Space Merchant

Really? This was the same image from the original post when you were asked. Nowhere in that small snippet did we see: Acknowledgement that, to your claim, they attested to God's Day being 1975. Nor anything pertaining to the End of the World on that day or year in general. The image in question does speak of the End Times (as most of their articles even archives pertain to) but nothing suggest the latter claim which was proven to be false by many, even by EXJWs. To @Pudgy he was right about those crying about wolves... Only in this case, there is literally no wolf... That being said, every time I asked you, to show evidence, you go around it, and relied on speculation and assumption. This is why others, be it JW, EXJW, etc, should they do the research it will ultimately scatter, no, reduce the old 1975 claim into oblivion. The irony of it all is the alluded quote I mentioned to @Srecko Sostar was from your original thread prior to the one JWI made who, at the time, was annoyed by yet another 1975 thread. Again, we all witness here, once again, you attest to using a false speculative narrative to re-write history, exposing you for justifiable cause aka, Agenda. As a side note, there was no publication or whatever article they had at the time, even Archived, that ever suggested that 1975, let alone the 70s that God's Day will come. Again - 1 John 4:1 is used against you. I don't know if you've been living in isolation for years, but if you didn't know, Christians been stating the End Times is near and or Tribulations times are to come, etc. something to that effect. Although we do not know when, it does not mean we can take something out of context to assume otherwise. If you make a claim so and so said this or that, at least back it up, but again, unfounded.

You seem to be out of focus. Something was said, and some people assume otherwise, therefore, their move begot an action whereas some believed God's Day to be of that year vs those who understood, and took in context. This is no different from what Psaki and the OMG WE ARE ABOUT TO GET NUKED troop running around the community. Not sure what Spiritualistic rhetoric is that, but you'll have to elaborate what you are conveying. If you imply they see themselves as perfect prophets, then that is a bad assumption, for we been through this route before, as is with @Witness who alluded to the same notion a while back when in reality they are imperfect at all. All of us are imperfect. There is a difference in a prophet inspired and a prophet not inspired. Yet no mention of God's Day being 1975 in regards to claim. Tough crowd.

You were quite direct, I only mentioned as to what I was referring to, and it was not anything in this thread. The focus I was focused on was one's experience, in which JWI explained and Srecko agreed, which was in 2018. JWI was not talking about prophecy, more so experience. Srecko reacted in agreement. Perhaps, but the evidence to what I was referring to is below: Prophecy was talked about briefly, but it was more so what actually occurred that day. You, at the time, was active on the forum when the 1975 threads popped up, so you may or may not have seen it. JWI was more concerned about honesty today, in addition to that he stated that no Watchtower article or Watchtower publication ever said that the world was going to end in 1975 yet @Witness, @Srecko Sostar and @Patiently waiting for Truth say otherwise, as with their community, with @Witness attesting to claim boldly. Then you have the Trinitarian Mainstream fanatics who come around, believing the same thing too, namely the Deserter of Christ, who was defended by the latter. There were a few EXJW who broke formation from their own community, like the YouTuber I mentioned.

This is true because there was a situation not really known by the general public. A situation that was thrown under the rug and forgotten. Blood is prone to and open to contamination also. Then you have the illegal markets and project Ambrosia, and the Religion of Transhumanism.

JWs refuse blood because of a law that is still intact via New Covenant. Even outside of JWs, people cannot give/take blood due to cultural reasons and superstition. Some Anti-Trinitarian Christians do not take blood or give it. So in short, if a Law is still intact, it should not be ignored, therefore, it stands. There was an SDA who got into a heated argument with people, some who attempted use JWs as a shield, and of course, some from your community tried to refute these people, and failed. That being said, blood transfusion is a gold standard, not everyone is for it, even the non-religious, so they look for alternatives. As for Core Teachings, it involved keeping God's Laws. Mainstream usually target JWs for this, as with those they influenced, the EXJW. They also target some Jews and some Muslims for they have a parallel view on blood. Now if said Law was no where to be seen in relation to the New Covenant, then yes, that would be out of the Core Teachings concerning Christians keeping the law. That said, The Blood of the Christ is valuable.

Then would you be so kind to tell us what you told me a while back, that the JWs claim 1975, from your source (reddit) was indeed the end of the world? So far the notion of 1975 is simply concludes to human history, as the EXJW claimed before the Cedar troop took him down.

You alluded to it concerning prophecy, it being from a publication is irrelevant, and the response was the whole situation dwelled on speculation. Therefore the EXJW claim [1975 the JW said God's day will come; the world will end] is false. The truth is concerning human history, nothing more.

To this day the Mainstream still believe that they are like the early church when they are not.

I do not think he is aware of what Core Teachings actually are, hence the other remarks he made.

I'm referring to a remark JWI said in 2018 in which Srecko agreed, JWI explained his experience around that timeframe of 1975, the 70s. Has nothing to do with any remark made here. 1975 was brought up due to Srecko's remark. The problem with it is EXJW made a bold claim concerning that year and their claim has been looked at as a truth. Yet, when people began talking and do the research, they see the cracks in the EXJW armor, so much so, even those in their own community were essentially attacked and or ostracized for seeing the so called claim to be false speaking of their findings, likewise, with onlookers. Therefore, the claim that was highlighted in which the latter believes, is false. Concerning 1975? The situation was essentially F.U.D. for some who heard differently.

@Pudgy Essentially like an adversary of mine, in which this deranged woman lies due to actions she has committed, and somehow said or cohorts by means of a rallying cry, insult and slander. She says one thing, some believe it, others don't and pay for it.

That is what happens when there is a high level of speculation - F.U.D. (buy the rumor sell the news). It is no different from a recent example, Jen Psaki, or the notations of an international conflict only to push an Agenda. In the end, those who understood, knew context, those who do not, take ill action, and reap the seeds of their labor.

This is comparable to the people like Jen Psaki. Just the other day she had the general public highly misinformed about inflation, and some people bought it, others did the research and refuted it.

Not really because I had given evidence to the notation a while back, likewise with the fact a YouTuber, who is a former JW who debunked the whole thing only to be terminated by the EXJW community because they didn't want what he said about 1975 to come to the light. Likewise with another source found prior to the shut down of Yahoo Answers. NOTE: Concerning the YouTuber, you and Witness were told this already, even previously: NOTE: JWI even gave you his experience in which you agreed with him. In regards to that it was addressed many times, this is why many, JWs, EXJWs, and those looking in have come to refute the 1975 claims (debunking) after an ample amount of research was done, as is some people actually getting the perspective of those who were there that when the JWs gathered (those who were still alive who understood context). Further evidence also pertains to what @Witness posted a while back vs the 70s whereas when things are said, people often profess speculation aka the legitimate notation of F.U.D. was present then and those who believe it now. If the latter regarding to 1975 was incorrect (that being, the JWs), as you and several claim, then it would not have stopped you, @Witness and @Patiently waiting for Truth to actually quote what equates to the highlighted [the world is going to be destroyed in 1975] directly, several times you were asked, every time you either dodge the question or simply do not know and begin to rant. In Butler's case, he mentioned that they specifically said this exactly, when asked for the quotation, he could not find anything, therefore, bought the lie, hence the Agenda. As for the EXJW that was terminated off of YouTube, the EXJW community effectively cut off his livelihood granted he was paying paid by YouTube as most have. The irony is, this EXJW agreed and disagreed with Jehovah's Witnesses on some things, but the day he made the 1975 YouTube video, your community, mainly the John Cedars troop, took him down; the irony in this also is your own communicated effectively ostracized him, but erased him as well. That being said, regarding 1975, it is linked to the game Telephone and granted this was in the 70s, often things heard is publication, a parallel example to this would be the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 60s whereas one person says something, the others say something else, and their is panic and action that ensues; speculation. A more serious and legitimate comparison is Buy The Rumor, Sell the News (associated with F.U.D.) Therefore, if the JWs actually claim what is cited in red, pertaining to Witness' and Butler's old remarks on here, then there wouldn't be a need for EXJWs to Excommunicate and Expel one of their own from the community due to this notation. So to correct you: Incorrect because this is based on facts and history. Research, of which both you and Witness do not like. Also incorrect because that is exactly what happen when there is speculation. Therefore, Telephone, Speculative news, Tabloids, Buy the Rumor/Sell the News, and F.U.D. is even associated with the events of 1975, as is the EXJW that was terminated, who also based his findings on facts. So Facts not only beats unverified bias opinions, it also beats speculative information and assumptions. Therefore, if your notation was true, you'd quote the events of 1975 word for word. In the 60s, and 70s, even today now when it comes to media and tabloids, there is speculation, and this equates to stories, this also plays a role in Propaganda whereas one would have to do the research to actually know what is going on. So if in this case, if someone says, to the effect, I am going on a trip for a while might not come back any time soon, some will speculate that the person may die/commit suicide, the person being kidnap, etc whereas in reality, the person took the trip to clear his thoughts, and those who know the context of the situation, the person itself, they understand that the speculation revolving around the person to be untrue. That being said, this, speculative and or media bias can even be traced long before the 70s, and 60s, it has been around for a while, i.e. speculation and claims that can lead to problems, harm, even death. This calls back to other events, for example, the 1900s in which an assumption led to blood shed. Regarding speculative notations, this is in regards to people as a whole, not just JWs. @Witness succumb to such notations several times, hence why I mentioned her as with Butler, and you. In fact all 3 of you fell for an Alt-Right article. So what is stopping you from actually quoting them saying the world is effectively going to end on that year? Hence, the Telephone notation is justified here. If you can pull anything be it an archived domain or a public domain, surely, you'd have a quotation, but to this day, it is unfounded. So can you quote the 1975 notation then? I told @Witness this and I told @Patiently waiting for Truth and yet none of them can bring a quote, instead, tabloid newspaper clips from the 70s. Every time when this notation of that year is addressed, it is never stated of what the faith community is being accused of - ever. So I leave you with this, if the JWs did quote the following [the world is going to be destroyed in 1975] then quote them, Butler said they said. So if you can find this you bore a True Witness. If it is unfounded, then you adhered to a False Witness. Since Witness is paying attention to you, perhaps she can help you with that.

That situation could be equated to something like that of a game of Telephone. Whereas something is said and down the line, caused some form of division and confusion. So someone who was excited must have said some things that got other people talking whereas others understood the context of what is said and did not partake in spreading what the others were doing, hence the notation of 1975. Plus times in the 70s were different, to the point people do literal action after some things were said, as is excitement of somethings which could lean to action.

It isn't a title, it is in regards to Core Teachings in of itself. I mean, you were formerly a JW, they were well aware of the events regarding Constantine the Great, more so, as pointed out you were in the debate where @Cos willfully tried to re-write history of the early church. Jehovah's Witnesses, formerly, Bible Students, originated from the Great Awakening/Revival of Christianity, of which the Restorationists originated from, even by root. One can argue that they are Semi-Millerites. It can be noted that even prior to becoming Bible Students, they had to understand what was the Core Teachings are and what was not, an example of this, Pastor Russell concerning Hellfire and Torment. The Anti-Trinitarian faction wasn't as organized as our Trinitarian/Mainstream counterparts, granted they were the majority while we were the minority. You even attest to that notation of who has more of a presence, Catholicism. even if they were, the Mainstream branded them as sectarian. Anti-Trinitarian vs the New Christendom has always been in conflict since the events of 325AD, the only difference is we are not as brutalized like our former. This also goes hand in hand with the fight for Bible Translations. For perhaps, if you, myself and @Dmitar even @Witness lived in those times and attempt to use early sources to translate the Bible other the later, let alone attest against Creeds, we would all surely all be crucified, and burned at the stake, in Witness' case, they would blame her view of Christ as being God's Son as Witchcraft or the like, liken to what I told @Pudgyregarding Isaac Newton. Some if not most are already on that path, this is why I defend the early church for years now, even against some of your assertions. Those who strive to be, do so over time, an example of this is your former faith use to partake in festivities that are not inline with what the Bible says only to come to an understanding later on, hence Restorationist position compared to most who didn't think twice and outright abandon the practice, this may be the case due to coming to an understanding of the Jewish Calendar whereas such Traditions do not exist. Over the years, people were still learning and applying, even adapting. Granted, everything pertaining to Anti-Trinitarian was technically almost erased and or changed, i.e. Didache. I do not think you have if you assume the early church to that of a title. Strive as is in adaptability, applying, changing to line up with what is in the Core Teachings, i.e. understanding that God is not Jesus, and that God is the Father of Jesus Christ (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58, Matthew 16:16, Colossian 1:3, John 17). To understand that Jesus does not pray to himself (John 17) You seem to miss the context entirely. The Core Teachings are quite obvious., hence the early church. even back in those days, notable Church Fathers and or Bishops had to fight to defend these Core Teachings such as Irenaeus of Lyon prior to the events of the Council. Regarding the Council, The New Christianity dominated, and Constantine tolerated all faiths only to cause paganism to infect Christianity. The other council is was enforced you accept or succumb to consequence, hence why our early church counterparts was either lost or scattered, some perhaps even executed for not accepting. That being said, after all this time, how is it that you were not aware of the Councils? Then again, since you aligned yourself with Trinitarians for a Justifiable Cause, this was never addressed, in addition, you at times, pull information from your former faith, but never pertaining to historical accounts, then again regarding that you attempt to change history concerning the 1900s.

I have, several times actually. I use only facts, the Bible and quotations only. Call backs to, apparently one irked you this mention to speak this way. This shows you do not fully read what @Witness says, well, Pearl, in this case. It is a mix of being a former JW along with Exegesis that do not line up with Scripture. I am not going to believe that the Devil took out Egyptians, nor will I believe Chloe lead a Church to justify change in God's Order, nor will I adhere to Conspiracy, let alone the idea JWs are literal Extremist. When it comes to Christian life, one must adhere to what is written, not go around it. This is why Witness/Pearl's ideas are a problem by some, and influence is there, hence the two I debated prior to going to Washington. Moreover, you are now using the Witness logic, but many, many times seen here, she was not part of something, but attempted to use Justifiable Cause to appear right, i.e. Smurf Girl, United Nations, Secular Law, etc. What JW believes Chloe operated as the head /leader of the Christian Church of Corinth? The only people who adhere to the Unisex ideology to overwrite God's Order, let alone what Apostle Paul said are those of Mainstream Ideas. We should NOT be trying to go around the Order of the Church and how it is set up. But you confused such as of recent along with @Srecko Sostar. One believes Jesus is God One believes Jesus is God's Son One believes God to have manifested into a person called Jesus. You can't mix these up and claim to visitors that one should be truthful. People are aware of Catholicism be it of it or not. The creeds of the 4th century, they apply, we know the original Church didn't have Creeds until the events with Constantine came into place, First Council of Nicaea 325AD. Likewise with the Spanish Inquisition. I hope you realize Catholicism has Creeds, they're Trinitarian, and are of the Mainstream. There is only 2 factions concerning God and Christ, the denominations of both factions are known. Who said otherwise? The only issue is the Core Teachings as is the still ongoing battle that started in the 4th century. Therefore, it shows you didn't know the events of 2016 granted there were many swept away by Babylon. So what you addressed to me elsewhere, you truly did not know. That being said, if you truly want to do our visitors any justice, use discernment.

Yes, and the fact you mentioned Kel, he himself is neutral with JWs, however, he did point out anyone leaving the faith will evidently end up like some you see here, such as @Srecko Sostar, thus fall into a misguided state of mind; even Apostasy. He also makes note of how Trinitarians normally target those who normally do not debate, in this case, your faith community, however, there was one live instance where a JW did debate making the Trinitarian Faction as a whole look foolish. The irony of that debate, although the man isn't a JW anymore but has not dwelled on apostasy as most have, the disgruntled EXJW community will weaponize this person, any chance they get and defend some notations of the Trinitarian opponent from that debate. Trinitarians of the Mainstream are cunning when it comes to dealing with Anti-Trinitarians, for in your case, somehow they applied the Cult and or Sect idea towards your faith group, which over the years, got people believing this to be true, while legitimate cults run rampant, hence the Disgruntled EXJWs who are already caught by that influence, as is the notation of the Hardcore Atheists who applies this idea towards The Abrahamic Faiths as a whole. That being said, speaking about debates; some folks who are non-religious over the years, for every Cyborg-Ninja Jesus remark I ever heard, perhaps I'd be a rich man.

So as a former JW such as yourself, you believe Jesus is not the Son and that God manifested a human form called Jesus? Clearly not, however in some instances you stood by Trinitarians, being used by them. Anyways that is the issue with the Oneness belief, although they are semi-Trinitarian, they still lean towards the Mainstream. A Christian is a name given to God's followers who follow Christ. But at the same time, many strive to be like the early church or replicates it whereas some do not, and they are mislead and or go follow different Christology, you should know this, you were in the same debate thread when @Cos challenged me and several visitors. That being said, you confused your own faith for others, such as Prosperity Preachers who are primarily Trinitarian. One realizes that Core Christian Teachings exist since the day the Christian Churches were formed. Example, me adhering to God's Order, and you/Witness professing something entirely different, the Unisex idea into the Christian faith profess by the Mainstream. Whenever I speak of he apostolic church it is pretty clear of what I had told you for several years now. In regards to those who came out of the Christian Revival (historical), some lost their roots, some maintain them. The Unitarian Universalists evidently lean towards Interfaith, hence the Oneness view. Early Christians prior to the events of the 4th century were Subordinationists, they clearly didn't have a Oneness view. This was already mention several times to you. I do not rely on opinions, only facts. The True Church is the Apostolic Church, hence those who strive to follow that path. If I believe God has manifested into Jesus then perhaps I would be a UU, but clearly I believe Jesus is God's Son. This ahs nothing to do with being better. Boasting? Not really because any thinking man can see one is associated with Oneness, an the other is not. After all, you showed the difference without realizing it only to equate. Well Jesus is God's Son. He isn't God or a literal manifestation of God. Therefore the Bible has this truth, which is 100%. This has nothing to do with value, more so to call you out for mixing things you have no idea about. Therefore, it is further evidence to my critical thinking remark I made elsewhere concerning you as is the lack of research. Well if you are lying you will be called out. Only @Dmitar and the only reason he is getting along with you because of a maculation he made on his part elsewhere, evident by the wild use of emojis. So can you quote me professing Oneness as a truth? I'll wait. You had it right the first time until you messed up the second time. Then you confused a BU for UUs. So now you put yourself in a bind, how can I believe in Oneness if I believe Jesus to be God's Son? Let alone the notation of baptism? Says the man who believed that somehow assumes that Deborah, a Judge of Israel, had lead Christian Churches in the Nation of Israel despite the fact Mary never existed yet to birth Christ Jesus, let alone the start of Christianity. That being said, you have proven the case I made to Witness.

Essentially the US right now and some of their friends. As of now, people are pinning the blame on Russia, however, the slow rise began with the Economical situation in the US, The Ukraine-Russia situation was simply another log of wood tossed into an already ignited fire. Aside from gas and energy, wheat will go up and he domino effect will ensue as mentioned before. I don't see how the US will attempt to get Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince to side with them due to the OPEC+ Agreement despite the fact they and their Prince made themselves clear. In addition to that, Saudi Arabia and Russia have a huge energy deal in which neither of them would give that up. That being said, this is why the political paradigm is a problem also, for they think the people are willing to make the sacrifice without a say, pulling a Lord Farquaad to the general public.

One thing about Isaac Newton is that he was spoken of as Demonic by the Mainstream because he didn't accept the Creeds or believed in the Trinity. He knew God was the Father and Jesus was the Son. He is still attacked by the Mainstream today, so much so, some try to twist his views. Some Black Hebrew Israelites, also try to proclaim that, although Isaac was a White British Man, believe it or not, is not British and somehow among the Jewish Tribes. In short, you'd be surprised of other things I've ran into.

Sure... Because apparently you can't tell the difference between Unitarians yourself. As seen here.

I did watch. He is an interviewer who uploaded his conversation with a UU, not the author. And clearly you own no authorship. No one said you were the author of the video, the problem is you jumped from Biblical Unitarian to Unitarian Universalists, extremely different and not the same. Therefore misleading, this is why you were told (which I see you purposely did not quote) the following: The video in question was tied to the following - Unitarian Universalism. It should be known already in your first video, which I acknowledge is Biblical Unitarians take the Bible, God's Word, with seriousness, as is his corrections on the website, which was mentioned to @Cos also a while back in 2 debates. We already know God is the Father and Jesus is God's Son, Subordinate from the Father, hence our early counterparts, Subordinationism. which evidently birthed the Restroationists. Whereas the other group, Oneness Believers, associated with UU, believes God manifests into the Son or the Father, etc. An example would be, concerning Jesus, for the Oneness belief don't see Jesus as God, but God himself manifests as Jesus, so to speak. Whereas the Biblical Unitarian believes that Jesus is God's Only-Begotten Son, hence the first video you posted. Biblical Unitarians recognize that in regards to Baptism, you are baptized in the name of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit, hence Matthew 28:19 whereas for a Oneness Believer, solely baptize in the name of Jesus, in addition to that, the Oneness believers state that Jesus is the one name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and so all religious activities should be performed in that one name. As you can see there is a major difference. Therefore to equate the 2 not knowing these things, is misleading. He is an Interviewer, the man's channel is primarily based on Interviews, speaking to someone, he didn't speak for himself, but rather, asked questions. He's Channel information literally reads: Kindred Interviews - Hello I'm Kris. If you live in the DFW area and would like to share your opinions or knowledge on YouTube via a personal interview, then send me a message and I'll set up an interview with you. God bless! Those who seek to be interviewed contact him, not the other way around and this was during the Golden Age Era of YouTube (10 years ago). He interviewed a Unitarian Universalist, not a Biblical Unitarian. Even the description of the video addresses this, An interview I conducted with a leader of the UU organization. The video was cut off before the interview ended, sorry... I would love to interview another Unitarian Universalist. If you live in the DFW area and would like me to interview you, please e-mail me at kriskindred@gmail.com I do not need to succumb to anxiety to understand, in this sense, an Apple isn't an Orange. However, I can point out deliberate ignorance. That being said, this is like 100% equating Jehovah's Witnesses to Seventh Day Adventist, and or Islam. To mix things up, makes no sense, unless one does so to cause confuse or weaponize misinformation. But here we just witnessed you confuse Biblical Unitarians with Unitarian Universalist - literally. You were better off sticking with the first video and remarks, but you wanted to shoot yourself in the foot by choice, a mistake John Butler made, although he went further to attempt to make the accusation of interfaith, and failed. That being said, although in my case, I am on a crusade against Mainstream Christendom and falsehood, I would not be as foolish to confuse them, for I understand the difference, and move about defending core teachings. Although the majority is wrong concerning them, I would never use a misconception regarding them as a truth if there is no evidence. Perhaps next time, do the research, it seems Witness and yourself still do not take that recommendation after your last attempt.

@Srecko Sostar Also your video is a bit misleading to the information you pulled, 2 different things, if you focused primarily on UU then you may have a case. That was an interview. What does it a UU have to do with a Biblical Unitarian who do not abide by Oneness or Interfaith? Unless you assume all Unitarians to literally be the same, for this seems to appear to be the case with what you are doing. Also granted the UU is primarily organized, they have an organized faith community, hence links to UUA, etc.

Ah here we go again. This is the same argument Butler made, and was corrected. Also you might want to re-check the history of the UUA/UUO. It is quite clear I am not a Oneness Believer, Oneness is the view of a Unitarian Universalist. Therefore, comparing apples to an orange does not produce factual information, likewise to what Butler did. Quite obvious by my other responses. That being said, and now you are confusing denominations. Quite the predicament you put yourself in.