Space Merchant

Not "New Age" you say? Did you not just say the following? Humans and Angels are both separate Creations, they are not the same and or equal to each other (that is like saying an animal is both dog and fish), furthermore, as I told the Trinitarian, Humans are NOT Spirits nor do said human transferred elsewhere upon death. In the case of the ones chosen for Priesthood, they will have new bodies, they do not become human and angel hybrids or disembodied souls that roam the Heavens, the only people who believe such things are New Age Christians, of which I had dealt with for half a decade even in person, as is with others. To make matters worse, they have a connection to the ones of Babylon, L.T. of whom had made it their conquest to change Christianity since the 1920s by means of their Spiritual Mother and their connection to Helena Blavatsky and Carl Jung, furthermore, New Agers not only believe in human angel hybrids, they also believe that they can and or professed the ability to communicate with angels, demons, and spirits. So when you speak of those of Priesthood, [1] Do not mix verses to speak of what you just uttered, which is the things of New Age ideologies, and  [2] You should know by now that such ones do not become like human and angel, as you claim, the Bible even tells you, clearly, that those destined for Priesthood will have New Spiritual Bodies, for these people are totally separate from Angels, nothing you have can show anyone that such ones become both human and angel when the reality and the very facts even tells you - even the title and the outline in the Bible itself tells you this, the ones destined from Priesthood will have Spiritual Bodies, never is it stated they are like the angels or become hybrids, similar to them when the Bible tells you the distinction. Therefore, what you have said is of New Age ideology, everyone knows who the New Age Christians are among mainstream denominations, it is not unknown to anyone of who they are, their practices, does it follow the church or not and or other, and we know them very, very well becomes the biggest heresy of their Christology is having the ability and or belief of communicating with angels, demons, and spirits, for they too believe in the heresy that is the Afterlife, for they too believe that those among them become both human and angel, and so forth. It is a shame you do not see that for yourself, even going as far as to mix Bible verses together that do not even match up, one of which even defeats your own claim – if you are to teach, you can end up as those who mislead, at least do the study and research and understand the Bible to not be in the position that you are in now and actually understand not just who the anointed are among men and women, but what will become of them afterwards, to say human and angel is not only disturbing, but shows how you are not as strong in this domain a you think, so further research is needed, on your part. Because you keep missing it the first time, re-read your verses before you make such a response, again, the verses you mixed together can easily be read and one can see of what such verses actually points to As for the verses in question: The older response (better to just go to the link itself) : Now, Wineskins are skin like bottle made of the complete hides of domestic animal, for instance, goats or perhaps sheep, and it is used for holding wine, in some other occasions, water and or some other liquid. Wine was put into new wineskins, and the reason for this is because as it ferments, it begins to generate carbon dioxide gas that results into pressure on the skin bottles. New skins expand; old, inflexible ones burst under the pressure, we can see the usage in verses such as the one you have mentioned (Matthew 9:17), as well as Joshua 9:4. Wineskins can be stretched out due to their elasticity, but over time it can lose it. In Biblical Times it is also used, for wine of course, as seen in 1 Samuels 16:20. Wineskins can also lose its durability over time, hence the loss of elasticity. I know this because at the age of 9, we, my people, used domesticated goats for wineskins, other times, to carry other forms of liquid such as water and or in some cases, milk. We had the skins in house and we were able to craft the Bottle with the necessary tools needed to do so, something of which is still being done today since there are literally goats everyone on that island, the hills, the roads, near the beaches. And yet the this one who says that what Paul says was that of an opinion when what he had spoken of was actually creation in regards to the mention of Adam and Eve, when addressing the church, as well as addressing the family – the Holy Spirit does not enable an Apostle to give opinions mainly in regards to where you make mention of such regarding Paul, it enables him to speak of what GodÂ’s Word is all about, hence all that is said must be taken into full respects, not picking and choosing favorites and adding to the Word. Then again, you did say he had the Holy Spirit, and before that you make it seem as though Paul didn't mean what he had said regarding a specific verse. My “skin” is only holding on to everything and everything in relation to the bible, and everything that comes from the Bible is truth, a truth you seem to not believe when the very facts are as clear as the sky against you and holds more water than what you and Srecko in say in combination, revealing the both of you yielding upon, as I said before, manÂ’s understanding of the Bible rather than of God and or any of his followers, even his Son, a very long time ago. What do you think, Witness? Name one anointed woman of the Priesthood, in the Bible (Greek New Testament), who has led and or taken up authority/or of religious office of a or perhaps ANY of the early church(es) when she, who is anointed/chosen is very, very well aware, Holy as can be, of GodÂ’s Purpose, GodÂ’s Will, GodÂ’s Grace, GodÂ’s Justice, GodÂ’s Promise and GodÂ’s Order? (Do not make a dubious claim as Srecko did, for you tend to agree with him, not knowing of what he said of Abraham which is in connection with the Promised Seed, hence Galatians even as far to say the following below) : You agree with the very man who seems to be a yes-man to you and you to him? He makes this as a strong statement coupled with opinion that hold no water whatsoever, just as his confusion with Deborah and Barak, and his mention of Jael when months ago he was against Jael's actions and her being seen as a hero, therefore, he is spinning his wheels here, as we can see Srecko trying to allude to the church by using a judge and a native who had a common enemy, when we see for ourselves nothing about churches is seen in this passage, even Srecko's own information defeats his own claims, therefore, I agree with Gone Away, Srecko, many times mentions can and or seen as flawed, as well as cryptic. The truth of the matter, a truth that is being professes to the both of you is that the Bible makes mention of her one time and were actions was that of a peacemaker and not a church leader, nor did Chloe/and or House of Chloe lead the Church of Corinth, the Bible makes no mention of what Srecko is saying. And Srecko has been corrected not too long ago alongside a few other points (mind the typos, since before you like to use such against me only for such to backfire in the end) : You clearly do not understand anything that was said and even show it, there is no issue with anointed women of the Priesthood or Being One with Christ, the only problem here is you making a strong and yet failing claim that women can be church leaders, I even asked both you and Srecko to show me a church found in the Old Testament, what the both of you have done was use Deborah, a Prophetess, a Judge of Israel as an example when we see that she was no head of the church (but Srecko took it a step further to put the title of Barak on to Deborah when we can see through the Bible and history of who Barak is and what his title actually is), the church didnÂ’t even come into play until very later on, as seen in the New Testament - in the days of the Christ and beyond. The practice of women leadership in the church was unfounded until centuries upon centuries later, something of which you and Srecko (the very person who makes claim Chloe was a church leader of Corinth; the very man you show total agreement with; the very man who sees Abraham as a selfish man yet he, Sostar having the audacity to quote Galatians 3 afterwards) fail to see because the both of you lack in not just the history of the Bible, as this was seen before, but the history of the church. We see PaulÂ’s own words him referencing Creation (even advanced bible readers can point this out to you) and all the Biblical Facts stated before are unshakable, just as GodÂ’s Order, but in regards to God himself, his Order cannot be changed and or broken, as according to Apostle Paul, anyone to practices something else, let him be accursed. There is nothing in the Law that speak of women, any woman being a religious leader of authority within a church so why alluded to Law Covenant what you are trying to point to is unfounded? Granted we do not see anything regarding churches in the Old Testament. If you feel so bold about such, state it here, I can assure you that nothing of Paul and the Church shows women leadership of the church, they are shown to be ministers and teachers, having such roles to contribute to the works, but none of them led a church (but surely you may agree with Srecko when he himself cannot find any information and yields upon his own feelings and opinions), we also take into account the very students of the Apostles and later on, the Church Fathers, again, we do not see any woman leading a church, and the only reason we see such today is people went upon their opinions and feelings if a man can do something a woman can do it too, thus enabling something that was never in practice to begin with. The only reason you believe the church can be lead by women as well is based on what others who study the Bible had said, it is because of the change of the times, and ones emotional opinion, or the mentality that men/women can do anything even when it comes to changes and addition to the Church, hence the adding of Traditions of Men into the Churches when the Bible speaks against it. You are in the clear to shed your emotion on such a matter, but trying to preach an accursed teaching as such only will put you in a spot to be corrected and if you had actually studied the Bible for once, you even see that for yourself. The Bible, is it truth, but if it is not found in the Bible, you only show yourself to be one who is mislead, and yet when one speaks truth, you refuse it, therefore, you can be categorized as a mainstream Christians, if you yourself even cannot see that and with what you said before, you lean upon the teachings of the New Aged Ones, who are not too far off from today's common Trinitarian or Spiritualist. I also pointed out even True Christian women can see that it is not their place to lead a church, as I said to either you or someone else, I came back from Africa, African Christians, even the ones I met in Asia, who know their Bible even understands the roles of both a man and a woman in the church, no one is better than the other, but together they help build themselves up as part of the Spiritual House, despite the roles being entirely different. Read your Bible, do not make the call that Paul was stating an opinion when He, an Apostle, having the Holy Spirit being poured on to him, to wrote the church, visited the church, was in the ministry and preached the gospel, and was a slave to the Christ, as well as doing everything in his power to serve the God of the Christ. Everything he had said, it has to be applied into context and only then, you will see truth, of which you refuse to believe based on your emotional driven exegesis. As for what will happen, Paul spoke of the accursed, and anyone who professes to the accursed and or teaches something entirely different from the truth, will be judged, and if guilty, will perish. There is no middle ground here, you are either for God and continue to seek and or have the truth means life, the other option is if one seek God wrongly, teach something entirely different, this individual will be met with death, the bible makes it very clear, you can read this for yourself and clearly see there is no middle ground. You either dine with Jesus and break bread with him, learn of JesusÂ’ God and Father, or, on the other side of the spectrum, you go play cards with the Devil who deals the cards and be mislead out of what the Bible actually says – your call. If I were you, I suggest Religious History and Theological Studies, for if you didn't know about the New Age stuff and their Christology, it would now be a good time to understand what such ones and or others profess so you yourself to not dwell upon your own confusion, because even a novice among Theologian can see this and will make a response to you. Truth is love and at times people cannot handle the truth, and the truth is, women cannot be church leaders and or having authority within a church and or position of office in a church, regardless if a woman is anointed or not. Women can teach as ministers and the like, but never take up a role of church authority, of which reconciles with GodÂ’s Order, hence why Paul makes mention to Creation, even that of Adam and Eve. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy. Also know the difference between the Law Covenant (of which Paul uses Hagar as symbolism) and the New Covenant (of which Paul uses Sarah as symbolism) The mediator of the Law Covenant is Moses, for the Israelites feared talking to God and Moses was tasked to speak with God hence becoming the First Mediator in the Old Testament (Exodus 20:19), we also know that Apostle Paul spoke of the Laws of mediation as seen in Galatians 3:19. The Mediator of the New Covenant is Jesus, as seen in the New Testament, and Jesus is addressed as the mediator of God by Apostle Paul (1 Timothy 2:5, also see Hebrews 9:15, 12:24).  The parties involved, For The Law Covenant it was between God the Father and Natural Israel, but in the New Covenant it is between God the Father and Spiritual Israel. The Law Covenant made use of Animal Sacrifices; however the New Covenant, Jesus sacrificed himself for mankind, in turn, upon death, enabled the New Covenant immediately. The Law Covenant made use of written on stones tablets, while the New Covenant, the Law is written in our hearts, or the heart of men [humans/mankind]. For God had foretold that the Law Covenant would be overwritten by a New Covenant with benefits that are everlasting, and True Christians are under the New Covenant and know that the New Covenant consist of both Priesthood and heirs, both of whom, are bounded by it. Therefore, one can understand what it means To be One in/In Union with the Christ, as well as having him and his God dwell in the individual, deemed a True Christian, be it man or woman, black or white, etc. they are of Abraham's Seed and of the Spiritual House. Regardless, we do not see anywhere that the New Covenant changes God's Order regarding The Church, or the Family. If your neighbor speaks truth and you ignore it, how is it you deem yourself to express something of God's Likeness, that is, love? While you go dwell on historical Biblical and Church knowledge - if you accept to do so on your own part, understand and research the Biblical Facts because you will need to learn and understand on both the Family and Church structure, do not be like those who have the mentality that a wife can be a husband and a husband can be a wife, or that is not of God's Order, just as those who try to change it up in the Church Structure, therefore, both you and Srecko have only shown yourself to dwell upon an emotional exegesis and opinions of your own, in this sense, understanding of men, in Srecko's case, I tend to be critical of him because he does not realize how much of the information he is twisting, example would be Deborah, he calls her a military leader of some sort, but the Bible says it is Barak. Â

It is their Church Structure, it is similar and or nearly as identical to the Early Church, furthermore, Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist, not only do they stick to he Bible, verse for verse, but that of the church itself, be it they have the truth or very close to it, the very reason why Restorationism (Restorationist Christians) be it a group or a sole individual, are known to primarily practice Primitive Christianity. Quote: Restorationism, also described as Christian Primitivism, is the belief that Christianity has been or should be restored along the lines of what is known about the apostolic early church, which restorationists see as the search for a more pure and more ancient form of the religion. Fundamentally, "this vision seeks to correct faults or deficiencies (in the church) by appealing to the primitive church as a normative model. They are among the list of those who stuck to their Restorationist routes, even to this day: In the 1870s, a Bible study group led by Charles Taze Russell formed into what was eventually called the Bible Student movement. Russell's congregations did not consider him to be the founder of a new religion, but that he helped in restoring true Christianity from the apostasy that Jesus and the Apostle Paul foretold. They believed that other Churches departed in a Great Apostasy from the original faith on major points, and that the original faith could be restored through a generally literal interpretation of the Bible and a sincere commitment to follow its teachings. They focused on several key doctrinal points that they considered a return to "primitive Christianity", derived from their interpretation of the Bible, including a rejection of trinitarianism, the immortality of the soul, and the definition of Hell as a place of eternal torment; active proselytization; strict neutrality in political affairs; abstinence from warfare; and a belief in the imminent manifestation of the Kingdom of God (or World to Come) on Earth. Jehovah's Witnesses emerged as a distinct religious organization, maintaining control of Russell's Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and other corporations. They continued to develop doctrines that they considered to be an improved restoration of first century Christianity, including increased emphasis on the use of Jehovah as God's personal name. It would most definitely be a problem if they had left such a root, but this seems not to be the case. Another thing is women cannot lead churches (the Bible makes it clear on the role women have in the church, never they are mentioned as leaders of authority in the church), anyone who says otherwise clearly is ignoring the church and family structure and nothing of such has EVER originated with the early church, those who practice/defend it are accursed.

The thing here is, it won't be the churches people will call into question, no, they wouldn't even gun for the 1 of 3 forms of excommunication used by all denominations when only 1 form is the right one. If we are going to attack expelling and shunning, one has to attack what Jesus had said in Matthew 16:19, of which Jesus himself entrusted the Church to do, beginning with his Apostles. The verse does say the following: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then we can move on to Apostle Paul and what he has said, after all, Paul is a follower of the Christ and is the type of person to honor Jesus' God and Father. That being said, such things are not easy, and it is tough being cut-off from the church, but it is not impossible to return to it, the same way as being cut-off from the scriptures and returning to it. But you and I both know, I agree with Jesus and I agree with Paul, I do not pick one for the other because these two are of God and serve God.

Granted that they and other churches have already been confronted and their rules have been dissected in accuracy, it will not be at the scale of the Catholic Church, for not only the Catholic Church is passive, but it has twice as many child abusers left and right, in the hallways and trenches, etc., the very reason why they, among others, are on a very high percentage right now in the US and in the EU.

Well one thing, i some parts of Africa and or the Middle East, if you are a civilian in those parts and utter anything pertaining to the Bible, it can be considered as an offense and you can be beheaded, literally and it can be considered Just, on the other side of the spectrum, the religion and or faith the country promotes, they can preach to you by force. As for religion, Islam is surpassing mainstream Christianity, however Christian minorities remain intact and continue to grow. As for me I am more focused on religious things in the EU and Asia, since I have good sources on such.

@Jack Ryan No one is being forced, for there are actually a great number of former JWs who are still cool with their JW relatives, they are covered by a thick blanket by former JWs who teach and preach another doctrine, luckily the Vegan spoke in behalf of former JWs who have to deal with disgruntled JWs of the faith. This goes for all faiths, as well as people of race and or color. That being said, shunning is indeed Biblical, so is Expelling, like it or not, be it the Takfir, the Herem, and or other, it remains because it is in regards to Binding and Loosening. Church ties are gone, but the Family ties reside.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Not all Muslims, and or those who profess the Islamic faith, do this (however now a days when a Muslim does something bad, it is blamed on all Muslims, I can relate because of my own people), only people with intent to do bad, other than that, Finland's history in regards to Asylum stems from paranoia and other dark things from the many events that took place there, for they, are in connection with several pieces of media in regards to both the EU and Asia, plus, you have to realize who Finland's allies are. As for JWs, they're getting FSB'd by the RoC, in the Muslims corner, they got the UFC lover dealing with them in Chechnya and he has them on a leash, so to speak.

Not much of a movie, more of a small clip and or video based on the particular subject of said material of which it is trying to convey.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. A tad bit off topic, but still somehow pertains to topic, I do not know if you are following everything that is Russia also, but a bit of relation, granted that the RoC was the Cog among Cogs in the wheel that got JWs banned in Mother Russia, the RoC made another move as of recent: https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-church-flexes-secular-muscle-restitution-push/29440944.html That being said, I have to go deep diving on all things Russia in the Russian Language again,to get more information. Время идти на рыбалку.

@Jack Ryan And as our history and information has made known to us, should you accept it, Mr. Jefferson was not much of a religious man as some people claim him to be. It is not much of a surprise as a child learning of Christopher Columbus, later on becoming a teenager, eventually a man/woman, soon finding out that such a man, is spoken of in history books, had quite a bit of blood on his hands and every yearly Thanksgiving in November, there are those who do not feast and gorge themselves, but rather, they mourn because they know what truly did happen History is indeed knowledge, after all. Information is key. Research leads to conclusion that is true, further research leads to solidifying what is true.

Well there are 3 types of Excommunication being done by all, for one being done by such in what is seen below, regardless of faith: We shouldn’t excommunicate anyone, because it’s not merciful. We should excommunicate, because we want to purify the Church of the damned. We should excommunicate, because it’s merciful to sinners. Expelling and Shunning are Church abilities given and or instructed, hence if you really understood Matthew 16, and what Binding and Loosening is. Only 1 is correct, and the other 2 are incorrect, so pick your cookie wisely and perhaps on Judgement Day it can be revealed of who is actually right and who is in the wrong. That being said, Excommunication operates Church/Religious ties not Family ties, although family members of said church will feel a bit uneasy, The Shunning Command, of which is Biblical by the way, it only in application of Church members to the excommunicated, again, an uneasy family, but over time they will help the excommunicated return to the church, moreover, those of the church will at some point make an effort, granted on how great the sin is and or what it actually is. Any grounds met under the realm of Interfaith and or of attacking ones faith lands to become those of Apostasy, perhaps disgruntled, and will make any Church comebacks look like a very bad turn around in an NFL game, when you are the one losing at this point, thus making it harder and more of a challenge to return, and now, if it comes to the point you are boxing with God, well... We know who will win in one swing, and it won't be you. It can only become worse if you make it worse, in this sense, if you try to to do away with a spider by means of fire in your own home, and things start to catch the flame, it will only be worse for you, not the spider who invaded your home, as if we can already see real life examples: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/man-burn-spider-house-down-blowtorch-tuscon-arizona-a8005991.html

@Srecko Sostar Well then, Sostar, you can start with what you made mention to: For Chloe in where she is mentioned ONLY ONE acted out as a peacemaker, mainly that of her household, how can you say what you have said when the very verse and passage, in full context says otherwise? And why is it you confuse Barak's position and Prophetess Deborah's position, granted Biblical Facts of which have been proven for years now says otherwise? I bring this up because it would seem you want another save - this will not be allowed to happen, again for it has been the case twice.

What I said was directed to what you made comment to before. It is no surprise to anyone of who those of the Priesthood who are chosen by God, of which took place from Pentecost to now, granted, that there are, as many have said, a few of them left. I’ve mention this many times before, being quite brief, at best. Actually you have before, the only reason I brought it up, and you made mention to what Paul stated in Galatians 4 which speaks of the one bounded and the one who is free. The Holy City is no bounded, for it is free, in this case, she is free and has no bound or chain holding her down, for this Holy City is indeed a free. Now your biggest error here is comparing humans to Spirit Beings such as Angels. Nowhere in the Bible does it say us of mankind will become both human and Angel, therefore, you are not only adding to the text, you clearly showing yourself to be very open to the ideology and Christology of New Age Christians, those who were of many who gave themselves up to the E.I.I. back in 2016 very, very easily. Like I said, you mix verses and the error can be seen, yet again, therefore, I suggest you re-read those verses and perhaps make a better response. The Bride makes up those of the Spiritual House, the chosen ones for Priesthood, and yes their will be given a new form and or body, Spiritual Bodies, we see nowhere in the Bible that these people are both humans and or angels, for we see that God made humans separate, and he has made the Angels separate. Again, already known, this verse, 2 Corinthians 5:17 also connects with Galatians 6:15, which in itself, points straight to Ephsians 2:10 regarding the New Creation, for those who are one in Christ are part of what the Temple brings forth, the New Heavens and Earth, as all cross-references point to if read for context, hence why it is spoken of as Jesus being the Beginning and End (Into the New Covenant) in regards to the New Creation, at times in parallel to Melchizedek to some scholars. And like I said no, humans are not like angels and or become human/angel hybrid of any form for they are TWO different creations, therefore it is silly to spout the talk of New Age nonsense, now for Humans, the Bible speaks of them taking a Spiritual Body, or as the Biblical Title and Outline states, A New Body. 1 Corinthians 3:16 would not make sense to use here because it speaks of us being of God’s Temple and like what was stated in Ephesians, God dwells in us just as he dwells in the Christ, nothing pertaining to being both human and angel hybrids. Therefore, read the actual references for this verse for context before making such a response: Romans 6:16, 8:9, 1 Corinthians 3:9, 17, 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16, 1 Peter 2:5, Ephesians 2:21, 22, 1 Timothy 3:15 and Hebrews 3:6. If anything at minimum, at least take the very words of Peter and follow the references through for context, furthermore, being in union with Christ and or anything pertaining to the Spiritual House, especially the people, those of Priesthood and those who will gain Eternal Life, as stated to you before, should be very obvious. Ezekiel 41:18-19 makes no mention of a man becoming an angel and or any type of human/angel hybrids. Another factor here is the very cross-references of this verse (1 Kings 6:29, 7:36, 2 Chronicles 3:7), makes no connection and or match-up with what you have stated, at least be a Witness to what the Bible says rather than going about your own understanding or the ideologies of the New Aged Ones. [18] It was carved of cherubim and palm trees, a palm tree between cherub and cherub. Every cherub had two faces: [19] a human face toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side. They were carved on the whole temple all around. So it can be asked, what did you try to prove here by making mention of this verse? Unless you do not understand what these verses been and it's context? Anyone who is honest can read, research, identify and understand of what this very conveys, simply in an obvious connection to the Temple, as seen in Prophet Ezekiel's Vision: The Inner Temple, or as read in the outlines, The Interior of the Sanctuary. 1 Corinthians 15:44 speaks of Spiritual Bodies [44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Be it of the any spiritual means or that of the earth, a person, be it, regardless of their sex, have a body, for all persons. Once again to become a whole person, one who has died being raised up, having a body, hence the verse in question. We are humans, not angels, and angels are not humans, nor can there be of and or spoken of any hybrids of any form for we are separate creations. Going on to 2 Corinthians 5, well in short, does not make up with what you have said Therefore, you have to be very careful with verses and passages, otherwise, like I said, you'll trip over yourself - for this isn't the first time you have done this. I recommend Biblehub (https://biblehub.com/) if you are truly having issues with context and references. Ok. But it does not mask the confusion you have professed before regarding Heavenly Jerusalem and Earthly, only one is free, and only one has rejected the Christ. And that is indeed what is being done here, taking in of what comes from above, not that of what originated with those of mainstream Christendom. God's Purpose, Will, Grace, and Order, says otherwise, of which you and Sostar have yet to prove here. Mind you, this has been discussed for decades upon decades and what is said is even true, in fact, like I said, even women who understands their Bibles know this to be true, an example would be is how some women who confront people like Evangelist Anita Fuentes, how they respond, and this is but one of many, many examples. Therefore, trying to change God's Order in terms of the Family and the Church cannot be changed, and granted that God, pertaining to Purpose, Will, Grace and Order, did come from above, mainly if you take into account of what the Head of the Church has told his own in Matthew 16 and what can be understood. Yes, like I said, this is already known, and some of such of which you professed before, has been corrected, elsewhere. And I am making the link, you have tried to mix in a belief that has never originated from God, you even make the assumption that what Apostle Paul had stated was mere opinion, when in reality it is not. But what of God's Order? You never want to dwell in that, but yet when it is presented to you, both you and Sostar tend to do something entirely different? Double Check your verses so you know they connect because it is rather bothersome to correct you when a mix is spot, example would be 1 Kings 8:27, of which something similar has spoken of in our last discussion, and the irony here is you posted Matthew 16:18, which is a direct connection to verses 19 in terms of what command is given to the followers of the Christ, which is clearly some ability the church practices even into this day, that is, those who accept, while others see it as too harsh and ends up changing it and or casting it aside, the very reason why Agnostics now have a sharped blade when it comes to going after and correcting people who do not know what a verse means. I merely correct the confused, the ignorant, the wrong and the like, and one thing that is very annoying to be is those who stick to the mainstream, those who stick to conspiracy, those who stick to false information, and those who attack the Bible and or the very manuscripts of which the Bible originates from, granted such ones tend to be oblivious to Biblical Translation, mainly the TRs and the 1245s, etc. I already know your views, but are mixing in things that is not of what the Bible speaks, you compare verses that do not line up, you bring forth something that is borderline New Age and perhaps think someone would not catch that and so forth. There are things of which can be agreed on and disagreed on, but when it comes to the Bible and the Early Church, such things must be defended, especially that of the Holy Spirit of which many, many people confuse, as well as who Lord Jesus Christ is. And yes, I tend to be very critical of Srecko because I told him before, for every response he makes, especially towards me, or anyone, expect a response, mainly if such is critical. Srecko was corrected on Abraham, Barak and several other things, unless you yourself agree with Srecko that Abraham was a selfish man, or perhaps you agree with him on God not being surprised of people today changing their sex not by appearance, but physically also, mainly be drug and or surgical means, or maybe you think he is right on what he had said on money, that is, if you had seen that discussion? Srecko to be, is someone who is hard deep in what he, as he puts it, his own opinions of things, even in the Bible and tends to draw forth confusion, an example would be what we see here regarding the Early Church, he even went as far as to call Chloe the Leader of the Church of Corinth, unless you are in agreement with that, of which remains to be seen. The difference between you and him, at least you are trying to understand, hence why in other discussion some of which you said can be agreed on, however, you tend to mix things around, not sure if it is of your own design and or other, but you make the attempt, although, perhaps like mainly of Christendom today, but clearly here, you have shown yourself not to be fully understanding God's Order of things, and on the low trying to take a shot of what I am saying to be some form of negative view on women when I merely speak of the historical accounts, the Bible and so forth, furthermore, the very cultural of which I am under defeats the purpose of any such claim hence why I told you to prove it, furthermore, you yourself have mentioned before of what Paul said in a specific verse to be mere opinion, when such isn't the case, when it is known of whom he is speaking to by means of his writings, and what his focus was in trying to build up his brothers and sisters. That being said, I speak what was true of Abraham and what God had Promised him when in discussion to Srecko Sostar, and I am sure you'd do the same because if it was not for the Seed, Jesus would have never been born in accordance to Prophecy in Bethlehem, and no Preiesthood, who are deemed the heirs, would have been existing, for in Srecko Sostar's eyes, he thinks God has another way, when we clearly see God make a Promise to Abraham in the Bible, a Promise of which lines up with Prophecy. Perhaps take a good look at what he says when it comes to the Bible itself, or in this case, the church, for comparing Being One with Christ is vastly different in terms of Church Structure or the Family by means of how Yah's Order actually is, and Paul's direct reference to Creation itself - he did so for a reason. Other than that, I told you before, I tend to get a bit strict on such things, and I am this lecturous due to a very blind and confused Trinitarian who is on this forum. Believe me, if you knew what I knew, the real enemy is that of the E.I.I. everyone and anything in connection to it, anyone who has provided themselves, resources and finical based provisions to it for this beast to grow and spread throughout the US, Asia, EU, the whole world. Like I said, The Watchtower, consisting of Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist and have no dealings with the E.I.I. for if you haven't noticed, pretty much the E.I.I., who is the religion of Babylon the Great is against those who are not for their cause, they have already did a number on the Jehovah's Witnesses and others, even people like me, hence what they have done in both countries my family origins from, they hit even harder in the US because mainstream Christians tend to accept anything that the religion of Babylon throws out to them. Therefore, we have to be very aware of who the real enemy is, we have to be vigilant, and enduring, and be very, very careful to consider someone an enemy because a minor mistake puts one in front of the White Throne, hence why Christians such as myself do not go after such ones, even Restrationist for you do not know what God will say to you when Judgement comes. Those who are good will receive their reward, those of Priesthood will be ruling alongside the Christ, those who have died not knowing God will have that chance and they will not be powerless on the earth, and rise up from the dead like Isaiah stated and Sing. As for the Bad, the those who reaps upon their falsehood and accursed ways, they will be judged, and any man who clearly is in the wrong, such ones will be judged in front of the White Throne of Judgement, and God will Jude by means of his Son and should be judged as guilty, you are no longer known and Justice will be executed, hence why being very careful is vital. Other than that, those who know who the enemy is do not get swept away by such an enemy, even those who are neutral with JWs have enough sense to see who the enemy is, granted if you have been paying attention in the last 4 years of what was going about around the globe thus far, mainly what took place in 2016, which will happen again in The Fall of 2018. That being said, if you are mixing verses and trying to make proof to something that has never been practiced by the early church, you make yourself a candidate, like Srecko, to be easily swept by this religion that is gaining converts in masses, for as Ted Turner of CNN, who supports this Conquest of Peace had said, We All Believe in One God, and his motive is all who have this believe is be united as one - This, my friend, it something you have to be a Witness of, and be very vigilant, for the legacy of the Spiritual Mother is alive and well in such ones, in this case, The Jezebel Woman who is also known as a Prophetess, the one who is false. I tell everyone this, even to JWs, the only ones that do not see the danger are mainstreamers, Muslims on the other hand, wise up, some of which who began to understand and reads the Bible, and in my case, I direct people to learn the Bible, to many, men, women and children, just as I have learned at a young age, young ones should know the truth of the bible before the mainstream teaches them the accursed. If you truly believe in these verses, you be very aware that the whole church leadership thing is of God's Order. Srecko considers such favoritism, it is not the case, draw the conclusion from context and what Paul had said, which is not an opinion, but rather hat he stated directly in terms of Creation, hence God's Order. Like the verse says, hear the words, but should you refuse, what makes you any different from mainstream Christendom, that of which contains the likes of New Aged Ones? In regards to church leadership and the like (Union with Christ being used in such a discussion has been done many many times and it has failed), I suggest you start reading up on Church history, consider this bandages for cuts on your knees of which you have tripped on, for such can be accepted by you or rejected, just know that the Apostle is in the right in regards to God's Order of things. Lastly, always double check your verses in terms of references and context, or as I put it, Hermeneutics, before you post them, for should you find yourself in a position to teach, you must do so correctly, it is jarring to the mind to make such corrections you as is done before, for if this was the CSE, I can't even defend you there and everyone there, like me, is x10 times.

So how does this stem into the realm of politics and the like when those who actually know what The Didache is, Sostar? Religious politics? Can you give a vital example of this being done by any non-Conservative Christians outside of the mainstream? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_principle

@Grey Reformer Some would dwell in the realm of paranoia and assumption, perhaps, curiosity, but the fact it has been done before will draw forth question.

It would seem some of you have only seen the surface of the seas, but may not have dived deep and dive into the dark itself, TOR is quite something and it has nothing to do with the C.I.A.

Everyone does, they know it too. hat I am saying it is already known as to what the Living Stones are and of what they make up - this is a direct reference to what I was discussed before. And yet last time you confused Earthly with Heavenly, hence the references: not of the normal Jerusalem that each and every one of us know today For some people think Earthly and Heavenly are the same, not knowing the difference between the two and I recall this correction was made in regards of you before, which is why I mention the mixing of verses that do not connect with only lead to problematic understanding, but than again, you seem to have taken the information from elsewhere. For Earthly Jerusalem had rejected Jesus, the Bride, of which is obviously symbolic, is the Holy City, Heavenly [New] Jerusalem. Unless you thing the Bride is a literal woman, you are the first to make this notion. And yes, this is true, but the Bride is included of this New Covenant, which consist of those of Priesthood and the Heirs, according to Paul in Galatians 3. Also Galatians 4:24 and 26, in terms of symbolism, New Jerusalem is not bounded, she is free, you do realize Paul speaks of two of which represents the Old and New Covenant? If anything, the Bride, associated with the New Covenant is the only one that is free, a free woman who is not bounded, I believe this had been in discussion elsewhere, not here or any of older discussions. The Old Covenant represents Hagar, although used in symbolism to the Sinaitic Covenant, it came about in the days of Moses, as for the other, came about in the days of Jesus. For again, here we see Paul use symbolism, for both Hagar and Sarah were not literal in regards to the Covenants, but rather, one being bounded, a slave girl, the other being a free woman, who is not bounded. It is also good to mention Paul takes from Prophet Isaiah, to some extent, when he explains these things. As for the other verse, yes, what can be said is I agree with Ezekiel, for this Temple, is indeed marvelous and it's measurements is like no other, as well as what it actually is and who resides in them. You do realize I am talking about that came about in Jesus' day. The Church is indeed the people, as a whole, however, the church itself in terms of God's Will and Order is how it is strtured And again, it is wise to use Being One in Christ passages as well as The Spiritual House, in this regard, however, like before, it has nothing to do with Paul's clear addressing of God's Order of things within the church itself, mainly if you take the sheer seriousness of historical fact in terms of such things. The Spiritual House has really nothing to do with structure in terms of God's Order and Will regarding the church of which, the people, who is of the church, dwell in for religious worship. Well you have to because whether you realize it or not, there are those who is clearly out of both of our leagues who want to change such, and not knowing how things are will easily sweep us away into those who sided with such persons who think they can turn the Bible and the Church into millennial like circus and a list of other things that if our church father's had lived to see this day, the Apostles and their students, they would not be in total agreement with and will be the very ones to make the correction, perhaps other means instead of letters, for I cannot picture in my head any of the Apostle using a computer or a smartphone in order to do such. That being said, to be aware and knowledgeable of these things, you do so in favor of our early Christian brothers and sisters, mainly people like Paul, but to do otherwise, even not understanding a passage, mainly for those who take Paul's letter to the Corinth out of context, it will pose as a problem, and like all problems, it should be corrected. Not to the point of getting blisters and scabs and perhaps a trip to the Emergency Room. However, such rarely happens to those who literally take up the sword before they could even walk - that sword (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5, 2 Timothy 2:15).

I didn't notice that until now.

It was on another thread. I was looking into recent information back to 2015, however, the whole sexual orientation thing is indeed something of which can be led into a problem, and cause more issues with institutions of both the educational and religious space should things go to a mission impossible like status. Yes, some psychiatrist will speak on pedophilia, it is indeed a disorder, however, those who are in agreement with the message thing otherwise. This has also causes a good chuck of people to fight to make pedophilia be recognized as a sexual orientation rather than a disorder. In regards to the LGBT, there is a portion of them who are for this as well, hence the whole business with kids dressing up provocatively, nearly half-naked and running about, dancing and a list of other things. We also see members of this part of the LGBT community who go to the schools and or some facility to teach and read to the children, with the main topic being gender related and so forth. I would put up some information here and or something that is in tired connection to such, but stuff like this is not too friendly on the eyes of the ones who do not suspect such a thing. For me, my biggest fear is stuff like this taking off, full sail, to the point it cannot be stopped and will eventually tip over and cause some real damage. That being said, I will be researching on this more, mainly a few years back from 2015, mainly in regards to the EU, for pedophilia is far more greater in such areas compared to the US, for a number of kids are placed into human trafficking and other things in relation, and stuff like this hits home for me because someone, a Democrat, who is friends with Hilary, nearly did the same to my country in regards to taking children into human trafficking and since that day it still bothers me, as well as the assassination of Me. Ebrewein, it was not a suicide as the media claims. But yeah, in short, it is a major fear, like a virus spreading that cannot be stopped, eventually it will drive you to be highly cautious, perhaps, mad, and a bit overly protective, for in this sense, the schools and the churches are riddled with unsuspecting abusers who take up the disorder to commit ill intent on others.

You can't reason with a man who believes the following and or adheres to: That birds pay for his internet connection. He believes God is not going to be surprised about people changing their sex, even physically by means of drug and or surgically. He makes claim to something he deems as absolute proof when all that is seen is a registry based on a census. He states a woman known as Chloe leads a church and says it is in the Bible, but nothing is found and this woman is only mentioned ONCE in scripture. Thinks writing letters is political, when on the RU side is is not seen as such, nor by anyone who takes into account EU media. So called things addressed, linked, only lead to main page of a website.... That has no mention of what he himself addressed. Thinks that if someone knows the Bible more than him, such one considers others as inferior, when such is not the case. relies on the Admin to save him from his own error(s), but when the topic is focused, stumbles upon himself and likes something that is irrelevant which only worsens for him. Thinks being called "daft" is a major insult, when it also means one who is ignorant. Thinks fighting for Religious Rights is also political when such can be done in a non-political space. Does not know the difference between ECOSOC and SOC; as well as criteria(s) being met or not. He makes a statement about a faith community taking in loads of money from a venue when in reality the information provided says otherwise, thus prompting him to wipe his current message and a message from a year ago. He is not a fan of anything in regards to a man named Abraham, even going as far as to call this man of the Bible, selfish and not caring of anything but himself. He speaks in opinion of money, yet is in agreement with a verse in which a coin came from a fish, and contradicts himself over and over again. Believes a Judge can lead a church when the Old Testament speaks nothing of churches. The list goes on. That being said, a bit more relaxed that I have I returned from The Motherland.

As is others, this is no surprise to anyone. What you should have also mentioned is that those chosen and or destined for Priesthood, the fruits after Jesus, are chosen, not self-chosen and it is known by those, as some would say, are invited by God. There have been people who predate even us who is of the chosen ones and like those days, those chosen and those of the church are in total awareness of such. Also it is not a sole racial/ethnic group that will benefit from Priesthood, granted the Bible says otherwise. Yes, this is known, they are stones as well of the House, but that does not make means of something that is not of the church, of which you and Sostar are high-fiving each other about. And I explain and corrected you on this before as well, if I recall. Already known. Ok, but do you recall what you said before on this? Such ones who are also chosen are not of the normal Jerusalem that each and every one of us know today, but even those who are chosen are still bounded by the church, as if our history, mainly the church on the rock, as taught us anything. Interesting, why equal these 2 verses together in regards to referring to new thing? As for the rest, nothing of which you have stated here has anything to do with what was talked about. If you want to speak on Being One with the Christ and of Priesthood, that is all in good intention, then so be it, however, using the Being One with Christ to profess a practice that is not of the church is borderline heresy, but what to think of those who consider and or in agreement with such who make the claim that Chloe was in fact a church leader, hen the reality is, this peacemaker had nothing to do with leading a church. I guess no one pays attention to Matthew 16 nowadays, giving the Agnostics more fuel to fire their torches. Anyways, another day at the office it seems, mainly after returning from Africa, and it is still seen that you are connecting verses together without knowing if the context matches up or not, I leave that homework with you because in your case, this isn't the first time. As I told Sostar, read each and every verse for context, read the passages and or verses that are in direct connection with said passage because this had been talked about before, and I not going to bring up your pass discussion with in some degree is in parallel with what you just said, let alone going about in defense of something that didn't originate with no one 2,000 years ago, furthermore, I invite you to take some historical lessons on both the Bible and the Church as well as the 12 Apostles. You are there, yes, but you still trip over yourself, perhaps, purposely.

An expression used for those who take the Bible 100% seriously. Others tend to take a Non-Christian approach by taking literal action of extreme proportions. In this case, it is following the bible's principles by means of lifestyle. That being said, you have the serious Bible readers, mentioned above, and now we have the Extreme Bible action takers, most common and or majority originates with New Agers and Oneness believers or that of the KJV-Onlyist Movement. You never really know which one you will confront, you'd be surprise some people can and will beat you up with a Bible, literally, or even throw it at you while shouting a verse. So when met with an extreme Bible thumper, prepare to shield yourself and or duck for cover, because they will use a bible as a mallet to, as they say, cleanse you. Picture it this way, but literally as in, having a Bible thrown at you should they be in disagreement with you: Â

Yes, but these are not my own words, these are literal facts. I think the letter is a bit much that is why I linked it. 35 pages is a LONG list of information. That being said, information is key and knowing information brings for accurate truth to this matter, and this one fits the bill nicely, mainly when said information was of ones who lived during that time, in my case, I was not even existing let alone in the womb of my mother. But hey, for me personally, the 90s was a good time to live in, mainly in the Caribbean islands were no high tech tom foolery was in play at all, just a chilled, cool environment and nothing else, and then.... we moved to America, although the environmental change, as time progresses, things before more tech-dependent. That being said, it is not that much, usually what I go detailed super power mode I make a page, word after word in seconds. The facts coupled with small bits of information is basic stuff. Furthermore, no one really mention the 6,000 part too, so that has to be said.

  Other than that, the whole letter thing is not a political move, nor was the Soviet Era people or others who were well within the realm of Civil Disobedience. @Srecko Sostar And no, as stated, it was never a political move in their case, even the Russians do not consider it as such. The only political move that was done in regards to Mevedev and the Kremlin was this, in addition, we also have the big Anti-Corruption Protest that was around the same time as the JW ban and the uproar going on in Ukrainian Churches, more than 1,600 Russians have been arrested Now if JWs did do any political move, they would not be stamped out prior to the election, they would not be targets by professors who know of their neutrality, hence what took place in Russian schools, they would not be said to disrespect the Nationalist Day held by Russians every year and a list of other things, most importantly, they would have been listed on the FSB website, at least the remnants of it, but all you can see there is political actions being done by Alexei Navalny (??????? ?????????) followers and others political advocates who are not for the Kremlin and are against it. Lastly, the French NGO would not have robbed them dry prior to and after the Pope's visit with Cyrill. As for Dmitry Medvedev, he cares for no one but his inner circle, nor is he a religious man (but gives a show for Cyrill), but he is a man who has a strong addiction to the Ducks.  FYI, the woman on the thumbnail is dubbed an extremist, but she is a professor of a school who had nothing to do with anyone.

I will put some information here that would clear up of which I have gathered. To be brief, nowhere does it state on the Jehovah's Witnesses behalf that 1975 is the end of the World, and with the information at hand, we can see that the difference between JWs and their opposites, only one side is telling the truth. 1975, however, was in regards of being vigilant, granted the whole 6,000 of creation since Adam. Plus it would have been hypocrisy on their part if they did in fact state that 1975 is the depend and yet they still continue to preach prior to, on, during and after that specific year, granted the Bible did say a time will come when the spreading of the gospel would cease, and then the end would come, which we can see JWs had never stopped preaching any given point during that time. I will start with a quote: Other information we can turn to is a message written, 1 out of 35, date of origin is March 9, 2010, name Paul Leonard, all messages in this regard can be found here, I will post a book of info, granted I am already lecturous as it is: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/JWquestions-and_answers/conversations/topics/3704 Further information, I had to go to the Arabic channels of where I debated with a Trinitarian before, knowing that Arabic JWs tend to show up there at times, one of them who made a response to the 1975 comment directed us to information, of which can be read below, and clearly all of us, even me, read this information of which I will copy/paste here: In what I received from him, there was more information: There is more information in this regard, a whole lot, but you have to really trend those seas to find it. There was also a video that could have put the final nail in the coffin, for this video had shown proof what is addressed, but former JWs took down the video that was made by a non-denominational Christian who exposed the truth, of what was actually said in 1975 vs. that of what former JWs or disgruntled ones have been saying all this time, since his video is removed due to being flagged by former Jws, you have to ask around and dig up this information itself, at times requires forum grave digging which is a hassle to do. The video was named Response to anti-JW video concerning 1975, however, this video had been hunted down by former Jws and flagged for removal, even alternative sources they went after to remove the video because it would make JWs in the right and former Jws who had spread their message, in the wrong, proof of alternative link not existing anymore: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/9873011 Here are some other facts: With regard to 1874: It should be noted that ‘The Watchtower’ was not published until 1879 and Russell himself did not become aware of the 1874 date until 1876! So it was hardly a matter of a failed prediction. With regard to 1914: "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them" (emphasis added). With regard to 1925: "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year." With regard to 1975: ‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. So at this point, it is safe to say who is really in the right, for anyone can say they were there that faithful day, surely some of us youngens weren't, I myself was born and raised in the 90s and had only a Bible while living on the islands growing up, but there are those who actually paid attention and took note of what was said and done from 1974-1976. But yes, real information can be found out of a sea of conspiracy and or claims regarding this year people are parading around in falsehood when there is actual truth to this matter. That being said, anyone can be anywhere at any given point in time, the real question is, did so and so take in the information fully and or did the action correctly?