Equivocation

The lawyer is not lying if he is referring to family members STILL living at home. The problem is, most people understand family members to mean anyone who was originally born into the family, but not necessarily still all living together.
The legal definition of family (even immediate family) is: 
Father Mother Parent’s spouse, if a parent has remarried Child (by blood, adoption, or marriage) Brother Sister Spouse Grandparent Grandchild Further, a person’s immediate family for legal purposes also includes the spouse of his child, brother, or sister, as well as the father, mother, brother, and sister of his spouse.
Obviously, rarely do all these members live together all of the time, with the exception of the spouse and underage children. 
I haven't seen the rest of the video, but had the Judge asked specifically if he is referring to family living outside of the home, then the lawyer would have had to clarify this. However, if there was no further clarification established, then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading.

 
Someone's spouse, parents and grandparents, children and grand children, brothers and sisters, mother in law and father in law, brothers in law and sisters in law, daughters in law and sons in law. Adopted, half, and step members are also included in immediate family

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/immediate-family.html

The funny thing is that what he was saying is a legitimate Christian belief, even we Jehovah's Witnesses believe this too so it is not only us so that teachings isn't soley exclusive to Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that the quote of his was actually from some dude who wrote a lot about the New Covenant (Don Stewart) can easily be found (BY THE POWER OF THE INTERNET lol) shows that to be true also.
As far as I know, Stewart is a Theologian, well from what I can see, he isn't one of Jehovah's Witnesses but he knows what the Covenant is about and said the same thing about what was said here.
I don't really have much questions because I read, meditate and apply what I learn from the Bible. If that is a problem for you then you really need to check yourself. I rather not read any less because I apply what Joshua 1:8, we studied about this today actually. 
Oh Frida, oh Frida, intentas esforzarte solo para parecer tonto... Seeing you are denying the name given to you by the Athiest fellow from that very old discussion, to which you deserved it after irritating him. That's cute and all, but that name is your brand, and it sells, and you legit, actually have a family member linked to you by that name, tu mejor amigo. But yeah bro, worked that brand, do you.
As for my participation, it was related to what I made a comment to. What you just say irrelevant.
But seriously, bro... You had a chance to say something wise, but you ended up taking out your own ankles outside of a basketball court, epic fail mi chico jajaja
Come on, amigo, surely you can do more than shed some chuckles, ah if you don't like Frida, Chuckles is another good one.
 

It must have been Sweden ..... LOL. 

@BillyTheKid46 lol. The Assyrian King is also mentioned as the Destroyer too. But the thing with him is the Destroyer will/has been destroyed by another Destroyer. 
@Space Merchant What are the other beliefs that people have about it?

@Jack Ryan Not really dude. It's a matter of choice, no one his forced. 
No one is forcing you to eat coco puffs, wheaties or apple Jack's in the morning, you choose what to eat. True someone might tell you what is healthy or what is not, but at the end of the day hombre, it's a choice. 
 
It is high like Miami right now. It is my choice to dump bottles of water on my head and sit in the comfort of my own room with the AC straight blasting jajaja

@Jesus.defender Not really. We are worshippers of Jehovah God. And we do what his son Jesus had commanded us to do, to preach the good news and to make discples. We also apply what qualities that Jesus expresses.
 
For a defender if Jesus. Last I checked Jesus doesn't attack his fellow man, let alone a random stranger. 

We had a talk about child abuse. One point, well 2 was made.
Educating people, the second being to talk to kids about sex.
 
Every bit helps. 

Not even 17 yet, no hair on my face, but the freshman literally has a a beard and he is like 15. The dude's got a tree on his face jaja.

Not even 17 yet, no hair on my face, but the freshman literally has a a beard and he is like 15. The dude's got a tree on his face jaja.

We do not know if he is a JW or not, granted this is a forums whereas now the only access here is by means of a club, and majority of folks on this platform was here, granted the history of this forum.
I haven't confused him, I merely speak of what the Bible talks about concerning God's people, those of Spiritual Israel who are in union with the Christ - nothing more.
How do you know what he believes if he had said nothing more but 3 words?
That being said, you continue to interject because originally, what he had said to you was concerning the Bible, not JWs or the WT, you are only adding the JW/WT because you've been called out to question regarding Spiritual Israel.
This has already been addressed in the last discussion, the same one linked and you had been refuted, especially when you spoke of God sending Satan to the Egyptians, you are only repeating your folly, Witness. 
 
That being said, you made the mistake that stating the Bible, and or there is no Scriptural Support for the New Covenant concerning Spiritual Israel. How does your claim add up when there is Scriptural Evidence concerning such? Second, you speak of Spiritual Israel, and yet you ignore the heirs. Why only mention the chosen ones, but not God's people also, in which the Kingdom of God is for them also? What is the reason to single them out and ignore that they are of the same Spiritual House? Remember, yous aid it before, that Christians are in union with the Christ... Lastly, you claim you never watered down Jesus' Kingship, and yet there are comments from you, even you posting a picture when you questioned Judith. Did you purposely forget what God's original purpose and will concerning mankind was all about, and how his only begotten son fairs into the mix? I suggest you focus on the Bible in regards to these 3 points, granted that was originally posted to you in addition to the first.
As an additional question, because I asked you this before (and you avoided purposely) and since you want to be bold by quoting Exodus...
Who was the Destroyer found in verses 13 and 23 of Exodus 12 according to you?
The one thing I do not like other than slander is someone who wants to defile what is true of what is written in the Bible itself. And among other things, someone who twists what the New Covenant conveys, for they ignore the fact of whose blood has been shed to enable it for mankind because of Adam's sin.

Because a debate does not end when the points and conclusions are made. What remains open ended are your horrendous claims. The fact you never been in a debate yet start one shows how foolish you truly are, depraved.
You speak of vocabulary and yet you cannot even say "Restorationist". lol Perhaps it is you who needs the dictionary far more than I.
Biblical Unitarians are not Restorationist, however, we take up the study of the Bible seriously, and we study religion, more so, Theological study and discussion is something we take up when it comes to learning about Jesus' church.
The study of religion as defined in short: Religious studies, also known as the study of religion, is an academic field devoted to research into religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives.
I stated to you 4 times before I study religion even though I am a Biblical Unitarian, i.e. Islam, Judaism, etc.
It is funny because even the Christology of Restoraionist has been addressed 7 times to you, yet your ignorance and appeal to motive shows you to be a bigger fool than realized.
That being said, the debate does not end because you began the debate regarding baptism and now into preaching the gospel and second, the claims you made are still in demand of answer and or forfeit.
I agree with the teenager, you are perhaps quite idiotic when it comes to debate especially when you start one with a Christian who lives for debate - fool's errand on your part, simpleton. For his words hurt you because of your reaction to what he had said.
If you want to run from a debate you started, that is find with me.
 

But you are alluding to a situation that has not even happen yet, therefore you are at fault, and you can be called out for that. Tell me Srecko, as the Kingdom of God had already removed all injustice from the earth, from far and frow? As the End Times Tribulations ended... The honest Bible reader will simply say no, but such events are soon to come.
It would have been correct on your part, if Jesus has indeed returned and wiped out all instances of badness done to all of mankind, but we are waiting and we are vigilant for no such things have taken place yet concerning Jesus' return in God's glory.
Do you even know which Lord you are speaking of granted you were trying to connect Jesus to Psalms 148?
Come on, Srecko, take your own advise lol
That being said, one can teach a clown the distinction between God and Christ, as is with how a verse connects with a whole passage. And clowns are not idiots.
 

@Space Merchant I remember you said you were baptize in some waterfall area in islands. But yeah, Frida is always like this when he knows he is wrong he struggles to get out of it. Anyone who reads the Bible can see clearly what is said and and understand how some things played out. But I gotta admit tho, a lot of people will say we cannot answer anything because we don't rely on Scripture, but when discussing with someone who isn't in our faith they try to be a as smooth as a pearl to try so hard to not be wrong. Frida does what he does, and he took this L.

@Space Merchant I remember you said you were baptize in some waterfall area in islands. But yeah, Frida is always like this when he knows he is wrong he struggles to get out of it. Anyone who reads the Bible can see clearly what is said and and understand how some things played out. But I gotta admit tho, a lot of people will say we cannot answer anything because we don't rely on Scripture, but when discussing with someone who isn't in our faith they try to be a as smooth as a pearl to try so hard to not be wrong. Frida does what he does, and he took this L.

And your point?
lol, jumping to Matthew and Mark now? The context of this verse, well, the passage itself is regarding Jesus' prophecy whereas the Romans had rendered the city of Jerusalem and her temple to ruin, sections of the wall stand, but evidently battered, but the city itself has been laid to waste.
As we can see from the passage, it is referring to a literal city - Jerusalem.
lol I like the fact now you are dodging your own claims about stones. So tell me Srecko, why jump to Jerusalem now when you attempt to bring forth an exegesis on sentient stones of which you claim is mentioned in Luke 19?
As I suggested? Where have I suggested simplified edition articles?
My only sources were:
A Bible (NASB/ESV) and a Dictionary
The problem here is that you claimed the Donkey was not just preaching the gospel of the Christ, but you said the donkey, an animal, as is, all animals praise the Lord, Jesus.
We know here that you lied, and speak deception when Numbers 22 tells us the truth.
To be blunt, Ba'laam was going to harm to God's people, and on his way, God caused the Donkey to speak, in order to halt Ba'laam in his tracks, or the end result was Ba'laam being slain by an Angel of Yahweh, despite this, Ba'laam was hardheaded in regards to reason, which fits the bill with you in this sense.
But carry on to continue making a fool of yourself because it shows how the lack of Bible reading, Srecko.
That being said, next time you make a claim of something, back it up with Scripture for there is always a how, when and why to something. It is understandable to make mistake, no one is immune to this, but to willfully thread with deception reveals who's table you sit on.
I am still waiting on your claim regarding baptism. The fact you haven't brought this up, as is with stones and animals preaching the gospel, makes you a lair in every sense; your appeal to motive tactic doesn't work with me either because I been down that road for a long time.
I do not know if you did this on purpose, but starting a 1-to-1 debate with a legitimate debater and having your tail between your legs was probably your most biggest mistake.
 

We do rely on the Scriptures.

Most Witnesses obviously want to live peaceful Christian lives and conduct ourselves in a way that pleases Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. None of us really want the job of being responsible to take a specific position on all doctrinal matters and setting priorities for organizational direction in our overall global ministry. But we can be thankful that among Christians, there will always be a few that will take the lead in those heavy responsibilities.
The very desire to take the lead in such matters seems like an assignment that only someone who is very brave or very foolhardy would take. It seems that, from a worldly perspective, only the most haughty among us would reach out for such an important job. Yet, we know some of these brothers very well from either personal acquaintance, or perhaps they were Circuit and District Overseers in our congregations. Perhaps we worked alongside some of them in a Branch Office. We get to know their personalities from presentations, speeches, and broadcasts. We see them interact with each other at some events.
All in all, the majority of them seem to be good, God-fearing, humble men who want to do what is right, the same as the rest of us. We don't get the idea that any of them "schemed" to get to this position. We know that the guidelines for elders apply to them just as they apply to congregation elders. And it's my opinion, but I see a certain stability and faithfulness to worthy goals among all of them. 
Now it's easy to say good things about these men, and that's my point. When these men were mostly chosen only from a certain similar mold, there was not a large "pool" for these "gifts in men" to be chosen from. In the past, most had been chosen from a limited bureaucratic background. At the point when there were 17 GB members alive at the same time, most (but not all) had the ability to give a good talk, but at least half of them were seriously lacking in Biblical expertise, and at least half of them had very little experience even in the door-to-door field ministry for the last 40 years of their lives. We should not have been surprised that certain kinds of flaws showed up among these men so that several were dismissed, and a lot of politics and scheming was known to go on among those who remained.
But the current group, especially after the death of Theodore Jaracz, have been chosen from a much wider pool of candidates. These men have made more progress in the last 20 years than in the previous 100 years. They are managing a much bigger, and smoother operation, with millions and millions more persons in their care. Doctrinal changes over the last 20 years have been steady and clearly beneficial overall. The quality of the publications and the website has improved greatly. It's reach is enormous. 
I've already stated my opinion that the GB are not the equivalent of the "faithful slave" from a Biblical standpoint. But that's not the point of discussion here. These men, the GB, who have taken the lead for doctrinal and prioritized the organizational and ministerial direction have taken on an important and necessary assignment. They admit that they aren't perfect. Of course, that statement is meaningless, because such a statement almost always is used with the intention of meaning "perfect, for all practical purposes." But they don't leave it at that. They admit that they have made serious errors in doctrine and leadership. they admit that the spiritual food they produce and distribute is not always perfect.
So, with that said, I think one way of looking at the overall picture is to see these men in the position of keeping order. They take the lead at the "highest" level, not because they think that you must think that all these doctrines are perfect. They do it because it keeps order and harmony. They do it by taking a stand on certain doctrinal matters and setting organizational priorities. Sure, they may do some of this by majority vote, but ultimately they make choices. This is part of remaining organized in any organization and not falling into chaos. Going off in many directions is inefficient. Even trying a certain direction that proves untenable has a certain value if it's caught early enough, and there is humility to change.
Taking a stand means that we will sometimes discover we took the wrong stand, but it also has an advantage in making our beliefs transparent. If a doctrinal stand is taken, our thinking is clearer on it, and contradictions show up more easily. It would be easy to be 100% accurate by taking a less dogmatic stand on many things. But this makes it harder to test whether we are thinking correctly and reasonably on some of our beliefs.
I think that it could be like those logic puzzles, like they do for LSAT tests, where you get 5 to 10 clues, and have to figure out, for example, where everyone lives and what they do, what they drink, and the color of their house:
Bill is a plumber who drinks whiskey and lives in the green house that is next to a corner house. John is not a carpenter, and he drinks soda and lives in either a red or blue house that is two houses from Sally's house. etc. etc. etc. Sometimes you get to a point where you just need to take a stand and say that John must be in a blue house, for example, even if you don't know for sure, so that you can properly test if it works. (Actually, Sudoku was probably a better example, come to think of it.)
So, we can have doctrinal claims that are still in the middle of such testing. We took a stand, and it clarifies our position so that it can be more clearly tested. It can work for both trivial and important matters like: whether Moses wrote all of the first five books of the Bible himself, or whether Galatians was written prior to 1 Corinthians, or whether the "other sheep" are Gentiles or "spiritual Gentiles."
If we (as an organization) take a stand, it should be faster to get to a point where we can take a consistent stand on all important matters of doctrine and teaching. This assumes that haughtiness and love of tradition don't get in the way of change. And that gets back to having the right kinds of personalities taking the lead.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Swords are sharp. Waaaaaaaaaay too sharp. The sword can probably cut an extra large pizza in BOTH ways too. Cowabunga, dude.

Acts 2:37-38 +Acts 26:20

I would add this was during the time when Saul was playing the round up game with Christians. And also people went to the Temple of Jehovah to obersve and worship. But yeah, what our official man of the hour didn't know was about the Christ, we see that the Eunuch didn't understand what that he was reading in a particular chapter Hebrew Scriptures, he needed spiritual guidance. An interesting note is him even trying to study something that deep to begin with,  even reading it out loud, let alone having the book of Isaiah with him. What he was reading is the prophecy of Isaiah found in chapter 53
7 He was oppressed and he let himself be afflicted, But he would not open his mouth. He was brought like a sheep to the slaughter, Like a ewe that is silent before its shearers, And he would not open his mouth. 8 Because of restraint and judgment he was taken away; And who will concern himself with the details of his generation? For he was cut off from the land of the living; Because of the transgression of my people he received the stroke.
When asked if he understood what he was reading, he didn't know unless guided and a-day, Philip gives the good news about Jesus.
35 Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he declared to him the good news about Jesus.
 
 

@TrueTomHarley Well there's the UK government. When it comes to their clique it's always secrets.

@Srecko Sostar We are passive. And we don't get any love letters from anyone I suppose, tends to be the complete opposite, other times just total disruption that results in a congregation meeting to temporarily be suspended for a short time or for the day. Yes we do send letters to people who are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, an example would be greeting someone as well as doing so to preach the good news, othertimes letters to comfort someone. 

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Mission Failed. Should've quoted lol.

Well...probably...who isn’t? What! Are you going to tell me that you are as concerned about MY suffering as you would be that of a family member?
And just because I acknowledge you will be MOST concerned with the suffering of family, that does not mean that you are UNCONCERNED with the suffering of everyone else. Why would you try to spin it that way with Jehovah’s Witnesses?
 It is no more than Galatians 6:10
“Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to [us] in the faith.”
What’s wrong with that?

@Shiwiii I think I can picture your reaction lol 😁

Truth be told, it's kinda common that some people don't like to wear graphic tees.