BLM is silent. The irony is that police officer confront and or kill white people at a higher rate vs. black people. Since the demographic of black people is 13%, a small percentage are within the criminal underworld, about 6% if my memory is correct whereas about 60%-70% makes up the population for white people, and a small percentage of those who do crime, for this percent is larger than the 6%. I'm still looking into this too, so this is based off of what I have been reading, so ongoing til I get a conclusion.
I do not know if anyone recalls the killing of Daniel Shaver, Kelly Thomas, there was also the little boy who was killed, but his father survived. Then there is Tony Timpa, who died in the same manner as George Floyd. Former and Retired Officer, David Dorn, 77, was killed, but no, MSM do not think his death would sell, mind you, his death, him bleeding out was live on Facebook. This was, as stated, Black on Black crime. His killer is Stefan Cannon, charged with 1st degree murder. This guy had a record, yet he was always lucky with being out and about. He was charged with armed robbery in 2014, was supposed to be jailed for 7 years, but got probation instead to which he violated twice. The Justice System is semi good and bad, for it does help to lock up criminals, killers, pedophiles, thieves, etc, they seem to let go those who are not willfully repentant, and or someone who can succumb to doing bad again.
I mean, they released some prisoners around the early moments of the pandemic, I think someone committed a crime sometime upon release.
That being said, The Justice System is like that of someone flipping a coin, simply choose Heads or Tails.
-
@4Jah2me Higher Education is only deemed a problem when it comes to the shift of faith into other ideologies and or practices, some practices deem unChristian, as is, turning most students into uneeding of God, and or a different view of God, i.e. God is okay with homosexuality, God is okay with killing other Christians, etc. This is why some parents fear both public schooling and higher education, and the rabbit hole only goes deeper than that, something I addressed when it comes to educating children a while back, let alone, making them strong to not fall for this. Should a child go into higher education, for them to cross that path without abandoning God starts with what is to protect them, so they do not stumble.
-
@4Jah2me Correct. The verses in question regarding Jesus doing God's Will, start with John 14:10, from there you can find the marginal references by the context itself, from there, it would show you the verses in question to prove this to, essentially, a Low Level Trinitarian.
John 14:28, when Jesus said the Father is greater than him, you can do the same method with the cited above, however, Trinitarians will use this verse against you to state otherwise, and can easily spin doctor this verse to make Jesus appear as though he is God or equal to The Father (you may occasionally see the fully man fully God mantra at times), in addition, granted the other thread regarding Strong's, they can use the word "Good" to justify themselves, which will result in the notion of God and Jesus being different incarnations of the same God. The counter jab in this situation is the marginal references for this verse, and the context itself.
As for God speaking to Jesus, same thing with the above two examples, otherwise, you will be hit with Trinity assertions of this moment in Scripture, since, we now have the Holy Spirit involved.
"SPECIAL INVESTIGATION INTO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES"
in Topics
Posted
@Witness @Srecko Sostar @4Jah2me
It is obviously the one you linked in your 1st post.
This one:
The information speaks for itself. Let's just hope for your sake that the information being handed over is actually credible, as @César Chávez pointed out because we know what the Far-Left is capable of (thanks to them even more children is at risk at a hellish level as of recent), and we also know those of the Far-Right and how they deem things. Moreover, it can boil down to a situation whereas the next move they make on this investigative story chess board will not be what one is to expect, especially for those who are beyond control and or angry.
There is yet another issue that will cause quite the collateral damage, something I addressed in the past, and missed opportunity for you - which is in connection to CSA in institutions.
That being said, there is another matter concerning JWs that is focused on too.