Space Merchant

Unfortunately for you, Matthew, all those assertions are indeed 100% true, for I can quote or cite anything pertaining to you in regards to the highlighted items above. That being said, as for the following: The Trinitarian mind games do not work it, to deem everyone as a Jehovah's Witness when you can see who is one or who is not here already. Just because we hold to the Non-Trinitarian view does not mean we are of the same faith community. If I apply this logic I can call you a member of Attis, a member of Tammuz and a list of other Triune believing communities, who, like you, dwell on pagan teachings. But I haven't have I? You are a Trinitarian, and are of mainstream Christianity. By the way, those 2 chapters were from a documentation of Christian church practices in the 1st century, and as far as I know, Jehovah Witnesses, let alone their predecessors, Bible Students, existed around 60-120 A.D. Non-Trinitarians, especially that of Asia Minor were primarily Subornationist before the Councils, of which your teachings were birthed from. That being said, I believe I asked you a question in regards to John 17:3, granted the evidence before you which is clear as day: Point out to where either me, @4Jah2me or @Srecko Sostar is wrong here? Likewise with Deserter, if the latter, and you said the information is incorrect, point it out. The marginal references speak for itself. To deem something wrong without case only shows you to be the one who is in wrong, or incapable of, as all with most Trinitarians, not try to contradict themselves when it comes to their explanation because as far as I know, for instance, John 2:19, you end up having a 4th God if you profess your exegesis, something that is seen in a lot of debate regarding this verse, as is with not being able to avoid the notion of Christians being deemed "God(s)" without the dismantlement of the referenced verse.

4Jah2me is a former Jehovah's Witness, he has made this clear time and time again despite some of this points being questionable. Granted he is Non-Trinitarian with no affiliation to Jehovah's Witnesses, does not negate him to be one, regardless if he agrees/disagrees with whatever Jehovah's Witnesses profess - for all persons differ from each other, as is with experience. As predicted, Trinitarians deem those who do not believe in 3 Gods as the same, for the reality is, JW or not, they can see your folly, even the Muslims can see your folly, the very reason Trinitarians do not go to speaker's corner in the UK as they use to. You say this is a tactic, yet as I recall, you did the same thing (with falsehood), for WE can prove that Jesus is the Son of God. In your case: You defended paganism several times, as is with you defended several verses deem both a forgery and false, let alone your favor of a pastor who has put himself in this world as an inspired prophet, when in reality, as I told 4Jah2me, the last of the inspired ones died with the last Apostles, not even their students were inspired, but rather, like Christians then and now, are spirit led ones. You committed yourself to being prideful of your church over others due to the actions they take, when Christian are free willing offerers and or givers (every read the passage of the Widow's Mite). The list goes on, so if you want to state "tactic" we can simply bring you up if need be. Granted you jumped into the fray, can you point out as to anything Srecko, 4Jah2me, or I myself are in the wrong for? What is confusing? Do you find Simon Peter's statement confusing when he said what he said at Pentecost 33 A.D. (Acts 2:24, 36)? I wonder what makes Peter's sermon confusing to Jew and Gentile Christians when he, as Paul also stated, that Jesus returned to life by means of God, who he himself, raised Jesus from the dead? How is it confusing to the fact an anointer anointed someone (God making Jesus the Christ)? The spotlight is on you and the Deserter. So far, as can be seen and most likely unfounded, both you cannot prove what Shiwii and CoS has failed to do - the notion of the Christ being Firstborn out of the Dead, which in of itself, like Pentecost, can defend the narrative you attempt to spin. That being said, you make want to check your history. Early Christians were fine, never believed in the Triune or got their math wrong to think 3 means 1, granted the below that predates the Trinity itself, they seem to thing otherwise, and this is just a small portion, mind you. The Trinity came long afterwards near and or around the 4th century, you have Creeds, True Christendom never had Creeds, we simply had a few commands and commandments to follow, for as followers of Christ. Nowhere in Scripture does it even state believe Jesus is God or be sentenced to enteral hellfire by God (who mind you, punished 2 Kings for reacting Fire Torment of children, for God in this situation reacted emotionally). To deem something as wrong, when there is ample evidence speaks volumes. No way to disprove it if you ignore Strong's and roots, marginal referecnes and context.

@4Jah2me As stated it is a rendering of the root, likewise with the word "[in] stead", granted the word in question derives from "for" in this verse. As for the verses in Ephesians, I think you misunderstood what I have said, for regarding representatives who take up after the Christ since he is not here, are mentioned as such in reference. As for context, it is clear, even when combined with the marginal reference.

The term, Scripturally, states that the Ambassadors that Apostle Paul is mentioning here are the followers of the Christ. He refers to himself and his fellow Christians as such [ambassadors] substituting for and or partaking in behalf of for Christ. In Bible times, ambassadors and other messengers could be dispatched for several reasons. In Greek, it notes and or points to to be aged, act as an ambassador. From the base of presbuteros; to be a senior, i.e. act as a representative. - hence Philippians 3:20. Granted even the references show us that Christians are indeed representatives to the Christ in regards to spreading the gospel. The same term in question is used in Ephesians 6:19, 20. Again with the Strong's "substituting" is a rending, likewise, to behalf, etc. https://biblehub.com/greek/5228.htm Huper means the following: 1) in behalf of, for the sake of 2) over, beyond, more than 3) more, beyond, over

You show yourself to be credible, but you are not, for these same assertions people have proven you to be in err here. To 4Jah2me's credit, you are the one who is incorrect here. He knows, as with the JWs, or any Non-Trinitarian, that Jesus is the Son of the True God, nowhere in Scripture is Jesus spoken of as "Almighty God" let alone did he even take plunder to being God, as pointed out in Philippians 2:6, which points out that did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, (the MS states did not take plunder and or equality to being equal to him [God], that is even critical proven by the evidence even in the Strong's Concordances to, to which Trinitarians are known to misuse and or ignore). That being said, you cannot disprove the Non-Trinitarian view, which is indeed, the true one, not the 4th century Creed induced assertion you profess. The Quicumque Vult (The Athanasian Creed) was never practiced by the early Christians, it came long time after that. Citing this is your next mistake for the verse in question. The idea deeming Jesus to be literally equal to God is in your Creeds, but no in Scripture. The writer was describing The Son of Man here, Jesus, who was indeed on the earth for he was a man born in the Law, was he not (Galatians 4:4)? One of your citations hints of that somehow The Angels forgot who God is, again, another Trinity based contradiction and a cup of confusion. In John 14:28, as is with numerous occasions, Jesus acknowledged his Father’s absolute greatness, as is with the Father’s authority, and position of sovereignty, which all can be found in the following cited verses Matthew 4:9, 10; 20:23 Lu 22:41, 42 John 5:19; 8:42; 13:16 After the ascension of the Christ, into heaven, Jesus’ followers, his Apostles, described the God our Father as having a distinct superior position compared to his only-begotten son, Jesus, which can also be found here: 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:20, 24-28 1 Peter 1:3 1 John 2:1; 4:9, 10 In the Greek Language, you have the word meizon, which Greek Strong’s # 3185. The word in question is rendered greater depending on the translation, and it is in a comparative form of the word for great, which in Greek is megas, Greek Strong’s # 3173. In many contexts where one person or thing is said to be greater and or superior to another Matthew 18:1; 23:17 Mark 9:34; 12:31 Luke 22:24 John 13:16 1 Corinthians 13:13 Also one can see the Strong's you mentioned is not even in the verse, otherwise that would have been a Greek violation. You cannot compare words like that, especially when there is no root connections with no genitive connections even, therefore, despite the wording, to do this on your own is silly. By the way, that is that word is Greek Strong's #2909, not used in the verse in question, and or has any connection. Stop with the thinking of man when it comes to this. Therefore, in context, even by means of even the marginal references, which can be found cited in nearly every translation, Jesus here is telling us that the Father, who is his God, who is is Father, according to him in John 20:17, 30, is greater than him. In the Didache itself, is mirrors the same thing, therefore, you are in error, Deserter. As addressed of what the context and the Strong's convey, we can see here you are adding your own exegesis, spinning the context and the Strong's to befit your Trinitarian concept. As I recall you had 3 persons being God, not two, therefore, granted you cannot assert the 3rd person of the Trinity here, this failure is coupled with the latter statement. That being said, when it comes to Strong's, pay attention to the wording, context and the grammatical usage. The number is correct, however, one must pay attention to it's usage and where and how it is used. The other one you added to make yourself seem right to confuse the others. You are basing your example in order to spin the Strong's Concordances. That will not work in your favor when the evidence can be found on Biblehub and elsewhere. To add more fuel to the fire, you dodged both the context of the verse in what Jesus truly means, as is with references that solidifies this truth. As for Hebrews 1:4, nowhere in that verse was G#3185 used (not even in French translations they'd make that mistake, as is with all translations, if anything the error lies in one man - you). Evidence here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/1-4.htm According to Jesus, he does have a God, in fact, Jesus says a number of times in Scripture he has a God, even acknowledged it, even upon the brink of death, he called out to God, which was prophetical, due to what is read in Psalms. Jesus was on earth because he was sent to not do his Will, according to John 14:10 and the verses found in John chapter 6, but the Will of the Father. He also points out the people are deemed happy for knowing that he is indeed The Son of God, granted pretty much everyone knew, even the demons and Satan knew, that God had sent him. There are marginal references of Jesus after his course on earth. Why ignore this? Elohim (El Shaddai) cannot be his own Bene Elohim. The Most High, be it Yahweh or Jehovah to the modern English speaker, is not his own Son. The Bible tells us that Yahweh/Jehovah is the Father, in both the Old and New Testament. God was speaking to Jesus, all 3 occasions, there were witnesses to account for this experience, the latter, being found in John 12, whereas Jesus was indeed troubled of what is to come, the people, a crowd, witnessed the talk between a Father and his Son. That being said.... Jehovah The Son???? That is a new one. What happen to "God the Son"? Did that term fashion trend die out? Actually you are wrong. Using Spirit when the Greek Grammar Form points to Neuter-Masculine does not prove person-hood. Likewise with cities, and or objects, even death referred to as either He/Him/His or She/Her, etc. None of the which translates even close to person hood. That being said, blood cries, and a rock speaks, a city gives herself into prostitution, etc. All these examples do not prove to be literal, likewise to a neutered word - Spirit. Which you have been refuted on in the past, as is with Cos, who said exactly the same thing as you have done. Therefore, the spirit is an energy, a force, etc, even spoken of as God's hand/finger and or breathe, never in the Bible or in the Didache, is the Holy Spirit deemed a person. Ever. That being said, you and the other Trinitarian CoS, were told this before, granted you believe this to be true, you were not able to even defend it in the past, even to the point you unknowingly attacked your own. You may want to check the references for the verses you cited too, but obvious you refuse because it can prove your claim here to 4Jah2me as incorrect, thus exposing you to be in error. God raised Jesus from the dead. God took him out of the pangs of death. This is said in Scripture a good number of times, even during Pentecost 33 A.D. Jesus is spoken of to be the Firstborn out of the Dead (a title that no Trinitarian can prove connects to God succumbing to death hence the ideology), for God himself cannot die, he isn't even a man, he is a spirit and is incorruptible (immortal), I agree with Paul, Job and countless others - God is indeed not a man. Jesus was talking about what is take place. In context, the verses show us that Jesus' body was the Temple of God; the Word tabernacled in human flesh and that flesh was the Father's Temple. He, this body of flesh, was the Father's Word and he spoke the words of the Father. This account is about the Father's house, the Temple. Jesus' words were not his own but the Father's who sent him. This body of flesh, His Temple, was His Word to the world. Since he was the Father's Word, there were two witnesses as according to the Law. Jesus tells us many times in John's Gospel that he spoke the words of the Father. He kept his Father's word for eternal life. He says, for I did not speak from myself, but the Father Himself who sent me has given me commandment as to what to say and what to speak. I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me. John 3:34 John 6:30-36 John 12:50 John 14:10 (once again) There in note, Jesus is God’s Representative, enacting shaliah principle. Jesus always listens to God’s voice and speaks what God directs, hence the Jewish term, shaliah. The words of Jesus at John 2:19 were the words of the Father. The Father's word is the word of life (1 John 1:1). In the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Father's word tabernacled in human flesh. Therefore, being the Father's word, what then did you expect the Father to say when these men asked Jesus by what authority he had cleared the Temple? Destroy this Temple and in 3 days I will raise it up. As for Romans 8:11.... It alludes to the same thing, and it also adds the fact that those mentioned will also be raised up by God as well. You ignore this part of the verse for a reason, which is obvious. Because by means of your logic it would deem Christians to be God(s) in this sense, if you were to include that part, but the reality is, God has the ability to raise the dead, even entrusting said abilities to his own Son, Jesus, who can raise the dead (praying to God/asking him prior to resurrecting people), it also adds on to the fact that Christians because of God are made alive in the spirit, together in Christ. Also it is best to remember the following: In he full passage, it says Jesus was given the authority to take it up again by a command of the Father. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to claim John 2:19 means Jesus is God because he raised his own body if he needed to be given the authority to do so by God. Shiwii, who is also a Trinitarian, brought up this verse, John 2:19 (as well as Hebrews 8:11), same conclusion, for the Firstborn out of the dead cannot raise himself, the Living God is the one who raised him, as his enabling him to raise the dead, as is with him enabling his followers. Whereas the latter, like Cos had the same outcome. This is concerning Jesus becoming a man, not God. The marginal references to the verse you mention points this out. Evidence of this is that it even points to John 1:14 (and cf.). That being said, to say something incorruptible became corruptible is a contradiction granted the Bible itself said God is not a man, even confirmed by Jesus at the Well of Jacob. Unfortunately for you, Non-Trinitarianism is not isolated to Jehovah's Witnesses alone, even Restorationism that predates the JWs before they existed, granted Christians today and even 1st century Christians did not believe in the Trinity, and there is ample evidence to this, some of which refuted your assertions 6 ways through Sunday, in the past. As for those verses you mentioned, you cited them several times to spin the narrative into Trinitarianism, all of which, were dis-proven with the actual and legitimate truth. That being said, you are, this time around as hard boiled as the Trinitarian David Wood, or that of Bob The Builder.

Now you see why I am strict and critical when it comes to misconceptions and Bible Strong's - being caught off guard it can easily be used against you when someone of the latter viewpoint is attempting to prove Jesus is God (Yahweh/Jehovah). Jesus.Deserter is an example of a mainstream Christian affiliated with the belief the The Trinity and as pointed out in the thread you started, you can see how vastly the view differs. Lucky for you he is a low level Trinitarian, for he targets JWs, not just to lure them out, but anyone who does not believe Jesus to be God. To the common Trinitarian, if you believe Jesus is not God, you are against the truth of the Scriptures, and you are deem someone who is in denial of Jesus' Deity and or that of him being God - therefore, destined for eternal hellfire torment, as they believe also. Trinitarians view us, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, as false and or incorrect and deem us as prophets of falsehood, moreover, their influenced is spread to those who, the majority to produce falsehood, misinformation and twisting information. It is nothing to do with teachings of anything else, but rather, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit alone (The very core of Christianity itself, as is with anything that predates Christianity), hence this "war" I have been talking about is the whole Non-Trinitarian vs. Trinitarian situation we've been at since like the 4th century, and even in present day it is far more critical and serious due to the fact that mainstream Christianity is on a decline due to Christian minorities and Islam. That being said, regardless if you are among Jehovah's Witnesses or not, granted JWs themselves are Non-Trinitarian as is among Restorationism (something Masons and Trinitarians often go after), you will still be branded as such, they even often brand Muslims as JWs outside of conversation or debate of the Crucifixion, since you are in the UK, this is often the tactic used in Speaker's Corner there. Anyone who is not up there in Bible knowledge, they also mock by saying "running away", unlike the notion of proving claims granted they deem the latter as cowardly. That being said, he used a Greek word and Strong's in his response to you, for there is good reason he skipped over me. In this case, you legitimately have a chance to prove the Trinitarian wrong here. @Srecko Sostar That will not do because as I told 4Jah2me, Trinitarian can easily use those verses against you. This is why you need to utilize marginal references, as I said elsewhere, even Strong's can help you here, mainly in regards to John 1:1. To the both of you, to combat The Trinity Doctrine as Non-Trinitarians, you really need to build up that muscle, that muscle being Scripture. Like I said, in this situation you are dealing with Trinitarianism now. Therefore Bible verses/passages you have to know what connects to it, the references, this also goes for Hebrew and Greek Strong's as well and context because John 14:28 can easily be spun around to their favor if you do not go about things with discernment and or unprepared. That being said, the narrative here, on his part is the ideology, the view of this verse being seen as Jesus having 2 natures that correlates with the view of Godhood. Granted he is err, his view is an obvious one (The Creed he quoted).

@Arauna The EU is more favorable towards Islam, for a number of reasons, and is often the most protected, which was very evident with various events that had taken place regarding God (Allah) and Jesus (Isa) in the Islamic faith vs. that of the Christian faith. Plus, Islam is an increasing faith whereas mainstream Christian belief has been declining for a while now since 2015, ironically enough, Christian minorities are barely touched. That being said, there are those in Islam that has been doing bad, something of which even those within the faith brought up, especially during the time when people of almost every other faith as well as onlookers use to congregate at Speaker's Corner before the pandemic and protesting. Well China and Russia are allies and opponents of the US and the UK. The United Nations, although wanting them to somewhat comply, is like that of an anchor in regards to them. As for these movements, it is a problem, and will continue to do so. Another issue is as with all ministers, even for you Jehovah's Witnesses, as time progresses, gospel spreading will be difficult due to the fact that today's world are normalizing things that even the Bible deems as incorrect and or bad, to the point of brazen conduct, so to find people who want to know about God will be a bit more challenging, as is, mainstream Christianity is also another obstacle, granted they are declining, they have become far more aggressive. So areas you can preach in, some you cannot, other times, if the person in question and or contact is allowing it, you can visit so and so, something of which I faced in my ministry trips in Africa.

@JW Insider Yes. James O'Keefe is someone who is often talked about in the Truther Community by some, for the focus in regards to him is when it comes to bringing forth to light the actions of the MSM in some cases, granted, in said community everyone does not like the MSM narrative. Only those who are aware and the Truther Community. The MSM deem them as the good guys, as they did for ANTIFA for a long time now. Check out this Snippet from CNN with the mayor. This is what the MSM is producing. That being said, as the count of officers are on the decline, it makes you think what if there is no police? The answer to that is an obvious one. I'm also hearing things, this is a rumor so cannot confirm it yet, that ANTIFA's next target is Texas.

Interesting, may need to quote things you say in the past, in addition, the latter is not JW. The notion of rulership concerning the heirs is not unstable, it is what it is - truth. Same can be said as to where they will be ruling from - hence, the Heavenly Kingdom itself is in Heaven. To Edward Andrews' credit, he also points out that the context of the verse in question, Revelations 5:10, to which he stated that regardless, the reader would be able to see for themselves Jesus, as is with the heirs, will rule over the inhabitants who are on the earth. That is one of several scholarly notes, which is identical to the viewpoint in question. That being said, it is also more than that obvious granted others, before I even made mention to it calls such into question, namely some of the interpretations you pose. Not really, granted your discussion with Kosonen is evident. The Chosen Ones normally do not call out to others, however, they are capable of discernment. That is an interesting remark, perhaps you may need to read Matthew Matthew 28:16-20, which is the notion of The Great Commission. The preaching of the good news gospel and the spread of the Messianic Age. The church Christians are of, that of the Christ, which connects well with the living stones discussion. Things of that nature you should know, be it JW or not. It can also be noted that this correlates with the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread the gospel to all the nations of the world. The most famous version of The Great Commission is in is in the cited verse, as is, with the context (again with this passage, wording differs in translation, but the Strong's are correct), where on a mountain in Galilee Jesus calls on his followers to make disciples of and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Then we have the events of Pentecost 33 A.D, and onward regarding Christians of the early apostolic church, those in union with Christ, Jesus. Christians are the ones to profess Scripture and truth, enable those to learn about God, about Christ in order to gain eternal life (John 17:3), as is with learning all things pertaining to the promises of God's Kingdom, as is with his purpose... That was an obvious one, thought you would have noted that one. That being said, no different from what we both stated in the past, regarding heavenly Jerusalem, the Christians and those of the Priesthood. Take the time to do so, for such things are indeed important. The basics can be learnt in under 10 minutes, as both links and the example tutorial shown to Screko. Surely sparing 10 minutes would not commit injury. To ignore the genitive when the verb is in use is evident on your account, therefore, it is something important. My focus is primarily the verse in the subject itself, granted with 100% evidence in this regard, but you and the latter deem otherwise, even when there is ample evidence of the matter. That being said, you did this last time, and like every time, it is the same situation... Also yes, but as a follower of the Christ, he gave command did he not concerning the Great Commission did he not? That is something we as Christians must adhere to.

Granted the discussion of the spiritual house and the living stones, I doubt it is overlooked. You were spot on with the position of the heirs, where they will be and their role, as is those on the earth, granted despite both groups being different, they are still of that house, of which The Most High is their God and these people follow the Christ, the one who is their King - Jesus. Granted I lessen it, as I did several times, you will often say I do not Scriptural support of this or that. When Scriptural support is pointed out, all marginal references of a verse and or passage must be laid out before us so the understanding itself can be found, as is with the conclusion. You are no different from what I do, the only difference is I break them down. Because Kosonen, and I had called to question of you stating you are among the chosen due to past remarks, one instance I even told you if you were not as you are now, you'd do a lot more to benefit from the Great Commission, hence the commission itself, you were a bit confused about the context of that in the past. But several times we can see the mix and or misapplication of Scripture and applying it for the wrong reasons and or far from what the subject connects to. You even made claims whereas the latter information state otherwise and use sources outside of Scripture to bring support to misleading information. Hence, this is why I share that same skepticism as the latter, and to Kosonen's credit, was seeking other chosen ones without normal to odd views. You haven't really said much on the verse in question and stated something else regarding the chosen ones that is deemed true. The focus, however, is the verse in question, the context, which is summed up in a single sentence, as is the wording, whereas there is no violation whatsoever. You were incorrect about the Concordance though, as, you did the past. Granted the concordance, it is unfounded and impossible to deem the latter as false or teaching something different when the view of the majority is the same, as I told JB, the only view that is opposite is the Trinitarian view of the chosen ones, which includes Revelations 5:10. The thing is you, as with the others do not really know what a Greek violation is in Scripture. I cited to JB an example, for you I will show you what I had address to which you guys are ignoring. A Text violation, be it Hebrew or Greek is when a word is add/removed, which does not match the Strong's in question, which can prove problematic when it comes to translation of the bible and or revision. The Bible is also clear on the matter, found in Deuteronomy 4:2 as with references for the verse. 1 Timothy 3:16, there is a text violation of the Greek Language, THEOS, meaning God. The earliest MS does not contain the word THEOS at all, therefore it being in the verse is a violation, which results in a another view, the Trinitarian view. It is verse errors like this that makes them assume and preach that Jesus is not the Son, but God himself. It is problematic because you have people questioning as to why God's angels do not recognize him and a list of other things. Check it out on Biblehub, for I invite you to see what I see. The other is Revelations 1:11. similar to the first example, but there is a full sentence added with Strong's and the like that are not found in the earliest MS. Again, our last discussion you were fully aware of who and what the Alpha and Omega entails, as I do because the both of us are Non-Trinitarian. But our counterparts, like 1 Timothy 3:16 and Revelations 5:10, they see this verse as legitimate proof that Jesus is God, for they say that only God is A&O, so that makes Jesus this too, when we ourselves know the truth of the matter. again, check Biblehub, you will see the difference. A violation of text can easily shift a viewpoint, even another teaching that correlates with belief, however, granted the verse in question, as stated, there is no violation, scholars point to the same thing, the commentary and the majority of Non-Trinitarian Christians, to the Jehovah's Witnesses credit, they see this too, even before they existed, they, as is all Restorationist hold this view, be it a single soul or organized. That being said, Concordances and a legitimate study of Scripture is the reason we were able to find forgeries, textual alternations, added and or removed narratives in Scripture, as is with refuting the false views that is professed by mainstream Christian, i.e. the soul living when the body is dead, the teaching of God being cruel, etc. This of that nature. And most importantly, the notion of Jesus being God, which you and I both know that is an err. Like I said, there is put 2 views on Revelations 5:10, therefore, the latter cannot have a different teaching when even their own website states the view, deem Non-Trinitarian. As for the wording itself, no violation whatsoever. Again, in the past, I encouraged you to learn Concordances, and I am telling you this now if you, like JB, are interjecting the Modern English Language to reverse ill-defined Greek Prepositions.

Did you see the reply? There is only one view, to think Non-Trinitarians in general have a different belief and or viewpoint is deeming the latter as false, when it is only the Trinitarian view of the matter which is the negative one. Only the question raised, I even told you from the get go after citing 1 John 4:1, granted it is a serious verse to use. Because you are a Non-Trinitarian yourself, that is why. You know the position of those who will reign with Christ, yet if the latter has the exact same view, you deem it is a different viewpoint, which is incorrect. Even here it can be seen that you are one, just as I am, Witness and the others. You can't be this serious.... Clearly no. The thing is here I am telling you credible truth, but the problem here is you deem otherwise. Granted it is 100% true, the problem here is because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach it. You think this is about reputation? That is exactly what Butler said when it comes to facts to which he previous deem as true, but later false - a spun around contradiction engineered by one's own hand. No one is going to extremes, it is not like the latter does any different anyways. Because I am one. As is the others. The difference, in the core, is that I do not believe Jesus is God himself. Your responses on this forum shows that you are a Non-Trinitarian. You Believe God is the Father, do you not? That Jesus is his Son whom he sent, do you not? Clearly you do not share the viewpoint of our opposites, this goes for everyone on this thread alone. How is it a guess when you riddled this forum if the Non-Trinitarian view outside of anything pertaining to JWs or CSA? Must I quote you now? I have. The claim of yours is that Jehovah's Witnesses have their own teaching concerning Revelations 5:10, to which the viewpoint is exactly the same as all Non-Trinitarians, Biblehub, Bible Gateway, Blue Letter, even Witness' comment from an older discussion I added on purpose, to which you deem as incorrect. Srecko, being as he is agreed with the other Christians, when I said the same thing, to which he deem as wrong. The Non-Trinitarian view is not primarily associated with Jehovah's Witnesses due to the fact this view has been here for a long, long time on opposition to the latter view. Next we have the wording. There is no issue with the wording because due to the fact there was no violation of the Greek Language, from commentary to scholarly notes, all stating the same thing, and understand clearly the focus of the verse in question - rulership and authority. The irony here is all marginal references for verses 9 and 10 points to the same conclusion. But you are reading the verse as normal as possible granted, an honest Bible reader can see the conveyance. Thus both claims have, easily been rectified with Biblehub only - literally. It only took one commentary note and a Strong's number. Judged for telling and speaking the truth? Seriously? Perhaps it is not the verse in question that needs the context explained, but rather, your convolution. The context is clearly for anyone to understand? So you must I quote a former JW then? She's Non-Trinitarian by the way:

You say this, but our discussion on the living stones and the spiritual house when it was addressed regarding the chosen ones, remained the same, yet on here, even if I took a snippet of from you in said discussion, it is deemed wrong now. Granted you say this, to which Kosnen and I are skeptical, you should know your position as that of the priesthood, but to agree with him, I am starting to see why the view is held to which he seeks others like him. So the latter was right.

@JW Insider @Arauna So you both are familier with James O'Keefe? That is nice to hear. I never met him, but I had seen him a few times. Another update, police officers around the states are resigning, some even going back home to hang up the uniform and badge. There was an entire SWAT team that quit. Fake crimes are being committed to lure out police officers to target them. The Truthers are saying that in CHAZ, there is crime running all over the place since there is pretty much total lawlessness. Beatdowns, women being raped in tents, people getting robbed, etc. Looks like the rapper is not in control and most likely if people get too crazy they will usurp him. Concerning rape, it is said they are not suppose to say anything because they do not want the outside world to know that they cannot stop the problem, and should the MSM hear about it, they won't say a word because they defended this narrative and support it. There are opportunist out there who will go to CHAZ to commit any type of crime they desire. The UK is a powder keg, granted there are black vs. white confrontation in small number. Which can expand as the days go by. That being said, in the Truther community, we are bombarded with update after update after update, mainly when the MSM says something

@4Jah2me @Arauna Since the start of the Coronavirus pandemic, the rich and powerful have been moving out of the states, specifically New York. They have secondary homes outside of the states, those that got out evaded the early lockdowns, now we have the protests. Some of them even encourage protesting, but best know if the rioters and looters come to heir doorstep, they will fight back or tell them to attack somewhere else. Some of these rich folks, their children, high school and college, are part of some far-left movements, for instance, ANTIFA. So technically how they sound "BLM! Yeah! burn and loot everything to the ground.... But don't attack my property, bob is up the street, go to him instead". Black Israelites, however, I had quite the history with them.

You already based an assumption regarding manuscripts? At the time I was dealing with a Trinitarian problem involving manuscripts that prove the Lord, your Lord, our Lord is the Son of God, and not God himself. For during that time, I was very quick to knock down points of Trinitarianism regarding several manuscripts in question to which based off of memory at the time of my earlier days, I had stated something otherwise only to realize the error. That being said, clearly, I was not going to let the onlooker become enticed by the teachings of the mainstream, granted the conclusion, she sided with me granted the onlooker herself wanted to become a Christian but was confused on who the Christ is. In this regard, the verse in question is quite clear, therefore, regarding what Kosnen said to you, I, being skeptical, side with the one who understands some verses in Revelations. If you are wondering as to what pointed out earlier, it was your own wording from an earlier discussion regarding the chosen ones, that same notion, when pointed out differently, but still concise, you deem it as wrong, likewise to Srecko regarding the quotes. You of all people should know the context of Revelations 5:10, granted past remarks shows that you do. That is quite the statement, granted the woman became a minister because had shown her that Jesus is indeed the Son of the Living God. Perhaps you can come to that same conclusion, but as we already know, just by this verse alone, the MS would not be an easy task for you. That being said, you said the other Christians were right, so to deem the response as wrong, as you have done mine, is unfounded now by you due to the fact the same thing said about Revelations 5:10, was exactly what they said. Oh there's more, I'm just saying it however. You said it best, hence, you played into your own hand without me doing anything. What I have been saying compared to theirs: Look at similar that is: We all hold this view. So if you say and state I am in the wrong, but agree with them for they saying exactly the same thing I am saying, and now when this is pointed out, is that not willful hypocrisy on your part? If you want I can quote even scholars and some former members of the faith if that is not enough for your plate.

That is going to be a problem, granted CSA is minimized, the idea of no police at all will result in would be abusers and current to come out of the woodwork, thus should one get any ideas, it will come to that. Essentially, you will have the purge, Mad Max, Gotham City, Deus Ex Prague all mixed into one, that is a recipe for disaster. This will result in Vigilante Justice to increase (There was literally a guy in a Batman suit walking about a few days ago, and a guy fending off attackers with a sword), granted the far-right are the types to, as what can be seen, practitioners of the second amendment and will use it. The irony is before COVID-19, people were buying guns in surplus, and still they continue. The guy at the fish market can be his own judge, jury and executioner, and granted these guys are locked and loaded, the bad guys are doing the same thing too, if it comes to that. There is a possibility, for people are talking about Civil War, even my own brother says this, and he is not as up there in the updates compared to me.The rich moving out, etc. Well, if the Left and the Right clashes again but at a higher level, they have done so before, several times. That being said, children are indeed vulnerable if it comes that not, not just CSA alone, but by influence, i.e. you have children attacking people, thinking they are justified and in the right. Look at the UK for example. The bells of Lawlessness is ringing louder and louder by the day, as pestilence spreads throughout broken economical powers, as more and more people come out to play for the wrong reasons, but among it all, a new religion somehow is born. Yikes, edit to come to the realization I may run into The Black Isrealites again.

Exactly. But the narrative is White to Black, which is sparking outrage. If it is Black to Black, or as the Black Community refers to it, Black on Black Crime, media is silent because the story would not sell, and BLM is silent. The irony is that police officer confront and or kill white people at a higher rate vs. black people. Since the demographic of black people is 13%, a small percentage are within the criminal underworld, about 6% if my memory is correct whereas about 60%-70% makes up the population for white people, and a small percentage of those who do crime, for this percent is larger than the 6%. I'm still looking into this too, so this is based off of what I have been reading, so ongoing til I get a conclusion. I do not know if anyone recalls the killing of Daniel Shaver, Kelly Thomas, there was also the little boy who was killed, but his father survived. Then there is Tony Timpa, who died in the same manner as George Floyd. Former and Retired Officer, David Dorn, 77, was killed, but no, MSM do not think his death would sell, mind you, his death, him bleeding out was live on Facebook. This was, as stated, Black on Black crime. His killer is Stefan Cannon, charged with 1st degree murder. This guy had a record, yet he was always lucky with being out and about. He was charged with armed robbery in 2014, was supposed to be jailed for 7 years, but got probation instead to which he violated twice. The Justice System is semi good and bad, for it does help to lock up criminals, killers, pedophiles, thieves, etc, they seem to let go those who are not willfully repentant, and or someone who can succumb to doing bad again. I mean, they released some prisoners around the early moments of the pandemic, I think someone committed a crime sometime upon release. That being said, The Justice System is like that of someone flipping a coin, simply choose Heads or Tails.

@4Jah2me Higher Education is only deemed a problem when it comes to the shift of faith into other ideologies and or practices, some practices deem unChristian, as is, turning most students into uneeding of God, and or a different view of God, i.e. God is okay with homosexuality, God is okay with killing other Christians, etc. This is why some parents fear both public schooling and higher education, and the rabbit hole only goes deeper than that, something I addressed when it comes to educating children a while back, let alone, making them strong to not fall for this. Should a child go into higher education, for them to cross that path without abandoning God starts with what is to protect them, so they do not stumble.

@4Jah2me Correct. The verses in question regarding Jesus doing God's Will, start with John 14:10, from there you can find the marginal references by the context itself, from there, it would show you the verses in question to prove this to, essentially, a Low Level Trinitarian. John 14:28, when Jesus said the Father is greater than him, you can do the same method with the cited above, however, Trinitarians will use this verse against you to state otherwise, and can easily spin doctor this verse to make Jesus appear as though he is God or equal to The Father (you may occasionally see the fully man fully God mantra at times), in addition, granted the other thread regarding Strong's, they can use the word "Good" to justify themselves, which will result in the notion of God and Jesus being different incarnations of the same God. The counter jab in this situation is the marginal references for this verse, and the context itself. As for God speaking to Jesus, same thing with the above two examples, otherwise, you will be hit with Trinity assertions of this moment in Scripture, since, we now have the Holy Spirit involved.

@4Jah2me However, I would ask people to go back to the VERY TOP of the page, and to look at my very first comment, which started this topic. We have gone to the top, and the focus was on both the wording, reasons why Strong’s concordances and translations was brought up. As well as the context, as to, what the verse is conveying, what it is trying to tell us. SM is making so many claims against me that I have to laugh at him or I would become annoyed. You can laugh all you want, but it will not cover the fact you tried to perceive the latter as believing something different, when the view of Non-Trinitarians concerning the King and the heirs are the same for a very long time. They say debates and discussions of critical mater if a man laughs at this he cannot prove or follow up and or back up what he is conveying, he is in the wrong. I admire your laughing because it just proves the point even more. The Christian I PM’d mentioned Ben Shapiro, to his credit, whenever his facts are solid, the latter cannot refute the facts and will, as I told Srecko, dodge and or tap dance around it. I care about the truth, and I am sure you do as well, but the fact is associated with the latter faith, despite evidence proving that Non-Trinitarianism share this view equally, you sate it is incorrect and a different view, granted, the evidence says otherwise, even by the faith in question’s own playground, their website. My first comment was a question as to why the GB / CCJW used over rather than on. Because in regards The Strong’s Concordance and context, the wording is correct, there is no error or incorrection and or a show of shifting the view into something else. ”Epi” is used correctly granted there was no change to G#1909. That is the reason you see some translations with the wording “upon, above, on, over, etc.” The context never changes, granted the wording. SM, IT WAS A QUESTION. It was not a statement. The question has been answered, than the notion of context was given when you pointed out that the view is different from the legitimate view. Are you non English speaking ? If I did not speak English you would not be able to see what is conveyed here, don’t be silly. Do you have to translate every thing I write ? As everyone here knows, I make a response to a response. Especially when I take the issue of Textual Criticism and Strong’s seriously, equal to that of context of Scripture itself. I told you this a while back and you attest to that point, what did you expect? This is no different than those who tried to shift the narrative of earl church fathers. Because you seem to have the wrong idea of everything I say. According to what was said, I do not. You address and see the wording as incorrect, but evidence and sources says otherwise. You address the view of the latter is different, but granted it is known they are Non-Trinitarian, the view is the majority compared to the Trinitarian view. There is only 2 and has been this way for an exceptionally long time. That being said, not too long ago you can see the folly of the KJV-Onlyist and troop elsewhere, their view differs from the Non-Trinitarian view, which is equate to that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is scholarly notes I would gladly quote if need be which further thickens the truth of the matter regarding Revelations 5:10. For instance, you pretend that I do not know that the Kingdom is in heaven. Show me then where i have stated that the Kingdom is not in heaven. Give proof of your accusation. When I made the points, even from the sources, you are saying I am not understanding properly, granted you hinted at the term “over the earth”, after saying this you stated in question regarding the Chosen Ones position to be on earth, to which I had addressed the following below in response, which In turn to that remark is incorrect, thus solidifies your own confusion when the verse conveys context. You do realize that God's Kingdom is in heaven - right? God rule will be over the earth from HIS heavenly realm (Revelation 11:15), This is why the Bible calls, in 2 Timothy 4:18, The Heavenly Kingdom. God's King will rule from God's Kingdom, and is accompanied by the chosen ones. They govern all things on the earth. The key element here is this: not the area, but the authority which they exercise. You even stated that my claims are incorrect. Granted the context is very clear regarding Revelations 5:10, which points out that those with authority, having been given the role of reigning reside in the heavenly Kingdom, in the heavens. Their rule is over the inhabitants who are on the earth itself. For we know where they are, but verse 10 expresses authority and rulership, and solely that, hence the context. For if that was the case in your regard, you’d understand the context of Revelations 5:10 way before context and viewpoint was called into question. @Witness Offered an explanation of the Bride of Christ being able to 'work' between heaven and earth. We can see Witness’ comment, but the focus here is the position of the Chosen Ones in the heavenly Kingdom itself, their role. But you and Witness stated the viewpoint is entirely different from the core teaching, but as can be seen, going to the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they believe the same thing, in fact, majority of Non-Trinitarianism who predate them by a multitude of years, believe this too. To say the view is different is a bold claim, granted the secondary view correlates with Trinitarianism, for the concept changes when the notion of Jesus being God, changes it entirely. Now we do know that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, but he took on human form many times to appear to his disciples. Even showing his hands to Thomas that had doubted. What does this have to do with Revelations 5:10? Again, focus on the subject matter. This is elementary Scripture knowledge, JB. So, this shows the possibility of spirit / human transfer. Angels also have appeared in human form. Spirits materialized bodies, this can be said of Angels as well. The context of Scripture also expressed the Fallen Ones as well, having harbored the ability to do so until losing God’s presence when deemed Demons. Again, what does this have to do with Revelations 5:10? Why would the GB / CCJW want to show the Body of Christ as only being in heaven ? Unfortunately, this is not the teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses only. The Bible tells us as to the position of the heirs, as is the location. I told you this, but you laughed it off and flat out ignored this, hence the reason I stated you know where God’s heavenly Kingdom is located a second time. As all sources point: the marginal references, even in every translation tells you that the Chosen Ones, who are within the Body of the Christ, will be in heaven with the Christ. Because they want to promote the human Elders as being Princes here on Earth. By doing so they can give more 'power' to the Elders and ignore the Anointed ones. What are you talking about? Stay focused on the Chosen Ones, Christians who make up the inhabitants of the earth is a whole other subject. You started with Revelations 5:9, 10, did you not? Those on the earth cannot have more power than the ones deem a co-ruler, a judge, or a King within God’s Kingdom. That said, take King David being the King of Judah, him being a King does not negate and or equate to the fact that Jesus and or any of the co-rulers being King of God’s Kingdom. Wicked slave beating their fellow slaves. What? I do hope that people will begin to understand that i often write QUESTIONS. But in this thread alone you also offered claim after claim after claim. Why else you have not just the people here correcting you, but the sources themselves too? Even Srecko can now see that granted the facts. Those questions are not statements. But you brought forth claims, you should have stuck with the questions, and even if not here, Biblehub could have easily answered everything for you, but as stated, you through in claims. Not to mention you attempted to use the modern English understanding to discern something, which is not the best idea for anyone, even an honest Bible reader. Even former JWs who read into Strong’s and Scriptural Context under this. SM does not seem to be able to understand this fact. Are you sure? The evidence lays before us, JB. As for the later remarks: These are God fearing Christians, they do not like your exegesis, but at the same time, several of them, in this regarded, prayed for your soul. It is a consequence, for as I had told Witness in the past, several times, a small exegesis that is practically out of context can shift one into believing and or teaching something that is not the core teaching. An example of this is Witness attempted to explain Strong's of a verse, not realizing that she deemed God, your Father, to enlist the help of Satan aka The Destroyer. A second time, she pointed out errors concerning God's Order, as is the notion of Abaddon, as is with New Agism. Small things like that is not only problematic, but, if taught to someone else, they can indirectly believe this as truth. I did not have to do much for her audience showed their responses, to which I quoted in the past. That being said, it should worry you, is it not right for you to adhere to truth and or speak it? You do not have to be a Jehovah's Witness to realize that, but it would seem the myth is true, that majority of former Jehovah's Witnesses make up the percentage of those in the US/UK in knowing what the Bible teaches, outside of the realm of basics. Christians can be lukewarm, misguided, and speak things that does not line up with Scripture and or fall short of core teachings - at the same time, still claim to be Christian. The truth is, some are under this notion unknowingly, God knows their hearts, therefore deeming everyone guilty is absurd, especially if you call someone Anti-Christian and or Not a Christian, the silly Trinitarian game played by many. Then you have those who do this willfully. That being said, a Christian understands Scripture and the context it conveys, more so, they do everything to fully know what a verse or a passage is saying, some even going back to the Hebrew or Greek text. Drunkards, Thieves and Gluttons do not essentially pray for one's soul when they see the mistake. Those 2 quotes, they did mention you, they did not like your response, hence the reason they prayed and or praying for you, as they do with many who took the wrong step. What do you think? Also a follower of the Christ does everything in his or her power to see the truth of the matter. Which brings us back to Revelations 5:10 in both wording and context. But the thing is do you have faith in what his word is conveying? You are a Non-Trinitarian, JB, , so as I am, so is Witness as is with the source she always uses, so is Srecko (although sometimes his vibe is on a different frequency), even Rook is Non-Trinitarian if you can see past his jokes, as is with the Jehovah's Witnesses here such as Anna and Outta Here. We all hold the Non-Trinitarian view, and to Witness' credit, when I said to her I added something to one of my remarks, it was a direction paraphrase of an old discussion we had about The Spiritual House (The only positive moment she mixed verses back then which has been used now to prove the point). That being said, granted ALL OF us hold this view that, Revelations 5:10, regardless of the wording, the context states, to be brief, authority (or rulership) by means of the Jesus and the Chosen Ones. Their rule is over the inhabitants on earth, granted God's Kingdom itself resides in heaven. The marginal references even points to this notion, thus making it as true as the sea being blue, no complexity in that. If you want the other view, you have Jesus.Defender for that, for he is a Trinitarian, as is obvious in his recent response, this goes for his 3 counterparts on the forum, to which I deem Srecko questionable. That being said, everything I pointed out I do not just speak it, as with majority of my comments, everything has some statistical, source, citation, video, backing. Sometimes I point out minor stuff, without backing information and tend to go about things of a memory, rare times I do make mistake mainly if I have to state something quickly, but at the end of the day, when it comes to factual and credible information, even from the responses of others if need be, it holds true.

Kairos Movement, same old magic tricks. We had this rodeo show before, Jesus Deserter. Anything you say cannot harbor the Trinity as legitimate truth. You, s a Mainstream Christian never learn, and unlike the multitude here, granted their view of Non-Trinitarianism, and or with JWs, even if they make mistake, even on my account if I make a mistake, I, and even they themselves can see your folly. Refuted within a second. Interesting this guy is the mirror image of David Wood, who, he himself, cannot hold himself in a debate, especially with Muslims. EDIT: This pastor also believes NON-BIBLE CANONS TO BE INSPIRED WRITTEN AND TRUE. This alone further shows us that this pastor is mainstream, just like you. No true Christian would believe in a false narrative of the Christ, or words added by someone else and not from the Apostles and other writers. Shame on you.

To be brief, this verse does not prove Jesus as God, granted if one is strongly aware of Jewish Customs and the like. The Scriptural facts show us that such names are given to people and places and these names don't mean that these people are places ARE therefore "God." The Scriptural facts also show us that the Messiah would bear this name because he represents our Eternal Father and Mighty God's wonderful counsel since it was God who made it all happen; He raised up the Messiah to carry out His purposes. This same verse can be connected to in parallel to the King Hezekiah.

@JW Insider Yes, and granted the position of the far-left, the far-right is reacting differently. The whole religious concept though, don't know if you are aware of the following below. When I saw this, I was shocked. Even yesterday, out of nowhere, a woman, older than me she looks early-mid 30s, she told me she was sorry, and I asked for what because the whites oppressed black people in the past. I told her she did not have to be sorry about it, for that is the past, we need to focus on the now and the future, regardless of one's race. My curiosity is granted most areas support BLM, how would the reaction be if they found out people such as myself do not support it. I've been in confrontation before because of the Bible, as I told JB before, so it may be similar with not supporting this group.

Lack of Faith? The fact that I agree with the Bible that tells us the authority position of the Chosen Ones? Conveying what is true is from the Scriptures, not ideas of my own, but I'd like to see you prove it, but with every instance I say this, you dodge because there is nothing of you to be deemed as truth, but rather, unfounded. Many Christians? Not every Christian believes in permanent salvation. Not every Christian believes in once saved always saved. The idea you spout, Srecko, is of mainstream Christendom. The Bible tells us clearly that Salvation can be gained, as is with it being lost. Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ, the brother of James, states that when it comes to maintaining one's faith, one's path of salvation, it is a hard fight. Salvation is not something permanent, more or less, it is like a component to the muscle you work out every day, one's faith. I told you before, I am strict, and I am a debater I came from that comment and this section of the forum, to me, is still seen as controversial posts as to the notion stated, at the time, you can be tested and or challenged. When it comes to Bible defense, that is where I am at most serious, and even more when I am applying 1 John 4:1, which is the last thing you want used against you, in a discussion. Again, you keep throwing Jehovah's Witnesses in there like it is the Ace in your deck. Again, even without Jehovah's Witnesses, even without the Watchtower, what I have pointed out, granted everything I stated HAS A SOURCE CONNECTED TO IT, is correct. More so, even scholarly and commentary notes point to the same conclusion. The Bible is God's Word, we are to not just read it, we are to understand what God is telling us through his word, so there is no question as to what Revelations 5:10 is conveying here, even Christians elsewhere agree to the same thing, as is, with even some former JWs also pointing this out. How is there a disagreement of the authority and rulership of the Chosen Ones, along with the Christ, rule over the inhabitants on the earth from God's Heavenly Kingdom? All Non-Trinitarians believe in the same thing. Explain yourself. These are not my ideas, as you claim, that statement alone proves your ignorance. The Bible is not wrong either. Willful ignorance on your part, granted you claim the latter as to create their own view, but cannot back up your claim. Reading isn't enough, you are to study it, to meditate on it, recite, even continue to learn and grow from it. I compare faith to a muscle, the Bible and all things connected to it can be seen as the protein, in this sense. Protein as is with Protein Synthesis enables growth for the average bodybuilder or powerlifter, in this same regard, a Christian builds the muscle, their faith, using the Bible. There is no end to Biblical Knowledge for we do this on the daily. Granted their leaders are the application of the Faithful Servant notion, their position is in regards to spiritual food and milk to the adherents, is it not? You yourself stated this in the past, even 4Jah2me said this many times, why is it now you go over what you said? Can you show me as to where I made claim to God's Spirit being nothing? This is a strong case granted I take issue with those who speak otherwise of God's holy spirit. Because I have evidence of you in this regard, many, and I can link the threads, cite the quotes, as is with the ridiculous ones you spouted in the past. I invite you to prove that statement - God is my witness in this regard, so let's see it. No one is fighting for "their version of faith" just as no one is fighting you for "your acceptance of organ changes that befits what God hates the most", granted I am surprised you do not own a Pink Bible yet. The focus here is Revelations 5:10 in terms of Concordance and the context of the verse in of itself that primarily focuses on the Christ and the heirs. Deviation again on your part, for granted the view of the verse. Theories? You think this is a theory? Dense as a stone you are for thinking such, I hate conspiracy very much, you know this! What to expect from a man who tried to convince me that inanimate objects can speak.... Well that is the point, I have been helping you, as is with others, Greek Language forms and Strong's in the past, I even told you to look into it, some of you tried, even Witness, but continue to fail at it, to which I then encouraged to learn the basics. But here we are, Mushroom Kingdom World 1-1, from the beginning, and yet again, you express and show the fact that you are incapable of learning. even if the truth is in front of you, from non-JW sources that state the same thing, even sneaky quotes from scholar notes and commentary, but still, it is not enough. Granted what is stated is 100% true, you do not want to accept it because the JWs believe it too, granted the view in question held predates them even. What they said was exactly the same thing I said. The first one, she linked her sources, as with sources from the Jehovah's Witnesses, the other pointed out sources from even Former Jehovah's Witnesses, that, in turn, state the same thing I have said, to which I will cite them later. That being said, looks like I did not need to have Batman level of detective work to expose you, because you just exposed yourself with this statement alone, and it shows you did not see the response in the email that pointed out that the view is identical with the JWs. Yes, just as I was right, in regards to them, and the following responses, they are right as well. They are randoms whom I had credited in the past, as is with the others. Regardless, we are of the same community of Bible readers. Granted the SE is a large place. The irony, I take it the latter did not favor you this time because that notion. And of course, you don't like it, but I don't care, another one in the books for "Biblical Facts", this time regarding Strong's (context as well because of the whole notion you and Witness believed in churches and church leadership in Ancient Israel and the like) You just made my old statement more relevant now

Clearly not. I had told you guys to prove it, for if you had gone to the website to quote them, you would have quoted it clearly, which was something I had to do because when asked, you lot could not. The Trinity was involved because as stated, there is only 2 views regarding this verse, the opposite is dealing with the Trinity. I mentioned them because you stated, as is with the others, that there is the view of JWs differ, but that is not the case, as they pointed out the authority and or rulership of the Chosen Ones who will reign with the Christ from the Heavenly Kingdom. The Trinity Doctrine consist of something vastly different from the Non-Trinitarian view, hence the notion of 2 views, 2 viewpoints. Well you could have read "prove it" clearly, but you did not want to quote them, nor did you quote Biblehub, Bible Gateway and or the other sources elsewhere, including one I sneak in that cam from an religious critic, to which, you fell for it, thus proving points I made in the past. According to them, the Chosen Ones are to rule over the inhabitants on the earth while in the Heavenly Kingdom. Their position is associated with authority and rulership, as is, with Jesus' Kingship, for as I recall, you watered that down in the past. The context is as clear as day and it is baffling as an alleged Chosen One can even see that tree of truth standing in green plains. That being said, you basically went brief and moved around the verse. I have stated my case, from commentary to Strong's to the Bible, even marginal references to which the latter deemed incorrect, for all references point to Revelations 5:10, as is, with the Heavenly Kingdom. For if my points were indeed wrong, it would not stop you lot from pointing it out, granted every point made has a sourceful backing that is focused on the verse in question, not going around it.