Space Merchant

Seems to be an inference that if the group is "spirit-directed" it can't get things wrong, therefore if it does get things wrong, it cannot be "spirit-directed".
There's a flaw in the logic here. It's like saying a doctor cannot be a good one if he can't drive.
Get that flaw sorted and you might have a chance.

THAYER
2. the spirit, i. e. the vital principle by which the body is animated ((Aristotle, Polybius, Plutarch, others; see below)): Luke 8:55; Luke 23:46; John 19:30; Acts 7:59; Revelation 13:15 (here R. V. breath); ἀφιέναι τό πνεῦμα, to breathe out the spirit, to expire, Matthew 27:50
 
Dictionary:
παρατίθημι
Greek transliteration: paratithēmi
Simplified transliteration: paratithemi
Principal Parts: παραθήσω, παρέθηκα, -, -, παρετέθην
Strong's number: 3908
GK Number: 4192

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 19
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: cv-6a
Gloss: (act.) to set before; (mid.) to entrust, commit

Definition:
to place by the side of, or near; to set before, Mk. 6:41; 8:6, 7; Lk. 9:16; met. to set or lay before, propound, Mt. 13:24, 31; to inculcate, Acts 17:3; to deposit, commit to the charge of, entrust, Lk. 12:48; 23:46; to commend, Acts 14:23
----------------------------------

Genesis 2:7 "Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person."
Adam was not - nor had he ever been a spirit creature, he was sculpted from earthly things (soil/clay). Human and animal creatures contain the same substances(minerals) as the earth. What made the creation of man different than the work of Michelangelo is the Breath of Life blown into Adam by his sculptor, Jehovah God. Then, as Genesis 2:7 apprises us, man became animate, a living breathing creature.
 

Man was not the only living creature to have been gifted with Jehovah's breath as we are made aware and informed by Scripture. Genesis 7:22 " Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
AND

Genesis 7:15 "They kept going to Noah inside the ark, two by two, of every sort of flesh that has the breath of life."
 

Ecclesiastes 3:19 "for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit.(OR the same source of life/breath) So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile."
 

Isaiah 42:5 "This is what the true God, Jehovah, says, The Creator of the heavens and the Grand One who stretched them out, The One who spread out the earth and its produce, The One who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk on it:"
 

That breath was given once and that was at the creation in Eden. From then on the animation of humans and animals is by the first gasp of oxygen taken in at birth. If that creature does not respond by the inhalation of oxygen it is never animated, it is not living.
 

What is the spirit mentioned in Isaiah 42:5? It is the LIFE OF THE PERSON........ ruwach; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. A sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life ..........
 
That which is exhaled at the end of life represents who and what you are. You are either remembered for a future life (a recreation) on a paradise earth or you are not. Just as stated at John 5: 28, 29 "Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs (3419 mnēmeíon (a neuter noun derived from 3451 /mousikós, "to remember, keep in memory")   will hear his voice  and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.
 
That final breath is a remembrance of the person you are (the good, the bad and the ugly) whatever name you have made for yourself, that is what Jehovah remembers.
 
 
 

Jesus expression at Luke 23:46 seems to have more reference to "commiting" or "entrusting" his future life prospects to God as opposed to describing the death state which, whilst a relevant concept in view of the nature of Jesus mission to earth, is not the focus of attention here.
The psalmist has it well described at Psalm 31:5 "Into your hand I commit (shall place) my spirit;" ESV. This is in harmony with Jesus earlier words: "let, not my will, but yours take place". Luke 22:42.

Although likely unintended by the poster, this question exposes the fudamental gap in understanding that characterises the poster's opininion throughout.
Answer this question correctly, and you are well on the way to becoming " thoroughly able to grasp mentally with all the holy ones what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge, that YOU may be filled with all the fullness that God gives." Eph.3:18-19.

I see there has not been much discussion at this forum of the NT translation that appeared in 2017 by David Bentley Hart (Yale University Press).
Bro. Rando mentioned Hart's translation last year when he quoted his rendering of John 1:1c, "the Logos was god" here:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/55859-the-trinity-and-it’s-false-theology/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-91897
There is much more of value to be learned from Hart's work. First, just who is is important. He is a research scholar (= no teaching, just research and publication, what all good scholars dream of) at Notre Dame. He has several books out on theism, believing in God, and defending the faith before critics and philosophers. Although he himself is Eastern Orthodox, his books are highly valued by Evangelicals because Hart is quite intelligent and is well-read in the more difficult aspects of philosophy. Thus he can dialogue with the best from the latter group and hold his own against them. He is famous for doing so.
Hart's translation contains multiple insights. Gehenna is "Hinnom's Vale of fire." He transliterates Hades, and his taking κόλασις at Matt. 25:46 as "chastening" is noteworthy. He sometimes has substantial footnotes that are informative, as he does in this passage. They cut through the controversies and get to the point, but interestingly, without citing scholarship by anyone's name.
His take on the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ at Rom. 5:12 is fascinating. Instead of understanding this as "because" he takes it more literally, as "upon the basis of which fact," though I wish he'd been more literal in his rendering in this instance.
His notes, pp. 533ff., are also loaded with interesting info, including the admission that the oft-hated "a" at John 1:1c is legit.
One of the things I found fascinating is Hart's description of what the earliest Christians were like. This is on pp. xxiv-xxv of his introduction. It sounds very much like the brothers! That alone is worth a read, so when I can get to a scanner, I'll included a scan later in this thread for readers' pleasure.
Here too are some online reviews and comments, including an interview/note from Hart himself on his work. First, some D. B. Hart NT reviews:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/the-new-testament-a-translation-david-bentley-hart/546551/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hippieheretic/2017/12/new-testament-translation-david-bentley-hart-review.html
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/11/the-gospel-according-to-david-bentley
http://thecresset.org/2017/Advent/Beasley_A17.html

Conservative (?) reaction to Hart:
the translation:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2017/10/23/4754124.htm
the man:
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/public-theology-in-retreat/#!
bio & interviews:
https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/david-bentley-hart/profile?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6fq_se3y2AIVCI1pCh2iDAJmEAMYASAAEgKn8PD_BwE
Hart's own account
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/christs-rabble
Enjoy!
 

You're in the wrong job if you could do that my friend. No one alive, or dead, can prove the trinity, and never has.

Late 2016 to early 2017 they were 8.3 million adherents and as time progresses they went on to 8.34 million adherents. As we speak as of 2018, they have increased to 8.45 million adherents and growing still.
Granted on how mainstream Christianity is on a rapid decline, Christian minorities have increased in numbers, which also includes the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Islam has also increased by a larger percentage and may in the coming years, and or perhaps months, surpass that of mainstream Christendom, since mid 2015, mainstream Christendom has been on a rapid decline around the globe, even even bigger in the EU and Asian countries while Islam is more dominant in the majority of the EU.
In the US, mainstream Christendom is declining even faster and the common White American Christian has also declined too.
Also there has been a study that only 4% of young people to young adults actually read the bible while the rest is.... meh.... There has also been churches being closed now, not relocated sold and or moved, just shut down completely. Elsewhere we even have some pastors trying to maintain converts by integrating bars and or yoga fitness areas inside a church, that is pretty much breaking what a church and or congregation even means, perhaps next they will have cross-fit for Jesus session inside the church if they feel like it.
There are other numbers, these things can be looked up in articles from 2015 to now.
And guess who the churches are blaming? These guys:

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

I think this is important, and especially the scriptures supporting this idea in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 13.
Also, I think it's easy to read what I said as a kind of "attack" on the "Governing Body" or even "the faithful and discreet slave." On the contrary, I think we should all appreciate the great good that is being done by the Governing Body, and all exemplary elders in leadership positions. I think that we should look back on what C.T.Russell did, and what he taught, and how he progressed, and see it with much appreciation for his efforts in the restoration of pure worship.
(1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. We should give him his due, just as we would all other exemplary persons who work hard in the interests of Jehovah's Kingdom through Christ Jesus. That was Russell's primary focus, and we benefit so much from his hard work. G.A. pointed out these same types of things that I have repeated here, too:
However, no one should need a TITLE for these things. Jesus said that all of you are brothers.
(Matthew 23:8) But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. Older men and other servants who met certain exemplary criteria would be used in the congregations to lead, shepherd, oversee, administer and teach. None of those things require a "title." But to say that one person or one small group of persons should be looked up to as "leaders" is something Jesus said was wrong.
I know there is a tendency to try to defend Russell (in his day) and the current Governing Body for every current teaching. The way in which the concept of "Governing Body" is used exacerbates this issue. But this is not the way that Jesus expected congregations to work. We can love and appreciate all teachings that we can accept with a clear conscience. Fortunately, that's a very high percentage. But some here have argued that we must accept every "wind of teaching" even the ones that have tossed us about this way and that way. (As all eschatological teachings have done.)
Look at the principles of local congregational direction and personal responsibility that Jesus expected of each congregation in the examples in Revelation:
(Revelation 2:1,2,6) “To the angel of the congregation in Ephʹe·sus write: These are the things that he says who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: 2 ‘I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, . . . 6 Still, you do have this in your favor: that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus, which I also hate. (Revelation 2:14, 15) 14 “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, . . . 15 In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus.
(Revelation 2:24) 24 “‘However, I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching,. . . I am not putting on you any other burden. 25 Just the same, hold fast to what you have until I come.
We can be very appreciative of all the wonderful things we have learned from work done and distributed by the Governing Body, but Jesus implies that he might still take us to task for following teachings that we should have known were not right. I mean it as an exaggeration, of course, but notice how not-so-different these verses just quoted from Revelation are from a make-believe verse that might have said:
"Still you have this in your favor: that you have adhered to the teachings from my Word which you have learned from the beginning. Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching charts of Brother Splane.

If you believe the Watch Tower publications, however, you would have to agree that he actually did claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave." I know you have already seen the quotes in "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" that the WTS published, along with reports from his funeral, Convention reports from both before and after his death, and A. H. MacMillan's book "Faith on the March."
Even though he did say it to some, he most certainly did not need to. Many of the most successful men of the 19th century were experts at "mock humility." In some situations it was considered the only "proper" way to communicate one's authority and title to others. One method was to always allow others to introduce your title.
(Colossians 2:18) 18 Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. He is actually puffed up without proper cause by his fleshly frame of mind, Teaching that there was only one person in his day who should be identified as that faithful and wise servant [faithful and discreet slave] who serves meat in due season [food at the proper time] is admittedly not an explicit claim on its own. But when you also identify your own writings as "meat in due season" and publish many letters addressing you as the "faithful and wise servant" you are merely making wise use of the 19th century methods. Even the admission that you can't let "modesty" keep you from explaining that there is only ONE individual "faithful and wise servant" rather than multiple "servants" is an obvious yet sufficiently humble "reveal."
I'm afraid we would just be repeating information already covered if we dug out all the sources again, but I'm sure you know them. The reason I quoted the scripture from Colossians is to discuss the danger, not just of false humility, but of something else, which is just as relevant today:
False humility can hide a haughtiness which is often accompanied by presumptuousness and a lack of wisdom and discretion. But you are probably also aware that Russell was worshiped as an angel. When the verse speaks of the worship of angels, we know that no one worshiped angels as the highest authority, but it was a kind of secondary worship based on lower levels in the hierarchy of Jehovah's creatures. This kind of worship should not be acceptable among Christians, yet Russell allowed it. He is never seen strongly speaking out against it.
It had to wait until Rutherford who said that one of the first things he wanted to do was change this cult mentality of worshiping Russell.
*** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight ***
Why, brother, if I [Rutherford] ever get out of here [prison], by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. *** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America ***
So it was understood that the “servant” God used to dispense spiritual food was a class. With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. [Strange that in 1975 the writer didn't feel free to admit directly that it was Russell himself who positioned this doctrine to be applied to himself, even if it was an issue where he allowed people close to him to promote at first.]
*** kr chap. 2 p. 23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
. Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him *** jv chap. 28 pp. 625-626 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
But you, Brother Rutherford, have a disposition which has no comparison with that of Brother Russell. Even your looks are different. It is not your fault. It was your birthday present, and you could not refuse it. . . . Did the Lord know what he was doing when he placed you at the head of affairs? He surely did. In the past we were all prone to worship the creature more than the Creator. The Lord knew that. So he placed a creature with a different disposition at the head of affairs, or I should say in charge of the work, the harvest work. You desire nobody to worship you. [I don't think it's true that so many were prone to worship the creature, Brother Russell, more than the Creator. But worshiping, or assigning reverence to an "angel" even if we know the relative place of that angel in the hierarchy, still detracts from the worship of the Creator. There is also an implication that Rutherford was different from Russell in that he did not desire to be worshiped, implying that perhaps Russell did very little to stop the worship and the development of a cult around him. I don't think this implication was intended, but I do believe there is some truth to it.]
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. On the topic of worshiping angels, this is a curious coincidence:
*** w85 7/15 p. 12 par. 11 “Let No Man Deprive You of the Prize” ***
A fourth-century council at nearby Laodicea found it necessary to declare: “Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and . . . call upon the names of angels. . . . If any one, therefore, be found to exercise himself in this private idolatry, let him be accursed.” However, fifth-century theologian and scholar Theodoret indicates that “this vice” of angel worship still existed there in his day. Places near Laodicea had an early problem with worship of angels, and I'm sure you know which angel Russell was associated with:
Rev 3:14 "And unto the angel [messenger] of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" KJV  Page 4 of the 1917 book, The Finished Mystery says:
Pastor Russell being the messenger of the Laodicean Church, and occupying the position of the Lord's special servant to give the Household of Faith meat in due season .... Page 53 of the same book says:
The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell, born February 16, 1852. He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth (p. 53).  

I agree with the other scriptures you have contributed. Exactly along the lines I was thinking too.
Russell had many things wrong but who is to say? We have the benefit of so much today compared to the pioneering work done in those early days on the basis of what they knew. The courage and determination shines through regardless of any of the tarnishing error in the thinking displayed.
I wonder what the passage of 100 years or so will do to the understandings we hold so dear today? May we be there to share the laughter!

@James Thomas Rook Jr. On the contrary, any contact and or touching/or simulation of the male and or female reproductive organs is sexual contact. It is considered as pornea, it is also in the same category of masturbation.
As for tight pants in Christendom, a lot of folks has taken issue with tight pants, just a few days ago some Christians went off on tight pants - unhinged, one of them even made a few, in addition to mainstream pastor gestures when on stage.
I myself take issue with inappropriate clothing for both male and female. You cannot praise God and appear as though you should be on stage with a K-pop girl group and or wear tight pants like a rock boy band of the 90s.
If I recall, the tend began when punkers began to wear the pants/jeans of girls, eventually the trend took flight from there. Now we have men wearing things like Rompers, you don't want to know what that is - but since it is public, it is obvious to everyone.
That being said, tight pants, is said to not be good for males anyways, it can cause problems for one's health -  ironically.
As for the joke about Caleb and Sophia dolls, truth be told, there are robot dolls in the works that resemble adult man and or women, as well as appear as children, hence Japanese slang. If you are familiar with the movies such as iRobot, Matrix and or perhaps the Terminator, expect in the next couple of years robot dolls will soon be a replacement for males and females who lack a romantic partner, the very reason why there is a war going on for people who are [A] against this stuff, be included because it would pose as a problem in the future, as it is now doing, for every dollar being made in production and selling of such things for ill purposes and a sole intent - brazen conduct  People who are for this stuff and think this is a future and they honestly believe they can relief the sexual cravings of such persons, even the likes of pedophiles, again, of what is being made by the Japanese, hence the Jap. slang used.
So in short, we see this in movies:

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

A picture of this robot up-close shows that the intent of the creator is to make said robot look like the Actress, Scarlett Johansson.
Other than that, stuff like this is very serious. And someone like myself is very against such things mainly when it comes to what is being discussed via this topic and as to what Matthew have said.
It can get worse, outside of people using robotic dolls for brazen conduct, you also have the ones who will soon be taking your job:
A.I. and robots can and will be dangerous, in this sense, not only they will be taking jobs very soon and being 10 times if not more steps ahead of you, they will eventually replace even mates and or partners, at the same time encourage people to do ill intent, rapist, pedophiles, and a list of other things, thus promoting said things, which is can very, very bad for any and everyone.

The Book of Hebrews

Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
 
? Proof of Trinitarian Error
Trinitarians claim God the Father addresses Jesus as "God" in this verse.
? The Claims vs. The Facts
The facts show that the Trinitarian interpretation and translation is impossible and the writer is rather describing how the exalted Jesus now has the authority of God's throne.
? The Problems with the claims of Trinitarians
Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6.
Side-by-side
Hebrews 1:8 - But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Psalms 45:6 - Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; The above translation of Hebrews 1:8 is another example of Trinitarian translation bias. Here they outrageously try to claim that God the Father is addressing Jesus as "O God." This translation crudely violates the context for the sake of Trinitarian tradition.
1. The Greek Grammar and Intentional Translation Bias

Concerning Hebrews 1:8, Trinitarian apologists are somewhat pretentious and would have you believe their "O God" translation is the only possible translation. So they always cherry pick the vocative "O God" translation for their apologetic agenda. However, Trinitarian Greek translation scholars openly admit the Greek grammar does indeed allow for a different translation. Trinitarian scholars admit that "God is your throne (or Your throne is God) is grammatically correct (see Robertson or Westcott for example). Some of these scholars also concede that it makes theological sense. This is also evidenced by a review of various major translations. The RSV translates Psalm 45:6 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever." The NRSV footnote for Psalm 45:6 reads, "Your throne is a throne of God" and the Hebrews 1:8 footnote reads, "God is your throne."
NOTE: Some grammarians have even argued that the vocative is an artificial category created by translators. In other words, they argue that it is a category which is an English speaking convention which would have never been conceived in a Koine Greek speaker's mind.
The word "throne" in Scripture
With the exception of a few informed scholars, Trinitarians generally seem to dismiss the "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God," translation because they can't imagine how God could be Jesus Christ's throne. Some even conclude this is silly because, they object, it would have God being used as Jesus' chair (throne). However, the ignorance is actually their own. The problem is that they are equating the word "throne" with a chair to sit upon. This notion comes from ignorance concerning the use of the word "throne" in the Scripture.
David and Solomon sat on "the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah we see this in the 2 verses that will be mention below
1 Chronicles 29:23 - Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD [YHWH] as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him. 2 Chronicles 9:8 - Blessed be the LORD [YHWH] your God, who has delighted in you and set you on his throne as king for the LORD [YHWH] your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them forever, he has made you king over them, that you may execute justice and righteousness.” And these two sat over the Kingdom of God,
1 Chronicles 28:5 - And of all my sons (for the LORD [YHWH] has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD [YHWH] over Israel.  
This does not mean they sat on God's chair in heaven. To sit on a throne means one assumes the authority signified by that throne. When David and Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah it meant they were given the right to execute the authority of God's throne over the nation of Israel, that is, God's authority over Israel. God promised David that He would establish his throne forever (2 Samuel 7:13,16) but it doesn't mean God is establishing a chair. It means God will establish David's Kingdom authority. When Benaiah says, "may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my Lord King David!" (1 Kings 1:36), he isn't suggesting that Solomon will have a better chair to sit on than David. When Gabriel informs Virgin Mary that God will give baby Jesus the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32), he wasn't suggesting that God was going to give a chair to Jesus. The word "throne" is a reference to kingly authority. Also see Colossians 1:16 were "thrones" are in a list of varies authorities. When Jesus said he sat down with his Father on His throne (Revelation 3:21), the main idea is not that Jesus squeezed up beside the Father on the Father's chair in heaven. The point is that Jesus assumed the authority signified by that throne and was given the right to execute his God's authority. And this is the concept expressed by the translations, "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God."
It is important to recognize how the word "throne" is used in the Bible and for the reader to see that the Trinitarian objection to the "God is your throne" translation is implicitly based on a false premise. A physical throne symbolizes kingly authority. The word "throne" at Hebrews 1:8 is being used to refer to authority not where Jesus is physically sitting. This is made obvious by the immediate context, "...the scepter of your Kingdom..." To be given a throne is a way of saying someone is given kingly authority. So a translation which says, "Your throne is God" would not be saying, "The place where you sit is God" as Trinitarians are necessarily presuming in their objections and or claims. Rather, this language would be a way of saying either:
(1) Jesus' authority is God" (God is over Jesus in terms of authority), or (2) Jesus' authority is God's authority granted by God to Jesus to execute (just as Joseph's authority was Pharaoh's authority). In context, the latter of the two would make the most sense. When it is clearly understood how the word "throne" is being used here, and in places like Luke 1:32, it is also clearly seen why the Trinitarian objection to the "God is your throne" translation is feeble at best.
2. Psalms 45:6

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation of the Septuagint translation of Psalm 45:6-7. The 45th Psalm celebrates an ancient Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia. This event occurred a several centuries before Jesus was born. The identity of the king in question is uncertain but most scholars think it is probably Solomon. So if we translated the Greek text as Trinitarians do, it would look like the following:
So shall we conclude that Solomon was being called "God"? To claim that Jesus is being called "God" at Hebrews 1:8 is to also claim Solomon is being called "God" at Psalm 45:6. That just isn't going to make any sense whatsoever. Or perhaps we should add Solomon to the Trinity and end up with a Quadrinity? An honest person will see the seriousness of the problem here, even to the point of calling out such problem, should need be.
"Dual" Prophecy
Like many Psalms, this refers to both the ancient Davidic King and the Messiah. This is common in Scripture and this type of thing is commonly called "dual prophecy" with a "near and far fulfillment." God's promise to David at 2 Samuel 7:11-14 is said in Scripture to be fulfilled in Solomon as well as Jesus.
2 Samuel 7:11-14 - (11) from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. (12) When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. (13) He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (14) I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, Isaiah 7:14 was necessarily fulfilled in the days of King Ahaz, as a sign to Ahaz, but was also fulfilled when Jesus was born.
Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 42:1 is obviously referring to Israel but Matthew applies the verse to Jesus (because he is the King of the Jews). Hosea 11:1 was fulfilled in both Israel and Jesus. These are but a few of several examples.
Isaiah 42:1 - The Lord's Chosen Servant - Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. Hosea 11:1 - The Lord's Love for Israel - When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. Psalm 45:6 is referring to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. If we assume that King is Solomon, it would be disingenuous to say the language used here means "Jesus is God" but deny the same language means "Solomon is God." Hence, the only reasonable conclusion is that Solomon is not being called God and neither is Jesus.
David and Solomon were God's Christ, His Anointed One. This meant they were given the right to sit on the throne of God ruling over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:20-23). In other words, they ruled on God's behalf; they executed God's authority. This occurred because Israel had rejected God as their King (1 Samuel chapter 8th) and wanted a human king. The result was that God did his ruling through a human king. This fact is very significant to a thoughtful interpretation of Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8.
3. God's God

A very serious problem with the Trinitarian translation is the resulting implications of their translation.
Hebrews 1:8-9 - (8) But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (9) You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” The result of this translation is that God has a God and God's God anoints God so that God's God would make God to be above God's peers. It's unbelievably ludicrous in multiple ways.
Even further, if we follow the "O God" translation to it's logical conclusion, we have even more preposterous consequences. Consider verses such as Psalm 43:4,
Psalm 43:4 - Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy, and I will praise you with the lyre, O God, my God. In Scripture, when anyone addresses the God of Israel as "O God" it means they are acknowledging that the addressee is their God. For this reason, it is absurd to suggest God the Father would address anyone as "O God" since it would imply the son is the Father's God.
The Trinitarian translation results in a situation where God addressed someone else as God and then says that God's God anoints God so that God will be above God's peers. Let the reader appreciate the utter implausibility of such a claim.
4. Translation Inconsistency

Another problem with the Trinitarian claim is translation inconsistency. At Hebrews 1:8-9, the Greek term ho theos ("the god") occurs 3 times. The term ho theos ("the God") is the usual Greek way of referring to God in the Bible and our English word "God" without the article is the normal way to translate this Greek term with the understanding that capital "G" God is an English way of referring to "the God" (although we sometimes translate it as "the God"). Trinitarians inconsistently translate ho theos as "O God" in verse 8 but as "God" in verse 9. More technically, they are inconsistently interpreting ho theos as "O God" in verse 8 but as "the God" in verse 9.
The Greek term ho theos normally means "the God" but Trinitarians would have it that here it means "O God." But there is no reason to translate this Greek term in this manner except to promote a man-made tradition, that is, the doctrine of the Trinity.
It should be clear to every reasonable and honest person that the above facts demonstrate that something is very amiss about Trinitarian claims concerning Hebrews 1:8-9 (Psalm 45:6-7). Trinitarians admit that "Your throne is God" is a grammatically viable translation. Some also confess it also makes contextual sense. And their standard objection to this translation is based on a naïve presumption. Hebrews 1:8-9 quotes Psalm 45:6-7 which is about an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. If these words identify Jesus as "God" then they also identify another human being as "God" who lived hundreds of years before Jesus. And if Jesus is being identified as God, then the Father is being identified as God's God which is ridiculous. The implications of the "O God" rendering catapults the passage into absurdity. By definition, God cannot have someone else as his God when there is only one God. And again, it is also clear that Trinitarians are inconsistently translating ho theos in two different ways within this selfsame passage. Even further, it is clear that this chapter is about a man who became superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4) not the one God who always is/was superior to His angels. Facts like these show us that the Trinitarian claim is based on spin rather than facts.
Analyzing the Facts
1. The Greek Text
2. The Structure of Psalm 45:6-7 & Hebrews 1:8-9
 
Also note the parallelism between "the throne of you ho theos" and "God, your God, has anointed you." Each of the ancient Davidic Kings such as Saul, David, Solomon, were God's Anointed One. Each of these men were the Anointed as Kings of Israel, God's Chosen King, God's Anointed One. Read into these verses:
1 Samuel 2:10; 10:1, 12:3,5; 15:17, 16:12-13; 24:6,10, 26:9,11,16,23 2 Samuel 1:14,16,21 2 Samuel 23:1 Psalm 2:2, 18:50, 89:20 God anointed David with the Holy Spirit and it was by this Spirit which David ruled and judged God's Kingdom of God, that is, the Kingdom of Israel. In this way, David and Solomon sat down on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah (1 Chronicles 29:23). This does not mean they sat on God's chair but they were given the authority of God's throne, the right to execute God's authority over His Kingdom, the nation of Israel. This throne authority was given to the Davidic King when God anointed these men with His Holy Spirit. Their throne was the fact that God had anointed them to rule as Kings and God accomplished this anointing by bestowing the Spirit upon them. Men anointed these Kings with actual oil and God anointed them with His Spirit. The authority of their throne was God Himself since they ruled and judged by the Spirit of God. An actual literal throne symbolizes a King's authority and the word "throne" simply refers to their Kingly authority.
For example, when Gabriel announces that God will give to Jesus the throne of his father David, it means that God will give that same Kingly authority to Jesus, God's Anointed One. That Kingly authority was the anointing of God's Holy Spirit, that is, God Himself. Their Kingly authority is God, that is, each of these men were God's Anointed One and they were anointed by God with the Spirit of God to rule and judge by the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God, God Himself, was their Kingly authority. Thus one could say to this Davidic King, "Your throne is God" or "God is your throne" since this means "Your Kingly authority is God Himself," or "God Himself is your Kingly authority."
The Davidic King's throne is the righteousness of God, that is, His rule is the righteousness of God. His scepter is the righteousness of God. The Davidic King ruled and judged by the Spirit of God in which God had anointed him.
1 Samuel 16:13 - Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah. Compare the following and note how Hebrews 1:8 is expressing the same idea:
3. The Context
In the book of Hebrews, the writer refers to how Jesus sat down at the right hand of the throne of God several times:
Now observe how Hebrews 1:8 fits into the immediate context of Hebrews chapter 1:
It should be clear to anyone that the same idea is being presented in all three of these verses. And the same idea is presented here as well:
Let us not forget that these words were spoken to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day at Psalm 45:6. The Davidic King sat "on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah" over "the Kingdom of Yahweh/Jehovah" (1 Chronicles 29:23, 2 Chronicles 9:8, 1 Chronicles 28:5, 2 Chronicles 13:8). God had promised King David that his descendant would sit on this throne, that is, he would have this Kingly authority. And Gabriel confirms that this promise to David was about to be fulfilled when baby Jesus was born, the son of David. As David had sat down on God's throne, Jesus would sit down on God's throne. This throne is a divinely established throne because the Davidic King, whether David or Jesus, is Anointed by God to rule and judge in His name. He is God's representative and or spokesman, His chosen King. His Kingly authority is God Himself because this King is Anointed by God in the Holy Spirit to rule and judge in His name.
The Hebrew writer's point throughout this chapter is that God made the risen Jesus superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4,6,8-9,13). The word "throne" signifies kingly authority. The risen Jesus' authority is the authority of God's throne. Such authority is greater than the authority of the angels.
4. The Davidic Divine Throne: David, Solomon, Jesus the son of David

It also needs to be understood that the word "throne" does not simply mean a fancy chair to sit upon. For example, the angel Gabriel stated that Jesus would receive the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32-33; see also Psalm 94:20). This doesn't mean he would receive a chair to sit upon but that he would assume the position of the Davidic King just as David was King over Israel. The word "throne" refers to a position of authority and indicates Kingly authority.
1 Kings 1:37 -  As the Lord has been with my lord the king, even so may he be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord King David.”
At Hebrews 1:8, the throne in question is a reference to the Kingly authority of God. When he rose from the dead, Jesus sat down on his Father's throne (Revelations 3:21). To sit at "the right hand of God" means Jesus was given the right to execute God's authority, the authority of God's throne. The words "right hand of God" indicate that this authority is not inherently his to execute but that God has appointed him to execute this authority much like Pharaoh did with Joseph. In other words, Joseph ruled Egypt on behalf of Pharaoh and the risen Jesus now rules creation on behalf of God the Father. To be at the right hand of God means that the authority is inherently God the Father's but Jesus was given the right to execute that authority in the same way Joseph ruled on Pharaoh's behalf.
Genesis 41:40-43 - (40) You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” (41) And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” (42) Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. (43) And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt. Additionally, verse 9 indicates God anointed Jesus to be above his peers. This is a Biblical way of saying God anointed Jesus as King just as the ancient Davidic Kings were anointed to rule over Israel sitting on the throne of God. Jesus was anointed to sit on the throne in question in verse 8, that is, to execute the authority of the throne of God. In light of these facts, the words "the throne of you ho theos" is quite obviously to say that Jesus has been given the authority of his God's throne.
The ancient Davidic Kings were anointed to sit on the throne of God over Israel; the risen Jesus, promised son of David, was anointed to sit on the throne of God over all creation - "your throne ho theos". Jesus sat down on his Father's throne (Revelations 3:21). Indeed, this concept is the main idea in this chapter and into the next (Hebrews 1:3,8,13; 2:5-9). The God (ho theos placed Jesus over all the works of His hands (Hebrews 1:1-13; 2:5-9). The way this is done is to grant him the authority of the Father's throne, God's throne, "Your throne ho theos."
5. Manuscript Evidence

There is a very important manuscript variant reading of verse 8 (p46; Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.). This is represented by the NASB which reads "HIS Kingdom instead of "your Kingdom." If this is the correct manuscript reading, it would mean the writer was quoting a version of the Septuagint with this reading. So should it read "Your Kingdom" or "His Kingdom"? This is very significant since the throne in question in this verse is the throne of the Kingdom, God's Kingly throne. It appears that the best manuscript evidence may favor "His Kingdom" which grammatically can be taken to refer to the Father's Kingdom. If "His Kingdom" is the correct reading, then it is even more clear that the first instance of ho theos in verse 8 refers to God the Father and the vocative translation "O God" is not correct. This fact has also been acknowledged by Trinitarian academics. The pronoun "His" would be referring back to the Father in the phrase "the throne of you ho theos" which means this phrase refers to the Father's Kingly throne which the risen Jesus sat down upon in order to rule God the Father's Kingdom. See verses Hebrews 1:10-13 and 2:7-8 (see Psalms 8:6) where it says the risen Jesus was placed over the works of the Father's hands. Since Psalms 45 is being quoted here, one should not overlook the fact that this is also the scenario when David and Solomon sat on the throne of God ruling over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:20, 23). It is no surprise then that the Hebrews writer is quoting Psalms 45:6-7 where the context shows us that it refers to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. Indeed, David/Solomon ruled over God's Kingdom ("His Kingdom") have sat down on God's throne.
It is also interesting that the "throne of Yahweh/Jehovah" which David sat upon is also called the "throne of David" in the Scriptures. Notice how the same concept at Revelations 3:21.
The Old Testament tells us that God's Christ, David and/or Solomon, sat on the throne of God over the Kingdom of God. This means they were granted the right by God to execute the authority of their God's Kingly throne as His Christ, His Anointed One, that person whom God chose to rule over His Kingdom, the people of Israel. At Hebrews 1:8-9, writer is quoting Psalms 45 which is referring to an ancient Davidic King on His wedding day (see scholarly commentaries). These facts about the ancient Davidic King fit perfectly with God and His Christ, Jesus, the promised son of David. Read 2 Samuel 7:11-14.

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

Trinitarian apologists have illustrated their ignorance here many times. It is not uncommon to see them mocking, rave and rant over people, one of their primary targets being the Jehovah's Witnesses and their Watchtower translation (The New World Translation/NWT) by supposing it means Jesus' throne is God and Jesus therefore sits on God. The Trinitarian ignorance here is stunning, obvious and continues to be quite absurd for the sake of their doctrine. Regard the following verse for example:
Luke 1:32 - He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
The words "God is your throne" or "Your throne is God" mean that Jesus Christ's authority is the Kingly authority of God. He executes God the Father's authority. David sat on the throne of God over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:23). For that reason, all Israel bowed down and worshiped (proskuneo) Yahweh/Jehovah and King David (1 Chronicles 29:20). This means that David executed God's authority on God's behalf much like Joseph ruling on behalf of Pharaoh. This is also what is happening at Psalms 45:6-7 where the Psalmist is speaking to the Davidic King on his wedding day. He sits on the throne of God, the God of Israel. And that is what the language of Hebrews 1:8 means. "Your throne is God" means that he has been given the Kingly authority of God, his God.
Conclusion

When all the facts are laid out before us, the truth of the matter is plain and it should be evident to the reasonable mind that the weight of the evidence is heavily against the absurd Trinitarian translation. The Trinitarian translation not only results in an absurd statement concerning God's God, it results in an ancient Davidic King (Psalms 45) who lived long before Jesus being called "God." Trinitarians inconsistently translate ho theos at Hebrews 1:8-9 and the implications are that God has a God and God's God anoints God so that God will make God to be above God's peers. It's ridiculous on the face of it.
However, when we understand how Scripture uses the word "throne" to refer to Kingly authority, and when we understand that the Davidic King, whether David or Jesus, was anointed by God in His Holy Spirit to rule and judge, the verdict is clear and undeniable. The Davidic King's, throne, his Kingly authority to rule, is God Himself who rules and judges through his human King because He has anointed that King by His Spirit to do so (i.e. "God is your throne"). His Kingly authority is God, his throne is God. He executes the authority of God's throne, that is, the Davidic King executes his God's authority and he is anointed to do so by the Holy Spirit of God. The Kingly authority by which he rules is the authority/throne of God Himself. This Kingly authority means that the King's judgments are thereby God's judgment because God has given the King this authority to make these judgements. Hence it says, "Your throne ho theos." Moreover, the manuscript evidence strongly suggests the verse is not only referring to the Father's throne but to "His Kingdom". Since God's throne signifies His Kingdom authority, the verdict concerning this verse should be clear.
Additional Notes:
 
 

I took that as a joke ... but then again ... if the Governing Body through its "s-POKES-people", their "Helpers" declare that if two people are naked in chairs, facing each other, and masturbating WHILE WATCHING EACH OTHER is NOT pornea ... WHICH THEY DID ... that is enough to make your head spin and exclaim "What the HELL is going on up there! ?"
... are they COMPLETELY and TOTALLY divorced from reality?

2 CHAIR pORNEA .mp4 Gravity Electricity Wind .mp4

The Book of Hebrews

Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
 
? Proof of Trinitarian Error
Trinitarians claim God the Father addresses Jesus as "God" in this verse.
? The Claims vs. The Facts
The facts show that the Trinitarian interpretation and translation is impossible and the writer is rather describing how the exalted Jesus now has the authority of God's throne.
? The Problems with the claims of Trinitarians
Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6.
Side-by-side
Hebrews 1:8 - But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Psalms 45:6 - Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; The above translation of Hebrews 1:8 is another example of Trinitarian translation bias. Here they outrageously try to claim that God the Father is addressing Jesus as "O God." This translation crudely violates the context for the sake of Trinitarian tradition.
1. The Greek Grammar and Intentional Translation Bias

Concerning Hebrews 1:8, Trinitarian apologists are somewhat pretentious and would have you believe their "O God" translation is the only possible translation. So they always cherry pick the vocative "O God" translation for their apologetic agenda. However, Trinitarian Greek translation scholars openly admit the Greek grammar does indeed allow for a different translation. Trinitarian scholars admit that "God is your throne (or Your throne is God) is grammatically correct (see Robertson or Westcott for example). Some of these scholars also concede that it makes theological sense. This is also evidenced by a review of various major translations. The RSV translates Psalm 45:6 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever." The NRSV footnote for Psalm 45:6 reads, "Your throne is a throne of God" and the Hebrews 1:8 footnote reads, "God is your throne."
NOTE: Some grammarians have even argued that the vocative is an artificial category created by translators. In other words, they argue that it is a category which is an English speaking convention which would have never been conceived in a Koine Greek speaker's mind.
The word "throne" in Scripture
With the exception of a few informed scholars, Trinitarians generally seem to dismiss the "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God," translation because they can't imagine how God could be Jesus Christ's throne. Some even conclude this is silly because, they object, it would have God being used as Jesus' chair (throne). However, the ignorance is actually their own. The problem is that they are equating the word "throne" with a chair to sit upon. This notion comes from ignorance concerning the use of the word "throne" in the Scripture.
David and Solomon sat on "the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah we see this in the 2 verses that will be mention below
1 Chronicles 29:23 - Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD [YHWH] as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him. 2 Chronicles 9:8 - Blessed be the LORD [YHWH] your God, who has delighted in you and set you on his throne as king for the LORD [YHWH] your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them forever, he has made you king over them, that you may execute justice and righteousness.” And these two sat over the Kingdom of God,
1 Chronicles 28:5 - And of all my sons (for the LORD [YHWH] has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD [YHWH] over Israel.  
This does not mean they sat on God's chair in heaven. To sit on a throne means one assumes the authority signified by that throne. When David and Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah it meant they were given the right to execute the authority of God's throne over the nation of Israel, that is, God's authority over Israel. God promised David that He would establish his throne forever (2 Samuel 7:13,16) but it doesn't mean God is establishing a chair. It means God will establish David's Kingdom authority. When Benaiah says, "may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my Lord King David!" (1 Kings 1:36), he isn't suggesting that Solomon will have a better chair to sit on than David. When Gabriel informs Virgin Mary that God will give baby Jesus the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32), he wasn't suggesting that God was going to give a chair to Jesus. The word "throne" is a reference to kingly authority. Also see Colossians 1:16 were "thrones" are in a list of varies authorities. When Jesus said he sat down with his Father on His throne (Revelation 3:21), the main idea is not that Jesus squeezed up beside the Father on the Father's chair in heaven. The point is that Jesus assumed the authority signified by that throne and was given the right to execute his God's authority. And this is the concept expressed by the translations, "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God."
It is important to recognize how the word "throne" is used in the Bible and for the reader to see that the Trinitarian objection to the "God is your throne" translation is implicitly based on a false premise. A physical throne symbolizes kingly authority. The word "throne" at Hebrews 1:8 is being used to refer to authority not where Jesus is physically sitting. This is made obvious by the immediate context, "...the scepter of your Kingdom..." To be given a throne is a way of saying someone is given kingly authority. So a translation which says, "Your throne is God" would not be saying, "The place where you sit is God" as Trinitarians are necessarily presuming in their objections and or claims. Rather, this language would be a way of saying either:
(1) Jesus' authority is God" (God is over Jesus in terms of authority), or (2) Jesus' authority is God's authority granted by God to Jesus to execute (just as Joseph's authority was Pharaoh's authority). In context, the latter of the two would make the most sense. When it is clearly understood how the word "throne" is being used here, and in places like Luke 1:32, it is also clearly seen why the Trinitarian objection to the "God is your throne" translation is feeble at best.
2. Psalms 45:6

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation of the Septuagint translation of Psalm 45:6-7. The 45th Psalm celebrates an ancient Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia. This event occurred a several centuries before Jesus was born. The identity of the king in question is uncertain but most scholars think it is probably Solomon. So if we translated the Greek text as Trinitarians do, it would look like the following:
So shall we conclude that Solomon was being called "God"? To claim that Jesus is being called "God" at Hebrews 1:8 is to also claim Solomon is being called "God" at Psalm 45:6. That just isn't going to make any sense whatsoever. Or perhaps we should add Solomon to the Trinity and end up with a Quadrinity? An honest person will see the seriousness of the problem here, even to the point of calling out such problem, should need be.
"Dual" Prophecy
Like many Psalms, this refers to both the ancient Davidic King and the Messiah. This is common in Scripture and this type of thing is commonly called "dual prophecy" with a "near and far fulfillment." God's promise to David at 2 Samuel 7:11-14 is said in Scripture to be fulfilled in Solomon as well as Jesus.
2 Samuel 7:11-14 - (11) from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. (12) When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. (13) He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (14) I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, Isaiah 7:14 was necessarily fulfilled in the days of King Ahaz, as a sign to Ahaz, but was also fulfilled when Jesus was born.
Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 42:1 is obviously referring to Israel but Matthew applies the verse to Jesus (because he is the King of the Jews). Hosea 11:1 was fulfilled in both Israel and Jesus. These are but a few of several examples.
Isaiah 42:1 - The Lord's Chosen Servant - Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. Hosea 11:1 - The Lord's Love for Israel - When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. Psalm 45:6 is referring to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. If we assume that King is Solomon, it would be disingenuous to say the language used here means "Jesus is God" but deny the same language means "Solomon is God." Hence, the only reasonable conclusion is that Solomon is not being called God and neither is Jesus.
David and Solomon were God's Christ, His Anointed One. This meant they were given the right to sit on the throne of God ruling over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:20-23). In other words, they ruled on God's behalf; they executed God's authority. This occurred because Israel had rejected God as their King (1 Samuel chapter 8th) and wanted a human king. The result was that God did his ruling through a human king. This fact is very significant to a thoughtful interpretation of Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8.
3. God's God

A very serious problem with the Trinitarian translation is the resulting implications of their translation.
Hebrews 1:8-9 - (8) But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (9) You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” The result of this translation is that God has a God and God's God anoints God so that God's God would make God to be above God's peers. It's unbelievably ludicrous in multiple ways.
Even further, if we follow the "O God" translation to it's logical conclusion, we have even more preposterous consequences. Consider verses such as Psalm 43:4,
Psalm 43:4 - Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy, and I will praise you with the lyre, O God, my God. In Scripture, when anyone addresses the God of Israel as "O God" it means they are acknowledging that the addressee is their God. For this reason, it is absurd to suggest God the Father would address anyone as "O God" since it would imply the son is the Father's God.
The Trinitarian translation results in a situation where God addressed someone else as God and then says that God's God anoints God so that God will be above God's peers. Let the reader appreciate the utter implausibility of such a claim.
4. Translation Inconsistency

Another problem with the Trinitarian claim is translation inconsistency. At Hebrews 1:8-9, the Greek term ho theos ("the god") occurs 3 times. The term ho theos ("the God") is the usual Greek way of referring to God in the Bible and our English word "God" without the article is the normal way to translate this Greek term with the understanding that capital "G" God is an English way of referring to "the God" (although we sometimes translate it as "the God"). Trinitarians inconsistently translate ho theos as "O God" in verse 8 but as "God" in verse 9. More technically, they are inconsistently interpreting ho theos as "O God" in verse 8 but as "the God" in verse 9.
The Greek term ho theos normally means "the God" but Trinitarians would have it that here it means "O God." But there is no reason to translate this Greek term in this manner except to promote a man-made tradition, that is, the doctrine of the Trinity.
It should be clear to every reasonable and honest person that the above facts demonstrate that something is very amiss about Trinitarian claims concerning Hebrews 1:8-9 (Psalm 45:6-7). Trinitarians admit that "Your throne is God" is a grammatically viable translation. Some also confess it also makes contextual sense. And their standard objection to this translation is based on a naïve presumption. Hebrews 1:8-9 quotes Psalm 45:6-7 which is about an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. If these words identify Jesus as "God" then they also identify another human being as "God" who lived hundreds of years before Jesus. And if Jesus is being identified as God, then the Father is being identified as God's God which is ridiculous. The implications of the "O God" rendering catapults the passage into absurdity. By definition, God cannot have someone else as his God when there is only one God. And again, it is also clear that Trinitarians are inconsistently translating ho theos in two different ways within this selfsame passage. Even further, it is clear that this chapter is about a man who became superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4) not the one God who always is/was superior to His angels. Facts like these show us that the Trinitarian claim is based on spin rather than facts.
Analyzing the Facts
1. The Greek Text
2. The Structure of Psalm 45:6-7 & Hebrews 1:8-9
 
Also note the parallelism between "the throne of you ho theos" and "God, your God, has anointed you." Each of the ancient Davidic Kings such as Saul, David, Solomon, were God's Anointed One. Each of these men were the Anointed as Kings of Israel, God's Chosen King, God's Anointed One. Read into these verses:
1 Samuel 2:10; 10:1, 12:3,5; 15:17, 16:12-13; 24:6,10, 26:9,11,16,23 2 Samuel 1:14,16,21 2 Samuel 23:1 Psalm 2:2, 18:50, 89:20 God anointed David with the Holy Spirit and it was by this Spirit which David ruled and judged God's Kingdom of God, that is, the Kingdom of Israel. In this way, David and Solomon sat down on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah (1 Chronicles 29:23). This does not mean they sat on God's chair but they were given the authority of God's throne, the right to execute God's authority over His Kingdom, the nation of Israel. This throne authority was given to the Davidic King when God anointed these men with His Holy Spirit. Their throne was the fact that God had anointed them to rule as Kings and God accomplished this anointing by bestowing the Spirit upon them. Men anointed these Kings with actual oil and God anointed them with His Spirit. The authority of their throne was God Himself since they ruled and judged by the Spirit of God. An actual literal throne symbolizes a King's authority and the word "throne" simply refers to their Kingly authority.
For example, when Gabriel announces that God will give to Jesus the throne of his father David, it means that God will give that same Kingly authority to Jesus, God's Anointed One. That Kingly authority was the anointing of God's Holy Spirit, that is, God Himself. Their Kingly authority is God, that is, each of these men were God's Anointed One and they were anointed by God with the Spirit of God to rule and judge by the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God, God Himself, was their Kingly authority. Thus one could say to this Davidic King, "Your throne is God" or "God is your throne" since this means "Your Kingly authority is God Himself," or "God Himself is your Kingly authority."
The Davidic King's throne is the righteousness of God, that is, His rule is the righteousness of God. His scepter is the righteousness of God. The Davidic King ruled and judged by the Spirit of God in which God had anointed him.
1 Samuel 16:13 - Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah. Compare the following and note how Hebrews 1:8 is expressing the same idea:
3. The Context
In the book of Hebrews, the writer refers to how Jesus sat down at the right hand of the throne of God several times:
Now observe how Hebrews 1:8 fits into the immediate context of Hebrews chapter 1:
It should be clear to anyone that the same idea is being presented in all three of these verses. And the same idea is presented here as well:
Let us not forget that these words were spoken to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day at Psalm 45:6. The Davidic King sat "on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah" over "the Kingdom of Yahweh/Jehovah" (1 Chronicles 29:23, 2 Chronicles 9:8, 1 Chronicles 28:5, 2 Chronicles 13:8). God had promised King David that his descendant would sit on this throne, that is, he would have this Kingly authority. And Gabriel confirms that this promise to David was about to be fulfilled when baby Jesus was born, the son of David. As David had sat down on God's throne, Jesus would sit down on God's throne. This throne is a divinely established throne because the Davidic King, whether David or Jesus, is Anointed by God to rule and judge in His name. He is God's representative and or spokesman, His chosen King. His Kingly authority is God Himself because this King is Anointed by God in the Holy Spirit to rule and judge in His name.
The Hebrew writer's point throughout this chapter is that God made the risen Jesus superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4,6,8-9,13). The word "throne" signifies kingly authority. The risen Jesus' authority is the authority of God's throne. Such authority is greater than the authority of the angels.
4. The Davidic Divine Throne: David, Solomon, Jesus the son of David

It also needs to be understood that the word "throne" does not simply mean a fancy chair to sit upon. For example, the angel Gabriel stated that Jesus would receive the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32-33; see also Psalm 94:20). This doesn't mean he would receive a chair to sit upon but that he would assume the position of the Davidic King just as David was King over Israel. The word "throne" refers to a position of authority and indicates Kingly authority.
1 Kings 1:37 -  As the Lord has been with my lord the king, even so may he be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord King David.”
At Hebrews 1:8, the throne in question is a reference to the Kingly authority of God. When he rose from the dead, Jesus sat down on his Father's throne (Revelations 3:21). To sit at "the right hand of God" means Jesus was given the right to execute God's authority, the authority of God's throne. The words "right hand of God" indicate that this authority is not inherently his to execute but that God has appointed him to execute this authority much like Pharaoh did with Joseph. In other words, Joseph ruled Egypt on behalf of Pharaoh and the risen Jesus now rules creation on behalf of God the Father. To be at the right hand of God means that the authority is inherently God the Father's but Jesus was given the right to execute that authority in the same way Joseph ruled on Pharaoh's behalf.
Genesis 41:40-43 - (40) You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” (41) And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” (42) Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. (43) And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt. Additionally, verse 9 indicates God anointed Jesus to be above his peers. This is a Biblical way of saying God anointed Jesus as King just as the ancient Davidic Kings were anointed to rule over Israel sitting on the throne of God. Jesus was anointed to sit on the throne in question in verse 8, that is, to execute the authority of the throne of God. In light of these facts, the words "the throne of you ho theos" is quite obviously to say that Jesus has been given the authority of his God's throne.
The ancient Davidic Kings were anointed to sit on the throne of God over Israel; the risen Jesus, promised son of David, was anointed to sit on the throne of God over all creation - "your throne ho theos". Jesus sat down on his Father's throne (Revelations 3:21). Indeed, this concept is the main idea in this chapter and into the next (Hebrews 1:3,8,13; 2:5-9). The God (ho theos placed Jesus over all the works of His hands (Hebrews 1:1-13; 2:5-9). The way this is done is to grant him the authority of the Father's throne, God's throne, "Your throne ho theos."
5. Manuscript Evidence

There is a very important manuscript variant reading of verse 8 (p46; Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.). This is represented by the NASB which reads "HIS Kingdom instead of "your Kingdom." If this is the correct manuscript reading, it would mean the writer was quoting a version of the Septuagint with this reading. So should it read "Your Kingdom" or "His Kingdom"? This is very significant since the throne in question in this verse is the throne of the Kingdom, God's Kingly throne. It appears that the best manuscript evidence may favor "His Kingdom" which grammatically can be taken to refer to the Father's Kingdom. If "His Kingdom" is the correct reading, then it is even more clear that the first instance of ho theos in verse 8 refers to God the Father and the vocative translation "O God" is not correct. This fact has also been acknowledged by Trinitarian academics. The pronoun "His" would be referring back to the Father in the phrase "the throne of you ho theos" which means this phrase refers to the Father's Kingly throne which the risen Jesus sat down upon in order to rule God the Father's Kingdom. See verses Hebrews 1:10-13 and 2:7-8 (see Psalms 8:6) where it says the risen Jesus was placed over the works of the Father's hands. Since Psalms 45 is being quoted here, one should not overlook the fact that this is also the scenario when David and Solomon sat on the throne of God ruling over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:20, 23). It is no surprise then that the Hebrews writer is quoting Psalms 45:6-7 where the context shows us that it refers to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. Indeed, David/Solomon ruled over God's Kingdom ("His Kingdom") have sat down on God's throne.
It is also interesting that the "throne of Yahweh/Jehovah" which David sat upon is also called the "throne of David" in the Scriptures. Notice how the same concept at Revelations 3:21.
The Old Testament tells us that God's Christ, David and/or Solomon, sat on the throne of God over the Kingdom of God. This means they were granted the right by God to execute the authority of their God's Kingly throne as His Christ, His Anointed One, that person whom God chose to rule over His Kingdom, the people of Israel. At Hebrews 1:8-9, writer is quoting Psalms 45 which is referring to an ancient Davidic King on His wedding day (see scholarly commentaries). These facts about the ancient Davidic King fit perfectly with God and His Christ, Jesus, the promised son of David. Read 2 Samuel 7:11-14.

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

Trinitarian apologists have illustrated their ignorance here many times. It is not uncommon to see them mocking, rave and rant over people, one of their primary targets being the Jehovah's Witnesses and their Watchtower translation (The New World Translation/NWT) by supposing it means Jesus' throne is God and Jesus therefore sits on God. The Trinitarian ignorance here is stunning, obvious and continues to be quite absurd for the sake of their doctrine. Regard the following verse for example:
Luke 1:32 - He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
The words "God is your throne" or "Your throne is God" mean that Jesus Christ's authority is the Kingly authority of God. He executes God the Father's authority. David sat on the throne of God over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:23). For that reason, all Israel bowed down and worshiped (proskuneo) Yahweh/Jehovah and King David (1 Chronicles 29:20). This means that David executed God's authority on God's behalf much like Joseph ruling on behalf of Pharaoh. This is also what is happening at Psalms 45:6-7 where the Psalmist is speaking to the Davidic King on his wedding day. He sits on the throne of God, the God of Israel. And that is what the language of Hebrews 1:8 means. "Your throne is God" means that he has been given the Kingly authority of God, his God.
Conclusion

When all the facts are laid out before us, the truth of the matter is plain and it should be evident to the reasonable mind that the weight of the evidence is heavily against the absurd Trinitarian translation. The Trinitarian translation not only results in an absurd statement concerning God's God, it results in an ancient Davidic King (Psalms 45) who lived long before Jesus being called "God." Trinitarians inconsistently translate ho theos at Hebrews 1:8-9 and the implications are that God has a God and God's God anoints God so that God will make God to be above God's peers. It's ridiculous on the face of it.
However, when we understand how Scripture uses the word "throne" to refer to Kingly authority, and when we understand that the Davidic King, whether David or Jesus, was anointed by God in His Holy Spirit to rule and judge, the verdict is clear and undeniable. The Davidic King's, throne, his Kingly authority to rule, is God Himself who rules and judges through his human King because He has anointed that King by His Spirit to do so (i.e. "God is your throne"). His Kingly authority is God, his throne is God. He executes the authority of God's throne, that is, the Davidic King executes his God's authority and he is anointed to do so by the Holy Spirit of God. The Kingly authority by which he rules is the authority/throne of God Himself. This Kingly authority means that the King's judgments are thereby God's judgment because God has given the King this authority to make these judgements. Hence it says, "Your throne ho theos." Moreover, the manuscript evidence strongly suggests the verse is not only referring to the Father's throne but to "His Kingdom". Since God's throne signifies His Kingdom authority, the verdict concerning this verse should be clear.
Additional Notes:
 
 

Seems Paton published a first edition in 1880 prior to his defection. This edition was endorsed by Russell and was obtainable direct from the publisher or brokered through the WTS.
A second, revised edition was proposed in Aug 1881.  The text of the revision was objectionable to Russell, particularly a new chapter entitled The Atonement which was seen as implying a denial of Christ's Ransom.Both Russell and the original publisher refused further involvement with Paton. Paton then decided to publish the revised book himself. Paton gives the reason for his revision in a later issue of his magazine:
"Since sending out the first edition, by a careful examination of the Word, my mind had undergone a change as to the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, and the Atonement. I did not deny the Ransom, as some have positively affirmed, but only denied the correctness of their, and my own former theory of the matter. I now saw that the idea of Substitution, or that Christ died instead of mankind, was unscriptural and untrue, as we all die. The unity of Christ, as the Second Man, with the whole race, I saw to be the Apostolic idea, so that all died and rose in him. So this fundamental and vitalunion with Christ, as the basis of a practical and experimental at-one-ment with, or reconciliation to God, took the place of substitution in DAY DAWN, when revised." The World’s Hope. February 15, 1890. (Volume 8, number 4).

I agree. The influence of Henry Grew on Russell is clear, even if some of it came indirectly through others. There are a lot of parallels and several probable dependencies in Russell's writings to those of Grew although I don't recall if Russell ever quotes him directly.
George Stetson was also anti-Trinitarian, and even George Storrs appears to be non-Trinitarian or at least neutral. Russell was probably non-Trinitarian or neutral in a way similar to George Storrs up until sometime prior to 1882 when Russell writes his own article defending against the Trinity. This was almost immediately after Paton left, so it's likely his mind was clearly made up well before 1882.
*** jv chap. 28 p. 620 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
Two years later, [1881] Paton, who was then serving as a traveling representative of the Watch Tower, also began to turn away, thereafter publishing a book (his second one entitled Day Dawn) . . . [It's the only mention of Day Dawn in the Proclaimers book, and therefore implies that it was only published after Paton left the Watch Tower.]

@JW Insider This I will note because a source of my, Mr. Lite, among several of his sources CTR does not mention this (granted that his sources tend to be now dead-links since they are that old), never made any acknowledgment of this, well it was kind expected due how said source has been handled over the years.
Anyways, could it be possible also that Christian Teacher and Writer Henry Grew (1781-1862) also played a role in CTR being against the Doctrine of the Trinity as well? Grew's study in the Bible lead him to reject the teachings of mainstream Christendom, of which is practiced today by both mainstream and New Agers, which is, that he rejected the Trinity, Immortal Soul Doctrine (Immortality of the Soul), literal torment of Hellfire (Eternal torment) and a list of other things.
For people outside of the mainstream also share this view, if I may add.
A list of Grew's writings (there might be more, would have to check)
Christian Loyalty: A Sermon on Matthew XXII:21 Designed to Illustrate the Authority of Caesar and Jesus Christ (1810) An Examination of the Divine Testimony Concerning the Character of the Son of God (1824) A Tribute to the Memory of the Apostles, and an Exhibition of the First Christian Churches (1836) The Practices of the Early Christians Considered (1838) A Review of Phelps' Argument for the Perpetuity of the Sabbath (1844) The Intermediate State (1849), The Sabbath (1850) An Examination of the Divine Testimony on the Nature and Character of the Son of God (1855) An Appeal to Pious Trinitarians (1857) The Atonement (1859) Divine Dispensations, Past, Present and Future (1861)

@JW Insider This I will note because a source of my, Mr. Lite, among several of his sources CTR does not mention this (granted that his sources tend to be now dead-links since they are that old), never made any acknowledgment of this, well it was kind expected due how said source has been handled over the years.
Anyways, could it be possible also that Christian Teacher and Writer Henry Grew (1781-1862) also played a role in CTR being against the Doctrine of the Trinity as well? Grew's study in the Bible lead him to reject the teachings of mainstream Christendom, of which is practiced today by both mainstream and New Agers, which is, that he rejected the Trinity, Immortal Soul Doctrine (Immortality of the Soul), literal torment of Hellfire (Eternal torment) and a list of other things.
For people outside of the mainstream also share this view, if I may add.
A list of Grew's writings (there might be more, would have to check)
Christian Loyalty: A Sermon on Matthew XXII:21 Designed to Illustrate the Authority of Caesar and Jesus Christ (1810) An Examination of the Divine Testimony Concerning the Character of the Son of God (1824) A Tribute to the Memory of the Apostles, and an Exhibition of the First Christian Churches (1836) The Practices of the Early Christians Considered (1838) A Review of Phelps' Argument for the Perpetuity of the Sabbath (1844) The Intermediate State (1849), The Sabbath (1850) An Examination of the Divine Testimony on the Nature and Character of the Son of God (1855) An Appeal to Pious Trinitarians (1857) The Atonement (1859) Divine Dispensations, Past, Present and Future (1861)

Have you ever read the following verse 28?? 
"Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar then declared: “Praised be the God of Shaʹdrach, Meʹshach, and A·bedʹne·go, who sent his angel and rescued his servants. They trusted in him and went against the command of the king and were willing to die rather than serve or worship any god except their own God." (Daniel 3:28)
Was God in the furnace or did God send his angel?  49. To Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-nego in a furnace. ‘form of the fourth is like the Son of God’ Daniel 3:25
And I saw another strong angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was on his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs were like pillars of fire, (Rev 10:1)   
 I saw heaven opened, and look! a white horse. And the one seated on it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness.  His eyes are a fiery flame, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself,  (Rev 19:11-12)

The angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the earth raised his right hand to heaven, 6 and he swore by the One who lives forever and ever, who created the heaven and the things in it and the earth and the things in it and the sea and the things in it: “There will be no delay any longer. (Rev 10:5-6)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.(John 3:16)    
The false theology of the trinity denies that Christ is Firstborn of All Creation. (Col 1:15) 

Sure. The most pro-Trinitarian writing promoted by the Watch Tower Society actually came from the WT's assistant editor, Paton in 1880. Paton's writings in the Watch Tower supported the Trinity, and a book he authored, "The Day Dawn" was clearly Trinitarian although its main focus was to prepare the faithful for the prophecies pointing to 1881. Paton had also been Barbour's assistant editor until 1879 and both Barbour and Paton were unquestionably Trinitarian. Trinitarian-friendly wording even shows up in "Three Worlds" (the early collaboration between Russell and Barbour). It criticized the Christadelphians for not believing the Holy Spirit was a Person. Since the Proclaimers book distances the WTS from the "Day Dawn" I'll include just a bit of info about the book from before that publication, including this from the June 1880 WT. (emphasis mine.)
"The Day Dawn, or the Gospel in
Type and Prophecy."
The first copy of this work has just been received from the printer, and the entire edition of 4,000 copies will be ready for delivery by the time this paper reaches you. It is a more exhaustive and elaborate work than we had at first expected; more so by far than anything ever presented on the above topics, from our standpoint. It contains 334 pages in clear and distinct type. To give an idea of its size, we would say that it contains about three times as much matter as the "Three Worlds," a book familiar to most of our readers, now out of print. . . . we should say it is a work which will do an inestimable amount of good, and to many, will be an instructor second only to the Word of God. . . .  the subject is made so beautifully plain and clear, that many, we believe, will bless God for having been permitted to read it. It is divided into twenty-nine chapters, and like God's book, contains things "both new and old." "Price of Day Dawn, in paper covers, 50 cts.
" " " " cloth " 75 "
. . . We hope that every reader of the WATCH TOWER will avail himself at once of these liberal terms. The time arguments alone, clearly and plainly stated, should do you fifty dollars worth of good if not more. Those who can afford to do so, should keep a dozen copies on their loan list.  WT articles are seen promoting the book well into the year 1881. In fact, the oft-quoted article from 1881 "Wanted 1,000 Preachers" was part of a campaign to sell "Day Dawn" books and WT subscriptions. Note this quote from that article in April 1881:
  . . . as a work of kindness and love to them, endeavor to sell them the "Day Dawn," or to take their subscription for the "Watch Tower," *** w55 2/1 p. 76 Part 3—Expanding the Organization ***
While the Society had been circulating a bound book entitled “Day Dawn,” written by an early associate, J. H. Paton, it was decided for Russell to become writer of a new book to be called “Millennial Dawn,” which after many difficulties appeared in 1886 as Volume 1 of a promised series. In one point, the Day Dawn book stated (p.225):
The work of the Holy Spirit is one of the most important elements in the plan of revelation and salvation. He is always spoken of by the Saviour as a Person, and is called the "Spirit of truth." He inspired men to write or speak the truth; and second, He enables men to understand it. By comparing this with 1 Pet. 1:11, it will be seen that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are used interchangeably. The March 1880, WT had said:
There is and ever has been but one Christ. A change of nature does not change identity. Whether as the pre-existent One, as the Word made flesh, or as the High Priest who can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, He still is Lord, and as such we worship Him. "Ye call me Lord and Master," said He on earth, "and ye do well, for so I am. . . . to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong, for when He bringeth the first Begotten into the world, He sayeth, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And Again, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Of course, the idea that it was proper to worship Jesus Christ remained in the WT much longer and was even part of the amended corporate charter of 1944, and was explicitly a part of our teachings until 1953. (See, Make Sure of All Things, under the heading "Christ to be Worshipped as a Glorious Spirit") But this is not technically a  support of the Trinity. Combining this, however, with arguments in favor of seeing the Holy Spirit as a Person, would be supportive of the Trinity.

Well Delaware after all is a tricky state when it comes to law, order, rules and regulations, they are for Child Marriages at one point and suddenly turn the tables on themselves, even though on the low-low such is still done, when all 49 states maintain all legal thought of such a practice, mainly when it comes to young girls. Another thing is anyone caught within the realm of child abuse and or within the circle itself, those individuals tend to end up going to training sessions in this regard.
If anything, though, the US tends to have a problem with abusers who are of the opposite sex, women, and tends to let them off easy at times, granted on the levels of child abuse that takes place in Delaware, as well as parts of the US.
Another thing to also look at is the number of interactions both of these individuals had until the day of discovery.

What some also fail to see is that Child Abuse is all over, at the same time, people are trying to make Pedophilia legal, and the firestorm that will ensues should such ones succeed in their conquest for such a thing will cause quite the chaos in the states, we already have the drag-queen situation among children already and they have won.
The same way we teach kids about strangers, we do the same on teaching them about Child Abuse early, for this is something of high importance, for even children teach others on the matter. But it would seem instead of fighting the issue in itself, people will often gun for the a whole community for the actions of a single person.
As I always have said, no one is immune to child abuse, even Jehovah's Witnesses for Pedophilia is common and is unexpected, and it is known that abusers always, 100% targets religious and education institutions as well as clubs for the majority of the abuse case is done by a member of the family and or a close friend of the family. If the abuser is a woman, they tend to get not a strong of a sentence vs. an abuser who is a man, mind you, there have been some abusers that have gotten off the hook or a very small sentence depending on how good they look, for if said abuser looks like a Barbie, expect the judge to obviously take it easier on her, which sparks conversation of double standards within the justice and legal systems, this also goes for the race of the individual as well at times.
Learning of the signs and to teach it to others if they are not well equipped for this is the best course of factions, mainly when it comes to finding a way to mix this in a way of out a community already operates, but sadly to others, they would have to learn after the crime was committed. Weeks ago a man whom people looked up to be a hero among children and helping them out, turned out to be a a man who took a very uneasy interest in kids, turned out to be a Pedophile.
But the thing is here this is among the states that have quite the rules for age of consenting ones, another factor, mainly for this case is if the minor victim is male and the older person is female, cases in this sense whereas the abuser is an adult female tends to be tricky ones because of double standards in sentencing.

What some also fail to see is that Child Abuse is all over, at the same time, people are trying to make Pedophilia legal, and the firestorm that will ensues should such ones succeed in their conquest for such a thing will cause quite the chaos in the states, we already have the drag-queen situation among children already and they have won.
The same way we teach kids about strangers, we do the same on teaching them about Child Abuse early, for this is something of high importance, for even children teach others on the matter. But it would seem instead of fighting the issue in itself, people will often gun for the a whole community for the actions of a single person.
As I always have said, no one is immune to child abuse, even Jehovah's Witnesses for Pedophilia is common and is unexpected, and it is known that abusers always, 100% targets religious and education institutions as well as clubs for the majority of the abuse case is done by a member of the family and or a close friend of the family. If the abuser is a woman, they tend to get not a strong of a sentence vs. an abuser who is a man, mind you, there have been some abusers that have gotten off the hook or a very small sentence depending on how good they look, for if said abuser looks like a Barbie, expect the judge to obviously take it easier on her, which sparks conversation of double standards within the justice and legal systems, this also goes for the race of the individual as well at times.
Learning of the signs and to teach it to others if they are not well equipped for this is the best course of factions, mainly when it comes to finding a way to mix this in a way of out a community already operates, but sadly to others, they would have to learn after the crime was committed. Weeks ago a man whom people looked up to be a hero among children and helping them out, turned out to be a a man who took a very uneasy interest in kids, turned out to be a Pedophile.
But the thing is here this is among the states that have quite the rules for age of consenting ones, another factor, mainly for this case is if the minor victim is male and the older person is female, cases in this sense whereas the abuser is an adult female tends to be tricky ones because of double standards in sentencing.

Does it really make a difference to people at this time in man's history ? It may be of interest to you because digging for what you treasure is a passion.
 
I stumbled on to the Ancient Hebrew site quite a number of years ago, so yes, I am a fan?  Anything having to do with ancient languages are posts from quite awhile ago, some were kept on my word pad and some I had to hunt for on other sites when my computer died an unnatural death.
Since then my mind and body has gone south and I have no expectation of a makeover until the paradise. Happy to meet you, you are quite a brilliant person.
 

Koine Greek: PNEUMA - Hebrew: RUACH?

In the Christian Greek texts "pneuma" is always designated as a neuter noun - meaning the writers understood it as a what or a which but never a who, let alone a he or him [note for clarification for those who would hope to salvage the "who" for trinity purposes, ho parakleetos is a descriptive masculine noun used in reference to the neuter noun pneuma in John 14:16, 26 and John 15:26. The demonstrative pronoun of ho parakleetos is ekeinos, meaning "that" or "that one." The author has appropriately used ekeinos in reference to ho parakleetos as "that one," whereas most translations incorrectly translate ekeinos as "He." ]

This is consistent with the Hebrew cognate ruach [the Hebrew word you often see translated as "spirit"], which merely means, literally, in its concrete, an impersonal force which enacts upon other things. Like the "wind" which enacts upon the leaves of a tree and appears to make the tree animate. "Wind" is in fact how the word ruach is first used in the biblical text in Genesis.

One example: John 3:8, "“The wind [pneuma] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit [pneuma].” [ESV].

The same word and gender and form is used in both places. In one instance, those performing the English translation hold true to existing koine Greek grammatical rules - and in the second instance, they blatantly depart from those rules - any suppositions as to why?