Space Merchant

Actually it does granted when we know exactly what Textual Basis the NWT is using. The question is do you know it? Everyone can read the Bible anywhere and it is known they use their Bible for teaching. And no, no general point of you, we will focus on what I have stated. Also you still have not made known if you know what Kettel is. I already know the difference, because I mention the Structure of the Church last time and the fact as who has what role in the church. Such things isn't unknown to anyone. This whole form still revolves around Controversial posts, granted we are talking about the Bible, this still applies. You did assume debate, so this is what we shall do. I've corrected you on what it actually means, even the JWs know this because as with everyone else. You were quite to assume the literal nakedness when the truth of the matter was he was girdled. If you forget I will do you the favor of re-posting so you can see, to which you ere in disagreement of the actual truth of the matter So tell me, how would you even far if you wish to debate about Strong's when you do not even understand Strong's? Your own Bible that you choose even holds your hand and here we see your response. Where is the Spiritual Wisdom, Butler? And no, JWs do not will not profess this is literal nakedness, as you claim, thus making you exposed by your own deception when the footnote of the Bible you are using says the following naked: Or “lightly clad.” The Greek word gy·mnosʹ can have the meaning “lightly clad; in the undergarment only.”—Jas 2:15, ftn.; see study note on Mt 25:36. So the question is, why putting forth a lie, Butler? Surely you spoke of trickery, yet here we can see past that deception, for no smog can cover something that anyone can cut through with ease. even Biblehub disowns you at this point, and the fact you now assume without merit proves true to question Evo was asking of you. Stauros is an upright pole, the cross came into Christendom 400 years or so after the Christ. Stauros is deemed a upright stake of torture by many because of how vile and crazy Roman executions were, which was still in practice later later on. They added torture stake because it, ironically enough and to your surprise, with the Strong's. It is no different from the use of upright stake or tree. To add more fuel to the fire, such a device by the Romans is used to torture even kill those hung from such a thing, they even break the legs of people to hasten ones death. As a side note, look into The Torture/Torment of Marsyas, he himself was on an upright stake the same one of which he was torture on. https://itsartalicious.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/the-torment-of-marsyas-greek-sculpture/ Everything must be taken into consideration when it comes to the Bible and its history. Not wise to speak of every religion when you you were unaware of the views of Islam and didn't know what interfaith is. It should also be aware on your part that there are those who do not take the Strong's let alone the manuscripts for granted.

But wouldn't the defeat the purpose of Jesus own words and the same thing practices by others? If you know the truth you teach it so in turn student can be the teacher and minister to others, the process of making disciples. Jesus stated that we should be coming to know the True God and to know of his Kingdom, as well as know who he has sent. Seek and you shall find do not ring any bells? To find the truth in the Scriptures isn't a mistake. That being said, your own statement can be used against you judging by your previous comments.

@JOHN BUTLER Other than that I accept in conjunction with what you said, as stated before. We can begin with omitted verses and or the Strong's that correlates to a word in the verse or not, you can go first.

if that is the case - I accept. Just know the Bible and the Bible it is what you must use. But you yourself said it has nothing to do with leaders whereas the Strong's and context is used against you. How do you make response to that? Again - The Hebrews verses points does not point to political leaders, again the context of the verses and the cross-references counters your claim. If you seek the other authority, perhaps give Romans a got - not Hebrews. So how does connect to Hebrews 13:7, 17 granted your claim? The terminology should be in regards to the Bible. Do not add in Man's Understanding of the text, Butler. You did this last time with the word Nakedness and Ambassador. Is it a crime to adhere to knowledge and learning, according to you? You can use some of that - it is the best thing since sliced bread. How do you know this if you yourself made claim you do know not each and every JW? For instance, Outta Here to JW Insider, to Kathgar to Evo. All of them have different experiences in understanding the Scriptures so you cannot be certain. I find that last bit funny, Strong's and Cross-references are in EVERY Translation, ironically enough, even to the uninspired text found in the TR-1245. And the Strong's is the only thing that is in connection with manuscripts and codex evidence today which resulted in having a Bible in our language and understanding what a passage and or word of passage means. You can't be serious if you put forth that claim. But didn't they tell you to learn or research the Bible also? You had left JWs long time ago so surely you would have taken it upon yourself to study and apply, or did you not? The disciples were not as educated, nor were those of Pentecost, but they had the sense to understand Scripture. The Scriptures and the truth of the Scriptures is for all persons. No, the meaning of words do not change. The Strong's in both Hebrew and in Greek still stands. Therefore Hebrews was indeed speaking about leaders, thus putting your claim to shame when you stated it makes no mention of such leaders when the context and references tells you, even if you go to the Strong's, it tells you. If you cannot understand your Bible, how on earth would you be able to teach? The manuscripts and codex should be a dead giveaway, but like before, with these 2 verses, you remain unaware and unwilling to learn.

This man has observed Benjamin Button one too many times.

They should be concern about getting people off the streets into shelters and sanctuaries rather than booting them elsewhere. Robotic force is a no-go.

@JOHN BUTLER With the realization that the Book of Revelation, otherwise known as John's Revelation or The Apocalypse is primary about marks, signs and symbols. Something of which everyone knows. Therefore it isn't a cop out or a loophole. How is it they do not believe it if they profess it? You use to be one yourself so how is that so?

Do not add to my words Butler. You know exactly what I said. If you do not understand Strong's do the research otherwise you will show yourself to be ignorant of what it is, granted you do not know where the very bible you read derives from. If you do not trust a translation, why bother to read it because you find it easier? Double-Speak much?

If asking a question means being a boss, well I guess that would be the case according to you. Clearly I do not have authority over you merely stating what is actual true about those verses in Hebrews, knowing how you put an emphasis on LEADERS who are leading among the people of that same Spiritual House, the truth of the matter would be bitter sweet to you when the Strong's actually counterpart your response in regards to LEADERS. Therefore, to say it isn't in the passage is being hypocritical, when the context and other things proves otherwise. After all, you were the one who spoke of Spiritual Wisdom, only this time your own words begets you, granted that response was of your design. Perhaps do the research before you cry victim, Mr. Butler. And I will keep it up the next time you bring forth a violation of Strong's, of which I made it clear to you several times already, even when you asked why my focus is on such. If that is the case, perhaps you should pay attention to @Anna granted I did see her response just now, and now yours. It should come as no surprise to you, that God knows who is for him and who isn't. God, as he did in the days of old had used people, even by means of Shaliach Principle to get his Word across. But you do realize which is it they are going for? Right? Even though it is their own Bible, it should occur to you, as someone who reads it as to which translation is which, what it derives from. We can say for certain, they are not using the TR-1245 (Textus Receptus). That being said, using their Bible or any Translation that does not adhere to the TR-1245, can be used, but seeing these verses in Hebrews and no violation of text is present, it matters not what translation you are using and the Strong's still stand. This just further proves that you miss the point I had always made to you, Butler,, and I say this because the those mentioned in the text are the leaders. They haven't wrote it wrongly because the Strong's still point to leaders, as is in which harmonizes with the Greek Strong's. I know what the NWT is. And I highly doubt that religious leaders actually translated the Bible themselves. It would have been done - as is with ALL translations - by a translator. And anyone who some common sense and basic research and see that as to who made the translation, what textual basis is used and so forth. If you had noticed, I have been using the ESV and clearly it has not been translated by Unitarians, for translators take up from a source to produce the Bible. Ok, so how are you unaware of the Translation and Textual Basis your Bible uses? You know what Kittel is? If you do not mind me asking. Can you quote anywhere as to where I am suggesting it isn't a good translation? The verses in Hebrews that [those] are the leaders, it is in accordance with the Strong's in fact because 2233 is in use in that verse. The fact you do not even know where your own translations derives from thus discredits your claim. So far if we take the Bible as a whole, one is using TR-1245, the other, is not. Well it is best you understand God's Word then. Because if you missed that part in Hebrews just like you do not understand Nakedness, there is a problem. It should be realized by you that the Bible originated from Manuscripts, Strong's are used in as much of a way so you can actually read the Bible in English. To be ignorant of Biblical History shows your lack of Spiritual Wisdom of where the Bible came from, and this is coming from a former Jehovah's Witnesses, which proves shocking. Dare I ask, do you know the reason why Acts 8:37 or John 7:53–8:11 is omitted from the NWT Bible of which you use, can you answer properly? The Church of which Jesus built years ago - The apostolic church of the Apostolic Age that puts into application the teachings and practices followed by the disciples, the apostles, followers of the Christ, into the days of our Church Fathers, into the days of the Great Awakening, into this present day and onward. The Church has never failed and as Jesus said, the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [Hell/Sheol] shall not prevail against it. And those of the church who take up the teachings make up the Spiritual House, for they are all stones of that same house, in turn are part of the Body of the Christ. How did you miss that simple fact of the one you claim to follow, the Christ? You agreed with me before, so how must you ask again when I told you previously when I mentioned such that is another question.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. But it is still human flesh if that was the case. You'd be amazed of the dark and cray stuff that is actually true in how people are butchered in this way. That being said, I am not a fan of Snowflakes or Shills. Another reason as to why politics isn't my thing, let alone people like Tomi Lauren and a list of others. But hen it comes to blood, it is risky, and it is deem gold standard to some even in the EU so it can be a matter of choice, as for my people, that isn't the case, it is pretty much avoid it like the plague for reasons alone. On the other side of the spectrum you got the elderly folk who want to live forever or prolong their life, so they will gladly take the blood of the young without question, apparently.

As to what human rules are you even speaking about? You have the Church whereas its teachings are to be adhered to, as with what is commanded by God ans his Christ. Nothing in this sense screams human rule, if you can agree with an apostle who lead the church, it is understandable, but to agree with someone who is alienated from eh church or teach what is accursed, clearly you will run into some problems. there is a line between what is of the church and what is considered accursed and not of the church.

I bring it up pertaining to your previous response and the fact I take the passage as a whole into account from what Jesus says to his resurrection, granted that I made it clear I am taking into consideration the passage as a whole whereas you are maintain to a sole verse from the passage - Resurrection of Jesus [The Christ]. Context means everything to those who take Biblical Hermeneutics with seriousness, as is always with any response I make regarding Scripture. The thing here is regarding Jesus, we know what Jesus said in John 10:17-18, so we should be very aware that Jesus was clearly under Shaliach Principle here doing, saying things that is of not by means of his Will, but the Will of the one who sent him, granted, it says in Scripture that Jesus cannot do a single thing on his own, therefore, it can be pointed out that in John 2:19 Jesus predicted that he will rise again within 3 days and the fact he made it clear of whom he is going back to, of whom he will ascend to, moreover, the Temple of God is his Son of whom he dwells in and anyone who destroys his Temple, the Scripture says such one would be destroyed. For as you mentioned Romans 8:11, which is a cross-references to John 2:19 (as seen by evidence already) tells you this and the fact that us corruptible men will be made alive through this way also in the same way also. For if Jesus literally raised himself, as in, the dead raising the dead, it would conflict with the consistency of the passage as a whole when we are focused on a small portion in the passage regarding the Resurrection of the Christ. This is the same case with those who make claim that Moses is God also when if you take the passage as whole rather than 2 verses, you can see that Moses isn't anywhere near equal footing with and or like El Shaddai. To make the claim that Jesus raised Himself from the dead as you take it literally as you said you will have to explain also how would a dead man can resurrect himself if not God or his Spirit there, or the Triune God. And honestly, if I didn't take the Scriptures and what Jesus said, predicted, mind you, why on earth would I take into account the passage as a whole, let alone taking in the Hermeneutics of both the verse and passage? Previously you said before you cannot argue with the fact that God was the one to raise Jesus, you went on to say it is of your own personal belief that Jesus is YHWH - ok, but you later stated Jesus raised himself, thus having no argument in the fact God raised Jesus. Ironically enough when taking the passage in as a whole, it says otherwise and we can see that clearly. To say Jesus is YHWH you have to agree with the doctrine that you follow that the Triune God raised Jesus, in addition you say Jesus is YHWH most likely attest to the fact that YHWH himself has died whereas the Bible says otherwise, and has conveyed God's incorruptibility. No need, I can take harsh, but the thing is can you take Hermeneutics when it comes to the focus of Scripture as a whole rather than a snippet of passage. If that was the case, those who make claim to Moses also being God can be justified if that route was taken - he reality is if one takes into consideration the whole passage they can see that isn't the case, which in this sense is the same in regards to Jesus' resurrection and God's hand in the resurrection, after all, the Son cannot do a single thing on his own, the same one who affirmed Shema. That being said, Jesus or anyone else isn't a lair in this sense when we know what Firstborn from the Dead as well as Jesus being the cornerstone entails, even on Isaiah’s part. Lastly, I think you might want to re-read my quote again, I will highlight that snippet of which you pulled granted you made no comment in other details of that passage, regarding John 2:19: I understand that but are trying to profess that Jesus somehow raised himself from the dead when it was by God's hand that Jesus was raised, resurrected, the firstborn from the dead. But the thing is, the dead cannot raise themselves and Jesus was not capable of taking himself out of the pangs of Death (Hebrews 5:7) John 2:19 only states that Jesus said to the people Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Plus to speak of someone dead who can somehow raise himself. the verse is in regards to Jesus verbally saying speaking about the Temple of his Body, if he is quoting something it would point a foretelling of him [The Messiah] being a cornerstone (Psalms 118:22, Isaiah 28:16, 17 and once again we see Acts 4:10, 11) Because it is true that Trinitarians believe all 3, in this case, all 3 Gods make up 1 God, thus making them Triune, at the same time they do not believe such because of the whole aspect of distinct persons, therefore when it comes to the verse in question Jesus was not of the Triune God, especially if someone were to accept the claim that Jesus raised himself. To insist that Jesus raised himself from the dead is also to say it was not the Triune God who raised Jesus since Jesus is not the Triune being and the Triune being is not Jesus granted he is distinct in this sense since the focus is on 1 verse, Jesus was clearly unable to do such on his own, in this sense. You stated yourself, Jesus raised himself - ok, however on my part, according to what I am reading of the entire passage regarding the resurrection of the Christ, only stated what is of the Scriptures in full - that God was the one responsible for raising Jesus and I believe that Jesus is Lord and I believe in the one who resurrected him, as is said in Romans. And regarding the 4 identities this is in fact true regarding Trinitarians speaking of verses like this one and we see the contradiction there. You would think of it as interjecting but this is indeed the case with Trinitarians in regards to their belief, and we have not gotten into the other things yet, some of which I had already spoken of on occasion here. This is where you fail to see the very reason as to why the very small and yet brief mention of Jonah the Prophet. I had alluded to Jonah for a simple reason really and it is clear to me with that minor mention you didn’t get what I was pointing to – let’s hear it from the Christ himself in Scripture so you will understand and know (since this is included with the passage of Jesus Resurrection), granted I am taking the passage as a whole into consideration and what he had said regarding himself and of Jonah, granted that John 2:19, the verse of focus, references to passage in Matthew chapters 12, 27 and 28. Here, we are aware that regardless of all these wonderful works hat our Christ and our Lord, Jesus, is doing, the scribes as with the Pharisees demanded more as if they were still not convinced, regardless if they saw him in action or not some heard from others who were witnesses of these works, they called to Jesus and profess they wanted to see a sign from him. In response, Jesus tells the scribes and the Pharisees that a wicked and adulterous people of this generation who keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the Prophet. As it states below in Scripture: Matthew 12:38, 39 - The Sign [Mark] of Jonah - [38] Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” [39] But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. It continues into verse 40 and reads: [40] For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. In the Gospel of John, we know of Jesus' miracles and the fact the miracles done by him are spoken of as signs and we already know the Father does the Works through the Son – according to Jesus. We also already know the distinction, we know of Jonah's story and how it is identical in this sense to the Son of Man - Jesus Christ. Which brings us to the next thing of which Jesus had said and they did not comprehend - that is, what he had stated in verse 40 (Matthew 12:40) Now, in the history of Prophet Jonah he was tasked by God to go to Nineveh to give the message, as prophets and prophetesses are suppose to do, long story short, he ended up being swallowed alive, whole, by a huge fish right after being thrown overboard; down into the depths of Sheol he was taken, if you will, or as written. Jonah 1:7 - Jonah Is Thrown into the Sea - And they said to one another, “Come, let us cast lots, that we may know on whose account this evil has come upon us.” So they cast lots, and the lot fell on Jonah. Like Jesus had said, 3 days, 3 nights which was the case with Jonah, but then he emerged from the great fish after that time which to some it is like a resurrection. For, Christ Jesus foretells of such about he himself, who will die and on the 3rd day raised. Those same leaders were persistent with Jesus had rejected the sign of Jonah the Prophet, and remain in their own calamity, refusing to change from their bad ways, let alone show and or make the effort for repentance. In Jonah's actions and heeding God’s message enabled the people of Nineveh to change and they did repent after Jonah gave Word of God's message to them, condemning this generation of wicked men and adulterers and evil. This brings to the next point regarding the passage, Matthew 27:63-66 - [63] and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’ [64] Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.” [65] Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.” [66] So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard. Matthew 28:12-15 - [12] And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers [13] and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ [14] And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” [15] So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. That being said, the sign of Jonah would turn out to be the biggest and most miraculous miracle of them all. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, thus proving to that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah who has come. Jesus was born a man out of a woman. Pretty sure I mention this as with Jesus being corruptible, as is with all men of mankind i.e. susceptible to death, a need to eat/drink, etc. As far as I am concern no corruptible man who has perish can still do this as with other corruptible men. As Jesus, likewise, God will do the same for us, as it even points that out in Romans 8:11. Therefore the belief in the Resurrection is important. So what is your point in this regard? Jesus never took plunder of being equal with God and the other passage was regarding a wedding of which Jesus was invited to with those of his circle. Mary told him the wine had ran short and to prevent the marriage couple of being put to shame, Jesus took action as well as gave order regarding water, which was also needed due to the customs of the Jewish regarding washing before meals, for water was needed for those in attendance. The early signs performed by Jesus are also addressed in that passage you linked, granted the full passage in of itself is John 2:1-12. I haven't ignored anything granted I took the passage as a whole into consideration regarding John 2:19, as is with the Resurrection of Jesus, and to make claim that Jesus raised himself, kind of defeats the purpose of him being the Firstborn of the Dead when that contexts in regards to the risen Christ. Moreover, I was quick to see that Acts 13:2 was not even in connection, even harmoniously with John 2:19 and Romans 8:11, so nothing is bring ignored here, expect the fact one is taking into account the passage as a whole while the other solidifies and focuses on a single verse, there's a difference here. that being said, you are basing your personal view on a single verse and stated Jesus raised himself, therefore, if you do not take into account the passage, the Triune God was not here, but only Jesus, who is distinct, himself who raised out of death by his hand, as is with what was seen by your personal view vs. that of the Bible and or the Apostles. We are still on this one, we are not going anywhere, for and if we have, we can go for Acts 13:2 because it’s connection to John 2:19 or Romans 8:11 remains to be unseen – even the evidence regarding references points to that. So explain how Jesus raised himself when the context and the passage itself says otherwise? Clearly if you adhere to the Trinity doctrine you'd be aware that this isn't the case, thus making it a self-refuting claim, hence of whom you can choose and not choose who is God and not God when it comes to a specific passage that carters to you, you affirmed Jesus is God and according to the belief, Jesus is not the Father nor is he the Holy Spirit, granted he who is distinct and not of the other two, raised himself. For the Trinity is the belief that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but at the same time hence the Father is not God, the Son is not God and the Holy Spirit is not God, granted your doctrine speaks of distinct persons, yet somehow all amount to one God, but they all somehow make up the Triune Being when the time allows for it when it comes to discussion and or an explanation or common exegesis. That being said, if you want to talk all Scripture, what of the passage in question of which such Scriptures are part of? We should be taking into account every verse affiliated with that passage, not just one or two, but rather - all of it. That being said, what matters is what the Bible says and granted what we are to accept the very book that our God has had a hand in to enable us today to actually read and or have it in our own hands in our homes, etc. So how does that equate to a corruptible man being able to raise himself out of the pangs of death when he was held powerless by the earth? Surely if he was able to raise himself, there would not be a need for the Father or Holy Spirit, according to this response, let alone no Triune God at all if only Jesus himself raised himself. But we already seen by response made by all of us that someone did die - Jesus. Granted you said Jesus is God, and that Jesus is YHWH, how was it he able to taste death when incorruptibility has never changed and God always had such? For it is common belief by Trinitarians that Jesus is God and man and they also will say he can choose to be at will, which isn't the case and Jesus does not act on his own Will, let alone speak according to the Bible, or in this case, according to John. The Bible already tells you YHWH cannot die, is incorruptible, cannot succumb or even taste death in both the Old and New Testament, but then you have Jesus, who is according to you, is God, who was able to taste death, surely if he was God and man, death would not be something he would succumb to at all. And when someone is dead, they cannot do anything at all granted as to what the Bible says about the condition of the dead, and humans are not spirits so they do not go anywhere after death, in Jesus case, when he was resurrected was like that of a spirit, like that of an angel, according to Paul. That being said, hopefully you are well aware that the Bible tells you God isn’t a man or a Son of Man, even going as far and to speak of his incorruptibly, as mentioned. But God has sent Jesus in regards to Shaliach Principle, for any man who is under such is basically the one who speaks on behalf of God the Father and or his spokesman or mouthpiece if you will. Regarding us as mortals, kind of defeats the purpose of you bringing up Romans 8:11 if this was the case, moreover, God will be restoring us to life, taking us also out of the pangs of death, so that we, like Jesus, can live again, and as those of the Spiritual House, we gain Eternal Life. I’d also like to point out that Spirit Beings are different creations compared to humans. For humans are not spirit beings, and spirit beings are not human. We humans, granted we suffer due to Ancestral Sin from our first human mother and father, we succumb to death and sickness and when we die, we perish and everything with us, and we return to grave, buried in Sheol. Not only God cannot die, God is not like us men (I agree with the Bible on this), he isn't a man nor a son of man, for Jesus himself said to the Samaritan Woman God is a Spirit and because of this we are to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). The other factor to your response is that God's Purpose and Will is not of Jesus at all for what he says and does is not of his own (which I made mention of earlier), hence the very reason he speaks God's Word, he is the flesh that speaks God's Word, for Jesus didn't come to do the Purpose and Will of his own, but of the one who sent, His God and Father in heaven, we cannot be ignoring Shaliach Principle here when it is clear that this is regarding Jesus and or anyone who speaks on behalf, even represent God. If you say he allowed these restrictions then of whom was killed to begin with, you said Jesus is both God and man regarding dual nature, so which of it died and that day? That being said, God cannot cease or taste death or succumb to what us men are hindered by. YHWH means to exist for a reason, and all of YHWH came into existence, granted even the Paul made this known. Or as some would say, God had sent Jesus as a representative to show us how to be righteous. So you agree, according to your personal belief, that YHWH died? How do you counteract with the fact that YHWH has always been incorruptible? If that was the case, if one were to question and say, if Jesus is YHWH why would he profess Shema of affirming he has a God? After all, God does not have anyone equal to and or above him according to this passage (Isaiah 40:12-31), moreover when Jesus was a child surely when he observed the Law, he would be aware that he was reading of himself, and yet this was not the case for in the Law not only young male Jews were circumcised on the 8th day in God's Temple, they had to observe the Law as well, as well as the Shema itself - even recite it, which is in practice by all who know of it stands for, to an extent, even Muslims know and profess the Shema too. The other would be if Jesus is very much YHWH, as you said it yourself, who was his chosen one between both parties in regards to Spiritual Israel? For surely if Jesus was the Triune God, it would be understandable of those of the Spiritual House that make up Spiritual Israel, for I remember I spoken extensively on this before. Lastly, how can you make the claim that Jesus is YHWH when Jesus is spoken of to be both the Firstborn from the Dead as well as being the First of the Firstfruits? That being said, to call Jesus YHWH, you have to also remember that the Trinity Doctrine profess that the Son [Jesus] is not the Father, so take that into account also. Other than that, It is best you begin to take consideration in all passages and not focus solely on a single verse, as an example was posed when I mention Moses. The focus of Scripture in regards to that response was only John 2:19. You said several times that Jesus said himself, granted in the doctrine of the Trinity Jesus isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit due to the fact the very doctrine teaches that they are distinct from each other. Moreover, the core Trinitarian belief regarding this verse is that the claim that Jesus must be God because he said he will raise himself from the dead when the Bible tells us it was God who raised him, even tells you how he raised him and the very reason why Jesus is the Firstborn out of Death due to that fact. Other than that, did you or did you not just say several times that Jesus raised himself? Right, Jesus said He would raise Himself up. Which He did. So here Jesus raised Himself. Jesus said He would raise Himself and that is what happened. well John 2:19 does. It clearly states who will raise the "temple of His body", Himself. It isn't about God being made a lair or not, it is about an exegesis that becomes a contradiction. Because if it was the other way around, you be aware of that list of verses I posted before, which is consistent and the cross-references do connect with each other in the Bible. Granted, the belief in the Trinity is that the Son isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit thus not the Triune God. Then your actual answer in previous response would have been that the Triune God resurrected a person of their own but due to the fact that this person is distinct to some who make the claim it is something entirely different, to some degree, granted your belief professes that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is God but not God when it comes to the distinction. Moreover, it and to more contradiction when Jesus does not take plunder of the Father who is God, hence what I have stated above. So Jesus was not truly alone, it would defeat the very purpose of you saying Jesus raised himself, when you actually see what went on on the 3rd day that Jesus had been resurrected, which makes sense to the what Jesus said also in John 10:17-18. So here you agree that all 3 took part in the resurrection but before was quite different, yet puts forth contradiction - himself would have been spoken of as the other Gods who had a role in the resurrection, but at the same time since they are distinct, they are not Triune, in this case, according to the doctrine, Jesus' isn't the Triune being. And yet, to perhaps it may come as a surprise to you, the Shema Law is still intact in regards to Jesus' very own words in the verses in Matthew you posted, which is kind of ironic because the Trinity Doctrine do not see Jesus, who they claim to be God YHWH to have a God. You are aware of this Law of which Jesus observed since he was a child - correct? You also call on to Jesus as YHWH ,thus another contradiction when the Shema Law affirms who the God of Israel is - YHWH. If Jesus affirmed Shema in regards to YHWH who is the God of Israel as read in the Old Testament, how can you say he is YHWH when he himself affirmed to be heard, and acknowledges YHWH himself? In this sense you have 2 YHWHs. A bit silly that you have one Yahweh or Jehovah calling on to another Yahweh or Jehovah.... It sounds a bit absurd. Also John 15:25 is a quotation, for it is quoted from Psalms 35:19 and 69:4. Psalm 35:19 - Let not those rejoice over me who are wrongfully my foes, and let not those wink the eye who hate me without cause. Psalm 69:4 - More in number than the hairs of my head are those who hate me without cause; mighty are those who would destroy me, those who attack me with lies. What I did not steal must I now restore? The Law is used in John 10:34 and 12:34. as with several other Scriptures, even mention by Paul. I can see that, in fact, you were briefly in that debate I was in some months ago to another Trinitarian (clearly one who has hatred for others even in a debate). You are correct because Jesus is a King and all is in subjection to him, but we clearly do not see any form of religious worship being robbed from the Father to the Son, reasons why such type of worship is for the True God (which was the case with both David and God in passage in the Old Testament and how the people reacted to both the King and God), as the Law of which Jesus professed even says. Actually it is the same, even in regards to what is says and how it is used in Greek, I believe I said this to you before and the other guy. There is no difference for I spoke of this Greek word before, Proskuneo is to worship, to show honor, pay homage, bow to [down to], to show reverence, etc. I can go way more in-depth as I have several times already if you want. To be honest, I never even seen your response, anywhere, regarding Abraham and the Hittites, so how is it I am diverting if you never made mention to it all? As far as I know, I brought him up in this regard, just as I have with Jonah. Moreover, why would I speak of honor being given to Abraham or attempt to divert when I am speaking about the Hittites whereas Abraham was the one who bowed down to them, or in this case, worshiped them? For this was in regards to Abraham trying to speak with the Hittites so he can be allowed to bury his dead, and he bowed down not, once, but twice. Eventually Abraham was able to agree on the terms given to him in order to bury his beloved. That being said when Abraham rose and bowed down to the Hittites who are of the land he was in, surely he did not see them as God nor did he show religious servitude and utter self-sacrificing devotion. What of his beget son, Isaac? Isaac blessed Jacob to have all the nations on earth bow to worship him, it does not make Jacob God nor does Isaac see Jacob as God. Or perhaps the son of Jesse, King David bowing to a Temple, the list goes on. There is no argument when it comes to worship (proskuneos) anyone or anything can be worshiped from a man to his belly, to the sky, to the sea, etc. but there is a clear distinction who is to be and who is not to be religious worshiped with high devotion, most importantly in regards to religious worship it is actually something if one goes off to religious serve and worship false gods and the like. The only one spoken of to receive such devoted worship is God the Father himself, no one else, after all, this Law does hang on the foremost commandments and Jesus himself made it clear, as both Matthew and Luke made it known in their gospel. Glad you agreed with me - indeed, Jesus was like that of a Spirit and he had a Spiritualized Body granted to the amazement of the disciples who were on the road to Emmaus they were freighted and or startled, they did not recognize him but moments later overjoyed, happy even to see their Lord before them, the one who has risen. [36] As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. How am I calling him a liar when I agreed with him? Indeed he had risen and indeed he was like that of a Spirit. After all, just like the dead cannot raise themselves, in regards to Jesus being resurrected by God, it can be said that because he was in this spirit state, he does not have flesh and he does not have bones. I also agree with Paul on the fact that he spoke of Jesus, who had risen, as that of an angel; the question is, do you? Quite frankly - Yes. He was flesh, just as I am flesh, just as Billy is flesh, just as you are flesh. the Bible makes it clear. After all, we all agreed here that Jesus was corruptible, therefore he was just a man while on earth doing the Purpose and Will of the one who sent him, hence the signs and miracles and what he has said which is not of his own word, but of the one who sent him. That being said, if that was the case, didn't you said he restricted/limited himself? So how is this any different if you do not mind me asking? Other than that, I believe in the apostolic teachings, and the early Church shares that same view as well as him being a servant-son of the Most High. But you just said he restricted himself. If now this is the case, how is one who is both God and man be susceptible to death, having the need to eat, at times being ignorant to that of even a fig tree or a woman touching his robe? Moreover, why would he profess a Law that he holds true to since he was a child if he is God and man? It would contradict the very fact that not only you say Jesus raised himself, but Jesus dying at all if he is both God and man with you thinking he has a dual nature? That is borderline the duality belief regarding Hypostatic Union or do you truly believe this coupled with the Trinity? I can tell you right now it isn’t too far from the dualism view regarding good and evil and regarding God. Other than that, the Trinitarians do not believe Jesus have a God while at the same time they believe he has a God and is not God or Triune because he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, as mentioned before, and remain with the idea that Jesus is God when they also agree God has no equal or anyone above him. Therefore it would defeat the very purpose of your belief. For, if God has a God, God gets baptized in front of God and a list of other things. If I or someone random off the street had confronted you to ask, does God anoint God also with God? Such a thing would not make any sense and you can see how silly that sounds. Well if he had a dual nature how he corruptible and incorruptible and yet still capable of succumbing to death? God isn’t a mystery because in Ephesians that mystery was revealed. 1 Timothy 3:16 does speak about Jesus, but it does not refer to him as God whatsoever, for if anyone is aware, God does not need to be recognized by his own creations – angels. Before I even start, can you provide or shed any evidence that it is a man made doctrine? And to add on to that, who is it, according to you who had fought Satan and his Demons? Because saying something is one thing, backing up what is said is another, I already gave you a clue, it predates the Trinity Doctrine. Just as we have the earliest copies of the manuscripts and understand the teachings of the early church, there is information on this belief to have originated centuries ago. So we should not be quick to say it is man-made if the very belief predates your own to some degree – think about that. Also it may come as a shock to you, but even some Trinitarians, even scholars, believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Well that can obvious be seen granted the focus is on the passage regarding the Resurrection of Jesus, in which John 2:19 is one of those verses. And no, not mention is the same thing back and forth because the context of the passage of the whole is being talked about, haven't even got to Isaiah yet. Regardless? You have to take into account the passage, for if God's Word is to be profess, we should not be ignoring and or cherry picking Scripture to benefit a personal view that is in direct opposition of the Scripture. That being said, so far Acts 13:2 has no connection to John 2:19 or Romans 8:11 whatsoever, thus making claim to the connection as unfounded. Therefore we should be more focused on the passage as a whole, not a single verse in the passage; in turn we will not end up like the ones that truly believe Moses was a God as well. Most importantly the fact that Romans 8:11 was mention to thus solidifies the passage in question in whole rather than base an exegesis on a single snippet of the passage, or rather, a few words in a lone verse to justify and base a grand personal belief on Jesus alone and he himself when further on with included context, we see that God was indeed the one who has raised Jesus, resurrecting him, and it was God who will give that same authority to Jesus to raise a great multitude of people in the process. That being said, cross-references should be taken seriously - it is in your bible for a reason as well as footnotes. Well then, let us see your supporting Scriptures, surely it must include who is the Light as well or perhaps the Genesis Act of Creation also, that of which is mentioned in John's Introductory. I am also willing, and able to discuss John’s Introductory, as is with verse 3 which is included in that same introductory. I let you go first because it isn’t a matter of Jesus being created or not, in this sense, but what the introductory entails in of itself. You will have to be more specific on what in Isaiah you want to discuss about. Isaiah speaks of YHWH all the time, he also spoke to what is to become of God's enemies, what is to become of him when he is no longer held powerless by the earth, furthermore, he spoke extensively of the Promised Seed of God who is spoken of as the Horn of Salvation later on in the text, ironically enough, one of such things Isaiah said points to John 2:19 thus disqualifies the claim that Jesus raised himself. That being said, I will be happy to discus about Isaiah, apparently I am mimicking him as he did to the leaders of Judah right now. Moreover, I find YHWH testimony a strong one about himself in the Old Testament, an obvious and infamous one, perhaps you might agree with it if you know what I am referring to.

Channels as in what? Be clear - you are grown so therefore please be clear and concise if you want to make a reference to me. That being said, you are cycling about as to what you profess months ago, only this time, you show yourself to be more true to your the very person of whom I mention in this regard. He is using a translation that does not shy away from the manuscript sources of old that does not mix inspired text with uninspired text. And a couple of seconds at glance one can see there is no mix up or violation of Strong's in the Greek Language. the lack of Biblical intuition rather telling, therefore your own word about spiritual wisdom begets you. When the Strong's is in application, the verse, Hebrews 13:7 does indeed say leaders. the "Those" in question are the ones who are leading, to add more water to your decreasing fire, the cross-references even add further proof to claim. This verse connects with the other verse of which you mention which is identical to the previous whereas this also applies to verse 17. Another factor against you is If I were you, I'd be scared of Greek Strong's because the last time you tried some of your silliness, you tripped upon yourself and was quick to make mention of the English Bible, when in reality, even the English Bible informs you of what the word and or passage actually means. Next time if you are going to try and say a word is there or not, perhaps look it up on Biblehub - after all, you did say it was interesting. It may be interesting now a perhaps like sour grapes to the tongue if you check out the Hebrews verses on it now. Here you go, I am giving you the honor of clicking and seeing for yourself: https://biblehub.com/hebrews/13-7.htm https://biblehub.com/hebrews/13-17.htm Here is the Strong's: https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2233.htm That being said, spiritual leaders... Hebrews is clear, as is with the cross-references, as is with the quotations, as is with nothing that compromised the text which can result in a Greek and or Hebraic violation - that of which is unfounded, that of which whatever you have made claim to to be incorrect. Also I find this interesting.... This comes from a man, the same man who makes claim he does not not such persons, yet can say this. A bit hypocritical much, perhaps on judging and know who is who in terms of God's Approval, let alone Spiritual Wisdom when he himself cannot see the verse or passage for what it really is? Surely, well this I can attest, truly a former Jehovah's Witnesses such as yourself would be doing far better than that, the good thing is your not like the guy who believes he can, who is in the same position as you, believes he can heal with his hands, it didn't fair well for him in the long-run, do not apply that example. Well if they are trying to be like the apostolic church in them being one of the few who recognizes the apostolic church, how can you be so sure when you cannot prove it to be wrong? This is why anyone who is doing such you have to examine them -carefully. That being said remember who the head of the church is, or he may not recognize you when the time comes.

semper fi. That Lamb's on a mission, but I seriously down that type of firepower he's carrying he can travel properly.

As we can see here nothing in this small snippet says they claim to be inspired prophets, you merely upper-cased Prophet-like Organization, ironically enough you left in the last part just as he the days of the early Christian congregation, and to add on with the very fact that anyone who tries to follow the early church, the apostolic church considers that church as true, which is, quite damaging on your part with what the next part of that quote says, as it reads: He designates these Christians as his “faithful and discreet slave.” (Matt. 24:45-47) This “slave” group is strictly commanded: “Do not treat prophesyings with contempt.” (1 Thess. 5:20) This has proved true of Jehovah’s anointed witnesses on earth. They pay attention to prophecy with the greatest respectfulness. They have corrected themselves when prophecy revealed their own shortcomings. They have not held back when prophecy has condemned practices followed even in Christendom. (Isa. 58:1) Yes, they have proclaimed the prophecies written in God’s Word even though this has brought world hatred toward them.—Matt. 24:9. So if they were inspired prophets, you'd have to explain that last part which makes your own quote a self-refutation. you can fool someone easily, perhaps Srecko, with just a quote cut in half, and like I had done with you last time, you quote the whole thing instead of part of it. Therefore, I ask you this time, direct to you and you alone only because you seem to be the guy who can pull information also, show me anywhere where this Restorationist Christian group has claimed to be inspired prophets? In fact, show me a historical fact that any Non-Trinitarian who is putting into application of the early church to be inspired prophets? When the history of Restorationism, perhaps the early church - no, The Didache can be used against you at this point, Witness? This I'd like to see and maybe it would put your History of Christianity to the test this time around. The quote states they act as prophets of God and can prove it. Any of us can act as prophets and prove it, but none of us can make the claim of inspiration, so where in this quote does it say they are inspired prophets? So far I only see they are and can act as prophets of God, but inspired prophets - remains to be seen, granted that even in the history of non-Trinitarianism, such ones who adhere to the church would never claim to be an inquired prophet, not even Church Father Eusebius of Caesarea would make that move granted his history and knowledgeable influence and understanding of inspired Scriptures. Furthermore, what kills it for you even more is the fact that parts of where this quot originated from, the following statement says that them, who were called Bible Students had been active in preaching the gospel, as is what the prophets have done in their time, even those of Pentecost, for the gospel contains not just the good news gospel, but also, the Messianic Age, all coupled with the Great Commission, of which you are on the fence about as per last discussion. The sole focus in that paragraph also is Matthew 24:14. How are you so sure? Anyone who follows or tries to be like the early church should be carefully examined. Like the church they adhere to the inspired Scriptures and they understand what the holy spirit is, but nowhere, anywhere have we seen them make claim to be an inspired prophet. demonic inspiration you say? How when you haven't proven them to even make claim to inspiration? If anything we can discern such ones and apply 1 John 4:1, i.e. with discernment anyone can tell what is true and what is false, what is in accordance with the Scriptures and what is not. You have already proven yourself to which side of the spectrum you are on, many, many times when it came to Scripture, even going out on a limb to twist Greek Words in the process. Perhaps next time you should cross-examine yourself and study the history of Christendom. What I would be interested in is the claim of them being inspired prophets. Show me, Witness. Because like last time when I asked you showered me with many many verses that evade what is being asked.

Indeed bravo. Perhaps next time you do a better job at not fooling yourself into a pit. Because the thing is it is true, if you bothered to check the link it even tells you that you can be the solution to such problems and it explains how and what you can do as a parent and or guardian. And in regards to the Bible we are to apply wisdom and in turn we teach wisdom to our youth so they can know right from wrong, if they see a problem and or danger they, perhaps end a conflict just as Jesus has regarding his own followers. I bring the both of you up because to both of you time and time again I state the same thing, I give factual information in this regard. Clearly unlike the both of you I can see with my own eyes that problems like this came due to our imperfection and of sin, to which you were on the opposite side of the fence for and even point blame on such ones like Abraham and his household. For if we apply information it not only helps us, it helps others at the same time, we do not lose hope in what God will do when he rids the world of wickedness. Man cannot govern themselves and they continue to beat other men into Hades day in - day out. Everyday you see this and it effects all people, and those that brings back to this state will continue to do this also and teach their own children corruption for in turn will do the same to other good folk. You cannot honestly tell me that you believe that a total purge of such imperfections can be accomplished by us of mankind. You are only kidding yourself, Srecko. There is a reason as to why the Bible speaks of enduring in such a world filled with badness that pains each and every one of us. I am glad, remember, Prophet Isaiah was like this to the leader of the Judah, who do you think God was siding with and what do you think was the response of the leaders? Oh Really? If that is the case, what is positive in my statement about teaching children about abuse, about sex, about strangers, about drugs, etc so that they do not succumb to any error by their own hand? Moreover, I can teach someone and tell them that God isn't okay with physical sex change, but you yourself said the complete opposite? You mean to tell me that is positive? But it would seem educating children, as profess on my part, is seen as a negative, on your part, this is case, the very reason the question posed regarding abuse was never answer and I had to answer it for you. That being said, know this, Isaiah who was a Prophet was saying the same thing over because he knew what was right, Judah's leaders on the other hand - not so much. If we are to represent one of these 2, clearly one can make the distinction. Therefore I believe in educating our children, for anyone who says otherwise and make a mockery of it is only a means of negativity in the very change that the youth seek. I suggest you not be a mentor to children until you can mentor yourself.

So according to you if you speak of someone, make him known and give information of something that is to reveal and or profess support what does make it to you, Butler? I posted an image a few response back, you were the one who posted about Mr. Gardener a few months ago the same Mr. Gardner who took part in disrupting the JW Church that Evo goes to. Apparently so, but aside from that I strongly encourage you to take up what I said and adhere to Child Abuse Prevention sources, of which I posted to you before. For if I have to be honest, abuse and neglect of children is far greater in the UK, than it is to us here. If your Father can teach you to do good, do the same to another who is lower than you, younger than you so he will be wise just as your Father has made you wise. For if we do not take this stance, the next thing you know such ones will succumb to violence, they will succumb to other vile things and will become a potential victim to an abuser. Play your part the best way you can or only remain to be the very obstacle that is preventing those who do take such things seriously. Srecko Sostar continued to dodge the very fact that I had used primarily Child Abuse and Neglect Services own information against him, as with Bible Principles - that he himself asked for, so I encourage do what he cannot do, read and understand what is being conveyed about better solutions. After all that information that I linked is the real deal, I am just a centimeter away from posting actual PSAs that would pretty much defeat the deception Srecko poses in regards to child abuse prevention and his sly misinterpretation of my words. If the Bible says we are to teach ourselves to be wisdom we do it, in turn we teach our children to be wise, just as both Mary and Joseph taught Jesus the very Law and practices of the Jews he was born under.

I've already made mention to what the Temple actually is, granted that verse 21 tells us he was speaking about the temple of his body. For he was in noway talking about the Temple of Herod and the Jews themselves did not understand what he was talking about. Regarding the body of the Christ, that is God's Temple for the very fact God dwells in the Christ as he does with the early Christians. I understand that but are trying to profess that Jesus somehow raised himself from the dead when it was by God's hand that Jesus was raised, resurrected, the firstborn from the dead. But the thing is, the dead cannot raise themselves and Jesus was not capable of taking himself out of the pangs of Death (Hebrews 5:7) John 2:19 only states that Jesus said to the people Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Plus to speak of someone dead who can somehow raise himself. the verse is in regards to Jesus verbally saying speaking about the Temple of his Body, if he is quoting something it would point a foretelling of him [The Messiah] being a cornerstone (Psalms 118:22, Isaiah 28:16, 17 and once again we see Acts 4:10, 11). No one is denying what Jesus is saying, the truth of the matter is one is merely taking in the context of this passage as a whole, not a sole verse, for if we are to take one verse and one verse only, we ignore the passage as a whole in of itself, something that anyone who professes hermeneutics would never do. Furthermore, it would contradict anything else that connects with this passage if we ignore them, the very reason why cross-references should be taken into consideration. I know the Christology of Trinitarians, granted I had dealt with them many times before, among them being James White followers or that of the KJV-Onlyist crow or the FLDS and so forth. Trinitarians believe that the Father is God, that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, thus making up the Triune God, after all, you yourself stated each to be God thus making up the Triune itself of the Godhead. granted, the Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit making up this Triune God. Furthermore, this is seen as some centralized mystery in the Trinity Doctrine. But if that was the case, you just stated that Jesus raised himself, for if Jesus indeed raise himself, the dead rising themselves out of death, how would you explain the involvement of the Father or God using His Spirit to raise Jesus if the claim is already posed of Jesus somehow raising himself out of the pangs of death? It can be seen as a contradiction for if let's say for example I did agree with you, Jesus raised himself from the Dead, in this sense, I'd have to totally ignore the whole passage and it's references and accept this verse without merit, it would put me in contradiction to the very true fact that Jesus was able to do nothing from himself and be a list of other things and it would counter fact cross-references and testimonies made in Scripture. And quite frankly, I want to take all Scripture into consideration, as with the parallel to this case regarding the Mark of Jonah and surely Jonah wasn't able to bring himself out of the big fish by his own hand. So if that was the case why was it that Jesus cursed a fig tree or not have known a ill woman had touched her? More importantly why was Jesus corruptible, thus making him susceptible to death whereas the Hebrew Old Testament tells you God himself cannot die and is incorruptible, even brought up in the Greek New Testament? God cannot die, as the bible even tells you. Jesus could because unlike YHWH, Jesus was under Shaliach Principle, came to earth as a man by means of a woman named Mary, therefore he was able to taste death, even expire only to be resurrected and made incorruptible. But did you not just say the following: By saying Jesus raised Himself it does not reject the idea that the Father raised Him, nor the Holy Spirit. And If Jesus and only He, had raised himself from the dead, there would be no mention of God or the Holy Spirit, but only by Jesus' own hand and if HE will do this as you said, why bring up the Father or the Holy Spirit if the concept of the Triune God is not at work according to the Trinity? After all, you said the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, so surely all 3 persons would take part in the Resurrection and not Christ Jesus alone. We are not going off in a tangent because regarding the Temple of his Body it is of the passage itself - that is if you take into account the whole passage or one verse. The expression Jesus is God'is not same as Jesus as God as in an example, Jesus is worshiped as God. So which is it then granted you follow this that is factual true about Trinitarians regarding John 2:19: Trinitarians interpret the text to mean Jesus raised himself from the dead and somehow suppose this means he must be God who raised himself from the dead. Not really, I am being simplistic. Matthew 22:36-40 - [36] “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” [37] And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” I am glad you made mention of this verse because here we see Jesus affirming the Shema, which is to be heard by God to affirm that the one who professes the Shema Law HAS a God. And we know that Jesus, as with Paul, affirmed Shema and as others have also even in testimony. It does not destroy the list of the laws granted that Jesus is the mediator between God and the men he made the Covenant with as seen in 1 Timothy 2:5. We are of Spiritual Israel and the Law still hangs on in the New Covenant. Clearly if you are serving God, you are in application to that Law and I totally agree with Jesus. As far as I am concern, Trinitarians are not that open about the Shema nor do they accept it as much. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is Paul affirmation of the Shea Law so clearly anything of Spiritual Israel still remains. And no I am not using duality of Scripture just basic Hermeneutics. Now your next problem is if you attest that Jesus is God and raised himself, why did you bring up the Shema Law when that is against your view of Jesus being YHWH when it is known God cannot profess Shema, he was the one who created it and Jesus obverse and applied the Shema since he was a child? When I discuss with Cos about this in a debate of some sort, you were briefly there when I said this. And no, it isn't that hard, I understand John 1:3 clearly, as with Paul making mention of this, and John 1:3 does not prove Jesus is God granted and it ads on to what the New Creation entails about the very man God made superior to the angels in Hebrews. Proskuneo can man many things but Jesus was never religious worshiped. If we are to say he was worshiped, what of Lot tot he Angels? Abraham to the Hittites, surely the latter isn't God yet worship and homage was done - it does not equate to religious worship. That being said an act of worship and or homage does not make that God, and those who religious worship and give self sacrifice to God know of whom they truly render worship and servitude to. In your case, you have 3 Gods which make up a Triune God, of whom you render religious worship to? Granted that when the disciples saw Jesus he was like a Spirit, having a Spirit Body if you will. And no the bible even tells you of his Spirit Body and the fact Paul spoken of him as if he was an angel -malak. So Paul is the lair or perhaps Luke? Furthermore, As a Spirit, Jesus was able to appear/disappear suddenly instantly as seen in Luke 24:31 and John 20:19, 26 and he was not recognized y those who followed him until he spoke with them and made it known as seen in Luke 24:30, 31, 35 and John 20:14-16, 21:6, 7 - and I am sure we were, as seen here, agree with the gospel of John. So according to you how does John 2:19 and Romans 8:11 to the other instance of the Holy Spirit in use? I even told you the verses to do not cross-references at all with Acts 13:2. So the first 2 verses in question correlates with Acts 13:2 why state this if that isn't the case at all even with evidence against that? I do not see the connection. However, it would have made sense if you said Acts 13 verse 26 and onward (26-52) but that would granted both John 2:19 and Romans 8:11 not only correlates, but harmonizes with the passage as a whole. So you agree with that Triune God statement of which I posed before, right? If that is the case. But the Scriptural evidence says otherwise and John 2:19 and Romans 8:11 has no connection to Acts 13:2 whatsoever, therefore the Spirit of God is in play in both verses and passages, but clearly both events are not same, moreover, if we one cannot take the passage in full and solely a single verse than another, why say otherwise of the actual cross-references in your own Bible? Clearly both John 2:19 and Romans 8:11 are in connection with each other and it does correlates to the passage itself as we can see and read with our very eyes of both these verses. John 2:19 - Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Romans 8:11 - If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus[a] from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. Acts 13:2 does not make any claim to what is mention about, ironically enough, the very outline regarding this passage even tells you Acts chapter 13, especially 1-14 regarding Paul’s First Missionary Tour for it records the journey of Paul and Barnabas to Cyprus and to Pisidia. Acts 13:2 - While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” We do not see anything in Acts 13:2 about Jesus being raised out of a tomb here, let alone raising himself, therefore the cross-references are proven true and what was mentioned before is unfounded, for even the evidence amounts to that in regards to what I linked to you - that is - if you checked it, if not, if your Bible contains footnotes and cross-references, it will tell you, i.e. the NIV Bible. So if you are sure of what you are saying I will pose the question again: Can you show me Acts 13:2 references regarding John 2:19? So if I were to say do you agree with Peter, John, Paul's testimony of who the True God is, after all you posted Matthew 22:36-40 thus we see Jesus affirming Shema, which in this sense if you understand the Law of the Jews is affirming that the one who profess Shema has a God. Clearly in the Scriptures it is silly to say and or even fathom that God has a God. You also will fall into a mistake if you go just the next verse or two over regarding the Light of this World, moreover, other John's (John the Baptist) Testimony of the Christ. God isn't a mystery, nor is the Christ granted what Paul conveyed in Ephesians of what has been revealed. But the thing is, there are those who understand and can see for themselves an exegesis that does not match up with Scripture, i.e. if a persons accepts a single verse and say Moses is God, clearly that person isn't understanding and or taking into account of the passage and and sticks to a single verse. Basic Biblical Hermeneutics can even tell you that this isn't the case and can even point out to the Law of the Jews of which both God professed in Psalms, to what Jesus said in the Gospel of John and to what Paul had said in the First Epistle to Corinthians. But then you have some evidence of Suborintaionist who believed Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Granted only a superior of God fought and battle with Satan and his demons in Heaven, therefore if you are making the claim it is a man doctrine you have to back it up. What can be said the belief to some degree predates the Trinity - granted early Christians were Subornationist, just as the early Church was, the very church Jesus built 2,000 years ago. So you have to ask yourself, who was it really among God's Son who fought Satan the Devil and His Demons? Who was it that will defeat the Dragon and have the backing of God's Army behind him? After all, Jesus did say he can call unto God anytime for high ranking angels to his side, to rally, to flank, to command, to defend and support him. We can discuss this on another thread with this one but I believe at some point I did discuss this with someone. All things were made through Jesus. God the Father takes delight in the Son; The Son rejoices over the works and marvels of the Father's hands. It may fit perfectly to you, but the cross-references and what that Light is pretty much counters that.

If you take into context David's account, it would and should be clear, what it costed him, what he did to repent and make amends with God and what he did to secure things so that his successor can take over.

Can you prove I am grouping people together? Clearly I am showing the differences of Christology as well as making a distinction between the two, as sky to sea, there are differences. Can you bring proof to claim of the problem I have because you have already failed your own claim of me pretending, as you professed twice now. If anyone has a problem it is a man who believes he can purge something that came from the imperfection of men, not only it is a problem, it is outright dream-worthy when such a man cannot see reality for what it is and that only God can change such things, not man. And yet you are capable of knowing who has God's approval and not? Who can forgive or not? Some of the things Gardner has professed you have brought them up too, just as his view on the bible itself. Yet when it is done in your favor no one is not allowed to bring up this point? I am not judging, my statement is based on both the responses and reaction made by you and Srecko. I speak of educating our children to which Srecko makes claim I do not have concern for the well being of the youth, something of which I made points of time and time again to you and now. If Srecko is right about me not caring why in the world would I post information brought up by Child Prevention sources? I told you before, I do have a high concern and I believe God will cleanse this world of sin and death, if the latter claims this logic is a fail, why agree with him on this stance? Not really. I make a response to a response and give a word if need be. If I felt inferior I would not be getting my information form a source and I'd be flailing in responses. I say this because as someone who profess the gospel if they are incorrect they will go by means of insult and make outlandish claims, as I said before because of this and the racial slurs, it does not hinder me from professing the Bible. Another thing because of the actions of a person, in this case an African American, society tends to blame all African Americans for the actions of a sole person - I do not believe this even when the race and background is in regards to others, but this mentality is at its prime in the US, as with in the UK for you. This is the same with faith communities. If someone abused a child, it does not define the masses and they should not be singled out for the actions of a sole person, it is absurd and silly. That being said, I am aware of how people are and I do not condemn an entire party, a group or people because of something that one or a few people have done, I do not buy into that mentality and I told you this countless times. We can take example from even Jesus himself, who he himself knew the situation with the Jews and Sanitarians, as is with other biblical examples. Just as God is fair and just, we should be likewise, not be ignorant to such at all. And how is that so? My response pretty much counters your question, as is with what I say about good and bad people of which you agreed with me on several times before. Why is it now it is different with you? Unlike you I can discern and understand the difference in something someone or some group, I am not oblivious to what it means to be like a Berean and put forth discernment. My comments are always this lengthy because I make a response to a response. It should not come as a surprise to you because our first discussion I told you I am literally like a book. Therefore, I am knowledgeable, but I do not pretend because I take the time to read, study and research - that isn't pretending, Mr. Butler. As much as you can make claim to childish antics, it will always be unfounded for you and I both know pretending is for children. A bit ironic from a man who speaks of tricks not too long ago, if I may add. So next time when you post information of someone like Mr. Gardner, do not boast of his efforts when the guy was causing problems to people and caused a divide among those who take up his influence. I also suggest you take the time to read and research, perhaps you can play a role in what Child Prevention Services has provided for people to follow, you and your household can learn a thing or too and not ignore the problem. AS for you in the UK, perhaps London would be a better place, just as Robinson's people have mentioned before they went crazy.

@JOHN BUTLER You mention this before, but coupled with that you will not be ignoring the things people are doing that can help the betterment of children to at least lessen child abuse and or other bad practices that any child can succumb to. Just as your own Father teaches you right from wrong, it is to be done the same to our youth, be it your own blood or someone you care for who sees you as perhaps a parent and or guardian. Therefore I do not see why the agree previously but show to be contested to such now, even against as Srecko is doing. You cannot cleanse anything totally, perhaps in your dreams, but in reality, we cannot stop abuse anywhere totally - this goes for the Jehovah's Witnesses too. Therefore in contrast to Srecko's claims, God is the only one who is capable of purifying this earth of sin, us of mankind, cannot. WE can do some things, but never can we cease something totally i.e. war and famine being prime examples. If you fail to believe God can clear imperfections of men, why profess God to begin with? Because the way you are acting you act as though our counterparts are ignorant of something that is neigh impossible purge, which is factual.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Well it isn't as bad as being called Christ Ninjas. For our Bibles strike and cut harder than a Katana. I often get images like this

@JOHN BUTLER Keep in mind that Zechariah was speaking in regards to Spiritual Israel. So do JWs some, how believe God now has accumulated wives in heaven, going with Srecko's assumptions since now you seem to be buddies with a man who believes in both undeath and God not caring about psychical sex changes? This I'd like to see.

This is where you are twisting this, they never admit to being inspired prophets, and I am sure all the facts provided to you several times before thus proofs this point. The Holy Spirit did not die, it was the Christ who did, but only made alive because God's hand in Jesus' resurrection.

Oh indeed it is, and I believe that God will rid the wickedness that pains mankind, unfortunately for you and Butler you seem to not believe it at all, therefore shows you do not truly take into account of the Bible whatsoever. I believe every word that comes from the Bible and have the mental capacity to understand it, thus taking in Spiritual Wisdom, as Butler claimed, and unlike some, I am not ignorant to what the Bible says, nor do I display the lukewarm nonsense that is displayed by some. That is the best you can do, Srecko? If I didn't care for children I would not be speaking to them to up-build them, let alone help them out for the years that I have, so they would not succumb to gang affiliation and or go about brazen conduct themselves - becoming the better versions of themselves and be a positive mentor to others. We teach and instruct our children so they can better themselves and do this accordingly by means of making the right decisions and understanding good from bad. Other than that even my own culture does not even condone withholding aid to the youth, keep that in mind because I remember telling Witness the same thing who assumes I do not care for women because of pronunciations and typos in my responses of which he used hypocritically before to make a point which failed. That being said, we have to wait for the Kingdom because us of mankind do and cannot do some things, one of these things is clearing an obvious imperfection totally, to which both you and Butler remain ignorant of that simple fact. The day comes when you can stop such things by your own hand only then you can say something without the mental gymnastics you are posing now. I you do not believe, and if Butler does not believe, it will not hinder my belief in what God will do and it will not hinder my ability to help out our youth so they do not become another statistic, another victim, another criminal, what have you. Not so much of a charming example, now are you, Srecko. Helping our children in this way you are against. Faith in some in humanity is indeed lost. Can you prove that it is the same when I am pulling information from an actual Child Abuse Prevention source? Your ignorance is most likely bigger than the very Moon that God put above our heads, Srecko. My other response was Child Abuse and Neglect websites in addition to Biblical application when it comes to teaching children in regards to wisdom. And bringing up the Watchtower cannot help you with what I made a response to previously, for if you truly cared about child abuse, you'd take into account one primary solution is to educate, I can say this to Butler he agreed with me last time, but I find it no surprise that the man who believes in sex change is cool with God is capable of teaching children, let alone your clear belief in undeath - remember you exposed yourself for believing in this - not me. That being said, I am happy you moved on from the main focus of child abuse in terms of my own response using the very source itself, for it shows that it does not concern you so next time you want to say someone does not care of young people, make sure that person is not someone who adhere to the child abuse prevention. Granted I spoke of solutions in terms of educating our children, I believe that we should be going about the issue the smart way - this goes for other things also outside of the realm of abuse. Educating our children isn't useless, for if that was the case, it would make you the problem in this regard. To not teach our children about such things, about strangers and child abuse, even about sex, we make them a target if we don't. The very reason as to why various instances take place online and in person is because most parents and guardians do not educate their children, for example, just a few days ago you had a child cussing at a teacher and calling him a racial slur due to his skin color as seen here: https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/05/teacher-punching-student-gofundme/ https://people.com/crime/california-teacher-caught-on-camera-punching-boy-allegedly-racist-slurs/ But you and Butler do not believe in educating our children to better themselves, therefore, stuff like this will happen. When we educate our children, they do not end up in this nature, thus making them upright due to us up-building them, in this same sense, when we teach our children about child abuse, it decreases the chance that they become a target of abuse, if we teach our child about sex even talk to them about it, it decreases the chance end up going about intercourse with someone of the opposite sex, even worse someone of the same sex, therefore when we teach they do not end up doing these things, whereas other situations will be regarding abortion and various things out of wedlock, and most importantly, when we teach our children about strangers, it decreases them being a victim to kidnappers and or the like. But truly I say to you, if you and Butler really cared, you be openly agreeing to one education being a primary tool, for this same tool does not help the parent/guardian, it also helps other adults who do not know how to identify the problem. Logic? Since when you take this into account when you are showing hypocrisy to something that is of betterment? But you, just now, shown yourself to be in denial of an actual and yet effective effort, as with things intertwined with it. So you just proven yourself by your silly logic of your own to discredit something that people are actually doing, in the US, in the UK, in the majority of the EU, the Mother Land, and Asia, even the Middle East, granted the situation with Syranic Christians and others. So I ask you, why is educating our children about child abuse such a bad thing according to you and why is it that we ignore the Bible that makes it clear that brazen conduct exists, or the fact that wisdom is very important? You make yourself a hypocrite now because of your pass statements, although cryptic, stands against what you say here now. Perhaps you will delete them too if I quote you, and you will state you it was a mistake maybe? That being said, yes the Kingdom is to come and it will help us out greatly, until you can stop a war and famine Srecko, they you will be in the right, but right now, you haven't proven anything and my last statement, coupled with Child Abuse Prevention sources stated against you like the great wall of China, therefore, anything in this regard in an attempt to discredit fails compared to why I made a response to. Yes they are Restorationist and they are to this day. The early Church believe in one God and One Christ and put into application of the teachings. Also what makes you even more of a hypocrite, you merely pulled names from those who came form the Restorationist Movement, the same one I told you time and time again all of which came from the Great Awakening, minus one you linked, and that SAME information even tells you who actually is keeping up with their Restorationist roots and who is not regarding the early apostolic church. Before your claims get scatter again I will make it known to you what the Didache actually is - a second time The Didache The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (60 - 120 A.D.) And concerning baptism, baptize as follows: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water. And if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else is able, but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. And concerning the Eucharist... "We thank You, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant-son, which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant-son. To You be the glory for ever." And concerning the broken Bread: "We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant-son, to You be the glory for ever. Just as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever." We thank You, Holy Father, for Your holy name you that made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you revealed to us through Jesus Your servant-son. Glory to You forever and ever. You, Almighty Lord, have created all things for Your own name's sake, You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You, but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your servant-son. Above all things we thank You that You are mighty. Glory to You forever and ever.... Hosanna to the God of David. The early church believed in the teachings of the Church. They believed that God is the Father and Jesus is His Son. They do not adhere to Traditions of Men and they strive to keep to the teachings of the Church even if it means to defend and restore sacred trusut, just as our Church Fathers have before us. They had long fallen from their Restorationist roots for in the apostolic church, they believe Jesus came from God whereas this denomination does not believe in pre-existence as the early church has, instead, they believe that Jesus only came into existence when Mary conceived him. I already stated this several times before, so you are not only incorrect, you failed to try and equate a Christology you have not even spared a second to read into, mind you, the one you claim to go to the website for, therefore, the ignorance is obvious. Due to the way the Christadelphian body is organised there is no central authority to establish and maintain a standardised set of beliefs and it depends upon what statement of faith is adhered to and how liberal the ecclesia is, but there are core doctrines most Christadelphians would accept. The Christadelpians belief on Satan The Devil: Christadelphians believe that the Satan or Devil is not an independent spiritual being or fallen angel. Devil is viewed as the general principle of evil and inclination to sin which resides in humankind. They are convinced that, dependent on the context, the term Satan in Hebrew merely means "opponent" or "adversary" and is frequently applied to human beings. Accordingly, they do not define hell as a place of eternal torment for sinners, but as a state of eternal death respectively non-existence due to annihilation of body and mind. So be very honest with yourself, if you still think they are Restorationist when their view does not even line up with the apostolic church let alone what the Bible says regarding a number of things, how can you make and or believe the claim they are restoring the teachings? Your own Bible even tells you Jesus was tempted by the Devil, and we already seen he Devil's actions in the Old and New Testament and what is to become of him. As pointed out to Witness, The devil will be imprisoned in an abyss by the Christ, therefore it does not line up with Restorationism believe that Satan is a fallen angel, but to them, a principle of evil. To add more fuel to the fire, perhaps your own hypocrisy of, as Butler puts it, lack of Spiritual Wisdom, in addition to your lack of elementary Theological studies in Christian history, they do not believe in pre-existence, yet the early church understands what angelic agency is. So how does that add up, Srecko? Here's a wisdom cookie on biblical facts (a term you have a clear disdain for): Christadelpians belief on Pre-exustence: The Christadelphian denial of the pre-existence of Christ. They are interfaith hence the merging of faiths that have done. They adhere to the Oneness, in turn, the Trinity Doctrine that is not of the Apostolic Church and they are openly accepting of same sex marriage (granted you do support this to some degree with your past statement on God being okay with it). Restorationist that follow the church do not believe in the Trinity, nor the Oneness Doctrine. Otherwise known as Baptist Christians originated from the Restorationist Movement, but they do not apply the Restorationism teaches granted that they are not Non-Trinitarian. They believe that the Trinity is vital for their salvation and to anyone who think otherwise, you tend to get colorful responses. FACT: Historically, Baptists have played a key role in encouraging religious freedom and separation of church and state, according to Religion Facts, 10 January 2010. Since there is no hierarchical authority and each Baptist church is autonomous, there is no official set of Baptist theological beliefs. These differences exist both among associations, and even among churches within the associations. Among the Baptist, there are some doctrinal issues that variety among them: Eschatology, Calvinism in contrast to Arminianism, The doctrine of separation from the world/ whether to associate with those who are of the world, They also take up peaking-in-tongues and the operation of other charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit in the modern church How the Bible should be interpreted (hermeneutics) The extent to which missionary boards should be used to support missionaries The extent to which non-members may participate in the Lord's Supper services Which translation of Scripture to use (King-James-Only movement) otherwise known as KJV-Onlyists. Dispensationalism in contrast to Covenant Theology The role of women in marriage. The ordination of women as deacons or pastors (granted both you and Witness fits this category) Attitudes to, and involvement in the Ecumenical Movement (This one, Srecko, you should know because you I even explained this to you before because you couldn't tell the difference in this regard and to the Catholics - thus you are in hypocrisy.) Remember what I told you "The Protest isn't Over" Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), is an American-based church that is international with roots in the Latter Day Saint movement (LDS). The church traces does not trace back to it's Restorationist roots - that is the apostolic church. but rather its origins is traced back to Joseph Smith's church that was establishment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830, whereas reorganization was in motion in 1860 - by just 30 years apart. When Joseph Smith died in 1844 the road to reformation and to be reorganized took place, hence the name RLDS -Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Apoptotic Church recognize only the Father is God and that Jesus is His Son, for Restorationist are borderline Suborinationist, which means to believe that the Father is greater than the Son and or above the Son, granted the Bible even tells you that God the Father is greater than all, even Jesus says this. But this isn't the case with the RLDS. They believe in the Trinity, granted their Christology and Theological practice is Trinitarian as well as Mormonism and granted they are organized, they have a religious leader by the name of Stephen M. Veazey, who is deemed an "inspired prophet". They are separated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Josephite sects (such as Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) Restoration branches and Church of Jesus Christ (Zion's Branch) The Community of Christ teaches that the one eternal living God is triune (The apostolic church does not believe in the Triune nor does anyone who adheres to Restorationism and keep to the roots of the Church). It acknowledges God, who is a community of three persons, as the Creator and the Source of love, life, and truth. It states that his/this God alone is worthy of worship. Jesus Christ is described as both Savior and as a living expression of God and is acknowledged as having lived, died, and been resurrected. As the name of the denomination implies, Jesus Christ is central to its members' study and worship. The Community of Christ's Theology Task Force states that Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, both fully human and fully divine. The Holy Spirit is described as the continuing presence of God in the world and as the source of divine inspiration. They believe in Worth of All Persons, for the Community of Christ states that God loves each of us equally and unconditionally. All persons have great worth and should be respected as creations of God with basic human rights. The willingness to love and the acceptance of others is essential to faithfulness to the gospel of Christ. Recognizing that scripture has sometimes been used to marginalize and oppress classes of persons, the church accepted this statement into the Doctrine and Covenants in 2007, which reads: It is not pleasing to God when any passage of scripture is used to oppress races, genders, or classes of human beings. Many violent acts have been committed against some of God's beloved children through the misuse of scripture. The church is called to confess and repent of such attitudes and practices. Practically identical to the one above, but a different leader, Warren Steed Jeffs, and the group as a whole Christology is based on Mormon fundamentalism whereas its orientation is based on the LDS. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) is one of the largest organizations in the US whereas it's members practice polygamy as well as take up plural and or forced marriages. The FLDS Church emerged in the 20th century when some of their members left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The split up was the result of the LDS Church's suspension of the practice of polygamy and its decision to excommunicate members who continued the practice. It is also safe to mention that the Southern Poverty Law Center added the FLDS to the list of Hate Groups for reasons that are obvious, a few days ago I was confronted by an FLDS member, ironically enough, granted why I said what I said previously about that individual getting schooled, bionically, when he tried to berate me due to the color of my skin and my knowledgeable, whom Butler, like this man, thinks I am pretending. Not to mention plural/forced marriages. The group in question is already mentioned above. The fact that you made comment on this and not know their history thus proves your ignorance and utter hypocrisy. This is why it can be said not just of some people, but such ones like you who do not know not just your own history, but Christian history as well. They believe they are non-denominational, they do not and or even reject the apostolic church, they are believers of once saved always saved, hence the saying saved by the grace of God and they integrate the church, as I pointed out to John Butler who had no idea of what Interfaith implies, the ICoC adheres to Interfaith, and they had a strong presence in Kairos 2017 (https://www.kairos2017.com/) [Kansas City, MO] and Together 2016 (Washington DC), an event Pope Francis took part in and is somehow the one taking the lead in this sense, with PEAK following just last month in October 2018 in Texas. You know them already granted you were one. But as some Jehovah's Witnesses, even former ones like you and Butler, perhaps Witness even, are ignorant of your own history, in your case, granted you do not know the practices of Restorationist Christians in a true sense, you make yourself to appear ignorant. Anyways, Jehovah's Witnesses emerged as a distinct religious organization, maintaining control of Russell's Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and other corporations. They continued to develop doctrines that they considered to be an improved restoration of first century Christianity, including increased emphasis on the use of Jehovah as God's personal name. Now the SDA are technically like JWs, in this sense, consider them JWs that believe in the Trinity - shocking, I know. The Seventh-Day Adventist and its Church originated from the Adventist movement, in addition to that they have Protestant views. Important to the Seventh-day Adventist movement is a belief in progressive revelation, as well with the teaching that the Christian life and testimony is intended to be typified by the Spirit of Prophecy. Not to mention that the SDA church operates schools including post-secondary institutions, hospitals, and publishing houses around the globe, moreover, they are in conjunction with humanitarian aid organization known as ADRA, which stands for Adventist Development and Relief Agency. FACT: The teachings and writings of White, ultimately proved influential in shifting the church from largely semi-Arian roots towards Trinitarianism. Adventists, for the most part, credit her with bringing the Seventh-Day Adventist church into a more comprehensive awareness of the GodHead during the 1890s. The Adventist Church adopted Trinitarian theology early in the 20th century and began to dialogue with other Protestant groups toward the middle of the century, eventually gaining wide recognition as a Protestant church. Christianity Today recognized the Seventh-day Adventist church as " the fifth-largest Christian communion worldwide" in its January 22, 2015 issue. FACT: Although the Bible speaks of Christians being of Spiritual Israel, SDA tends to be a mix of both due to their practices therefore, thus including the practices of that have already been abolished by the New Law. That being said to some extent, they also believe in the chosen ones going to heaven while most of their members also believe they too will go to heaven, although they know hell is not the place of torment, they tend to believe this too. a Clear example is partaking the Sabbath, which is no longer required among Christians. They believe in the Trinity, they do not preach the good news gospel, they believe God had multiple wives and women, especially in heaven, and was the one to mate with Mary to convince Jesus, they allow the Laws of Levites, their leader received a revelation from angels, when the Bible said otherwise that such things is accursed. They had long fallen from their Restorationism roots and have never applied the apostolic teachings and practices. Why even mention them if you cannot even see the history with them? Come on then, link some more, I want to see how well you are with the little you know about Christian History. A Restorationist is those who hold true to the teachings of the Church. They believe God is the Father and Jesus is his Son. They believe that Jesus pre-existed and that fact that Jesus is a subordinate of the Father. They believe that Satan the Devil is actually a fallen angel, not some influence and or unknown presence or the brother of God. They believe that Jesus will indeed return to rid the world of wickedness JUST AS THE Samaritans of old and present Day. The Apostolic Church does not adhere to Traditions of Men and they ARE the type to learn and apply teachings of which they were not sure of or unaware of before until they studied, Eusebius the Church Father is an example. The list goes on, but even when it is said here and before, you remain ignorant to the simple fact of what actually is a Restorationist Christian. Granted the fact that I speak about the early church time and time again, you'd get a clue, but you did not. The silliness shows, Srecko. That is because they aren't in the same pot - the same case can be made with Unitarians and Muslims. Anyone who is honest will take the time to recognize the difference. Who is doing what and who isn't, at the same time understanding where one is coming from and the like, what is accursed and what isn't. Most Restorationist are Non-Trinitarian (otherwise known as Anti-Trinitarian) and they do not accept anything that isn't of and or in application of the apostolic church, for instance, we have SDA who integrated the Trinity thus devoiding themselves of their strive to be like the apostolic church, or you have the LDS who actually believe God has multiple wives and was the one cause Mary to convince Jesus without use of the Holy Spirit, when the bible tells you otherwise and gives a clear example of what the Angel did to the daughters of the earth and the end result, moreover, NO ONE from the apostolic church receives direction from angels granted Paul made this clear that even if a message comes from an Angel - it is accursed. Srecko, you have proven yourself to be ignorant of the very history of Christendom, perhaps if we are to speak of Islam you'd fail in this notion to, just as Ryan and Butler have who were also ignorant to fact. Also just to clarify, Protestants believe in the Trinity also, clearly clinging true to it's Reformationist roots, not the early church.