Space Merchant

You give up when someone checks you. I refute because you refuse to understand what is mentioned, and you do not adhere to context, this goes back to you not knowing what a man girdled up actually met, likewise with anything pertaining to Strong's.
For a man who seeks God, perhaps take your head out of the jar of which your former faith is, and actually do the research; when you asked about "Core Teachings of Christianity", the answer to that was of total seriousness.
That being said, that comment of yours can easily be reverse uno-carded back to you with one link. So thread carefully - and clearly with everything and anything you uttered, is in the deck in question.
That being said, Jesus was a sympathetic person, he does not shift himself, likewise to those who express the same towards him, willing to listen. They do not shift like the sea after a few moments - Hebrews 4:15.
We're not talking about inspiration. We are talking about opinions and facts here, and you are only repeating yourself.
Let's take Jehovah's Witnesses out of the equation - How did you confuse, and or not discern the difference Traditions of Men vs. Christian Traditions? Someone who understands context, and all facts pertaining to Scripture would easily be able to discern what is what, and why this is, and how something has come to be.
Clearly if one has the spirit, they would not go on a tangent of something that can be discerned quickly.
JB, we all read what Rando has said. I merely pointed out that others, even modern day Bible Students mentioned that year in relations to events. Noticed you left that part out.
SM -  it isn't too far-fetched because although not anything pertaining to God's Day, there are those who hold an expectation of something that is to take place in 2034, series of events
So much so both Reslite and JWI were mentioned, as is cited - which you could have easily skipped to that and read it.
Now, you are now confusing the events concerning fulfillment in connection with the Christ with God's Day. If you read what Reslite and JWI mentioned, you would not interject with your own assumption - as stated, going upon your own opinions can be dangerous, in this case, damaging towards you.
Examples below:
JWI - However, there were a few months between November 1913 and July 1914 when Russell admitted that he was questioning his own expectations about 1914, and he even suggested that perhaps things could just go on for another century, and he wondered what people might think of all these predictions "100 years from now" (which would be 2014). Another time he mentioned what things might still be like if the time of trouble went on for 120 years (which would bring one to 2034).... Russell did not really think anything specific was supposed to happen in either 2014 or 2034. Russell gave no specific significance to those periods except to make the point that he no longer had as much confidence in the 1914 date.
Reslite - Nevertheless, when viewed from God’s standpoint, we are still “shortly after” 1914. Although Russell himself did not think the time of trouble would be this long, he did allow that it could be. Some Bible Students believe that it is possible that the time allotted for this period is 120 years (1914+120=2034), but that these days will be “cut short” some time before they are allowed to reach their end.
That being said, you quoting Mark 13:32 (rf. Matt. 24:36, Mark 13:31, Acts 1:7), this is concerning God's Day, for if you forgot, it is in regards to Armageddon.
In Rando's case, the 120 year is in connection with Genesis 6:3-4, concerning Noah's Day into the 1914 notation held by JWs.
Do you hold on to that statement boldly? Because all your remarks, claims, assumptions and the like including reactions can be cited.
If that was the case, that sympathetic counsel from before would have stuck instead of you going around it as, showing that fact that it met nothing.
You are woefully incorrect, for not too long ago a meme made made you react in this manner. All the other things, even the citation from the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) resulted in you making a similar claim as to what you said in regards to the meme.
For if none of such were true, I would not make such a statement.
All I need is a quote and a link, as with the other remark.
That isn't assertiveness. Being assertive is finding the right balance between passivity and aggression. It means having a strong sense of oneself and your value, and acknowledging that one deserve to get what they sought after, achieving. If you were true to your own words, as stated before a meme would not cause you to react in that manner, an assertive person would simply brush it off, and not shut himself away from something so minor and meaningless.
This isn't a judgement, it is clear discernment. If someone reacts in such a manner, and in their choice of words, it shows, thus all remarks in this regard is true.
I haven't chosen to "hound you" I corrected you on a few Strong's then you added tacked on all the other stuff, knowing that I'd respond to it, as seen on page 5. It is already known by you how I am with Strong's.
It isn't about Tom or Arauna. It is about the FACTS. I mentioned them because you are always intertwined with them in nearly all discussion, even for the period of absence.
Going back to page 1 regarding Noah's Day, you claim of assertiveness is pretty much null too due to you even mentioning Arauna when it was not necessary to do so, and this was not the first time, you do this with others.
Your issue is, you want everything to be as so, no one to show factual information and to accept as is. Truthers do not run with that mindset, mainly to those who relentlessly defend Scripture and core teachings and practices of the apostolic church, as is, with calling out those who speak misconception of someone or something.
Discernment tells a different story, hence why I uphold 1 John 4:1. Jesus always wants his followers to be truthful. It is problematic to answer to falsehood and professing it, likewise to go about things deemed unproven, such as you not really knowing what the term Tradition of Men is, and equating it to something else. More so, you being a former Jehovah's Witness, who do not even know as to how your own operate in a setting where people of different backgrounds and culture react to someone who isn't like them.
That being said, do the research and look into all sources of information in regards to what Rando is talking about. If you did your DD, you find this - Watchtower 2003 December 15 pp.14-19 Our Watchfulness Takes On Greater Urgency [https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003923]
Regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses, this is where the viewpoint originated from concerning events; warning signs of the End Times, according to them.
EDIT:
Ah yes there it is, the reaction. latter is null, which was proven once again.

If you read his original post, nothing of a date was ever mentioned, he simply compared Noah's Day to how Present Day mirrors it with events happening throughout the years, especially even now. Moreover, he made mention of the presence of the Christ, and how it is compared, hence his quote:
[Notice Jesus compared the days of Noah to his Presence, they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away. Therefore, we can conclude that both Prophecies are 'timed events'. Time and again Jesus kept reminding his disciples just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. How long were the days of Noah? Then Jehovah said: “My spirit will not tolerate man indefinitely, because he is only flesh. Accordingly, his days will amount to 120 years.” (Genesis 6:3)
  We can be certain to expect a plethora of events to unfold in a timely manner at the end of Christ's Presence, sweeping the ungodly away, but not in the manner you think...]   You should already know I do not pass on anything, for you made that clear several times. Again the presence of the Christ, but you throw a wrench to @Arauna. You only made a small remark with no substances to said remark on this 2034 notation. JWI had already covered that a while back with detail, again, you clearly do not know the WHY and HOW Rando came to that conclusion - JWI's response.   Best to look at that thread and all of JWI's references.   That being said, it isn't too far-fetched because although not anything pertaining to God's Day, there are those who hold an expectation of something that is to take place in 2034, series of events, which seems to be the case with Rando, ironically enough some Christians made a notation to that, even the non-religious mainly when it comes to fulfillment, for some they even interjected superpowers and groups associated with both Babylon and the Beast, whom since 2016, have been doing a lot if you paid attention well into the pandemic.   I've mentioned the man known as Reslite before, and he made note to 2034, and this man not only studied the pastor Taze Russell, but knows a lot about what he said:   He stated this (only a portion of it because Res takes time before he gets to a point) -  As for the other remarks:
And the Watchtower / JW Org have always wanted to push forward such a date.  They did so many times, and all were wrong. Once again this has all been discussed over and over again on here. It get boring.
1914 was in regards to Christ compared to them. And the whole 1975 was a result of people overreacting and thus spread misinformation. Evidence to that was due to those who were alive that day and year. I even told you in the past an Ex-JW called this out, spoke the truth despite not 100% agreeing with JWs, yet who were the people who came to said him death threats, shame him, attack him to the point they got YouTube to shutdown his channel? That is an obvious answer, one you do not like. Same situation with 2017 when misinformation spread only for an Ex-Bible Student was the one responsible for stopping a protest, but to this day, the lie continues to be spoken.
That said, if it is so boring, why are you so intrigued, several times over?
But you will continue to hassle me, because for some reason you have chosen me to dislike. However that is good, for it gives me reason to think that I'm on the right lines. And of course we are to forgive each other more that 77 times. 
Because to this day, you didn't live up to what you made note to a long time ago after breaking something that would have helped you.
How is it good to not do the research to take in the facts? We should not be going about mere opinion mainly something dealing with a group or community. Although not a political person, to adopt a Left-Wing paradigm in this regard is dangerous. Not too long ago you tried to speak of traditions of Men, yet nothing of which you stated comes close to equating to that.
Traditions of Men vs. Traditions out of the Christian Church differs. More so, the group in question are of Restorationism.
But you do not really forgive anyone, and when you are corrected, you react as though you are not immature. If the FBI is mentioned, you get angry, if you didn't know a term in Hebrew or Greek, you get angry, if someone even memes, you get angry, corrected on your own faith group, you get angry, not proving a claim, you get angry, if even a teenager corrects you, you jump out of your seat, ironically enough he was the one who purposed Forgiveness can be exploited and abused by some. If @Arauna or @TrueTomHarley even breathes, you light up like a volcano.
How does that make sense?
Even so, if one is to focus on the Bible only, you solely bring up your faith group.
Facts is over everything, not opinions duped as unproven. The original quote of which I purposed to you was from a written work from a College in NY, by the way.
  If you checked the originally links and example links, those in of itself knock the basketball out of your hands, JB. This isn't the first time the notation of being "Saved" was brought up, and baptism is a declaration, hence the linked notes; in this regard, if they believed only them are to be saved, then they would not make any remark of those that predate them, the Bible Students, etc. Even to specific few in Jesus' day.
Again, you are just going by means of your own opinion pieces, which proves the point made.
That being said, the only reason I react the way I do because as I mentioned, to which you even made note to, I hate falsehood, I hate misinformation, and I hate conspiracy theories. Therefore, I am the guy who would speak if I see something that is not right, say something or even refute if need be, mainly when the Core Teachings of God and Christ is hindered and I have a disdain for Trinitarianism and the Interfaith, but it didn't stop you from saying otherwise before only to be corrected.

If you weren't so blinded by your unjust hatred. You could have looked up the Greek word for nails and SEEN that it actually means NAIL in singular.
Strong's Concordance hélos: a nail Original Word: ἧλος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: hélos
Phonetic Spelling: (hay'-los)
Definition: a nail
Usage: a nail.

The story is probably apocryphal, but there is a story of Thomas and Jesus going to a hotel in Bethlehem, and they walked in the front door, Thomas put four large metal spikes on the counter and asked the desk clerk “Can you put us up for the night?“. 

From Wikipedia:
" In popular culture
The parsec was apparently used incorrectly as a measurement of time by Han Solo in A New Hope, the first Star Wars film, when he claimed to have "made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs". The claim was repeated in The Force Awakens, but was retconned in Solo: A Star Wars Story, by stating the Millennium Falcon traveled a shorter distance (as opposed to a quicker time) due to a more dangerous route through hyperspace.[22] It is also used ambiguously as a spatial unit in The Mandalorian.[23]"
 

Most of the time - this.
Some people who simply read the verses when they see THEOS quickly come to a conclusion. The title can be applied to anything or anyone, for it does not automatically make them The True God. Other similar examples would be Isaiah 9:6 and Titus 2:13, where as for this verse, Trinitarians often appeal to the Granville Sharp Rule in order to identify Jesus as God. 1 Timothy 3:16 is also another interesting one, for "God" being included into the verse proves problematic.

Agree.  If Jesus was in all sense, the Almighty God, he wouldn't have said...
"Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner."  John 5:19
"I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."  John 5:30
 

I remember back in the “old days”, the only thing you were asked was “ … can you do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs?”.

No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.]
It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.
(Philippians 3:19) Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly . . .
[Although "belly" happens to be a feminine noun in Greek, and it can also mean womb.]
 

Wow, How to make a simple thing more complicated. 

John 1:1 is literally the center piece in the Trinitarian vs Non-Trinitarian battle, likewise to those in Royal's Park Hyde Park, London where a good chuck of this verse is often debated.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
 This verse is commonly used by some to prove Jesus is God, at times ignoring context and references to adhere to their own exegesis, but the facts show us, if read and understood, the entirety of John's Introduction chapter, disproves the claim that Jesus is God.
So in short, the Word of John 1:1(c) is the Word proclaimed through Jesus in his ministry and the Word he proclaimed was the proclamation of God the Father Himself, the Word was God. He who had seen Jesus had seen the Father in terms of the things Jesus did. God is Life and Jesus fully expressed that Life in the words he spoke and the works he did.
God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he said and did. God is Light and Jesus fully expressed the Light of the Father in all the words he spoke and works he did in the name of his God. God is Love and the flesh named Jesus fully expressed the Father's Love; dead flesh crucified for the sins of mankind. The Word of God was something the man named Jesus always kept. The Word became flesh, that is, God the Father was manifested in flesh, that flesh named Jesus. Jesus came so that we might know the Father and Jesus fully expressed the Father in all the things he did because he always kept His Father's Word. Jesus' words and works were not his own but the Father's. For the Word of which Jesus speaks is God's Spoken Word.

Christ Divinity Explained in John 1:1c John 1:1 is the Beginning of Creation that supersedes Genesis 1:1. For example, we read, "When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?" (Job 38:7)    Morning stars are among the first angels or the beginning angels of creation. Morning Stars and all the sons of God are the angels that existed before Abraham was and before the earth itself. After all, it was the newly created earth that they were applauding.   Jesus even admitted of coming from the gods whom the word of God came! Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?  If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:34-36)       The Hebrew and Greek languages often use feminine nouns to point to a creation. According to the strong concordance theos can be rendered two ways. One way, is in the Masculine sense as in the first instance of (John 1:1) But what about in the second instance as in John 1:1c? Isn't that scripture describing his qualitative sense? His divinity in being divine?   Strong's Concordance    theos: God, a god  Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ  Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine  Transliteration: theos  Phonetic Spelling: (theh'-os)  Short Definition: God, a god  Definition: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.       Many Scholars know this, but withhold the fact that theos can be rendered (a god) as it was with Paul and Moses. Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist:   1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation (Herman Heinfetter) 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979) 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885) 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911) 1935: "and the Word was divine" – An American Translation, John M. P. Smith & Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. 1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958); 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany 1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975); 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin   The use of a feminine nouns emphasis the fact that the Word was created.   When? “In beginning was the Word . . . ”
(en    arche      en  ho  logos)  Words such as arche', godlike, wisdom, grace, divinity, or deity are all in the feminine sense.   Many religions teach that God has a beginning but if the truth be known, God is eternal.    Read more...

Everybody knows Lava is not a bath soap, it is  a hand soap.

Wouldn't the Jehovah's Witnesses have that information and or some brief info in connection on their website? If not, probably some people may have posted something equating to that of which you are seeking; mainly if you look up The ["Liaison Committee"] with the quotations.

I told you before, you even mentioning me, it will only yield a response.
Rubbish as in how?  If you are going to make a claim, provide evidence - to that I will wait. I find that as a bold claim because everything I post is always Bible related or to the subject matter, even secondary subjects, and at times I quote and or paraphrase people if need be. In fact, half the information I pulled were some of the things you said actually in the past. That is the irony here, you were the one asking these things, and it didn't take long for you to repeat yourself.
The subject matter was solely about Noah's day, and how today equates to that, however, you simply brought up the similar narratives.
But you do follow certain things to cloud your judgment, hence your reaction in regards to the same people, even when correct, you react, even when a minor joke, you react, the very reason you were always, and will be linked with JB because the reaction and responses are always identical, in this case when it comes to Greek Grammar of not realizing religious office within a church, even of the first century.
But you have not changed, expect the fact by name only, which I discovered recently until now after quoting you; only one person refers to me as "S M" with a space.
And this is the problem, it is already known that you stand alone by me and of God and Christ, but you still fall victim to many things, even misinformation. You can disagree with some notations, which no one takes issue with, but it is added information that equates to nothing at times, which results in you dealing with, what I can assume are rivals and even now, after return I still see that has not changed, this show proves me case.
Yes, no man needs approve from any man, but even a man knows they can be checked and or counseled at times. Since Paul is mentioned time and time here, Paul himself publicly rebuked Peter regarding public sin, which caused Paul to speak to him, both men of God and of Christ, and one is giving the other one counsel regarding his mishap - keep that in mind.
That being said, in regards to the Steward comment, it was 100% correct. No violation to the Greek text, therefore, it does not go around what is written (Deut. 4:2) - that command, by no means, is rubbish.

They won't change. I even challenged one in particular in this regard - and the fact I return here, months later, the person did nothing - ironically. At least at the time, Rook, himself actually did something about a sensitive topic mentioned time and time again here, and I commemorate him for that, and the community of which I was invited to and helping in the time of absence included his input with what was gathered originally.
The problem is, those who are so boiled in their emotions cannot truly be reasoned with. At times they will mix and or use events thus becoming one sided at times and can never hear both sides, or even try to come to a common ground and or conclusion; hence similar topics over the years. They come to assumptions, even from stupid things, only to shy away like church mice when they cannot prove something, and if proven incorrect, they wipe their evidence by deleting their threads and or posts. They rejoice over something, and do not realize a problem that they didn't see coming, and should you ask them about it, they say nothing. It is one of those issues that even the one who calls himself chosen took issue with here.
That being said, because of all this, intertwined with the pandemic, as I, Rook, and the one who claims to be chosen were correct - Their numbers who be reduced because they make up that branch of folks spoken of in Mainstream Christendom, as is with former members; all reduced.
Edit - as you can see, the latter even laughs at what he speaks out against - a sensitive topic.
 
@TrueTomHarley Perhaps more hate than Darth Vader himself. When one succumbs to hate, they are beyond reason.

I have to share this quip from GB D. Splane's convention talk on apostates and the news medial.  
"Now, Paul compares the Beroeans with the Thessalonians. What do we know about the Thessalonians? They didn’t have YouTube in those days, but at one point, the Thessalonians apparently heard a rumor that “the day of Jehovah” had arrived. Who circulated the rumor? An apostate? Maybe. But maybe it was just someone who had heard the rumor and passed it on without checking it out.
APPARENTLY heard a rumor?
Have you ever done that — passed on a report without checking the facts? I think all of us have to admit that we’ve been guilty of that at one time or another. But now, how did the Thessalonians react? They were alarmed. They were “quickly shaken from [their] reason.” We mustn’t let that happen to us. When you hear something, check it out; don’t just circulate it; don’t just believe it; check it out."
All checked out, as you have done, and it isn't a rumor.  We can continue to circulate it.  

They won't change. I even challenged one in particular in this regard - and the fact I return here, months later, the person did nothing - ironically. At least at the time, Rook, himself actually did something about a sensitive topic mentioned time and time again here, and I commemorate him for that, and the community of which I was invited to and helping in the time of absence included his input with what was gathered originally.
The problem is, those who are so boiled in their emotions cannot truly be reasoned with. At times they will mix and or use events thus becoming one sided at times and can never hear both sides, or even try to come to a common ground and or conclusion; hence similar topics over the years. They come to assumptions, even from stupid things, only to shy away like church mice when they cannot prove something, and if proven incorrect, they wipe their evidence by deleting their threads and or posts. They rejoice over something, and do not realize a problem that they didn't see coming, and should you ask them about it, they say nothing. It is one of those issues that even the one who calls himself chosen took issue with here.
That being said, because of all this, intertwined with the pandemic, as I, Rook, and the one who claims to be chosen were correct - Their numbers who be reduced because they make up that branch of folks spoken of in Mainstream Christendom, as is with former members; all reduced.
Edit - as you can see, the latter even laughs at what he speaks out against - a sensitive topic.
 
@TrueTomHarley Perhaps more hate than Darth Vader himself. When one succumbs to hate, they are beyond reason.

I would like to see the references to where he came to the screwball conclusion apparently someone heard a rumor. Where did that come from?
I don’t really know but I highly suspect if that statement and read was completely made up out of it out of absolutely nothing except agenda driven imagination. If anybody knows different, please correct me.

By word, no, by root and or expression, yes. If there was no root then it would have been a violation.
The Apostles and a few older men are one of the governing bodies in the church hierarchy, can also be referred to as a Council. It is most likely based on Acts 15 and all references concerning such, primarily verses 2, 4 and 6 within the passage itself whereas a group of older men who lead the Christian Church Congregation as is with settling matters, as well as give council, hence by some they are referred to as a Council or a council of men.
It is rooted with the terms that does not violate the Greek text, mainly towards those who hold religious office within a Church Structure. They can also refer to those who are servants, otherwise known as servants. Stewards are those who are taking the lead, examples being the apostles and other Christian teachers, elders (Presbyteros) and bishops/overseers (Episkopos), as is with servants/ministers/deacons (Diakonous) of whom either holds office and or make up the body. There is also the terms a freeman or a trusted slave/servant. An example of this would be Abraham to Eliezer of Damascus, for Eliezer is the steward of Abraham, and or his servant/slave.
(Titus 1:7 and 1 Corinthians 4:1, 2, as well as connected verses) Abraham and Eliezer - see (Genesis 13:2, 14:14,15:2, 23:17-20, Acts 7:4, 5) In Peter's case (1 Peter 4:10), he points out that Christians, Overseers and others are all stewards of God's undeserved kindness, which is expressed in a variety of ways - being in God's arrangement in which faithful servitude and or stewardship is carried out.
Peter points out to all Christians, overseers and others, that they are stewards of God’s undeserved kindness expressed in various ways, and he shows that each has a sphere, or a place, in God’s arrangement in which he can carry out a faithful stewardship.
So in short, the word itself does have a connection to the Greek expressions noted above, and such terms in various translations do not violate said terms.
The remark "True Anointed" however, it never utter even by expression for both those words are never joined together. Aleipho is often found by itself, be it if translated as Chosen, Anointed, etc. There is never a word tagged along with it that who violates the Greek grammar itself.
Alas, another person who knows about the Constitution on this forums:
 
                                                      
Other then that, the principle itself is pretty much adopted by most in Law concerning judicial actions and or groups in the committee who take action based on decisions, i.e. Chair, Ranking members, vice chair, etc.
The only difference compared to Abrahamic Religious and or early Christianity is that it is only men who hold such office in the church, this is all in accordance with God's Structure of things.
One thing for certain, going back on an old example I used, imperfect men differ from one another, so decisions can vary in some instances, so mistakes can be made, in some cases, mainly if the person within these committees are unequipped to handle certain situations.
 
 

Unfortunately people do not understand the "why" as to which terms derive from, elders, pastors, deacons, servants, etc.. Not only the passage from Acts 15, but the history itself.
It is also the body of apostles in the first century of which many debates take place concerning Christianity today, mainly in the Trinitarian vs Anti-Trinitarian arena, even about Paul, as is with those who try to dismantle God's Structure with some teachings not met for the church when the Bible tells you exactly of how the Church is structured and by what in terms of God's Order.
That being said, the New Age teachings has been quite the thorn to those who

By word, no, by root and or expression, yes. If there was no root then it would have been a violation.
The Apostles and a few older men are one of the governing bodies in the church hierarchy, can also be referred to as a Council. It is most likely based on Acts 15 and all references concerning such, primarily verses 2, 4 and 6 within the passage itself whereas a group of older men who lead the Christian Church Congregation as is with settling matters, as well as give council, hence by some they are referred to as a Council or a council of men.
It is rooted with the terms that does not violate the Greek text, mainly towards those who hold religious office within a Church Structure. They can also refer to those who are servants, otherwise known as servants. Stewards are those who are taking the lead, examples being the apostles and other Christian teachers, elders (Presbyteros) and bishops/overseers (Episkopos), as is with servants/ministers/deacons (Diakonous) of whom either holds office and or make up the body. There is also the terms a freeman or a trusted slave/servant. An example of this would be Abraham to Eliezer of Damascus, for Eliezer is the steward of Abraham, and or his servant/slave.
(Titus 1:7 and 1 Corinthians 4:1, 2, as well as connected verses) Abraham and Eliezer - see (Genesis 13:2, 14:14,15:2, 23:17-20, Acts 7:4, 5) In Peter's case (1 Peter 4:10), he points out that Christians, Overseers and others are all stewards of God's undeserved kindness, which is expressed in a variety of ways - being in God's arrangement in which faithful servitude and or stewardship is carried out.
Peter points out to all Christians, overseers and others, that they are stewards of God’s undeserved kindness expressed in various ways, and he shows that each has a sphere, or a place, in God’s arrangement in which he can carry out a faithful stewardship.
So in short, the word itself does have a connection to the Greek expressions noted above, and such terms in various translations do not violate said terms.
The remark "True Anointed" however, it never utter even by expression for both those words are never joined together. Aleipho is often found by itself, be it if translated as Chosen, Anointed, etc. There is never a word tagged along with it that who violates the Greek grammar itself.
Alas, another person who knows about the Constitution on this forums:
 
                                                      
Other then that, the principle itself is pretty much adopted by most in Law concerning judicial actions and or groups in the committee who take action based on decisions, i.e. Chair, Ranking members, vice chair, etc.
The only difference compared to Abrahamic Religious and or early Christianity is that it is only men who hold such office in the church, this is all in accordance with God's Structure of things.
One thing for certain, going back on an old example I used, imperfect men differ from one another, so decisions can vary in some instances, so mistakes can be made, in some cases, mainly if the person within these committees are unequipped to handle certain situations.
 
 

If one does not change, they remain the same, and eventually they start to complain.

@Arauna Yes, Genesis 3:15, the original prophecy, the Edenic Promise, first Promise of God. The Fallen One's act in Eden did not know about God's contingency, a hope for mankind by means of this promise, for this Fallen One is to be crushed by the offspring of the woman (Revelations 12:1), as a minor note, some people seem to forget Galatians 4:4, which is in connection to that, let alone Isaiah 7:14. For some they confuse the woman with being literally Sarah or Mary, which is false, when in reality, it is Heavenly Jerusalem in this sense; and to Apostle Paul's credit for using Sarah as figuratively in his allegorical statement.

The Christian Congregation itself, as a group (The Church), is also spoken of as woman, the one of whom you speak since the Promised Seed was mentioned. Moreover, just by John 3:16 alone, it is very evident to whom God sent to crush the Fallen One, The Devil and how it will be done (Revelations 20:1-3, 10, 15). For during Jesus' preaching of the gospel, Jesus himself identified the serpent/snake from Genesis 3:15 as Satan and his seed to be that of his ill influenced followers (Matthew 23:33; John 8:44). When all this comes to fruition, in turn, this will give mankind itself hope, and what is to come, for our early parents have lost such - of which everyone here seems to be in agreement upon, living forever by means of eternal life.

Some other points would be, which I do not think anyone brushed up on was although Jesus was with his Father, the fact that God himself caused his only begotten Son to be born through Mary, a descendant of David, hence Galatians 4:4/Isaiah 7:14. Mary was an imperfect young woman, however, Jesus, did not inherit imperfection from Mary, for he was God’s Son. For at this point, Jesus was noted as The Son of Man, an expression used in Scripture for several, including, Jesus Christ due to being born in the flesh, becoming human. The term also indicates that Jesus would fulfill the prophecy found in Daniel 7:13, 14. From there, which was mentioned, God giving the spirit to Jesus during his baptism - which in turn, the verses in question, points directly to Galatians 3:16 regarding the Promised Seed, as is with what the sacred secret is in connection to, hence 2 Timothy 1:10.

Now what I find a bit of a half truth said by some here is that in regards to the Kingdom itself in regards to Luke 17:21 (one of those verses people get duped by via textual violations), which was already mentioned in the other thread, but here concerning hearts, this condition stems not from within (for they are touched by God's Kingdom for the heart) Christians themselves, but God’s Kingdom as shown in Scripture is shown to have a true location -
Matthew 4:17 - From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” So the latter was incorrect in the remark towards you, hence textual violation of is in view.

As we can see, in the Bible, it identifies it has having a location, even going as far as to refer to it as by calling it the kingdom of heaven. And it is known that God's Kingdom in of itself is an established form of government that operates it's ruling authority from heaven and that with any kingdom, it has its people who serve God (Psalms 2:4-6;Daniel 7:13, 14; Isaiah 9:7). More so, Jesus himself is the one to begin the preaching of the gospel concerning the Kingdom itself, not to mention the fact that the kingdom itself will indeed have enemies that wants to destroy it as we read in Psalms 2:1-9; and 110:1, as well as in 2; 1 Corinthians 15:25, 26, plus references. In addition to that, concerning the kingdom, Jesus declared that in Luke 22:28-30, Jesus the Apostles that they will soon join him in the Kingdom of heaven and to be seated on thrones, so those that speaks of it being just only a in our hearts fail to see the bigger notation of what God's Kingdom truly is, to mankind even, such ones also misuse said verses in Luke and Revelations as well, thus going upon their own exegesis.

As you can see how those who mentioned such via textual error of the verse in question results in the latter response.

Now, another factor I am seeing is everyone already agrees on the fact Jesus pre-existed, hence him being around when God himself created everything, mainly through him (which KJV has butchered by adding words unrelated to the Strong's). At this point, we can see that Jesus had not been born in the flesh yet. He was still with his Father, our God.
 

This woman is NOT the anointed  (the bride is spoken of betrothed to christ) but this same heavenly woman is prophesied in Genesis 3:15. She would bring forth the SEED that eventually would crush Satan's head!   Paul calls the main part of the seed - the Christ.  So this seed christ comes from this heavenly woman. So does it refer to an earthly woman or a heavenly one?  Well - since Satan also has heavenly seed - or angels who fight against the heavenly SEED of Jehovah it stands to reason an earthly woman does not have power to fight spirit beings.  So this is a heavenly woman that is often spoken of in the bible as a wife of Jehovah and he is her husbandly owner.   It is his heavenly organization from where Jesus came to earth.