Space Merchant

3 hours ago, Equivocation said:

@JOHN BUTLER He isn't wrong. The Watchtower has never made any sort of claims of being an inspired prophet, and there's information to even further back that up. You don't have to like us Jehovah's Witnesses to realize that. What I do find funny is that you said you dont judge or assume things. Now look at you.

And that is the problem. I told witness before as to you cannot twist one's words to make it seem they make the claim of inspired prophets, and when asked, he did not deliver, to Butler, he did not deliver, to Srecko, he did not deliver.

So the problem now is this whole inspired prophet claim was built on lies, granted that no credible claim has been made by the WT, nor as it ever been made since their early days as Bible Students. To add more fuel to the fire, the claim of inspired prophet is very unlikely to be called by Non-Trinitarians.

So this alone should tell you, why would one commit to claim when it is clear slander?

Anyone can claim to be a prophet of a prophet-like community, but no one would give claim to being or is one of inspired prophets - not even Muslims would play that card.

2 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Jesus's crucifixion being a public image an acceptable one. After 400 years this came to pass. Scholars traditionally believed that the cross didn't originally begin to function has a Christian symbol.

Guessing very later on after Constantine and only then it was accepted perhaps?

 

Your quote I looked it up once Insider mentioned it. Traced it back to Biblical Archaeology site.

The source leads to George Willard Benson, The Cross: Its History and Symbolism.  An account of the symbol for universal in its use in more important in its significance. Then any other in the world.... yada yada yada.

Other names are included. And cititaions.

The quote is of this website: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/jesus-and-the-cross/

Some of which has been posted is presented by several so far.

What it refers to is this:

See George Willard Benson, The Cross: Its History and Symbolism. An Account of the Symbol More Universal in Its Use and More Important in Its Significance Than Any Other in the World (Buffalo: George Willard Benson, 1934), pp. 28–29; for another opinion, see Bruce W. Longenecker, The Cross Before Constantine: The Early Life of a Christian Symbol (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), p. 11.

Just now, JOHN BUTLER said:

I get fed up with offering him either, He's never satisfied whatever you give him. 

A Unitarian that loves the JW Org it seems, by the things he writes anyway. 

I am a Biblical Unitarian, be more specific. If someone speaks in error of someone else's Christology, I will correct them, nothing more.

I asked all of you for an actual claim of which you profess to be true, if you know of it why make it this difficult to bring up such claim?

If it does not exist, it should not be noted as true, therefore, what he professes is unfounded.

Just now, Srecko Sostar said:

:)))))))) believe me, biscuits are better for you .... in this situation.  

This just points to the fact that you are in error for saying such persons made a claim of which is unfounded.

Keep this in mind, it is unheard of, even alien, for a Anti/Non-Trinitarian to claim being inspired prophets. Their church may be prophet-like and they act as prophets to some degree, but never are they called or act as though inspired prophets like in bible times. The only people who claim to be inspired prophets are those who believe they receive revelation from other sources, some from even angels (check the list of those that had left Restorationism behind) and the Bible speaks against such things as accursed in Galatians 1.

So take that into account.

Not a fan of biscuits either, but next time if the claim actually exist and someone is asking of you this actual claim - bring it up this time.

That being said, they never made such a claim even back in the 1880s.

1 hour ago, Kosonen said:

Was that a qoute from a Watchtower? 

It is a quote from the source used by Witness, John Butler and Srecko Sostar whereas they are using the first half of the paragraph, showing an obvious disregard for the second half that is a self-refutation of what they are conveying.

1 hour ago, Kosonen said:

If so I have several objections. The book of Revelation sternly warns about the mark of the beast, but WT org pays very little attention to that and downplays the matter as just a symbolic mark of the beast. While the Revelation clearly points out that this "mark of the beast" will be very real. The Revelation says that you will not be able to buy or sell without that mark during a specific time period of 42 months. The WT org is doing nothing to inform JWs how to materially survive during that time period. That is because they insist that the mark of the beast is only symbolic. And that this period of 42 months has nothing to do with our life because it happened 100 years ago.

Granted with what most of them have been saying, they are well aware, the only example I can give is the Arab JW who had debated before due to some Agnostic's involvement a while back. Moreover, the actual threat from Babylon they are aware of, an example would be what went down in a span of a few years to now.

That being said we all should be very vigilant and careful of the real enemy, for one seeks security, the other seeks peace, and they want to put all forms of government and religion, even education into one, for you and everyone else here knows that this is indeed a problem.

1 hour ago, Kosonen said:

That is really a tricky way to divert attention from the prophesies. But I think the GB is blind in this aspect. And what Jesus said happens once again: A blind guides a blind. And that will have consequences. That will lead to trouble. That is why there will be a world wide persecution and a time of great tribulation.

The Persecution is very subtle, mainly with the fact of 2 major factions going at it in the realm of government and politics, for everyone's eyes is on Israel, other than their allies.

1 hour ago, Kosonen said:

But there will be a literal or even several literal wildernesses to flee to.

Well this can already be learned from our Syranic Christian counterparts and what they had adhered. Such is slowly taking place in the US and the decline of Christendom is evident, but not as violent and or outlandishly bloody compared to most.

Until the end times and tribulations increases, we are to endure, remain vigilant, be aware, be careful of whom is actually on our side and who isn't.

52 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

who sees see what is not possible to see :)))

For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

"inspired"

"motivated"

"carried along by"

:))

At least four-five spirits are in existence and have influence:

 1)JHVH spirit   2)Jesus spirit   3) Holy spirit    4) Devil spirit    5))Human spirit   

So, we are living in a World/Worlds with so many INSPIRATION and INSPIRED persons :))))

I'm asking you for a claim on their word - not mental gymnastics.

Example would be, everyone knows the Jehovah's Witnesses/Watchtower have stated, even made claim to say that they are the one true religion, and anyone can bring up them quoting this claim. I am asking you for the claim of inspired prophets, but you are tap dancing around what is being asked and the sheer unawareness of a prophet and inspired prophet differences.

But here we see I am asking you for bread, but you continue to hand over to me biscuits, and clearly I rather have bread, even asked you for bread, never once I asked you for biscuits, but that is all you continue to give.

To this shall remain unfounded for no Anti-Trinitarian will ever make such a claim, and alas you and Witness show yourself to be fruitless, once again. Perhaps next time use something that is actually said for - it did not stop you before.

20 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

An advocate for the Interfaith? Not real Christian would be, scratch that, no real Christian would never, ever submit to the Interfaith Institute of Elijah and those in connection with Lucis Trust.

@Srecko Sostar

I ask you and Witness again - where is the claim of inspired prophets? Surely if you speak of them as though they had said such a thing, you'd have information about this.

So take this account of which the both of you had been put to task about because as of right now, we can see no claim of inspired prophets, anywhere, whatsoever. And by means of Christendom history regarding anti-Trinitarians.

I rather not drop a bombshell of critical information of a prophet and an inspired prophet on the both of you because it will end up like the other discussion of the both of you openly accepting Traditions of Men, for last time the both of you were not too happy of actual Biblical Facts.

I'd like to add that Prophet-Like is a direct refers to their religious organization (as stated by them the one true religion claim, which there is evidence of), and that same paragraph even tells you this, as with more evidence of them not being inspired prophets noted in other half of the paragraph, may I ask, why is it that both you and Witness cut this out, Butler too?

He designates these Christians as his “faithful and discreet slave.” (Matt. 24:45-47) This “slave” group is strictly commanded: “Do not treat prophesyings with contempt.” (1 Thess. 5:20) This has proved true of Jehovah’s anointed witnesses on earth. They pay attention to prophecy with the greatest respectfulness. They have corrected themselves when prophecy revealed their own shortcomings. They have not held back when prophecy has condemned practices followed even in Christendom. (Isa. 58:1) Yes, they have proclaimed the prophecies written in God’s Word even though this has brought world hatred toward them.—Matt. 24:9.

Until then, the claim of inspired prophet is unfounded. You can belittle a child with trickery, but not someone who can discern and or can further into the information than most.

On 11/10/2018 at 4:38 PM, JW Insider said:

I think the idea that the the Stauros might have been just an upright pole also came many, many years after Jesus' death, long after Christendom had already taken up a two-piece Stauros as a symbol.

In another thread you mentioned that it was 400 years after Jesus' death. Did you have a specific piece of evidence in mind?

I'll bring that statement over here for reference:

 

I am referring to when the cross not even being considered in the church of Christendom until the days of Constantine whereas he himself during the Battle of the Milvian Bridge had a vision, had seen a cross in the sky. It is said that the vision was instructing him to fight in the name of Christ, with his soldiers’ shields bearing the symbol of Christ. On the other side of the spectrum, the writer Eusebius, an apologist of Constantine, described the event in the Life of Constantine, which he wrote after Constantine’s death. Eusebius wrote that Constantine saw a vision of a cross rather than the letters of Christ. That he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, which says conquer by this. At the sight of this he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle, according to Eusebius.

There is more information out there, but I'd have to look some more for it.

@Witness They are not of Babylon the Great. If you had paid close attention to everything that went down from the 2000s and what effectively took place in mid 2015s and onward, that alone should tell you something.

16 minutes ago, Kosonen said:

Witness, the beast in Revelation 17 is UN and the Harlot, the woman is New York. It is not right to obscure the true meaning of this prophecy. 

It should also be noted of who actually is of Babylon and who is not. There is currently a conquest for peace on the religious aspect while the other, a conquest for security. I figured after the situation with Jayish Al-Islam, people would realized that or what went down in Texas.

22 hours ago, Outta Here said:

No not at all. Context is everything.

Exactly! And all things should be taken into consideration, but it would seem you tell this one time, or maybe two times, and it goes out the other ear for some. and their ignorance because blissful and they begin to act immature and foolish when proven wrong.

I think it should be noted that Cross came many, many years after Jesus' death and eventually was taken up as a symbol in regards to Christendom. Granted how old the story of Maryas was, back then a stake or some tree, upright, was most likely used.

@Witness I will ask you a 3rd time. Give me the actual claim that they said they were inspired prophets.

I stated before twisting things in your favor does not equate to the claim of which you are accusing them of, I asked for inspired prophets, you bring up prophet-like organization when it is already know most Non-Trinitarians claim they are the True Church, but we have yet to see JWs, or ANY non-Trinitarian make claim to inspiration.

So I will ask you, @Srecko Sostar and @JOHN BUTLER

You all agree to the claim of which you profess that they inspired prophets, now I ask you, where did they make this claim?

And by the way, what you posted has been debunked just as the whole trust funds thing.

That being said, the claim of which I am asking you of regarding inspired prophets - I wait for from you - Witness, otherwise you are in deception by your own hand.

The fact no Anti-Trinitarian ever made that claim makes you far more than a liar than the doctrine that formed long ago in the Council.

Indeed, the next time you feel the need to mix, twist Strong's in your favor, perhaps do so to someone who does not know that information, let alone you making the assuming somehow God sent Satan to deal with Egyptians or trying to justify your belief in Man's Doctrine rather than God.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But unfortunately you don't want to relate it to the Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems you wish to talk about the Bible from a general viewpoint. My point is that JW's 'learn' at their meetings. They use the NWT and are taught from that.  

Actually it does granted when we know exactly what Textual Basis the NWT is using. The question is do you know it?

Everyone can read the Bible anywhere and it is known they use their Bible for teaching.

And no,  no general point of you, we will focus on what I have stated.

Also you still have not made known if you know what Kettel is.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The leaders of the JW Org are the Governing Body. The 'ones taking the lead' are the Elders and others that do the ministry regularly. I'm sure you can understand that difference. 

I already know the difference, because I mention the Structure of the Church last time and the fact as who has what role in the church. Such things isn't unknown to anyone.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

This whole forum is about Jehovah's Witnesses but you still want to bring in other issues. 

This whole form still revolves around Controversial posts, granted we are talking about the Bible, this still applies. You did assume debate, so this is what we shall do.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As with the word nakedness which you didn't want to understand my viewpoint on. The GB either wrote the word or approved of the word nakedness, but why ?  If the original meaning was lightly clad or wearing underclothes then why say naked ? To a JW reading that scripture from the NWT it mens naked. You don't agree, that's up to you. 

I've corrected you on what it actually means, even the JWs know this because as with everyone else. You were quite to assume the literal nakedness when the truth of the matter was he was girdled. If you forget I will do you the favor of re-posting so you can see, to which you ere in disagreement of the actual truth of the matter

So tell me, how would you even far if you wish to debate about Strong's when you do not even understand Strong's? Your own Bible that you choose even holds your hand and here we see your response. Where is the Spiritual Wisdom, Butler?

And no, JWs do not will not profess this is literal nakedness, as you claim, thus making you exposed by your own deception when the footnote of the Bible you are using says the following

naked: Or “lightly clad.” The Greek word gy·mnosʹ can have the meaning “lightly clad; in the undergarment only.”—Jas 2:15, ftn.; see study note on Mt 25:36. 

So the question is, why putting forth a lie, Butler? Surely you spoke of trickery, yet here we can see past that deception, for no smog can cover something that anyone can cut through with ease.

even Biblehub disowns you at this point, and the fact you now assume without merit proves true to question Evo was asking of you.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

There is another phrase in the NWT 'torture stake', which is used in place of cross. Now the word, i think would be stake. But the GB has used 'torture stake'.  I can understand it is to show what type of stake, but, is it  true to translation ?  

Stauros is an upright pole, the cross came into Christendom 400 years or so after the Christ. Stauros is deemed a upright stake of torture by many because of how vile and crazy Roman executions were, which was still in practice later later on. They added torture stake because it, ironically enough and to your surprise, with the Strong's. It is no different from the use of upright stake or tree.

To add more fuel to the fire, such a device by the Romans is used to torture even kill those hung from such a thing, they even break the legs of people to hasten ones death.

As a side note, look into The Torture/Torment  of Marsyas, he himself was on an upright stake the same one of which he was torture on.

https://itsartalicious.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/the-torment-of-marsyas-greek-sculpture/

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You see the whole point of this is not about a general meaning, not about what every religion thinks of it. It is about how JW's view it through the NWT.  Because as I've said  many times this is a JW Forum. 

Everything must be taken into consideration when it comes to the Bible and its history.

Not wise to speak of every religion when you you were unaware of the views of Islam and didn't know what interfaith is. It should also be aware on your part that there are those who do not take the Strong's let alone the manuscripts for granted.

48 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not going all the way, and not starting. 

I cannot teach anybody anything; I can only make them think. 

You can ask me to look for the truth, but you cannot ask me to find it. 

But wouldn't the defeat the purpose of Jesus own words and the same thing practices by others?

If you know the truth you teach it so in turn student can be the teacher and minister to others, the process of making disciples.

Jesus stated that we should be coming to know the True God and to know of his Kingdom, as well as know who he has sent.

Seek and you shall find do not ring any bells?

To find the truth in the Scriptures isn't a mistake.

That being said, your own statement can be used against you judging by your previous comments.

@JOHN BUTLER Other than that I accept in conjunction with what you said, as stated before. We can begin with omitted verses and or the Strong's that correlates to a word in the verse or not, you can go first.

36 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

S.M and I are in debate about some scripture in Hebrews.

if that is the case - I accept. Just know the Bible and the Bible it is what you must use.

37 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

without going back pages, i think it was Billy that used a scripture that used the word Leaders.

But you yourself said it has nothing to do with leaders whereas the Strong's and context is used against you. How do you make response to that?

38 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

In my personal opinion there is a difference. Politicians may call themselves 'leaders', but they seldom physically 'take the lead'.

Again - The Hebrews verses points does not point to political leaders, again the context of the verses and the cross-references counters your claim.

If you seek the other authority, perhaps give Romans a got - not Hebrews.

45 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

In years gone by of course a Leader would in fact lead, from the front, leading. 

So how does connect to Hebrews 13:7, 17 granted your claim?

48 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But in modern day terminology  a Leader can be one that gives orders from behind, not actually partaking in the activity.

The terminology should be in regards to the Bible. Do not add in Man's Understanding of the text, Butler. You did this last time with the word Nakedness and Ambassador.

50 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

S.M. has vast knowledge of course and i don't mind being corrected by him. It teaches me humility. 

Is it a crime to adhere to knowledge and learning, according to you? You can use some of that - it is the best thing since sliced bread.

51 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

My point, not to SM here, is that most JW's do not do so much research into who wrote the translation, whether Strong's was used, and / or cross reference with other translation, or even going back to 'original manuscripts (as far back as possible). 

How do you know this if you yourself made claim you do know not each and every JW? For instance, Outta Here to JW Insider, to Kathgar to Evo. All of them have different experiences in understanding the Scriptures so you cannot be certain.

I find that last bit funny, Strong's and Cross-references are in EVERY Translation, ironically enough, even to the uninspired text found in the TR-1245. And the Strong's is the only thing that is in connection with manuscripts and codex evidence today which resulted in having a Bible in our language and understanding what a passage and or word of passage means.

You can't be serious if you put forth that claim.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

W's are supposed to trust the GB and take every word from the GB as being correct, including the NWT.   Many JW's (such as myself) are not highly educated people, so tend to follow like sheep. 

But didn't they tell you to learn or research the Bible also? You had left JWs long time ago so surely you would have taken it upon yourself to study and apply, or did you not?

The disciples were not as educated, nor were those of Pentecost, but they had the sense to understand Scripture.

The Scriptures and the truth of the Scriptures is for all persons.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As meanings of words can change and often do, then the NWT has been updated, and I am asking myself now have i been foolish to trust it ?  For me the plot thickens.  

No, the meaning of words do not change. The Strong's in both Hebrew and in Greek still stands. Therefore Hebrews was indeed speaking about leaders, thus putting your claim to shame when you stated it makes no mention of such leaders when the context and references tells you, even if you go to the Strong's, it tells you.

If you cannot understand your Bible, how on earth would you be able to teach? The manuscripts and codex should be a dead giveaway, but like before, with these 2 verses, you remain unaware and unwilling to learn.

This man has observed Benjamin Button one too many times.

They should be concern about getting people off the streets into shelters and sanctuaries rather than booting them elsewhere. Robotic force is a no-go.

@JOHN BUTLER  With the realization that the Book of Revelation, otherwise known as John's Revelation or The Apocalypse is primary about marks, signs and symbols. Something of which everyone knows.

Therefore it isn't a cop out or a loophole.

How is it they do not believe it if they profess it? You use to be one yourself so how is that so?

10 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

accurate Bible knowledge, um, SM suggests that the translation in places is not accurate. Well not according to Strong's anyway. 

Do not add to my words Butler. You know exactly what I said. If you do not understand Strong's do the research otherwise you will show yourself to be ignorant of what it is, granted you do not know where the very bible you read derives from.

11 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So if the GB cannot be trusted and the NWT cannot be trusted, then where is this spiritual feast coming from ? 

If you do not trust a translation, why bother to read it because you find it easier? Double-Speak much?

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I love the way you try to be the big boss man. So funny SM.  You tell me, do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that. As if you have some authority over me.  And I love the way you criticise me, it helps me to examine myself.  Keep it up. 

If asking a question means being a boss, well I guess that would be the case according to you. Clearly I do not have authority over you merely stating what is actual true about those verses in Hebrews, knowing how you put an emphasis on LEADERS who are leading among the people of that same Spiritual House, the truth of the matter would be bitter sweet to you when the Strong's actually counterpart your response in regards to LEADERS.

Therefore, to say it isn't in the passage is being hypocritical, when the context and other things proves otherwise.

After all, you were the one who spoke of Spiritual Wisdom, only this time your own words begets you, granted that response was of your design.

Perhaps do the research before you cry victim, Mr. Butler. And I will keep it up the next time you bring forth a violation of Strong's, of which I made it clear to you several times already, even when you asked why my focus is on such.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Channels as in what? Be clear. Channels of communication from God to us. I would think that you do not believe that the GB of the JW Org are the correct channel of communication that we need to use. In fact I think that you might feel we do not need an extra channel of communication, that we should have direct communication with God through Jesus Christ, by means of Holy Spirit.  

If that is the case, perhaps you should pay attention to @Anna granted I did see her response just now, and now yours.

It should come as no surprise to you, that God knows who is for him and who isn't. God, as he did in the days of old had used people, even by means of Shaliach Principle to get his Word across.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I quoted the Hebrew verses from the New World Translation.

But you do realize which is it they are going for? Right? Even though it is their own Bible, it should occur to you, as someone who reads it as to which translation is which, what it derives from.

We can say for certain, they are not using the TR-1245 (Textus Receptus).

That being said, using their Bible or any Translation that does not adhere to the TR-1245, can be used, but seeing these verses in Hebrews and no violation of text is present, it matters not what translation you are using and the Strong's still stand.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Now you are saying they have written it wrongly.

This just further proves that you miss the point I had always made to you, Butler,, and I say this because the  those mentioned in the text are the leaders.

They haven't wrote it wrongly because the Strong's still point to leaders, as is in which harmonizes with the Greek Strong's.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The NWT as you know is the JW Org Bible, translated by the GB.

I know what the NWT is. And I highly doubt that religious leaders actually translated the Bible themselves. It would have been done - as is with ALL translations - by a translator.

And anyone who some common sense and basic research and see that as to who made the translation, what textual basis is used and so forth.

If you had noticed, I have been using the ESV and clearly it has not been translated by Unitarians, for translators take up from a source to produce the Bible.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

That is the Bible i have come to use regularly as I find the wording is easy to understand.

Ok, so how are you unaware of the Translation and Textual Basis your Bible uses?

You know what Kittel is? If you do not mind me asking.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

However it would seem that you are suggesting that this is not a good translation ?

Can you quote anywhere as to where I am suggesting it isn't a good translation?

The verses in Hebrews that [those] are the leaders, it is in accordance with the Strong's in fact because 2233 is in use in that verse.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I'm sure the GB would say they were 'guided' by God's Holy Spirit when they did this translation, so once again I am confused.

The fact you do not even know where your own translations derives from thus discredits your claim.

So far if we take the Bible as a whole, one is using TR-1245, the other, is not.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I am just an ordinary man, and if God's word is for such as me, then there are indeed great problems.

Well it is best you understand God's Word then. Because if you missed that part in Hebrews just like you do not understand Nakedness, there is a problem.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I honestly do not think that God expects us to use Strong's, or to compare ten different translations of His written word, every time we sit down and study it. 

It should be realized by you that the Bible originated from Manuscripts, Strong's are used in as much of a way so you can actually read the Bible in English.

To be ignorant of Biblical History shows your lack of Spiritual Wisdom of where the Bible came from, and this is coming from a former Jehovah's Witnesses, which proves shocking.

Dare I ask, do you know the reason why Acts 8:37 or John 7:53–8:11 is omitted from the NWT Bible of which you use, can you answer properly?

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

S.M please tell us, what is 'of the church' ?   What church ?  You quite often use this word 'Church' but it would be nice if you would define it. 

Some people think of the building they use as the church. Others think of the Apostles as being the church. So please make it clear exactly what you mean. Thank you

The Church of which Jesus built years ago - The apostolic church of the Apostolic Age that puts into application the teachings and practices followed by the disciples, the apostles, followers of the Christ, into the days of our Church Fathers, into the days of the Great Awakening, into this present day and onward.

The Church has never failed and as Jesus said, the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [Hell/Sheol] shall not prevail against it.

And those of the church who take up the teachings make up the Spiritual House, for they are all stones of that same house, in turn are part of the Body of the Christ.

How did you miss that simple fact of the one you claim to follow, the Christ?

You agreed with me before, so how must you ask again when I told you previously when I mentioned such that is another question.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. But it is still human flesh if that was the case. You'd be amazed of the dark and cray stuff that is actually true in how people are butchered in this way.

That being said, I am not a fan of Snowflakes or Shills. Another reason as to why politics isn't my thing, let alone people like Tomi Lauren and a list of others.

But hen it comes to blood, it is risky, and it is deem gold standard to some even in the EU so it can be a matter of choice, as for my people, that isn't the case, it is pretty much avoid it like the plague for reasons alone.

On the other side of the spectrum you got the elderly folk who want to live forever or prolong their life, so they will gladly take the blood of the young without question, apparently.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Thank you, but i am not talking about my ability. Question is, in what context GB put, push verses .... and how JW members reacting if they, as persons with ability to understand things too,  blindly follow the human rules.

As to what human rules are you even speaking about?

You have the Church whereas its teachings are to be adhered to, as with what is commanded by God ans his Christ. Nothing in this sense screams human rule, if you can agree with an apostle who lead the church, it is understandable, but to agree with someone who is alienated from eh church or teach what is accursed, clearly you will run into some problems.

there is a line between what is of the church and what is considered accursed and not of the church.