Dmitar

The fractured, twisted, and mangled logic of these arguments, the normal conclusion of which is that to believe the Bible you NEED to be bat-crap crazy, can all be avoided by taking a hard look at what is REAL, and what has always BEEN real, since life began.
Agenda driven reasoning is ALWAYS wrong.
The points JWI makes are solid.
Or do you think that Able roasting a Lamb on an Altar to God, smelling that delicious aroma did not eat the leftovers, as the Levite Priests did thousands of years later?
…. And a planet full of ocean life ate straw?
 
 

Thank you friend for making that distinction. Human creation alongside the animal kingdom had canine teeth to consume certain types of vegetation. Those sharpen teeth regardless of the amount of canine teeth aided in the consumption of certain material. It would be unwise to suggest, canine teeth grew after the expulsion. One can understand, such as the black bear that strips the bark of a tree to consume the soft layer between the tree and bark.

Yeah, its better to stick with the watchtower trinity......father/son/governing body.

Granted with how long I had dealt with those who believe in the Trinity, I am never unclear, and what I mentioned to you were brief allusions of what is being conveyed. For it I was unclear, I would not have brought up the points mentioned although brief.
Yes, however, in the view of the Trinity, although they too would profess Sehma (Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21), but they twist the meaning of it. They take the word "Echad" and molded it into something that it is not, effectively violating even that of Hebrew language structure and the meaning of the word, for, in some cases, they'll twist "Yachid" too.
They will also go as far as to say that Shema, it being a prayer, is proper for Jesus Christ because he is both Lord and God, which is incorrect, because, for starters, the fact Jesus professed Shema, which is practically one (a Jew in those days) acknowledging that they have a God the Father whom they want to be heard by, more so, they recite and observe this Law, which later on Jesus deemed foremost commandants (Mark 12:24-34).
To be heard can also be noted to the Hebraic idea to pay attention to what is being spoken and act upon it, for example, when Israel hears the directions of God, they agree to act upon them (they obey his words). When God "hears" the pleas of Israel in bondage in Egypt, he acts upon them (he rescues Israel). The irony too is they would attempt to even twist Apostle Paul, who he himself affirmed the Shema (1 Cor. 8:5-6).

Therefore, this alone shatters a good chunk the Trinity ideology (their shield), reasons why Non-Trinitarians are usually the ones to defend what the Shema represents whereas Trinitarians, would butcher the meaning.
Yet Trinitarians often times ignore this. I am sure they never heard of some of these pagan groups, such as the Cult of Attis. The word Trinity came from the Latin word Trinnas, it was coined by a man named Tertullian (ca. 190-220 A.D. - 3rd century). Even the terminology. Tertullian himself was no Trinitarian, some would attest to the idea he may have been Arian due to Genesis 1:3, but truly, he was a Montanist. In his works, perhaps prior to Montanism, Tertullian which illustrates his beliefs, mainly in his main documented work, Against Praxeas.
Trinitarians do ignore Greek structure in the Greek text. Many examples of this, more so, would even profess verses that are either: spurious, not inspired, forged, altered.

Since the Holy Spirit was mentioned. They do this in this regard, to consider the Holy Spirit as a person because it is mentioned as a He/Him in some areas, mainly that of which is found in the Book of John. What they fail to see is that in Greek, Pneuma, in the text, is a neuter-masculine; technically, compared to what is followed today and by others, Grammatical Gender. Although the spirit is referred to as He/Him, it does not automatically mean the spirit is a person (another God as Trinitarians believe). The same case can be made of other examples in Hebrew and Greek text, which is, ignored, but when it comes to the spirit associated with God, they pay attention to it and will twist Scripture in the process.

Actually, context plays a role as well, it has little to do with rendering because in this example, John 14 is the same, but the reader would have to really do the research to know the Greek structure.
Sometimes experts themselves are like that of the reader, at times ignore something, or didn't realize their notations, hence the latter example.
Well it is obvious what Theos is compared to Theon in regards to John 1:1, as is, with the references to the verse, often ignored by many, even Trinitarians. This also excludes the fact of how some choose to shy away from the Genesis Act of Creation concerning Apostle John's Introductory.
The Trinity has been talked about many times here, even by the usual Trinitarians that popped up on here. There has also been some examples from the Muslim faith at rare times, brought up. That said, Trinitarians are not good debaters when it comes to Muslims, and often times would bash them because of an exposed exegesis to which the Trinity view would easily be broken.
There is good reason why I brought it up in regards to the Trinity.
It does have relevance, pertaining to how the church operate, in term of their view of who God is and who the Son is. The writer essentially pointed out the view of Christians at the time, Subordinationism.
I am familiar with A.D. Howell-Smith. Matthew 28:19-20 is often used by Trinitarians because it mentions The Father, The Son, and the Spirit, but they fail to see the context in all that is mentioned, for, there is a meaning behind why Jesus said what he said and what transpired, this also correlates with the history of the baptism and it's origin.
As for Justin Martyr, there is no question he was aware of the passage, however, his view, despite what Trinitarians try to do to twist his words, does not align with the Trinitarian idea, for 
he discussed openly about baptism in his writings, namely that of which can be found in chapters 61 and 65 of his First Apology.
It is just a mention of the verse itself, no the Trinity. Perhaps if one rules out context, that might be the case.
Chapter 7 in the Didache does mention Matthew 28:19-20, specifically, verse 19 concerning the latter.
That being said...
The Didache was never met to be in the Bible and that was never the intended goal compared to what others attempted, it was more so the writer's showing of how Christians operated, reasons why it is said to be an Early Statement of the Christian Faith. Although Non-Biblical statements of Christian Faith is found in a book of 16 short chapters known as The Didache, or that of the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, some pointed out that it dated back before or about the year 100 C.E. (60 - 120). The Didache at it's core deals with things people would need to know to become Christians, as is their operation as a Church, a people. It is also dubbed a Christian manual. In regards to The Teaching of the Twelve, it was a highly regarded documentation in wide circulation by about the end of the 1st century, and accepted as apparent sacred Scripture by a significant portion of the early church. Although we do not know for certain who wrote this book but it is likely a book written which intends to reflect the Apostles' teachings. It is also possible that it was compiled by those who were taught directly by the apostles themselves and it may also be a source document for the Epistle of Barnabas which also teaches The Two Ways using very similar, and sometimes identical, language.

Many, even A.D. Howell-Smith, made it known that  it contains the Christian redaction of a Jewish document: The Two Ways.
That being said, the Trinitarian claim that Matthew 28:19 is identifying the three persons of their Triune God. This claim is often made by making a further claim that the word "name" in the singular means that we are to understand these three are the one Triune God who has one name. Matthew 28:19 is often used as a beginning tutorial verse to teach people the Trinity.

However, in a The Claim vs. The Facts setting for this verse, The facts of Scripture show us that Trinitarians are not only disregarding the immediate context, they are imagining their doctrine into the text, hence the so called Formula. Not to mention of how often they mold the words of people of old into something else.
As a side note, Eusebius was apparently involved too, for the the manuscript of Matthew being used by him was different than the words we find in today's Bibles.

The same can be said about interpretation, friend. Let's see this example. 
Numbers 25:3-5
So Israel joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and the Lord was angry against Israel. The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” So Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you slay his men who have joined themselves to Baal of Peor.
Christians cannot claim on trinity by ancient Israel, since they believed and worshiped other gods. The purpose of unity by the nation was oneness. The "oneness" referenced in scripture is for only one God. Deuteronomy 6:4. Ancient Israel was supposed to become one with Jehovah as his chosen people. Genesis 32:28, Exodus 19:5-6 That oneness carried over to Jesus time. There is only one Jesus. Separate entities respected in their own right. It would not be proper to join these two spiritual leaders as creator and ambassador to creation.
Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
A fine distinction by son to father. The term "trinity" came much later by certain forefathers of the church, when they attempted to unite the Holy Ghost. 

the Bible says everything on land ate vegetation, but when life ended that animal had to be disposed of; and it was not by decay and maggots. The mere size should tell us that these creatures ate one another after they died. they may not have hunted themselves, but they ate the flesh of the dead. and we will also after the end of the 1000 years. Adam's sin interrupted God's purpose and timeline for us. After the Flood he told Noah that ALL FLESH was edible, but then due to Isreal being his "special property", some flesh was off limits, as stated in the Law. So when things are righted we will see.

I do not believe the Bible says that anywhere.
Ever see a T-Rex's teeth?
Or the great prehistoric Jurassic and before sea "monsters"
Sharks are millions of years old ... what did they eat .... seaweed?
Have a clear, unambiguous Biblical reference?

Wt 13/7/2015 p. 11 – “Jesus began to inspect the spiritual temple in 1914. Jesus’ work to inspect and cleanse that temple lasted from 1914 to the early part of 1919.
Since 1919, anointed ones have been gathered into the cleansed Christian congregation.”
The anointed are the spiritual Temple of God, even though recent “new light” revealed by GB member G. Losch, is saying otherwise; said, without the use of any scriptural application to support his uninspired teaching.   (1 Pet 2:5;1 Cor 3:16,17; Eph 2:20-22) 
What are the anointed cleansed of, when entering the organization?  Are they cleansed of the weeds, as this article suggests are the people who left the organization during Rutherford’s tyrannical rule - this man, who continually set dates for Armageddon that proved false?  Obviously, the anointed were not cleansed of false predictions which they preached at one time as truth.  (Deut 18:20-22)  They were not cleansed of doctrine proven to be false. (Matt 15:9)  Are they cleansed of extolling an earthly organization, instead of extolling and praising only God and Christ?  (2 Pet 1:16,17; Heb 1:1-4)
Are they cleansed of idolatry?  (Exod 20:4,5; 23:13; 2 Cor 6:16; Acts 17:24; Rom 1:25; Rev 13:4)
Are they cleansed of following the dictates of men not inspired but who compare themselves to the apostles, and who expect dedication and allegiance to this earthy organization, over and above devotion to the Father and the Son, as the example set by the early inspired apostles?  (2 Cor 11:13; Col 2:8-10,20-22)
 People who give full devotion to the Father and the Son are disfellowshipped.  This seems to indicate that the organization cleanses itself from the faithful ones, that Jesus calls out of Wt. darkness!  (Matt 5:11; 10:22; John 16:2; Rev 13:15; 11:1-3,7; 6:9-11; 2:2-5; 3:8-12)
What sort of sacrifices of praise do the anointed priests give to God and their Head, Jesus Christ?  They give what false prophets put in their mouth – lies.  (1 Tim 4:1; Rev 16:13-16) 
They allow “Gentile” elders to take their place as priests and teachers of God’s laws in Christ.  (Exod 40:15;Num 18:7; Mal 2:7,8; 1 Pet 2:5,9) They allow elders to judge them based on accepting or rejecting the lies of a wicked slave.  (Matt 24:48-51; 5,16; 2 Thess 2:3,4; Rev 13:11,12,5-7)  They've allowed God's sanctuary to be defiled by the "abomination"/elder body standing where it does not belong.  (Mark 13:14)
Have they followed in the footsteps of Christ by rejecting ALL falsehoods, doctrine and obedience to men as Jesus’ example while on earth shows us? 
Have the anointed died for the sake of Christ and his teachings?  Or, do they harbor the fear of losing the life they have built while in the organization, which falsely promises “peace and security”, if one remains inside?  (Jer 23:16,17; 1 Thess 5:3)  Or, do they love what this life provides them, instead of reaching out to Jesus Christ who advises them to “buy” from him, wisdom and truth?  (Prov 23:23;John 14:6; Rev 3:18)
They are held captive to false teachers/prophets and their elder troops.  (Matt 24:24,25; 2 Thess 2:3,4; Rev  9:3-5; 11:1,2; 20:7-9)
The harvest is ongoing inside the organization.  The “weeds” are those “sons” who bend their backs to the deceptive power of men over them, and adopt a new father to lead them.   (Matt 8:11,12; John 8:42-44; Gal 1:10) The “wheat” are the “sons” who reject this power, and subject themselves to their King, Jesus Christ.  (Matt 13:37-40)
No one is “wheat” in God’s eyes, when they tolerate false teachers who produce rotten fruit!  (Matt 7:15-23)
“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”  Matt 5:20
“The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom (from among the anointed members of his Body)…
 all things that offend, (“stumbling”) and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”  Matt 13:41-43
 
The thief is the one that "comes in through another way" (John10:1; Joel2:9-10).   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John10%3A1%3B+Joel2%3A9-10&version=NIV 
At John 10:10, Jesus said, "10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. But I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly."
Jesus said he comes by way of the gate, which the gatekeeper opens for him (Mark13:33-34; John10:2-3). Not so with the thief. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark13%3A33-34%3B+John10%3A2-3&version=NIV 
He "sneaks in a different way" (John10:1).
The first thief is not Jesus Christ, but the Sneak who is thought to be Christ.
The thief is really a false christ, and all are misled into THINKING it is Jesus Christ's return. In that way, Jesus comes as a thief. The thief is presented, as Christ.
That false, premature arrival of Christ by the imposter, was referred to by Paul, at 2Thess.2:1-3.  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Thess.2%3A1-3&version=NIV
The first arrival of Christ as the thief, is a thief arriving AS Christ, who robs the crown of the elect (Rev.3:11; Mark13:34-37), through that great deception.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.3%3A11%3B+Mark13%3A34-37&version=NIV 
Those who put faith in that thief/impostor, believe in the false Christ that Jesus foretold, at Matt.24:4-5,24-25 and Rev.13:11; 16:13-14; 1Tim.4:1.  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.24%3A4-5%2C24-25%3B+Rev.13%3A11%3B+16%3A13-14%3B+1Tim.4%3A1.&version=NIV
The second arrival of Christ as a thief, is when he really, genuinely arrives. Those who had put faith in the false arrival of the impostor/antiChrist; are not ready to recognize Christ's genuine arrival to inspect his servants. For them, Christ's real arrival is as a stealth thief they did not expect, nor were they prepared for. They are found "naked" by Jesus... unclothed with the necessary garment of righteousness and love (Rev.19:8; 6:9-11; Gal.3:27; John13:34; Col.3:14). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.19%3A8%3B+6%3A9-11%3B+Gal.3%3A27%3B+John13%3A34%3B+Col.3%3A14&version=NIV 
Those fooled by the arrival of the murdering robber, have not sacrificed their lives for the truths and example of Jesus, but instead, they believed in a false peace and security with God... drowzy and drunk on the harlot's wine (the doctrine of the false Christ/thief)
Pearl Doxsey
 
 
 
 

I am unclear as to the point you are trying to make. Or you are unclear as to the point I was trying to make   My point was that throughout their history, Jews believed in one God (not a Trinity) as you stated was supported by the Shema. I was CONTRASTING the monotheistic religion of the Jews with their pagan contemporaries - some of whom, for centuries before Jesus came to earth, believed in Trinities (although not all the same makeup or the same as what later was adopted by Christendom.) 
I was not ignoring Greek structure, but trying to say that Greek grammar alone won't be the deciding factor because according to Greek grammar, many scriptures can be correctly rendered both/many ways depending on the point of view of the translators. In fact, Greek experts don't always agree amongst themselves which  translation is correct. (I chose not to include an aside reference to the Sahidic Coptic Christians that did have similarities (indefinite article) to English and in their translation apparently chose to render John 1:1 as "a" god rather than God. I didn't want my response to be confusing with too many side issues.
I'm also unclear why you mentioned the Didache in reference to a Trinitarian discussion. I'm not saying it has no relevance, but rather I am unclear as the relevance you attach to it.  A.S. Howell-Smith writes about the Didache in (Jesus Not a Myth p 120) saying: "...The formula of the Trinity, which is given in Chap. VII, must come from a later hand, though possibly earlier than Justin Maryr, who is familiar with it." So although there is a suggestion of the Trinity, it is also acknowledged as not being part of the Didache originally and it would seem to me a spurious addition. 

The concept of the Trinity isn't new. It existed for centuries before Christ came to earth and many centuries before it became the official dogma of later Christians. The teaching has taken different forms over the centuries including that of modern Christendom. What Trinitarians are asking us to believe is that faithful Jews like Moses who spoke with God "face-to-face" as it were, and Abraham who was described as "God's friend," as well as Isaac, Jacob, Samuel...and many others really didn't know God at all. It was the "pagan" nations around them that had a handle of who God was? Seriously? Some of these faithful men were miraculously inspired by God himself to write the Bible and to this day, Jews don't believe in a Trinity (nor do Muslims who both accept Jesus as a prophet and sections of the "Old Testament," as well as other Christian denominations.) And if Jesus and his apostles took such a radical departure as to the understanding of the nature of God and who he really was, it wouldn't be the relative kerfuffle of whether to get circumcised or not that would be an issue, it would be the earthquake of an issue that would upend 1500 years of Jewish faith, belief and theology that would send them to Jerusalem for an answer. It's also telling that it took Christians hundreds of years to formalize the Trinitarian creed that was ultimately decided by a pagan Roman emperor - as there were many different schools of thought and much dissention over the issue -sometimes violent. It's doubtful true Christians (who that by that time were over-sown by weed-like "Christians" according to Jesus words, would have even attended such an event.)
Also, is it reasonable for Jesus to expect that to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth, humble people, (some uneducated) would need to be experts in languages that had died and have been out of use for thousands of years? The fact is that Greek/Hebrew scholars don't even always agree among themselves as how to translate so-called "proof texts" of the Trinity doctrine. No, to an unbiased, unindoctrinated reader, no one of themselves would assume the Bible teaches the Trinity. (Maybe the most you would get is a duality - if that). Of course, Jesus was aware that many would come on the basis of his name (today there are over 45,000 different Christian religions alone). But people who really wanted to know, could simply look around them as to who his true disciples were - those who had love among themselves (John 13:35). In fact, they would love even their enemies. So Christian truth isn't recognized by human/pagan creeds and formulas. It's not solely identified by Greek grammar. It isn't just available to those who have expensive and extensive higher education. It's available to all and clearly identified by seeing who has love among themselves (as opposed to killing each other in war). It's not identified by making a big deal over the Trinity, while winking and supporting other pagan celebrations such as Halloween, Christmas...or other false teachings such and immortality of the soul or Hellfire or "justifiable warfare" doctrines. It's not identified by "cherry-picking" only those scriptures that support your idea, while ignoring what the Bible teaches as a whole. (Although everyone- including JW's - have been guilty of "cherry-picking" at times as well).
No, Jesus didn't come to earth to create a "mystery." He came to de-mystify.

I never really follow news but it usually gets into social media and apps.
I often see people mention media even on here so my question is why is there such a strong push for false information?
No into politics but the whole Biden thing is crazy. From what I have seen, seems like hate voting to get this guy into office and people are getting censored out of the blue as well as taken out of context. 

Dark Times: A Lockdown and a Call to Arms, 2021
A central tenet of Marxism and socialism is the repression of all religions other than the religion of the state. China represses Christians, Wegers (Uyghurs), and other groups are suppressed in that Communist country. More than a million Wegers are locked up in reeducation camps to rid them of their Muslim practices.
Communist countries recognize religious groups which they control until they can completely eradicate them. Chinese Christians, for example, have an officially recognized church. Most Christians belong to the underground. The official Chinese Christian church does not allow the displaying of the cross. Regular Bibles are banned in China. Pictures of Jesus Christ were taken down and replaced with pictures of Xi Jinping.
With the anti-Christian, anti-religion atmosphere loose in America at this time, do you not think these kinds of things would be happening in America if Progressives were in charge? A Socialist/Communist is a Socialist/Communist, and they have no use for religion whatsoever.
 
Hidden Hand– Exposing how the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World 2020
Many Westerners are by now familiar with the CCP’s crackdown on religious worship in China, which includes the use of CCTV cameras in churches and mosques and forcing believers to practise in approved ways. The 11th and 12th Bureaus of the United Front Work Department devote extensive efforts to this repression, setting up ‘representative organisations’ for each religion.129 It was reported in 2019 that Tibetan nomads had been told they would continue to receive state subsidies only if they ‘replaced their altars devoted to Buddhist deities with images of Chinese political leaders’.130 Christians have been pressured to replace images of Jesus with photos of Xi Jinping. In a move that resonated with its position in the 1930s, the Vatican reached an agreement with Beijing to allow the Party to choose Catholic bishops.
 
 
In Henan, Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Liaoning, and Hebei, churches have been ordered to fly the Chinese flag, destroy banners and images with religious messages, and sing the national anthem and Communist Party songs at their services. Government-installed television cameras with facial-recognition technology monitor congregations. Children under eighteen have been forbidden to attend churches, and local people have been threatened with expulsion from education and employment if they "believe in religions." In some parts of the country the faithful have been asked to replace paintings of Jesus with portraits of President Xi Jinping. Thus, Xi's New Regulations on Religious Affairs, described by Amnesty International as "draconian," are causing considerable concern.' Catholics in Hong Kong are particularly worried.

But they do talk about things in the CCP government that they do not like. Of course they talk about bad things happening in their area. There are even protests. My son knows persons who have participated in the protests. You can even find them discussed on YouTube and WeChat channels.

Dark Times: A Lockdown and a Call to Arms, 2021
A central tenet of Marxism and socialism is the repression of all religions other than the religion of the state. China represses Christians, Wegers (Uyghurs), and other groups are suppressed in that Communist country. More than a million Wegers are locked up in reeducation camps to rid them of their Muslim practices.
Communist countries recognize religious groups which they control until they can completely eradicate them. Chinese Christians, for example, have an officially recognized church. Most Christians belong to the underground. The official Chinese Christian church does not allow the displaying of the cross. Regular Bibles are banned in China. Pictures of Jesus Christ were taken down and replaced with pictures of Xi Jinping.
With the anti-Christian, anti-religion atmosphere loose in America at this time, do you not think these kinds of things would be happening in America if Progressives were in charge? A Socialist/Communist is a Socialist/Communist, and they have no use for religion whatsoever.
 
Hidden Hand– Exposing how the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World 2020
Many Westerners are by now familiar with the CCP’s crackdown on religious worship in China, which includes the use of CCTV cameras in churches and mosques and forcing believers to practise in approved ways. The 11th and 12th Bureaus of the United Front Work Department devote extensive efforts to this repression, setting up ‘representative organisations’ for each religion.129 It was reported in 2019 that Tibetan nomads had been told they would continue to receive state subsidies only if they ‘replaced their altars devoted to Buddhist deities with images of Chinese political leaders’.130 Christians have been pressured to replace images of Jesus with photos of Xi Jinping. In a move that resonated with its position in the 1930s, the Vatican reached an agreement with Beijing to allow the Party to choose Catholic bishops.
 
 
In Henan, Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Liaoning, and Hebei, churches have been ordered to fly the Chinese flag, destroy banners and images with religious messages, and sing the national anthem and Communist Party songs at their services. Government-installed television cameras with facial-recognition technology monitor congregations. Children under eighteen have been forbidden to attend churches, and local people have been threatened with expulsion from education and employment if they "believe in religions." In some parts of the country the faithful have been asked to replace paintings of Jesus with portraits of President Xi Jinping. Thus, Xi's New Regulations on Religious Affairs, described by Amnesty International as "draconian," are causing considerable concern.' Catholics in Hong Kong are particularly worried.

In China they rewrote the bible......and replaced worship of jesus with Xi Ping photos in churches. and in the west they are busy forming a new religion for us - which will unite all people supposedly. 
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/Good-News-From-God-Video-Series/video-why-did-jesus-die/
World religions, UN unite for book on faith and action for the Earth | Earthbeat | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)
This should set you thinking - we will be required to put faith in mother earth with the new environmental goals of UN.

You are wise, Grasshopper!

No. My own study and research about China is ongoing, not just based on a visit or a long association with a Chinese colleague who visited family in both HK and the mainland every year. And my son's learning of the language and continuing contact with several people in several districts of China is also ongoing. And still, I don't know all about Xi.
The basic modus operandi of anti-China propaganda is to exaggerate a long list of items, so that if one is seen to be possibly debunked, then a whole slew of other issues are ready to be flung. This way, one can always divert attention against specific bits of propaganda by merely saying, "Oh yeah, then what about Taiwan? . . . What about the China Sea? . . . What about the Uyghurs? What about the Wuhan lab? What about Tibet? What about damming rivers and water rights? What about Inner Mongolia? What about Hong Kong? What about organ harvesting? What about support of countries that the West hates? What about mining in Africa? What about trade wars, currency manipulation, aggressive military actions, etc.?
The list is made long enough so that a complete debunking of any one claim will be meaningless. Any debunkable bit of propaganda must still be true, because the long list of other items must prove that there is no need to pay attention to evidence about any single item. The mind is shut before one can discuss the first item, much less a second and a third item. 
And then there is the problem that anyone defending China in the midst of all this propaganda must immediately be labeled naive. That person will be seen as trying to exonerate China completely from these issues, even though some have a partial basis in truth. This implies the strawman argument that a defender must think China can do no wrong.
I won't take on your list of issues again here by showing where the likelihood of both evidence and lack of evidence actually points. But I would repeat again that a lot of evidence and research tells me that most of the anti-China propaganda I have heard, including most of the topics you bring up, are based on exaggerations and re-interpretations of issues that are common to many countries. When these issues are repeated widely, often, and over long periods of time, they become intractable. A lot of lies and propaganda are told about Western countries, too. Much of it is based on some fact, but it's mostly a geopolitical game that goes on everywhere.
I know that in the past I personally was much too reflexive and naive in just accepting anything bad I heard about China, just because I knew that they really are pretty bad on a few issues (like accepting freedom of religion). 
Edited to add: Any statements or evidence I might offer that defends China from exaggerations should not be confused with defending Japan, Russia, or Ukraine, or any of the several countries which are forced to look to China for aid when those countries are cut off from Western alliances for aid.

Some things are BOTH improbable to the point of absurdity ... and of no immediate real-world-right-here-right-now consequence to be worth the effort to even toss it into a stack to check out.
Other things are thesis length epistles trying to be encyclopedic which would be interesting, except that they are somehow not.
... and rust never sleeps.
 

Even that solution has a built-in problem. The reason is that the goals of various organizations can easily be reached by merely leveraging the West's distrust of China. When any of the individuals and organizations would like attention or funding they need only report a negative story from China, and then claim that the negative action was an official act of the Chinese government.
It's like someone reading about a bank robbery in the United States, and then claiming that Biden (or Trump, etc) is now seizing all bank assets in the United States. Too many people in the world read English for such a story to gain traction anywhere. But stories about China can even pretend to be correctly translating a Chinese posting, and not enough people would complain. My son and I went through a NYT article a couple years ago that linked to several pages of Chinese documentation about Chinese goals with respect to religion, anti-terrorism, etc., and many of its translations were skewed to the point of creating direct falsehoods. Some were about as bad as if an English article had said "the U.S. Public School system provides education and vocational training" and the translation became "Regime-sponsored juvenile detention centers promote propaganda and forced labor."
The idea of the US "provocation diplomacy" is to make sure that all these anti-China stories, some true, some exaggerated, and some made up out of thin air, will become such a constant stream that it's too tedious to produce material defending the preposterous. So the general idea of a dystopian regime sticks. You won't find material defending against every negative claim. Because even if China stands up 100% against a preposterous claim, the report in the West is still going to be that China "admitted" the problem when they didn't. Or that China said they aren't doing that any more. Or that they could only deny the problem in the face of "overwhelming" (i.e., non-existent) evidence.
This probably sounds ludicrous, to most consumers of anti-China reporting, but I have amazing examples of everything I just said.  
It is true that religion is not the same thing in China as it is in Christian and Muslim countries. In the West and Mid-East, the depth of one's faith is shown by how strongly you will stand up for (and how strongly you will defend the difference between) your belief and the belief of something you think gets in the way of that belief. In the US, it's often the fundamentalists against "progressive politics" that defend or promote abortion and gay rights and the like. In the Mid-East it can be the same thing, or the difference between two version of Islam. Even in the US, UK, and elsewhere in Europe, a thousand times more religious ink has been spilled over the tiniest of differences between similar religions than over the major differences between disparate religions.
In China most people don't think of religion as beliefs that need to conflict with the state, they just think of religion as sets of specific, traditional old rituals. This was also true in old Greece and Rome, where most religion was hallowed rituals, not specific beliefs. So the communist propagandists in China are really more actively "religious" in "evangelizing" a belief system than they would expect of the religions themselves to be evangelizing. In fact, it's promoting beliefs where most of the problem lies with Christian-styled religions in China. They all inevitably came from the West, and most of them have also been the source of spies and missionary-imperialism. Today, the ones that get in trouble try to convert people from non-Christian religion to Christian religion, and most of those have made strong statements against governments in general, and the Chinese government specifically. The communist ideologists, still feel a duty to try to convert Western religionists to a more secular or at least a more ritualistic religion that doesn't fly in the face of the state.
I know of a non-JW case in China where the young man, of a 'Christian' religion, was exploited by a evangelizing group from Spain when he was in college in China. When it was discovered that this evangelizing religion was exploiting young people for money, and volunteer evangelism, it was only that group from Spain who got in serious trouble, but not the Christian group he was already a part of. 

This statement needs sourcing, both for and against.
This tool.
I have heard statements similar to Arauna’s, probably through Bitter Winter, but maybe some other avenue. ‘Throw it on the stack of things to check out’

This isn't true.
The likelihood that "China" did this is also pretty close to zero.

I was wondering if Tom Cruise would be willing to shoot a movie there now seeing how passionate he is about his religion.

I'm guessing we won't see a Mission Impossible movie  shot in Russia any time soon.

The letter writing has been frightening many people in England. Some people think they are being 'singled out' or 'picked on' and it makes them worry who is doing such a thing. There has been newspaper articles reporting how people are being upset by it all. However, it does prove that people are reading the letters.  It's mainly older folk that cannot make proper sense of it all. But if it gets some people thinking about God, Christ and the Bible, then it has to be good. 
 

Friend, can you clarify the difference between a seminary scholar and an accredited secular scholar? Dr. Julius R. Mantey A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament has been quoted in the past by the Watchtower. However, when he has been asked leading questions such as the difference between Jehovah and Christ? He believes them to be different. No trinity, as indicated by his own seminary.