Space Merchant

Civil authorities, law enforcement and the like will always be called if criminal activity is suspected, for example, if there's been an accusation of child molestation or anything pertaining to the abuse of child and or in other cases should anything happen to even adults, i.e. a man wielding a machete trying/attempting to access a church or someone armed with a gun trying to break inside a church with people inside, etc. They are far better equipped to decide what if any physical evidence and exculpatory evidence exists in determining the merits of the charges and what consequences should follow if such charges can be provably established and or set in place as for my examples, on how to deal with the situation at hand, preparation beforehand, safety, and the like. Not everyone who goes into a church or trying to access a church wants to hear a gospel of some sort, they come for "other" reasons, which can effect both children and adults, be it minor, disruptive, or something majority, tragic in nature, as we have seen already several months ago. Usually, when people say such things of some groups and then are asked for proof, they almost always link you to hoards reports and or state lacking evidence to such; full of unproven accusations exclusively levied by ex-members, but that is probably the point, to beat the courts and the public into submission by saturation. Regarding JWs or Watchtower, there's the ARC (Australian Royal Commission) since you brought them up, they are accustomed to parroting the number 1,006 unreported (or covered up) so called persons who practice pedophilia. If the ARC had taken action accordingly, the actual investigation in question, they would have long known that about 492 cases were reported by someone, or lacked sufficient evidence to warrant a report well before 2017 of March, when they were forced to acknowledged that they were wrong about the 1,006, but it would seem that anything to put the group in a negative limelight, 1,006 sounds much better. The ARC also acknowledged that between 2015 of August and 2017 of March, only 17 reports of child abuse emerged within the Watchtower group in Australia, two of which declined to report. So yes, the watchtower historically has and will probably continue to deal with child abuse within its ranks, but that’s not because of how they handle this or that or how they attempt to do things, it is because of this world we happen to live in where such an desire of being attracted to children exist, and if one cannot see that pedophilia is an issue with persons on a psychological level, than you do not know the world that you are a temporary resident in. Pedophilia is all over, even us Unitarians are subjected to this, one of the Unitarian denominations had a pastor arrested in speaking to children online, having child pornography, and even threatening children online, saying he was going to or wanting to kill them, etc. Did it stop people from following a faith? Not so much. As a Christian, we know that there is good people, and there is bad people in this imperfect world, the good will do what they can, but the bad will roam among the good and will always have an intent to do bad, lack of any care or shred of showing repentance for their treacherous heart has overtaken them, and they are eaten up whole by their ill-desires. That being said, a church, a school, a business will handle things how they see fit, it is up to you to take things a step further if such groups handle things on their end, internally, that is why most of them advise you, yourself to contact the authorities. Even at times, even friends, depending on the person, who do not want to be put into the public view will advise the same thing and or handle the situation for you themselves, everyone different (for Bystander effect/syndrome is a real thing even in the realm of child abuse, not doing anything at all, so to speak). You'd be surprised how those who analyze everything accordingly will say in their own response, yet they are, as always, attacked by an angry mob for it, then you have the Anti-Religion, who consider this a win regardless of what you tell them. Child abuse is everywhere and so is pedophilia, you and all people should know every man, every woman, every child, is and will always be imperfect until God changes that when the day comes for his Son to return to earth. For such things will not stop someone from following their faith whether you like it or not because Christians are aware of the times they live in. JWs are subjected to this, as well as any church, school, organization, business, child programs, etc. Also, it is something to note, that it is evident that some of these places tend to deal with the problem internally, at times do call for outside help, depending on the situation, the person looking into the situation, etc. The desire to or be attract to children is an actual sickness, for some claim the origin of such appears at one's birth and develops overtime, for such is even a poison that effects Christians or newly converts who hide such a sickening desire.

Yep, and anyone who isn't part of the norm/the mainstream, is usually judged immediately, even among those in Christianity. Trinity believers will call Non-Trinitarians false, cultist, or foolish, that we will burn in hell, the one they call the lake of fire (since they ignore Revelations 20:14 lol). As time progresses, it will be evident of who really tries to stick true to what the scriptures say and who isn't. The sad part is, Christians do not know they are digging a hole right beneath them, for all relentless attacks of Non-Trinitarian believers, some who have their own religious organization leads to things like this: Christians do not realize the kind of enemy they are making stronger everyday, especially to those who continue to dwell in falsehood and attack those who stick to what is true, you end up having enemies like this from the anti-religion groups:Â For these people are among the Satanist ranks of the Anti-Religion groups, and they were not just attacking all of Christianity, but they were speaking of and convincing people to embrace the so called Spirituality of the world, all that Christians were told to ignore, they tell the people to accept it. I would post the video from a Christian Youtuber, but it may deem too much for the common folk here to bare, but this picture will just be a reminder of how enemies of Christianity are mobilizing everyday while the Christian infighting continues. Â For any Jehovah's Witnesses here who is reading this, you will expect the black cross and flag Anti-Christian types to suddenly appear before you while you preach in the near future. It happen to a random church a year or two ago, as well as a cemetery dispute about a year ago. Â Long story short, the falsehood of a man is enough to strengthen the enemy of his enemy.

The rabbit hole goes deeper too, especially when it comes to media and online, gonna be a bit off topic about it too. There are Muslims who debate with Christians time and time again, always go head-to-head with Christians, however, a majority of these Christians, in the Europe, are Trinitarians, who teach a whole different gospel entirely, which results in people either ignoring Christianity or being against it as a whole, especially when it comes to the 3 Gods in 1 belief that angers such persons. This lead Muslims to assume that "all" Christians have the same faith, which is false, for not all Christians believe in the Trinity. You'd be surprised that some of the JWs I had seen who were caught in these debates didn't know they were being targeted as Trinitarians, when it is known that JWs or any Non-Trinitarians don't believe in the Trinity or any teachings that derive from it. What makes it even more damaging is what these Christians were taught (the videos as evidence), which I use as an example to show how majority of Christians stem far from truth, resulting in Muslims has to correct them or attempt to convert/evangelizing them, these are just 2 debates that I came across a while back 2 months ago. The ironic part was there was one debate, I wish I could find it, a JW opponent, a guy who hates JWs and most Non-Trinitarian groups, just showed the the community how well he didn't know the bible or the scriptures., in addition to that, the assumption of his so called faith is throw at those who are Non-Trinitarians. Long story short, such actions from mainstream Christianity (teachings that do not reflect scripture) it puts actual Christians (who take scriptures seriously) in the same category of those who preach falsehood. Here are 2 video examples of Muslims/Christians debates solely on the bible, as well as statistics on Christianity in European/Asia countries: For we see that even those the Muslims debated against do not really know the scriptures quite well, and I can say this now, there is dozens and dozens of debates like this, even Non-Trinitarian Christians vs Trinitarian Christians, which consist of major players who will do whatever it takes to bring down or try to refute Non-Trinitarian Christians, even belittling them. Also it is said in Europe that Christianity, for the church isn't living up to what the scriptures say, and isn't putting focus or any interest in what it offers, resulting in a slowly, but sure decline in Europe: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/christians-remain-worlds-largest-religious-group-but-they-are-declining-in-europe/ As well as Asia, specifically South Korea: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/01/christian-churches-sharp-decline-south-korea-180101095855604.html For Christianity is also on a decline in South Korea among organized mainstream Christianity.   The United States (among millennial/young people): http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2016/may/what-latest-bible-research-reveals-about-millennials.html There are those who are close to the truth to do what is necessary to stick to the truth, while others are just not putting the effort are far from it. Some take into account of what is not biblical or bible canon results in the disinterest, the decline and one and off debates seen throughout the web and media. Christians will always correct the wrong, even those who are not even Christians who know the bible, but at the end, falsehood is so great it is tough to get your word across. That being said, there is A LOT of people being mislead, that leads to a decline, not being interested in the bible, and so forth. Those who take the scripture seriously are the ones who tend to be steadfast in truth. But yeah, the Christian forums I come from tend to speak of such time and time again. 3 verses I like to bring up: Deuteronomy 4:2 - You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. Matthew 28:19 - Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, John 10:35 - If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— So yes, e should fight falsehood within Christendom, however, you will have to realize, also with everyone here, the spread of falsehood is so great in Christianity, it tends to show others outside of the faith that we are all false and believe what the Trinitarians believe, as well as a change and contradictory to scripture, mind you, this was also talked about by a Christian who was right about videos like this popped up left and right, sooner or later, and here we are now.

The Romans adopted Christianity, but they still held true to their pagan celebrations and wild parties, in addition to the practices and teachings regarding good and evil spirits. Constantine the Great only made Christianity legal, whereas Theodosius decreed Christianity to be a state religion after being instructed by one of those who adhere to the Nicene Creed, in addition to that,Theodosius decreed everyone follow the Nicene Creed otherwise they’d be branded as unchristian, sometimes find themselves to be sentence to far worse consequences and possible death, for they had to accept the decreed out of fear for some. In short, Romans didn't play around,especially when it comes to religion (Christianity).

The thing is some people like to target those due to their disdain for said persons or groups, assuming one's experience is their one and only view and reflection of said person and or groups whereas to others it is different, those who were led to scripture because of their religious denomination of their choice, as for others, they understand where said person and or group is coming from, thus being neutral with them or having somewhat things in common with the other person or group. In a normal sense, all Christians differ from each other, regardless of their denomination. What it comes down to is regardless of their faith, if said Christian applies the bible and take into account with all seriousness of what the scriptures say. In addition to how some Christians react to true falsehood. The other day I had to deal with a Christian who said the following: "God told the people to worship Jesus in Matthew 3:17." Let's just say things didn't go well for him regarding his claim whereas he was easily refuted by people who weren't even bible savvy, thus making us look like the fools for the error of others. At times, some Christians don't know any better, and are mislead by those who don't even know scripture. Despite the falsehood being spoken by the unwise and blind or those who are unaware, they too are persecuted, for some Christians can be spared for being ignorant of scripture and what is to be taught and what shouldn't be taught.

It apply them to since in turn it applied to the Restorationist Movement, which they bible Students originated from, in turn, becoming the Jehovah's Witnesses. All Christians are persecuted, which is an obvious fact, however, among those persecuted, there are those who are close to truth and those who far from the truth, in addition to that, the Anti-Religious groups will target any group that speaks of God the Father or of Jesus or entice religious infighting (Christian infighting being the most obvious and prominent ones). That being said, I have witnessed such via experience. This is the reason why symbols like "The inverted Cross" exist and those who carry the black flag who represent it. Bottom-line: 1 Peter 4:12-14, or (1 Peter 4:12-19) main focus is regarding "Suffering as a Christian" solely. For the other portions of 1 Peter 4 is in regard to: Stewards of God's Grace (1 Peter 4:1-11) [1] Live for God’s will, as Christ did (1-6) [2] End of all things has drawn close (7-11)

Oh alright, understood.

I lost you at "gibt skorrpionn". German?

In Christendom, the Church and or Congregation is consider the body of the Christ (not literal), the Christ is also the head of the church. See it that JWs are still Restorationist Christians, they will say it as such, as do many still present Restorationist Church, who function to do God's will or or pushing out said message; organized religion of said churches, judging by what is taught regarding the Great Commission (Church Movement).

In the end, only God knows who is really for him and who isn't, he knows our hearts and by means of his Son, he shall judge among those of the righteous, of the meek, and of those who didn't repent. I take no issue with Non-Trinitarian Christians, since some of them are similar to each other, for even among the JWs, there are those with good heart and intentions, at least having somewhat of a path in the scriptures and what the oldest reliable source says that the bible truly originates from. My biggest issue is with those who are dishonest to the point of ignoring scripture or something that is true, some of the dishonest can be spared for they tend to be ignorant of what is true, but some knowingly ignore what is true, even going to great lengths to try to paint something for what it is not, as well as those who twist scripture to fit a false doctrine, the same Christians who will support the destruction of others by the hands of people with power, i.e. so called Christians who support a group that left Syranic Christians to be slaughtered by the hands of terrorist, and or accept/support something, knowingly putting a city into pure chaos (Jerusalem) and the list goes on. For most church organizations that to a seriousness to the Great Commission and what the church means to Jesus, which is something that is often challenged and or tested by those who wants to test a Christian be it in a religion or not, which seems to be the case with the SC community, a place I recommend none of you go to unless you are really up to task. That being said, some of us have to be careful of whom we accuse of being part of Babylon, for any Christian or Christian groups who is part of Babylon is very evident, the JWs got a taste of that in Russia and some European countries, they were even replaced by the RoC who started to "preach like" JWs in the streets, one can only imagine the full effect of such persecution in the US where not everyone becomes targets.

Yet you canÂ’t prove anything from your source in regards of influence? If it was regarding symbols and use of them why didnÂ’t you bring that up before instead of alleging influence without source to claim, which could have easily avoided all the mental gymnastics on the spot? Anyways, your claim is that: Such a well-read man as CTR had no clue where his use of the symbols originated from, or what they meant, that he attached himself to. Interesting. We have evidence of just one of his deceitful ploys in what JWI posted from jwfacts. No, sir. You are excusing a man just as deceitful as the next Watchtower leader. His teachings were not sourced in Holy Spirit; which, as a Christian, you should recognize, but feel I should ignore. I will not excuse the man for his use of pagan symbols and support of measurements of a pyramid that he put into printÂ…to teachÂ…as divine truth, to thousands of people who believed him at the time. What an act of blasphemy toward the Father. No one said he had no idea of what the symbols were or where they originated from, the only thing that was brought up was a false claim of influence, which you coined several times already, in addition to saying he had fleshy desires, but you have no source or information to back that up, and obviously such will just be swept under the rug without a source to such claim that you made. So far your claims of “pagan symbols” regarding CTR using the Sun of Righteousness Reslight, alongside others who have studied Pastors, specifically CTR for well over 50+ years stated the following in his research: Information from someone who researched CTR and Bible Student (big info) regarding the use of those symbols: Yes, Russell did use a sun of righteousness illustration with wings on the cover of the Studies in the Scriptures, but we are sure that he saw nothing in the usage of the illustration involving of sun worship, or the Masons. In his first volume of the Studies of the Scriptures, in the first paragraph of the first study, Russell stated: The above words, in effect, state what the sun symbol on the front of the Studies of the Scriptures was meant to depict.  Only one who is either not actually familiar with Russell's writings, or who deliberately wishes to misrepresent Russell, would make such assertions as Springmeier makes. However, we may wonder about the description given by Springmeier, since it does not match the actual design that appeared on the Scripture Studies. Variations of the symbol were historically connected with the worship of sun-gods (under various names), but a study of the Biblical usage indicates that this kind of illustration may have been originally used by the ancestors of the Hebrews as depicting the promises of hope long before the heathens used it to worship the sun-gods. -- Genesis 3:15; 22:18; Psalm 89:36. The only "secrecy" that would be connected to the usage of the winged sun of righteousness illustration would be in that one would be ignorant of the scriptures, and thus, by not knowing what the scriptures say, the meaning of the illustration would be a mystery, a secret.* An allusion to this illustration is in Malachi 4:2, where Yahweh says: "But to you who fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. You will go out, and leap like calves of the stall." ========== *See the study: Understanding Kingdom Mysteries Nevertheless, if Russell was guilty of sun worship, then was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, guilty of the promoting the same sun worship? FS states concerning this: Springmeier, Masons, pages 125, 126: We are not sure why FS quotes Mr. Smith above, but it appears to be to establish that the phraseology in Malachi 4:2 is being borrowed from heathen idolatry. If this is so, then, we have to ask: Was Malachi lying when he said that these were words of the Most High Yahweh? (Malachi 1:1) Was Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus, guilty of sun worship in saying the words recorded in Malachi 4:2? Is the Bible a heathen book for mentioning the kind of symbolism that Russell utilized artwork to depict? And if this symbolism that Malachi recorded means that Russell is a Mason, would it not also mean that the prophet Malachi was a Mason, or that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus, was a member of the Mason's Society? The reasoning is of itself secular, saying, in effect, 'we assert that this symbolism is a Mason (or Rosicrucian) symbol, and therefore because we assert this, we further assert that Russell was a member of the Freemasons. Thus, based on this, our assertions are fact, and thus the fact is that Russell was a Freemason because we have imagined and assumed this to be so.' No recognition is given by those who present their assertions as being fact to the possibility that heathen religions may have adopted the idea of the winged-sun from earlier Hebraic origins although the quotation of Smith as provided by Springmeier shows that this is a possibility. However, according to the above quote of John P. Smith, the "Sun of Righteousness" in Malachi 2 means "righteousness" itself. "Righteousness" is equated with Jewish "victory" and vindication. The idea appears to be to deny that Messiah is being spoken of in Malachi 4:2, not unless one takes the view that this Jewish victory and vindication itself is the Messiah, thus discrediting a personal Messiah. This would thwart the hope set forth in Genesis 3:15. Of course, in reality, there is no Jewish victory, nor is there any Jewish vindication, outside of Jesus, the Messiah promised by Yahweh. Most Christian commentators do identify the "Sun" spoken of in Malachi 4:2 with the Messiah -- Jesus, although most Christian commentators, believing that those blessed by this "Sun" to be only the church, fail to recognize that the saints, as participants with Jesus as the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:28), will also participate with Jesus in bringing the blessings and healing to the world (including Israel), the event which all human creation has been (ignorantly) waiting and longing for. (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Psalms 72:7; Isaiah 2:2-4; Daniel 7:22;27; Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30; Romans 8:17,19; 1 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 5:10; 20:4,6) We need to note, also, that most commentators believe that the Son of God is a person of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and therefore confuse the two. The Bible's symbolism regarding the sun and the need of a sun of righteousness can be traced back to the Garden of Eden. Many believe that the sun in Genesis 1:16 is a type for Jesus as the sun of righteousness. When Adam sinned, became unrighteous, no longer straight, part of the curse upon man was: The sweat of Genesis 3:19 comes as a result of the heat from the sun. This indicates, in turn, a suffering that did not exist before. The symbolism of the sun as representing that which causes suffering (as a result of God's curses upon man in Genesis 3) amongst the lineage that became sons of Israel can be seen from the references to the sun and its heat (both literal and symbolic) in the Bible. -- Jonah 4:8; Ecclesiastes 1:2,3; 13-18; 2:11,17-22; 4:1,7,15; 5:13; 6:1; 9:3,11; Song of Solomon 1:6; Revelation 7:16. In Ecclesiastes, Solomon is describing the crooked condition of all man "under the sun", associating this with vanity. This condition he attributes to God, saying "It is a heavy burden that God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with." (Ecclesiastes 1:13) This is an obvious reference back the curses of Genesis 3. Solomon continuously associates this condition of mankind with the sun, thus showing a symbolism of sun with burden of vanity. Paul, likewise describes this condition in Romans 1:20-33; 2:1; 3:9; 5:12-19; 8:20; Philippians 2:15; Ephesians 2:3. He describes it as a "bondage of corruption." (Romans 8:21) Additionally, Peter spoke it of when he spoke of the "corruption that is in the world through lust." -- 2 Peter 1:4. Solomon said that "there is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:19) and "Consider the work of God, for who can make that straight, which he has made crooked?" (Ecclesiastes 7:13) Solomon was saying that there is no way that anyone under the subjection of vanity who could bring a new creation that is not under subjection to vanity. Man cannot justify himself, make himself straight. So how is man to be saved from the vain condition he is under, if he cannot make himself straight? Going back to Genesis 3, God indicated a remedy when he stated to the serpent: This promise indicates a reversal a matters, for if the serpent would be bruised in the head, it would mean the death of the serpent. But the promise is that a seed of the woman would come that would do this. Paul uses women to symbolize a promise or covenant; likewise, in this vague statement, God designates his promise as being a woman who would produce a seed. This seed is spoken of in the New Testament as being Jesus and those who believe on him in this age, while amongst the present "perverse and crooked generation." -- Acts 2:4; Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Galatians 1:4; Philippians 2:15; Revelation 12:15. To displace the present sun of vanity, a new sun would be needed, a sun of righteousness, and the development of the symbolism of a sun of righteousness that is come with healing in his wings or beams. Jesus was born into this world, but he was not begotten of this world; likewise, those who believe in Jesus become begotten anew not of this world as a new creation. Jesus' coming into this world was not as a part of the crooked generation of Adam, but God specially prepared his body. -- Hebrews 10:5.|  Getting back to FS's description of what he saw on Russell's books (the winged sun disk symbol), he evidently sees the two arrows pointing to the sun as snakes protruding with "gold tongues," or else he has confused the artwork Russell used with that used by othrs. (In reality, the whole illustration that Russell utilized, as well as lettering, was embossed on the cover in gold, not just those arrows.) Below is a reproduction of the cover of the book, *The Time is At Hand*, so that one may see what actually appeared on the books.   Evidently, FS reports the inner part of the wings that partially encircle the sun as the body of snakes. However, the "sun of righteousness" illustration, as used by Russell, does not actually match the symbol as used by the ancient heathen religions, nor does it match exactly the symbol presented by FS from the Albert Churchwood's book, Signs and Symbols of the Primordal Man, which FS claims to be the Masonic form. The symbol FS presents does have snakes, and possibly that is what FS had in mind when he made his statement. At any rate, one would have a hard time trying to see "snakes" in the illustration that appeared on Russell's books. Below is a reproduction of the symbol as presented in Signs and Symbols of the Primordal Man, so that one may compare and notice the differences in from that which appeared on Russell's books.   So far, we have not found any of the winged sun disk symbols presented to Masonic, pagan, or used for sun worship, that are actually the same as that which Russell used. It seems that the illustration that Russell used may have been designed specifically to represent the sun of righteousness depicted in Malachi 4:2. Nevertheless, if Russell was guilty of anything in using the winged sun symbol on his books, it was just that -- in view of the historical usage of this kind of symbol in idolatry -- it may have been in poor judgment to have used the symbol. On the other hand, should we refuse any benefits from the literal "sun" because the sun is worshiped in idol worship? Should we seek to take the sun out of the sky because it used in idol worship? Does the fact that heathens worshiped the sun make the sun any less a creation of God, or any less a fitting illustration of the Messiah? Should we discard the Bible itself because it has been used in occultic and spiritistic practices? Regardless, almost all publishers of Russell's works today do not include the winged sun illustration on the cover. In his book, The Watchtower and the Masons, FS states: Evidently, the above is meant to leave the impression that Russell was not always consistent in his application of "the Sun of Righteousness" in Malachi 4:2. What it actually does is show how the writer is very capable of making things appear to other than what they really are, that he in general ignores what is actually being spoken of, or that he is only interested in finding what may taken out of context so as to make it appear to supporting his false misrepresentations. The sun itself does indeed represent the rising sun, the Messiah, which, does include all the seed of Abraham by faith, both Jesus and those who come into the covenant with God as the seed through Jesus. Thus 1) and 2) above are actually saying the same thing. The statements presented above regarding the other references, however, are misleading, to say the least. The reference to Harvest Gleanings, Vol. 1, page 417 is not to "righteousness" itself, but rather to "the righteous" (the justified ones) as spoken of Matthew 13:43. It is "the righteous" -- not righteousness itself -- that Jesus spoke of and that Russell identified as "Christ and his glorified church", who are justified, made righteous, through their faith in Jesus. What Russell actually stated: Then FS asserts that Russell says the "sun" represents "truth", and Harvest Gleanings, Vol. 1, page 421 is given as a reference. I am presenting what Russell actually said below: Please not carefully what Russell said! It should be obvious that Russell is still showing the "sun" itself to be Jesus and the church, not "truth" in general. However, as Jesus and the church begin to rule as the sun of righteousness, the truth will begin to figuratively shine from them as the sun of righteousness, just as the physical sun shines forth with rays of light upon the earth. Next we are told that Russell identifies the "sun of righteousness" as Cyrus the Great, and Harvest Gleanings, Vol. l, page 521, is given as a reference. Did Russell identify Cyrus the Great as the "sun of righteousness" as stated? Look as we may on the page given, we will not find any place that Russell identifies Cyrus as the "sun of righteousness". Let us read what Russell actually said: All Brother Russell is saying is that Cyrus is a "type" of Christ, and Russell identifies Christ, not Cyrus, as the "Sun of Righteousness." The final assertion is that Russell taught "Jesus as the center part of the Sun" (Watch Tower Reprints 5135). In The Watchtower and the Masons, FS informs us that Russell "stated that the resurrected Christ was at the center of the sun." Read what Russell actually stated: I do not think that Russell would have thought that he was saying that Jesus was the center "part" of the Sun of Righteousness, or that Jesus was located "at the center" of the Sun of Righteousness. Russell did not use that terminology at all, but rather he seemed to be using the term "center" as meaning the central head of all members of the "Sun of Righteousness". At any rate, the context shows that "sun of righteousness" includes Jesus and the church, in agreement with all the other statements of Russell. The expression "Sun of Righteousness", of course, is figurative in the usage of the word "Sun". As such, Jesus would only be "figuratively" located in the center of this figurative Sun. Then FS states concerning Russell: This in furtherance of the assertion that "Russell at various times gave various interpretations to Malachi 4:2." Point a) The wings as "a great light". What Russell actually said as found in Reprints 3686: There is nothing in Russell's statements that would lead us to think that the "wings" of the "Sun of Righteousness" is being defined as the "the great light", as being distinct from the "Sun of Righteousness". Russell interpreted the "wings" of the "Sun of Righteousness" as being "beams", and thus refers to the "beams" of the Sun of righteousness as bringing healing to the peoples. It appears that he is referring to the figurative beams of sunlight that would figuratively radiate from the figurative sun, as that being symbolized as figurative "wings". However, he is still associating the "Sun of Righteousness" with the promised seed (including Jesus and his church) as fulfilling the "great light" prophecy, not just the "wings". The next assertion concerning Russell's alleged "various interpretations" concerning the "wings", is that Russell interpreted the "wings" as being "beams of Christ" as found in Pastor Russell's Sermons, page 55, and the Watch Tower Reprints page 4557. The sermon referred to is "Messiah's Sharp Arrows", based on Psalm 45:5. Let us read the paragraph in question, from pages 54 and 55: It should be obvious that this quote is not saying anything different about the wings than the earlier quote from Reprints 3686, for the earlier quote reveals that Russell was expressing "wings" as meaning "beams". From Reprints 4557, the paragraph under discussion is: We still find nothing different concerning the "wings" from what is stated in Reprints 3686. In all three references, Russell is identifying the "wings" as "beams", and he presents the figurative "Sun" as representing the Messiah, and thus these beams, of course, would be beams of Messiah. We are next given a reference to the Overland Monthly articles, and the claim is that Russell designates the "wings" as "beams of grace and truth." -- Overland Monthly, p.205. The paragraph being referred to is below: What is Russell saying here? Is he saying anything that conflicts with the earlier quotes? No, rather he is identifying the figurative beams of light as representing the light of grace and truth that will flood the earth in the age to come. This all harmonizes with Russell's other thoughts. FS states further in his book on the Masons: What does Reprints, page 124, actually say? (Please note that by saying "we" the author, presumed to be Russell, is referring the joint-heirs with Christ, the 144,000.) It should be apparent that when Russell said "We will not be here when the 'Sun' rises", that he is not saying that the joint-heirs will not be present at all, but that they will not be here on the earth, since they are joint-heirs with Christ, and thus become part of that Sun of Righteousness. In other words, the joint-heirs with Christ are included in the rising of this figurative sun, and thus will not be present here on the earth when they rise as that figurative sun. This is scriptural. I wouldnÂ’t trust jwfacts 100% after the fiasco they took place with the Russians in a 2 month span, that same man who challenged jwfacts is among those marked by the FSB sadly on their anti-activist/protesting sites for the guy was fighting for those who have been pressured by Russian FSB and the church, reasons why he defended the JehovahÂ’s Witnesses when the Americans started popping up with jwfacts website, not realizing the danger JWs and Christians are under in Russia. You canÂ’t prove his faith and works are not of Holy Spirit, despite him being an imperfect man, especially when you go back to the time before his own birth with the type of family he had and or was born from, for most of them were of Scottish-Irish Christian linage, for these people were die-hard Christians who had migrated to the United States, for any well-informed person or child can identify why and when such people moved to the US in the 1800s. CTRÂ’s parents, Joseph L. and Ann Eliza (Birney) Russell, who were Presbyterian Christians of Scottish-Irish descent and both parents were Presbyterians of Scottish-Irish lineage, ending up in Philadelphia. So clearly, the man knew what it met to be a Christian and by being a Christian, one must show their faith and their works to earn their salvation. As for Pyramid measurements, it has nothing to do with Masons at all, for the earliest of people who ever began to research the Pyramids were indeed Christians, some who even predate CTR, which I have stated before, other than Christians, scholars/writers also did their research for majority of Christians at the time were drawn to the Pyramid of Giza, CTR included who was influenced by those who predated him to see if measurements from the Pyramid can be lined up with bible prophecy and he taught such, as did other Christians, because they felt that such measurements and or study was the key to something biblical and or give them at least an idea or clue of what is to come, ironically what CTR has done, several Christian faiths accepted it and not just the Bible Students, not to mention the confidence of events that took place on 1914-1919 and onward for the Bible Students believed Satan had been cast out of Heaven after the great battle, prior to Jesus becoming King. He did acknowledge those who thought they understood Pyramidology, but uses it for their own sick gains, Spiritualism and the occult. For CTR attacked Spiritualism (which he called Spiritism). Plus among other Christians, CTR took the Great Commission seriously, (Matthew 28:19–20, Mark 16:15–18). Lastly, I am not excusing anyone, because I did my research. You stated that in your source, he got influence from the Masons because of his study of the Pyramids, when the real influence came from a Christian by the name of Joseph A. Seiss, who is an Evangelical Christian. If we go back even further, the study supposedly originated from Metrological Pyramidology, which dates back to the 17th century, notable figures being John Graves. Anyways, I hold several sources and various links to CTR's work, to those that study him, as well as even more valid proof of him not being influenced by any Masons or being affiliated with them while being a Bible Student. In addition to that I have another couple of sources with lack of records of him being a 33 degree, and even the words from Masons themselves. For proof beats assumption quite easily and I can prove from real sources in addition to Christian opposition to Freemasonary. Not a wise decision to eat out of the hands of conspiracy nuts. As for the other WT stuff I will just quote them here. They are quotes from articles, perhaps they are facts until you read from start to finish of what said articles contain, and any Christian who knows about organized religion will coin things such as the Great Commission, Evangelizing works of said church and view of salvation for their church and for others, etc. Especially since the JWs are categorized as "Restorationist" who tend to view themselves as such. Anyways I see you mentioned my first question somewhat. I can tell you right now you are incorrect. I will tell you this so you understand as to why, no matter the Christian denominations, Anti-Region groups are always up in our necks for those who teach what isn't bible canon, saying that we ignore Deuteronomy 4:2 and John 10:35b. The bible isn't 100% accurate because of various scripture violations that has tainted the scriptures, even in the days of our church Fathers, who also fought against most non bible canons that some so called Christians tried to place into what we have know today, but it didn't stop those beyond the 4th century. We know that the bible had not only removed God's name, but placed words and meanings of words over time, adding "Jesus" or "God" where it couldn't be, examples being 1 Timothy 3:16, Revelations 1:11, 1 John 5:7, which are said to be biblical forgeries and did not reflect that of what the disciples have wrote. It is also said that bible verses have been added to the scriptures by translators, Man-Made verses, ignoring anything that pertains to the oldest and most reliable source being the 4th century manuscripts, mainly the Septuagint. These man-made verses can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations Forgeries: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm One of the reasons why any bible other than the KJV/NKJV are not really used by majority of Christians, who tend to stick to their own bibles, despite a FEW errors being carried over, like the addition of Jesus in Jude (Jude 1:5) to make it seem Jesus saved the Egyptians, when it was his Father, this error is in the ESV, but there is a couple of bibles that are revised, and try to maintain to what the oldest sources say. Reasons why Christians have to be careful to say that the bible is 100%, not being aware of the errors and additions that were added to the scriptures, for most Christians do not know any better, I spare for on this one because what is said is true on how some do not know this and can easily be targeted by Anti-Religious groups or in this cased, challenged by a very zealous Christian and or Muslim, or even worse, by an Atheist. Better to be aware of these things than to not know of them at all. Â

I don't care about elders, disfellowship, excommunication, or any of that, I care about your response and your response as a Christian alone, no elders, no jws, no one, but you, and I raise these questions because of how you ignored and or avoided my questions on CTR's influence in your source, even when facts and clear information of said influence is nowhere to be found in said source, for even within your source it gave key points that confute what you even said and or put in bold letters , examples being the study of Pyramids and the Pastor's friends. Let alone the man can't even tell the difference between Templar or Knight is among the Masons, thinking they all function the same way. I come from the CSE Christian community and even there it is a neutral space, but knowledge is often challenged there if we jump around something or ignore something, this includes making claims without legitimate information, as I and others operate there and other Christian forums, such that is asked of you is considered a basic Christian challenge to see where you are really at, since you claim someone to be corrupt, a few simple questions can make the difference between an honest or dishonest Christian in terms of Christologic knowledge and scripture. That being said, you also claim the man is corrupted, so I offer elementary based questions to see if you are not one of the so called Christians who are dishonest or lacking who remain in darkness or maybe an upright honest Christian.are still in darkness. These are fairly easy too so there's no need to avoid them since you have scripture to prove yourself. Also please answer the questions pertaining to what is said in them. I'll ask you again (put numbers next to them): 1. Do you believe that the Bible is 100% inspired by God with pure conviction and what is the most reliable source when it comes to scripture? if Yes/No, Why? and what source is sued known to all Christians today? 2.Why is it that Jesus observed what is seen in the Old Testament and what for exactly? 3. Because of this situation you put yourself in, do you know the scriptural basis of a man or woman, Christian even, when they accuse someone of something out of spite without knowing nothing/being empty handed; at times have caused or causing harm of said person without even landing your hands on them? 4. Why is it that John the Baptist Baptized "his" people in the Jordan River? Galatians 1:10 would help you here, for you choose to ignore what I said before and or go around what I said in terms of your source and so called influence, changing it to someone's love of God's Stone or whatever. Just give a clear response and nothing more, simple as that. A test of faith and honesty as a Christian with only basic questions placed before you. FYI, you contradicted yourself in terms of salvation because of the j organization, for it says something else on their website compared to what you said regarding salvation. For even they stated, Salvation is for ALL people, not jws alone, but to say something without facts just makes you blind.

Sorry if this is late, but this is another reply to what I got from Brother Kel, who shows the difference between how Non-Trinitarians see the verse oppose to the Trinitarians, as well as the Holy Spirit being mentioned, for I will leave this up for anyone else who takes interest in this: Trinitarian Claim Trinitarians 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. The Claim vs. The Facts The Scriptural facts show us that Trinitarians are not only disregarding the immediate context, they are imagining their doctrine into the text. The Problem with the Claim 1. Eisegetical Interpretation The Trinitarian interpretation is simply reading Trinity doctrine into the text. First, the Trinitarian counts, "one, two, three," as he has been conditioned to do, and then tells himself that Matthew 28:19 is referring to the Trinity. Second, the Trinitarian must then suppose that this verse does not simply mean, "God, God's Son, and God's Holy Spirit." Rather, through a feat of some very peculiar mental gymnastics, he imagines that these three are the one God, and by an act of his own will, he decides for himself to label all three as the one God instead of simply recognizing that the one God is one of the aforementioned three. He must also assume, prior to interpreting this verse, that the Holy Spirit is a separate third person. Whenever Trinitarians can count "one, two, three" they somehow imagine this amounts to their three in one God. Why they would think that all three together are to be identified as "God," when one of these three is already identifiable as "God," is a fascinating study in eisegesis and the peculiarities of the Trinitarian mindset. Non-Trinitarians also believe that a relational unity exists between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and so there is nothing unusual about mentioning these three. The issue is the nature of that unity and whether or not these three constitute one Triune God. You will note the passage does not refer to these three as "God." Trinitarians impose that preconceived idea into the passage. Trinitarians want to believe that if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together, this means we are talking about a three in one God in unity of being. However, if only the Father is God and Matthew had intended to illustrate the unity of purpose of God the Father, His Son, and His Holy Spirit, he would need to mention them together. Having a relationship with God and having a unity of purpose with God does not thereby mean one is "God" by identity. Moreover, in the immediately preceding context of this passage, the Son of God declares he has been given all authority in heaven and earth, an obvious reference to the Father handing authority over to the Son. And the Father is already Lord of heaven and earth and does not have to be given any authority since He is already above all since we he is "God" (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21). Jesus was given this authority upon his resurrection and this is precisely what it means for him to have ascended to the right hand of the throne of God (see also Acts 2:36). 2. Two Persons + Holy Spirit = 3 Persons? Trinitarians must assume that three distinct persons are being mentioned here. The plainest reading of the verse tells us that people are to be baptized in the name of: (1) God the Father, (2) God's Son, and (3) God's Spirit. There is no reason here to suppose we are to identify all three as God when God is one of the aforementioned three and God's Son and God's Spirit are mentioned along with God. The Scriptural facts also show us that we cannot presume the Holy Spirit is a separate and distinct third person simply because two persons are mentioned along with the Holy Spirit. The following passage makes this quite clear: For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 1 John 5:8 Three persons? Trinitarians know the Spirit in this verse is their Third Person of the Trinity. Must we then assume that the water and blood are each a person too? Or conversely, should we assume the Spirit is not a person because the Spirit is mentioned with two other things which are not persons? It is rather obvious here that one cannot insist the Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19 is a separate third person because the Spirit is mentioned with two other persons. This Trinitarian claim doesn't hold water as the Bible demonstrates. Trinitarian hypocrisy concerning this claim is also illstrated when we compare this claim with their claims at Genesis 18-19. In Genesis 18, the account identifies three men. It not only sums them up to three in total but the account also tells us that all three are "men" and two of these three men leave the other one behind, go to Sodom, and are identified as angels in the next chapter. Yet Trinitarians deny these are three angels and isn't the third is not an angel even though they were identified as "three men." Matthew 28:19 doesn't sum up anything for the reader nor tell us whether any of them are persons. Nevertheless, we are expected to believe the Holy Spirit is a person because the Father and Son are obviously persons. Why then do these same Trinitarians deny that all three men are angels at Genesis 18 since the other two are angels, especially when the account identifies them all in one category as "three men?" There is even more reason here to believe all three men are three angels than to believe the three at Matthew 28:19 are three persons. But they don't seem to care about truthful consistency and deny their own argument at Genesis 18. Hypocrisy. 3. Questionable Authenticity A certain irregularity occurs in this particular passage. Here Jesus has just declared "all authority has been given to "ME." But he then goes on to say, "Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." One would expect him to say "... all authority has been given to me. Go, therefore, and baptize in my name." Furthermore, we find in the book of Acts that this is precisely just what the disciples ended up doing: baptizing in Jesus' name. We find absolutely nobody baptizing in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Bible. Even further, Jesus goes on to say in this passage, "teaching them to observe all the things I commanded you..." The instruction to keep "all I have commanded" again reflects back on the fact that all authority had been given to "me." He is the authority commanding the disciples to keep his teaching and to teach others to keep his teaching. The phrase "baptizing them in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" seems very out of place within the context All authority is give to ONE (Jesus) Baptize in the name of THREE (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) Teach them to observe all the ONE has commanded (Jesus) This make the authenticity of the verse suspicious even on the fact of it. And even further yet, we find this statement in Luke that Jesus makes after he rises from the dead. Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47). Here we have a very similar concept. Notice the reference to all nations here in Luke just as we find at Matthew 28:18. And on the Day of Pentecost we find the following: Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ whom you crucified." Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:36-38). Notice that the concept here in Acts of God making Jesus "Lord" in his resurrection is the same concept as Jesus words in Matthew, "all authority... has been given to me" at Matthew 28:18. And here we find Peter instructing these men to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. So we find in Acts that all authority has been given to Jesus and so Peter concludes one should be baptized in the name of Jesus. And there is yet one more consideration. It is a well known fact that the ending of Mark is highly questionable. In fact, manuscripts have three completely different endings for the book of Mark. And here we are in a similar situation at the end of Matthew. Matthew and Mark are very similar books. Did somebody intentionally corrupt the endings of both Matthew and Mark? Jesus said, "Go, therefore." The word "therefore" refers back to the fact he had been given all authority. It seems out of context for Jesus to say the reason they should baptize in the name of three because he, one person, had been given this authority. And when we look at the Scriptural fact that nobody baptizes in this manner but they did baptize "in the name of Jesus." It then certainly appears the reasons for questioning the authenticity of this verse is well founded. 4. How Eusebius Quoted this Passage Now one might be quick to dismiss this irregularity but there is even more evidence that this verse might be a corruption. Eusebius, a very important church historian of the early fourth century, appears to have quoted this passage in a form that does not say "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:" "But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”" (History, Book III, IV, 2). And he does it again in another work: What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.” (Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine16, 8). In fact, Eusebius refers to this passage well over a dozen times in the same form as the above quotations. Now you must also be aware that this quotation by Eusebius is also earlier than our earliest manuscripts for this verse. Hence, it is quite possible that a corruption may have orginated here during the Nicean Controversy. The following quotation is particularly interesting: For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his name”. For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth." It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.’ (Demonstatio Evangelica, col. 240, p. 136) Obviously, the manuscript of Matthew being used by Eusebius was different than the words we find in today's Bibles. Eusebius is not the only one to provide us with clues concerning this issue: "In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’, struck out." – Conybeare And even more interesting quotation comes from Clement of Alexandria who is citing a Gnostic and not the canonical text: And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’" - Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare. Therefore, there is weighty evidence that this verse may have been corrupted. These facts are presented here so that you may discern whether a corruption may have taken place. However, early manuscripts such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do read "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," and the Didache refers to baptism in this manner, Justin Martyr seems to allude to the same idea, and Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian quote the verse as "in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Yet again, there may have been two versions of this verse floating around in the early church. Therefore, it would be useful to ask ourselves whether or not this passage would indeed lend any support to the doctrine of the Trinity even if it is authentic. While it is very possible that this verse is a corruption, there is enough evidence to indicate the "Father, Son, Holy Spirit," reading might be authentic. 5. The Greek word for "name" is singular not plural The Greek word for "name" in this passage is singular and not plural. It does not say, "into the names of," but "into the name of." Because it is singular, the Trinitarian argues that it must refer to one. This is absolutely correct. However they also claim that because three persons follow, it also therefore follows that the one thing to which this word refers is one identity which is therefore the one Trinity of three persons, that is, one "God." This is totally incorrect. Here Jesus commands his disciples to baptize "in the name of." In the ancient Jewish world, to do something in someone's name meant to do something under another person's authority, character, reputation, plan and purpose. It implies the idea that a subject of that authority is doing the authority's will for that authority. For example, the phrase "Stop in the name of the Monarchy" does not refer to the King's personal name, his surname nor the King and Queen's personal or surnames together. It refers to the plan and purpose and law of the Monarchy as established by their authority. And now we shall see this is exactly how the term is used at Matthew 28:19. In verse 18, Jesus declares, "all authority in heaven and earth is given to me." He then says, "therefore go." It is a basic tenet of hermeneutics that when one sees the word "therefore" one asks what the word "therefore" is there for. Jesus is expressing a cause and effect statement. Because he has been given all authority, the disciples are therefore to go out and baptize all nations "in the name of." This language refers back to the authority Jesus had been given. It really isn't difficult to demonstrate that Trinitarians are in error concerning their claim concerning the reason "name" is singular. For example: τὸ ὄνομα τῶν πατέρων μου Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 48:16) Notice that "name" is not singular because Abraham and Isaac are the same one identity. It is singular to denote the same one reputation and character of Abraham and Isaac. Notice also the following verse: For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the son of man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of him and of the Father and of the holy angels. Is the word "glory" in singular form because the Son, the Father, and the holy angels are one being, one identity, or one God? Such a claim would be ridiculous. Yet it does not stop Trinitarians from making such a claim at Matthew 28:19 when we have the same kind of grammar. Analysis of the Facts 1. The Flow of the Immediate Context Let us carefully and honestly regard the flow of the immediate context. Jesus first says all authority is given to "me." He then says to go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Why would he indicate all authority has been give to "me" but then say, "Therefore" go and baptize in the name of three? Honestly regard this singularity. If the Trinitarian mindset and flow of thought really made any sense, it should follow that since all authority had been given to Jesus then the disciples should baptize in the name of Jesus and be careful to observe everything Jesus had commanded them and that Jesus would be with them to the end of the age. But this is not what it says. The question is "why?" 2. Baptism Confusion Trinitarians are often very confused by the fact that here the disciples are commanded to baptize in the name of "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," but when these Trinitarians come to the book of Acts, they see that every single occurrence of baptism shows the disciples baptized "in the name of Jesus." The very fact that Trinitarians are confused about this situation betrays their complete lack of understanding and their corresponding misinterpretation of this passage, not to mention the significance of the resurrection of Jesus with respect to his authority. Trinitarians often suppose Jesus is giving his apostles a "baptism formula," that is he is telling them what to say when they baptized people. But if we understand Jesus properly, the reader of the Bible is left completely without any such confusion when he comes to those passages in Acts which describe people being baptized "in the name of Jesus." In fact, Peter tells us that there is no other name by which we can be saved but the name of Jesus. And indeed, Jesus said all authority had been given to him so one would expect that baptism would be into his name if by the word "name" he meant what you were supposed to say when you baptized someone. But that is not what he meant. Jesus was not giving the disciples some words to say when they baptized. What Jesus was saying in Matthew 28:18 is that the Father has given him, the Son, all authority. We must ask how that occurred. This authority is administered by the Holy Spirit in the disciples who baptize all nations. The reason Father, Son, are mentioned together here is because we have just been told all authority has been given by the Father to the Son. The reason Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned altogether is because this authority given to Jesus is administered by his servants via the Holy Spirit. There is absolutely no reason to suppose we have a three person God on our hands. So when we come to the book of Acts and see them baptize in the name of Jesus we should not see this as contradicting Jesus' instructions in Matthew. Baptizing them in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was not something they were suppposed to say out loud when they were baptizing. Jesus was explaining on what terms they would be doing this baptizing. Since Jesus had been given all authority he would now send out these disciples in HIS name because HE had been given that authority by the Father. And Jesus sent them out by filling them with the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). Conclusion To try and claim this passage indicates that that all men should be baptized into a three person God ignores the facts for the sake of personal imaginations. Counting, "one, two, three" amounts to three not a three in one God. To insist that "name" here is a proper name of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is an hermeneutic violation of the immediate context ignoring the fact that all (singular) authority had been given to Jesus alone. This occurred when God raised him from the dead and seated him at His right hand. The one thing which the singular "name" is pertaining to, is not the identity of a Triune God, but the one authority of God the Father through God's Son in God's Holy Spirit. The disciples are to do these things in the name of the authority of the Father, given to the Son, by the Holy Spirit. And this is why Jesus commanded his disciples to do nothing until they had received the Holy Spirit from on High (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5,8; 2:33,36). The interpretation presented here is demanded not only by the ancient concept of a "name" but the force of the immediate context and the consistent testimony of the Scriptures. As such, the word "name" is not a reference to one identity, but to one plan and purpose of authority. The Trinitarian interpretation essentially ignores the context for the sake of reading their doctrine into the text. There is absolutely no reason to resort to mental gymnastics and identify all three as God since God is one of the aforementioned three.

Ramzan Kadyrov isn't too kind to Christians that are not part of the Orthodox church, as well as not being very kind with Muslims. When you go to the Russian side of the net, even its media, a lot of things. For any friend of Putin is a friend of Ramzan.

In all seriousness, there is no job for me to do because I already know such information because I did the research well over 8 years ago and have been in communities whereas stuff like this is talked about time and time again, resulting in being well versed in this stuff, in addition to speaking to former masons and being able to differentiate them when it comes to Christians. You yourself haven't done anything pertain to this "job" you speak of. For you were the one who pointed people in a direction to look and read to see where you are coming from, even a source to your alleged claim and when nothing is found to support your claim, you still hold on to it as if there is any value in something that is dangerously lacking, for you pointed your claim to a single page, that bares no fruit of any kind of influence from the Masons in regards to the Pastor. People already know who CTR is (be it religious or not), and aside from being glued to a videos made by obvious opponents and conspiracy theorists, said persons went out on their own to do the research and found out that the majority of "The Restorationist Movement", this includes the Bible Students, were not a fan of Freemasons despite even knowing some or did they practice what the Masons did (i.e. down playing Jesus, using God the Father's name alongside false gods, Blood Oaths, etc.), as CTR stated in your source "subdivided", for it applies to not only Christians, but other faiths and denominations. I am going to assume, 110% with conviction, that you have nothing that bares convinced to your claim vs the sources I know of, even on another prominent Christian forums that agree that the pastor was not a Mason or influenced by them. You are simply doing this out of spite, and ignoring the context of what your source has to say. Therefore, you have not brought to light anything of interest, instead, a nothing burger, resulting in you still being in the dark for you will need to do proper research, and if you say otherwise, there is a plethora of sources, facts, information from other Christians, former Masons, and even Non-Religious folks, as well as proof to counter anything you say in regards to your claim, for I was awaiting a response from you that may at least peek my interest, but nothing yet, even when I asked a couple of times. But it seems all you do, and probably further on, is avoid your own claims when questioned, no one here is playing games, we are trying to get down to facts here and truth, games are for children. To say this man alone is corrupt just shows how ill-inform you in Christology and the history of Movements that spread throughout the US and the globe, as do many I confronted before and you after you, even the Christians who has caused what is going on around the world in regards to a decline of the faith. Fleshy Desires? From a man who was born to potatoes farming immigrants is pretty vague statement when you say something without prove of it, especially if you couldn't prove any sort of influence, I already gave you one influence regarding the Pyramid and the study of Pyramidology (which predates any of CTR's works excluding the 1914 date) and from whom CTR gain the influence from when this study began boomed in the US and across the globe, which was BIG among Christian Theologians. That being said, to say an imperfect man has corrupted the teachings of God's word without facts to back it up is rather telling, especially coming from another Christian who quotes the bible, not sure if you interpret the bible too, which you haven't in every post in this thread. Anyways, sort of off-topic, since you address someone of whom you have no prove of being influenced by the Masons, and calling him corrupt or saying he has falsified God's word, I want to see if you are not messed up and or lacking either just to see where you stand as a Christian, to see if you are a CP or a MS based Christian, I will inform you on what those mean afterwards depending on your answer to the below. I will ask you 4 questions since you yourself, avoided to answer me several times already, for it is only fair, and to make it even more of a challenge, it will be both bible canon history, which will show if you yourself isn't like the corrupted Christians that you mentioned. and scripture and you assume he is corrupt, let's see if you yourself is corrupt, a test of scriptural intelligence: 1. Do you believe that the Bible is 100% inspired by God with pure conviction and what is the most reliable source when it comes to scripture? if Yes/No, Why? and what source is sued known to all Christians today? 2.Why is it that Jesus observed what is seen in the Old Testament and what for exactly? 3. Because of this situation you put yourself in, do you know the scriptural basis of a man or woman, Christian even, when they accuse someone of something out of spite without knowing nothing/being empty handed; at times have caused or causing harm of said person without even landing your hands on them? 4. Why is it that John the Baptist Baptized "his" people in the Jordan River? You can continue to speak of CTR to prove your claims from your source (I seen the video already, debunked ages ago by Christians and even Muslims), but when you response to me, you will also have to answer these questions, since the coined "corruption" I want to see if you yourself isn't corrupted either. And I can tell you this, most Christians answer honorably.  There are 2 things I don't like: Trinitarians who assume what early Christians thought and defend man-made scriptures and false bible canons and Dishonest Christians who lack prove of any claims they make and or assume things without proper research, resulting in certain people bashing/insulting Christianity even harder.

For you said CTR "was or has taken high influence from the Freemasons", now you say "his love for God's Stone Witness", which shows you can't seem to make up your mind; the source you gave that addressed God's Stone wasn't looked into further, but I am somewhat sure that you knew this was even in the source aside from Masonry assumptions. No need to use jwfacts either, for such was debunked refuted by those who study CTR (several critical sources including the one guy who is on a warpath against any jwfact information of CTR, in addition to his dislike of man who took over after CTR), even some jws have stepped up to do the same thing, as well as other Christians. Even the Russians, for an Orthodoxy Russian Activist gave to quite a show with information to those who linked jwfacts, for not only actual information was brought up by this guy, but those who weren't even religious chose his side over what is present in any jwfacts CTR information that tries to paint the man as a Mason. For a guy who says you never called CTR a Mason, you seem to be tapping that button ever so faintly, perhaps you already know the answer to your own thought of this deceased pastor who had left behind a legacy that is supposedly continued by several groups. As for me, I am well aware of CTR, and as I stated before, I know a lot about Christianity's history, for that is vital for a Christian to know of their past, including all denominations. when you know much, you can see who is either close to what is true and who is far from it. I am quite knowledgeable in Christian history and scripture to back things up even, even to the point of pointing out what is not bible canon or bibically inspired by God. Lastly, the man I stated who is on a warpath, he has run into the anti-jw troop regarding CTR, and I can tell you this, he left no stone un-turned, and he gave out strong information that pretty much threw most of what jwfacts said about CTR out the window, in addition, the guy tends to rage anytime past JW members from the early-mid 1900s are mentioned. There are quite a few that follows this guy, but because of the JWs from the older days, his criticism is on high. He can easily be found in the link posted (anything to do with CTR or conspiracy of Freemasonry) to the somewhat neutral website that consist jws, non jws, former and other Christians tend to go to whereas his comments can be found there. The guy goes by the name Reslight. There are others, JWs and Christians of other denominations (Non-Trinitarian of course) who have been stamping out false claims of CTR for a while now, so it is kind of futile to push something that has been debunked and cast aside as Old Information, for even the non-religious look into this stuff. As for the Russians, someone pointed out a jwfacts link to them regarding the JW's tower logo, again, Russian orthodox/Activist refuted this back when the videos were not blocked, which makes people tend to avoid "Anti-Religion" websites far more often than before, so to anything said on that website, there is clearly a whole other side to any claims made. What is a shame is that if the video was not blocked, I would have posted it here as evidence. PS: If you are going to use scripture, make sure you are not within the realm of conspiracy and falsehood when it comes to speaking what is true, for it makes scripture pretty much wrong to use (Hebraic violation has some call it since you used Isaiah) if you cannot confirm said person of wrongdoing, i .e. attempting to prove that a bible pastor has been influenced by Masons/who being a member of without anything to back it up, mind you, this is like the early-mid 1900s. If I wasn't familiar with majority of Christian Church Fathers, teachings,denominations among Christianity, then I would have instantly speculated or assume of what you are trying to sell here.

No need to bring up the Watchtower and or JWs because the focus here is a pastor by the name of Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Zion Watchtower (not the current one), as well as part of the Bible Student Movement, for Jehovah’s Witnesses were not a thing until later on, even though their Predecessor is the Bible Student Movement. Pretty much everything that is before them becoming the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and expanding, years after CTR’s death. You said before that CTR was “highly influenced” by the Masons, but what you presented from your one and only source, it is rather lacking, and quite vague, even from where exactly you wanted me to read (which I have read the page you addressed) and continued on my own to read, I see no influence here or a pastor succumbing to influence, just a pastor trying to converse what the bible says to a group Freemasons who think they are on a path to God. You highlighted the following: “In fact, some of my very dear friends are Masons, and I can appreciate that there are certain very precious truths that are held in part by our Masonic friends.” The man is well known among other denominations that differ from his faith, for those he calls friends are not exclusive to the Bible Student Movement group only, for he had spoke of Presbyterian friends, Methodist friends, Baptist friends, Congregational friends, and Roman Catholic and Church of England friends, etc. So this guy knows people and has friends in various places, even among Masons, so I don’t see the influence as you claim from that sole source. Despite having friends of other denominations, he sticks to what he believes as true compared to the others. This information is quite evident when you are familiar with the history of Christianity itself, let alone the Christian Restorationist Movements that boomed in the past. Anyways, as for page 914 (into 915), it continues on to state the following: Please don’t do what the dishonest “Cos” did, to where you take paragraphs from, mark the actual page number of which you pulled it from (example: “da da di do da da”. - page 9999) Anyways, [Page 914] “As Christian people, Bible Students from all denominations, it would seem that we have something in our faith that is in sympathy and harmony with each denomination, the world over. Do our Presbyterian friends speak of the election? We more. Do our Methodist friends have the doctrine of free grace? We more. Do our Baptist friends understand the importance of baptism, to some extent? We more. Do our friends of the Christian denomination, and our Congregational friends, appreciate the great privileges of individuality in church government? We more." And then continues with the Masons: "Do our Masonic friends understand something about the Temple, and being Knights Templars, and so on? We more." After that CTR continues: "Do our Roman Catholic and Church of England friends believe in a Universal church? We more. [Page 915] In other words, it would seem as though the message of God's Word has been more or less subdivided, and each denomination has taken hold of a piece of the truth, and around that bit of truth has gathered a good deal that we think is erroneous." CTR shows confusion between the relationship of the Knights Templar to Masons. CTR appears to have thought of the Knights Templar as being a higher order of Mason, he also assumed that all Masons professed to be “Christian”, and thus he thought of the Masons similar to that of a “Christian denomination”. The truth he saw in his conversation with the Masons was basically that of the usage of temple as designating the “building of character”. CTR, however, often used the word "friends" very loosely, as can be seen even in his sermon. For The Temple of God Sermon, it is critically evident to my response somewhere above as to whom he calls “friends”. So, as for the highlighted and bold text you have on full display, there is no influence due to him having been influenced by friends that are Masons, let alone friends of other denominations, in addition to that, he assumed the Masons were Christians, only to later say what I have stated before, in addition to his confusion of the Masons not being Christians. Lastly, pertaining to my last comment, he did state the following about the Masons. He is oblivious to how the Masons roll when it comes to “grips” of hands, but he had also held firm to what he thinks of the unchristian practices of Masons. Your next highlight: “about the Great Pyramid, which is the very emblem they use, and what the Great Pyramid signifies” That’s from page 916, not 914. A lot of people knew this already, but this is not where he has taken his influence for calculating 1914 by means of Pyramidology. The Great Pyramid in question is none other than the infamous, and yet mysterious, Great Pyramid of Giza (Also known as Pyramid of Khufu or the Pyramid of Cheops), located in Egypt. We know CTR was involved with Pyramidology because in the early 1890s (1891), this type of study had boomed a global audience (a lot of people and groups). Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Bible Student Movement was among those who were intrigued by the Pyramid study, and he himself took it upon himself to study the pyramid, which resulted in him lining up the year 1914, which Jehovah’s Witnesses today hold that year of high importance and a reminder of them to them to maintain faith and be vigilant. Ironically, other than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, there were those who took into account CTR’s study and the 1914 date itself about a dozen of other groups, some of them do not exist anymore, I could be wrong. For there was a time of relative peace and suddenly out of the blue, between the 1914-1919 periods, an assassination that shocked the world, violence, war, death and chaos due to World War I, the mass spread of a dangerous epidemic that claimed 50 million+ lives, globally, etc. That being said, there were those before CTR who have studied the pyramid Joseph A. Seiss, a Lutheran minister, who was an advocate for the study of Pyramidology. Joseph was known for his religious writings on Pyramidology, as well as Dispensationalism, a religious interpretive system for the Bible (Hermeneutics). One of his works in 1877, “The Great Pyramid of Egypt, Miracle in Stone: Secrets and Advanced Knowledge”, is considered a primary text of Pyramidology. As for influence regarding the “Great Pyramid”, it was he who had influenced Charles Taze Russell of this study when it rounded up a global audience, resulting in CTR going there to study and manage to get calculations that relate to scripture. Russell believed that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built by the Hebrews under God’s direction, but to be understood those before them, well people of the modern day. CTR adopted and used Seiss's phrase, referring to it as "The Bible in Stone". Another man by the name of John Taylor, not sure of his religious background, however this man was publisher and writer, who also took to the study of Pyramidology. So in regards to “influence” of CTR regarding the Great Pyramid, it was Joseph A. Seiss, and information on this is as clear as the sky and the big blue sea. Plus Christian Theologians seem to study Giza, not many today do it still, either it is too difficult, time consuming or the like, or just abandon it altogether. After CTR’s death, the practice had either ceased or was abandon in the early 1920s prior to the Bible Students soon becoming the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, despite abandoning the study, as did many, Jehovah’s Witnesses seem like the few who take into account of those who actually did do Pyramidology, i.e. Charles Taze Russell’s work. Your final highlight: “Our Masonic friends have it down very fine. I do not know where they got it so well. I have often wondered where they found out so many of the secrets of our High and Accepted Order of Masonry.” This is from page 921, not 914. Pretty much to what I stated before, but yeah, there is nothing in regards to influence where, as you claim. I’ll ask you again: Where is it that CTR was “highly influenced/taken influence” by the hands of the Masons or any type of Masonry for that matter? If you response by saying “he used Mason symbols” it will not go well for you in the with anything pertaining to that response because some people, myself included, have done that song and dance before. That being said, I know a lot about how Freemasons operate, because I spoke to former Masons who were formerly grandmasters and if you don’t really have much but vague information to support such claims, I am just going to assume that you don’t have sufficient sources, you only used one that didn’t say much or speak of things outside CTR’s sermons, you either consider one a mason without vital information, or you want to take on unsuspecting people who may not know or know very little about a Restoration Christian who led a Bible Student Movement that later became the very people who you may seem to be against out of spite. Buddy, you'd be surprised of how much I know of Christianity's denominations, all kinds, very experienced and knowledgeable I am because the type of way I role is to learn of each one, see their way of understanding, even though I myself is a Unitarian who try to maintain hat was taught by Church Fathers of old, most importantly, I know scripture very well. No one is on to what is true 100%, however, there are those who do what is needed to be at least close to truth than far from it, as the main streamers do, who are far from truth. For it is better to be closer to the light at the end of the tunnel than far form it. Out of all denominations, the one that is more damaging is the practice of the Trinity part of the sole decline in Christianity in Europe and Asia, and slowly in America, which in itself, is somewhat of a practice to today's Masons, as well as their past counterparts. Anyways, I would really like it if you answer the question in terms of influence within page 914 of the source you have, "Pastor Russell's Convention Discourses". Please me knowledgeable about it too because no one likes to waste time here when sent on a goose chase to find nothing.

We see this as normal, but somewhere in the world, some guy(s) somewhere, in a basement will take said animals related pictures and re-create it into something explicit, catering it to those who get triggered by such things. It is a long sickening practice, and it cannot be prevent, especially when it revolves around the Internet, media, and social spaces. As for pornography, it is propaganda in someway. Either they cater to their audience or recruit, and when that happens, change of hands and money is involved and the cycle repeats itself. The so called people who cater sickening entertainment to people don't care about anyone but their money. Other times it stems to the far more explicit and illegal aspect of things that is also a whole other big issue on its own, and it is quite common around the globe. The thing is here, sex sells in the US, EU, Asia, etc, this also includes the illegal shadowy stuff that people seem to shy away from such as human sex trafficking and the like. As long as money is involved and when the audience can get their kicks, there will always be those who will be victim to sexual immorality, which includes masturbation, and among those affected, said individuals will be the ones with problems they can't seem to break free from for urges of such is that strong and that much of addiction to some. That being said, it is a wise thing to educate people, to teach them, especially if you ant to make a household, a community, a church, a school be morally upright, taking the steps necessary how you see fit to do this.

There is more examples on that in regards to that video. The internet is full of em.

That your only source? I am sure there is probably more than that you can sure in terms of influence (or high influence), as well as the other things listed in blue in my previous post. I read page 914 and onward, somewhat contradicting to your claims in the pages ahead, this influence you speak of isn't that much sufficient as you claim in your source. Got anymore? That being said, people who seem to state one has an influence in something lean towards accepting said conclusions, therefore, those who "think" someone is something may feel as though said person is something they assume and you are not the first to say this so-and-so is a Mason or have masonic influence. Anyways this is what he said: Although I have never been a Mason ... Something I do seems to be the same as Masons do, I don't know what it is; but they often give me all kinds of grips and I give them back, then I tell them I don't know anything about it except just a few grips that have come to me naturally. Note:Throughout his ministry he said that he believed Christian identity is incompatible with Freemasonry. He described Freemasonry, Knights of Pythias, Theosophy, and other such groups as "grievous evils" and "unclean". He made this comment at a Masonic Hall in San Francisco during a "speaking tour" around June 1913. Plus most Christians back then are neutral or not a fan of Masons, others tend to reason with them, attempt to convert them.

There wasn't a purpose to bring up the Catholic Church (even though they are not free of such things) to begin with, especially when pedophilia, child abuse, and the like is public ally evident to the world as it is. I am a Unitarian, and I can say that our denominations are not clean either, just a few months ago, a Unitarian Universalist Minister was arrested for he having/watching pornography regarding children and even going to chat-room and stating the he wants to rape his young victim and kill them after sexual abuse, mind you, this is a Minister, who only received 5 years in prison and supervised by authorities. I wouldn't say "jws in general" some of them are well aware, and even educated about child abuse, plus they, as do every other religion, their individuals differ by race and culture, for even thought one shares the same faith, they differ by these two things. It is very evident even on some of their articles on their website that can easily be searched, in addition to that, there is another forum elsewhere that the case of child abuse was brought up, since the site was neutral, you had most Christian denominations speak to each other, even JWs who were present, of which all gave their 2 cents on the issue at hand, even addressing that pedophilia in itself is indeed a problem that is very difficult to combat. As for "cover-up" as you said, no one is going to put on the front pages of their own site that such things happen, for in the realm of religion and law, said individuals are open to handle the situations themselves, internally at times. Even though some educational and religious organizations look good, they do whatever it take to clean what sullies them. If I am not mistaken, they have released some stuff in the past on their own, I don't see how that is a cover up, or one's ability to handle situations internally. Most common cases for any form of abuse tends to stem from the family household itself, be it the father or the mother, if the abused can't get help from a school or a church, at times both will tell you to go to the police, other times they will go to the police for you, and if they help they tend to do this internally so things who blow up in people's faces. Other situations the abused victim will get the help of other family members, friends and cousins who will do the same thing, advise you to go to the police or they will do it for you. This goes for businesses as well, when you go on their website, Barclays Capital (I worked for them before) is an example, they will not put in your face what goes on within their company, they will handle things internally on their own or getting the law enforcement involve if they choose. That being said, people, well the world, isn't oblivious to child abuse, and among good persons there are bad ones, those who "infiltrate" to do things of their own desires i.e. child abuse. We are all imperfect. Another thing we have to watch out for is false flags, accusing one person of such crime by pure allegations that lack evidence. There was a fine example of a 19 year old who's whole life was ruined by a teenage girl. Since the 19 year old was charged and marked as a sex offender, this story is somewhat categorized as child abuse. But yeah, educating one of issues helps prevent child abuse, and steps taken for either the school/church to help the victim/family, an the victim/family themselves need to educate and take steps too.

The issue is regarding masturbation and what such a habit leads to. And yes, "it is" a growing problem, especially among younger people and young adults. Some people choose to educate and even make rules regarding masturbation because they want to better protect people from it, and those who are educated are less likely to succumb to such an addiction. Should one be affected by masturbation and pornography, there are those who are well equipped to handle with those in suffering. Just because you have a process in your body, doesn't mean you should be okay with such acts, this has been said before by the community who fight against masturbation and pornography 24/7, by those who share stories and testimonies of how troubling such an addiction is. I already have some experiences with some, as I already stated before, even losing a friend to the addiction, which led her to pornography, to depression and eventually, when she took her own life and the troubles my brother faced. There is no "why" in the age, it is pretty evident, there are urges that the flesh cannot control, and eventually, the individual will give in. There are many examples, some a bit explicit than others on how an addiction worsens over time to those who succumb to it and does not do anything about it. It may seem okay to one person, but to another it is seen as something vile and something very shameful, especially if the person who sees it as such is the one with the problem. Never mentioned pedophilia or one becoming as such due to masturbation and porn, however, pornography encourages and caters to them, giving them the tools and the how to for child grooming and or the creation of whatever vile practices they. For Pedophilia is classified as a psychological disorder ( DSM 5). It is a very difficult psychological disorder to treat, for there are programs, therapies, counseling, etc that can prove somewhat useful. Pedophilia root of originate is not yet known, some just consider the addiction was with the person from the time they were born and the disorder itself begins to flourish as they grow or over time they developed an interest in children or those younger than them, regardless of the sex of the targeted individual. but they tend to look into various types of things that gives them sexual gratification, to distribute, to share, to receive, etc. At times they tend to enact such actions on targets of their choosing. The Adult Industry does not get a lot of flack, especially for some of their viewed content consist women portraying the roles of teenage girls or cartography themselves as children in the presence of a grown man, the same thing happens when the roles are in reverse. That being said, feeding the addiction worsens it. It amazes me how majority in America does not know how masturbation and watching porn causes some form of depression and low self-esteem, lack of confidence in oneself, and a few times, it also causes one to go on a suicidal path because they feel that their is no hope for them, somehow they were exposed/mocked for their habits and the like. Luckily, as I said before, there are a couple of large communities, that work as one, to help such people, give advise, share their stories, and encourage anyone, for should you relapse into porn and masturbation, you can get back up and continue to fight it until you are free from it. They help anyone, regardless of one's background, religion, race, etc. At times, they had one time helped someone who thinks he is under the impression that he may be a pedophile. Masturbation and porn to the majority is seen as normal, disregarding the effects it can cause in some individuals, among the people there are those who see masturbation and porn as a problem, a growing one due to some statistics in the past couple of years. There will always be people to instruct, there will always be those who will educate, and help out should any man, woman or child succumbs to the addiction of masturbation and pornography. It may be a laughing matter to some here, but for me, it is a serious issue, and I have witnessed some things firsthand and talked with people, just like the communities who speak of this addiction, they too consider it a growing problem, and have the real world experience to share with others in order to help combat the addiction.

Hmmm, so you're one of those people who consider that God/God's Kingdom is in your heart? Ok. Anyways, as for using people's work and all, it depends on the group and person. The creator of said content, if he, she or they wanted, they can go after someone who is copying their work. Examples being, like taking someone's book, re-writing everything in said book on another book or something like that, then that isn't fair use right there, that is not just copying, but plagiarizing someone's work. This goes for other constant such as art, music, etc. Dunno if you are a fan of Nintendo, but they will go after you not only for copying their work, but for using their characters, other organizations and companies will do the same thing and at times it would be the victim, user of the content, in some deep trouble, at times, financial-wise.

lol :D. What is known about him is that his Presbyterian Family were immigrants, Christian Potato Farmers, who moved to the United States. That being said, if any robot were to show up in his day and age, he would have, as with the others, ran for the hills lol.

Come on, man, let's not be vague about this. influences such as? And yes, stuff like this is important because it helps one see if the so called individual is really a Freemason and not some tinfoil-hattery madness that is being thrown about. So if you would be so kind, you may be able to provide some of what is listed below, if possible, since you know, you said the man was a Freemason or assuming he is one, the so called Bible Student leader, with parents who are Potato Farming Immigrants. Any Tenet(s), made, accepted, and or bounded to? You said he was influenced by the Masons, the very group he tends to bad-mouth talk about even on their home turf, can you provide the information you claim so I can see how it lines up with those who know CTR very well for a span of 50+ years and their sources? Do you have any Registry information and Status; Mason database info? Info on any Blood Oaths made (physically if possible or just sworn b him), information regarding this? Did he have any Templar knights, deans, and Lewis' at his disposal? Why wasn't he punished for saying/talking about Jesus when that in itself is disrespect to Masons, how was he able to avoid grounds of excommunication because of this? Why wasn't punishment made for him preaching for preaching is grounds of excommunication as well as talking about Jesus? Why did he speak God by name "Jehovah" when it is Mason standard to take the name and mix it in with other Gods of the Masons? For Masons did take "Jehovah" and turned it into "Jao" to merge it with other false god names. How did he start the Bible Students if he is a Mason when Christians at the time didn't even like Masons, Russell included? When asked why did he speak vile of Masons when the motto for masons is to "talk" about the brotherhood when confronted, where was the change? Did he say anything about wanting to be "Like God" or "Equal to God" who Masons consider The Grand Architect, as all Masons seem to want such a thing and consider it a goal, did he say anything as such? Did he encourage charity work and building foundations from charity works (for charity work is a "major priority" to Masons; high standard even)? Did he get the "book on pedestal" when recruited like all masons do, lodge number and data? Lodge/Grand Lodge Information if possible? Info from when before he was a 33 degree. Was he a Liberal? Yes this is vital too. If he is a 33 Degree Freemason, where is his Masonic history, let alone the Lodge of someone of the highest rank? this is vital information. When was he given the rank of 33 Degree Freemason and what was his previous rank before he hit the highest one? This is just some of the things one can see who is really a Mason and who isn't, this is just several out of a dozen things that would consider one a Mason. I know this much because I have clanged Masons in the past, others, former Masons, were kind to give detailed information and the like that prove useful, in other words, to combat thy enemy, you must know thy enemy. I know enough to say what I said and I am quite familiar with Freemasonry myself. When it comes to information, you have to provide in order for people to see what you are claiming, I will give you an example below: An example: Roscoe Pound, who is a Mason. How is this known? He is the founder of Society of Innocents, he is/was a former member of the Lancaster Lodge No. 54. He served as Deputy Grand Master for the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1915 and delivered a series of Masonic lectures. He helped to found The Harvard Lodge A.F. & A.M. along with Kirsopp Lake (also a Mason) a Professor of the Divinity School, and others. Both of them appear in Freemason Registry and Databases with their information and connection to others. Another well known Mason is the US president, the 1st one, George Washington, in addition to that, King James I and Francis Bacon, both of whom were involved with the King James Bible, were also Masons. I have been around the block, for that is how I roll, reasons being is to know the true enemy, you must learn about the enemy, and Masons are somewhat as a minor threat to Christianity. That being said, just because some guy is throwing symbols around does not make him 100% Mason. For Christians in the past have spoke of Masonry and gave examples from the work of Masons to prove how dangerous of a group they truly are.