Space Merchant

Good point!

Space Merchant:
I use an abbreviated form of teaching about such things ......
When I was working in the Congo, living in a hotel with steel doors, unpainted cinder block walls, and bars on the window,  and an air conditioner in a window that only cooled the bottom half of the room ... I got a call  about midnight from the "Front Desk" saying that if I wanted anything ... anything at all ... I need only to ask.
I was a rather rough looking character at the time, and he mentioned that he could supply people that could endure great pain, if I wanted.
I told him "Sure ... I like to torture Hotel Desk clerks .... when you come up, bring a corkscrew."
He hung up, and I went back to sleep.

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

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

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

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

For me I have to, as well as others where I am, need to avoid my neighbor. For he is one of those die hard New England Patriot fans and since it is Monday, he is going to be grumpy for a couple of days.
He will go on and on about why his team should have won and what could have been done, and so forth, he is quite the talker.

You can't see the forest for its trees,  can you, Cos? A typical Trinitarian never stems to far from the pack, will do anything to cover his or her tracks, which you are doing right now. Just like James White and those who follow him and those who take his word more than what the scriptures say.
Proverbs 12:1 - Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but whoever hates correction is stupid.
As for your post, of course you would say that, and I am right as I said before, you don't really read into much what any book says, you ignore bits and pieces of what others what is written, even going as far as to merge paragraphs together, you ignore what people say, especially me (Luke 24:52/Acts 1 and 2, Proskuneos, Shema, ignoring "Light' in John 1 etc) and I am right to say what I said about you assuming what is found in book 4, chapter 20 of Against Heresies.
As for your response, I will leave every bit of information, evidence, of such an accusation you make against me vs what you said, so everyone here can see who is right and who is wrong. Me myself, I don't make contradictions, I don't "add" words like you or mix things together, I don't accept something "As Is" like you and most Trinitarian/Binitarians and I don't try to twist writings or Scripture (i.e. John 1:1-10, Luke 24:52, etc), etc.
Now then, let us begin to what you have stated for there is ample proof against you, cos:
Here you are, stating you never mentioned the word "eternal", but it seems you didn't even read of what you even typed right below that comment of yours, which I will address shortly.
As for your January 20th response to my January 24th response this is exactly what I said to you regarding this response:
 
On to the next one.
You are correct that you said what you said on January 28, which is:
 
My response:
Then I said the following:
Which does not contradict to my previous response on the 24th, when I stated that Irenaeus never said "Eternal Person" in that book's chapter, which you claim to have found such in (ignoring the fact that I have read all 5 books and I have access to them).
You claim that I am making contradictions when I am making a reference to one of your comments, I would not have mentioned what I said if I didn't see it, unfortunately for you, I have seen it, and I make a remark to what you have said because you did say it and I will bring it up whenever I choose if need be. And if you want proof of this, allow me to show you.
You stated the following (January 20th): Irenaeus establishes the Holy Spirit as a distinct, eternal person alongside the Father and the Logos. “For with Him (the Father) were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit…”(Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 20)
My response was (January 24th): https://imgur.com/I4n32ys Irenaeus establishes in Chapter 20 that the Holy Spirit, that is his Wisdom, was God's power that was used to create man and all things, for he made all things through both the word and wisdom, nowhere in Chapter 20 did he establish, specifically, the Holy Spirit was an “Eternal Person”.
My other response, which I make reference to your claim (February 2nd): I never made such a claim, for I have stated that Irenaeus never stated that the Holy Spirit was or is an “Eternal Person”, as you said, not Irenaeus. I also went on to say that Irenaeus in this chapter explained how God’s power, Holy Spirit (also known as Spirit of God; His [YHWH] Wisdom); things made by God, in addition to what is said about Jerusalem.
If you are feeling bold, I invite you to show everyone here, me included, here as to where exactly in Chapter 20, Book 4 that you claim Irenaeus stated the following from your claim: Holy Spirit as a distinct, eternal person alongside the Father and the Logos.
 
 
As for the proof that you said "Eternal Person" (or adding Eternal to the word Person) spreading falsehood of said book/chapter:
It can be found here, I direct link to your post of which you stated that Irenaeus mentioned "Eternal Person" in Against Heresies book 4, chapter 20: 
Just to add a little more salt to the wound, I will even post a small image so everyone here can see you said this yourself, and I did not alter or add on to what you have said: https://imgur.com/yAuCJgZ
A screenshot of your own words if you are still in disbelief: https://imgur.com/F6gckCa
To deny yourself of your own words makes you a lair, not sure if you even noticed what you said or attempt to deliberately ignore it. But it says much about a guy who doesn't understand such works like Against Heresies (5 books not 6).
 
So here now, I wonder who really belongs to the father, the devil, as you mentioned John 8:44 so boldly at the end. I hope you repent and pray about it, but seeing you believe in a "Triune God", I guess it must be like a multiple choice thing for you, since you consider the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as God (3 Gods in one) and taking away devoted religious worship and total servitude to the True God and consider the worship of the Son (makes you no different from the common "Arian" who practice Jesus religious worship today).
As for everyone here, I will give a direct link to Irenaeus' Book 4, Chapter 20: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103420.htm
to which Cos here had stated the following on his January 20th post:
https://imgur.com/F6gckCa
https://imgur.com/yAuCJgZ
Irenaeus marks the identification of the Holy Spirit as a person just as the Son is a person when he writes; “the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject.” (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 7)
Irenaeus establishes the Holy Spirit as a distinct, eternal person alongside the Father and the Logos. “For with Him (the Father) were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit…”(Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 20)
 
I will also post Book 4, Chapter 7: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103407.htm For Cos's other claims.
Misc: https://imgur.com/eIT7fca https://imgur.com/2coilot https://imgur.com/xsE4P7z https://imgur.com/toNG20O https://imgur.com/F6gckCa
FYI, you made comment to this bible verse Colossians 2:9 to James Thomas Rook Jr. The Father and the Christ dwells in True Christians too:
We see this in the very next verse (literally)
Colossians 2:10 - and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
It also says it in this verse
In Ephesians 3:19 - and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
For The same FULLNESS of deity dwells in all true Christians.
This is why we, as Christians, thank the True God, for our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Colossians 1:3 (Thanksgiving and Prayer) - We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
 
PS: there is more to Revelations than you realize, but I will save you the trouble and will response to Robert instead, since you stated: I will not waste anymore of my time addressing your dishonest claims any further!
 
 
Consider yourself confuted.

WOW!
I hope you have a voice to text software program like "Dragon Naturally Speaking", ( version 12 is excellent!).
That is a LOT of stuff to type by hand, that nobody will read.

Yes I read your apology and I have already accepted it. I only summarized what you have stated in pervious comments, as well as calling Unitarianism identical to Arianism, which is not because last I checked, we don’t pray directly to Jesus, nor do we worship Jesus, ignoring the Father as if he not there or nothing at all, that is absurd and it is basically disrespecting God nor could you equal that we follow Arian doctrine, I’ll give you a hint, non-trinitarianism doesn’t make one an Arian, for even those who believe that God, the Son and the Spirit are separate don’t follow what the Arians today do. We don’t disrespect God neither should any of us disrespect him in any way shape or form, which some Arians today still do, Jesus worship, which is not something one should do.
You will love my next post then.
Stafford had since been an ex-jw years ago, this isn’t something new. He did start small group, but it wasn’t with JWs, however he has fallen under the radar for quite some time, but did acknowledge that he still speaks to JWs, as well as ExJWs, and other groups, believe it or not if you manage to find any of his blogs, for people brought them up via neutral Christian forums, he still uses the Watchtower/Awake magazines, so if he continued since his departure to make use of them, obviously he, as do other, tend to low-key use said magazines just to get in a bit of information either for themselves, or for their own gain, others have used said magazines of various religious groups, including JWs for other means, Thailand being an example.
All in all, I do fancy watching debates for it is something I taken great interest in since for several years now and since it is universal, it involves ALL people from faiths to speak up. The I find Greg Stafford interesting because he is the only Jehovah’s Witness at the time that was known to get into these debates, which in quite rare and very interesting at the same time. As for James White, not many Christians like him as much, and usually watches to take note of what he says to prove him wrong, others have taken key elements of what Mr. White claims and corrects for that, even the great Anthony Buzzard refutes several claims of both James White and Rob Bowman, if you look up the aftermath of what him and Rob been through, it is quite an interesting read with even commenter getting in on the mix.
No it doesn’t constitute to a religious act in terms of Jesus, you really going to base accept a scripture “as Is” without research? For a guy who is against Arians/or Arianism, you must know what the Arians were targeted for: religious devotion and worship to Jesus, an act that is not something a Christian should do, unless they are an Arian, of course.
No, the different sense is that Angels were the ones paying homage, worship and or obeisance to Jesus, for God has exalted him, making him above the Angels, seating Jesus at his right hand, for God has commanded this and God has says so. The other is the fact is that for us as people, human beings, we show exclusive religious worship to the True God, not to Jesus, for worshipping Jesus over YHWH is Arianism and takes away worship from God the Father, that. Previously, you assume that I met people themselves exclusively worshipping to Jesus, when I stated again I was referring to the Angels in that verse alone, Hebrews 1:6. As for the exjw Stafford he answered it correctly in his debate with James White, God has commanded the Angels to worship and or show homage to Jesus whereas James White have believed JWs would take issue to that verse, but Stafford made it very clear for him. Nowhere in scripture did God say give exclusive and or devoted worship to Jesus. God has not changed; we shouldn’t assume he has change, to assume such is being unreasonable as a Christian.
 
Let’s go back to Hebrews 1:6:
God commanded his Angels to worship and obeisance (also meaning homage, honor, reverence, adoration, etc) /obeisance to Jesus, not exclusive devotion obviously because true religious worship is devoted to God and He alone. God doesn’t change his mind and tell angels to switch over all devoted worship from him to Jesus that would just be absurd to even thing, especially in terms of God the Father who has through his Word made all things come into existence.
As for the verse you mentioned, Luke 24:52, the disciples merely bowed down in honor/reverence/obeisance/etc to Jesus Christ, nowhere did it say that they were giving exclusive devotion to Jesus in terms of worship, knowing who his Father is, the true God, Our God, because devoted worship to such, be it a god(s) (man, person, idol, etc) it is a sin, idolatry and to the Triune guys out there, it is Arian. We clearly see many, many examples of this in scripture, and we also see many examples of people showing honor/obeisance/reverence/worship/whatever to others in the bible that IS NOT exclusive worship.
As for Jesus, in scripture it is said that Jesus was a born king (Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:32, Luke 1:31, 32, etc.), even one of his disciples exclaimed this, Nathanael, in John 1:49. Reasons being on how the people treated those with such status, Kings in those ancient times, an example
 
never commanded us as human beings to do such in regards of Jesus, thus if one did so, are pretty much doing something that God has not commanded them to do and also doing what the Arians today do. However, Jesus was indeed a born King, and Kings are honored as such, hence his title “born king of Israel”.
To literally think Luke 24:52 was an act of complete devotion to Lord Jesus Christ, just proves that you need to look into scripture more, the very words in that verse also applies to how the Shema is interpreted, each word in this same verse have Strong’s numbers, including “worship” that points back to “proskyneō” (in the Septuagint G4352), meaning:
To kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication.
The Hebrew version of that being שָׁחָה (shachah/hish·ta·chawah Strong’s #7812) which means: To pay homage to another one by bowing low or getting on the knees with the face to the ground. The act literal to bow, and so it can also be used of one man bowing to another, as well as an act to show honor, reverence, obeisance, worship, etc.
On the other hand, the renderings “bow before” and ‘pay homage’ (instead of “worship”) are in no way out of harmony with the original language, either the Hebrew of Psalm 97:7 or the Greek of Hebrews 1:6, for such translations convey the basic sense of both shachah/hish·ta·chawah and proskyenō.
The Greek word proskyenō and its root Hebrew word shachah were clearly understood by ancient times. proskyenō was the Greek word the ancient Jews used to translate the Hebrew word shachah in their Greek translation of the Hebraic scriptures known as the “Septuagint” a century or two before the birth of in Bethlehem. This Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek is important because it shows how ancient Jews before Christ understood the word proskyneō. Their uses of the word proskyneō plainly shows how some people today, people like James White, are falsely claiming that this word referred to an act one should only do toward the God of Israel. Keep in mind that the word in “proskyenō” was also translating as "worship" in the New Testament.
This word is translated by scholars of old and the now in two main ways “to bow down/before”, and or “worship”. Both are used below in example to clearly show how much of a serious, and yet confusing problem with how people view this word.
 
This is because David and Solomon sat on the throne of God, 1 Ch. 29:23. They were anointed to exercise God's authority over all of Israel just as the resurrected man, Jesus, was anointed to be exalted above the angels, Hebrew 1:9. It should be very clear to any reasonable person that the Greek word proskyneō was used to bow down in submission to any higher authority, hence reverence/honor/obeisance.
We also see the word used again in Revelation 3:9b, whereas Jesus uses the word proskyneo to refer to Jews worshiping Christians, in this case, Jews worshiping the Philadelphian Christians: “I will make them come and bow down (proskyneō) before your feet.”
The wealth of scriptural proof to show people that one that the word proskyneō was not restricted to "worship" of God, but in the end, people tend to ignore true facts and continue to speak of what they’ve been told when not really going in depth of what the word proskyneō really means.
As stated before, yes, the word has a different sense, and it means the same as other words as to bow down, show honor, etc, even worship. But one reader would have to see for themselves that there is a difference in worshiping terms of showing honor to Kings and or certain persons, and showing devoted, religious worship to the one God who is true, the God of Israel.
That being said, a smart Christian would know this: Not to have Jesus take the place of God in terms of devoted act(s) of Worship. And biblically, you see how God reacted.
For the Bible tells us that our worship in the sense of religious reverence and complete devotion must be addressed solely to God, and He alone. Moses said it himself, “a God exacting exclusive devotion.” The Bible makes it clear to us to “worship” the One has created everything, Deuteronomy 4:24, Revelation 14:7.
When you get the chance, look into the connected verse to Luke 24:52 is Acts 1:9, the full account could be read in the book of Acts 1:9-26, including what took place after Jesus had ascended, and or “lifted up and a cloud caught him up in their sight”.
Actually it was from a Christian form. This user was referring to bible translations that use obeisance, homage, honor, etc. I took part of his comment to post it. I am a user on another Christian form whereas everyone is pretty neutral and cool based on discussion and bible findings, and in looking for other translations that uses the rendering of proskyneō, as well as finding other bibles that also use a rendered word that also means the same thing (the ones marked in red in previous post). That being said The CSE community is a treasure trove of information, reasons why I use it for the specific word, proskyneō and its renderings.
 
As for Irenaeus
Irenaeus’ Belief
We know that on one hand Irenaeus repeatedly insists the Father alone is the “one” and “only true” God. In Trinitarian theology, this does not work since the Father alone is “not” the only true God. The Father is true God along with the Son and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Irenaeus does not mind telling us that God’s Son Jesus can be referred to as deity; however, he says that the scriptures also call Christians "God”. Irenaeus does not believe that the Son is "God" by identity, but is deity/divine by virtue of his divine origins in the Father as the Logos (The Word). Being "of" the Deity, The Word is deity.  Some people see "God" to be a three person being, in Irenaeus’ case, he sees his God to be a “one” person, “one” being, out of whom came the Son, and therefore, Jesus is deity of the Supreme Deity, the only one true God and this God is the Father alone and the divinity of the Son is simply a derivative of the Father who is the Deity, therefore, for this reason only the Heavenly Father is the one true God.
For Irenaeus, Jesus can be called "God or god (Deity or deity)" but only in the sense that he derives his power and incorruptible deity from the One and Only True God, the Father, and as such he is the Word of God, a manifestation of God, but is not himself, “The One and True God". Irenaeus speaks a common voice with all his Christians brothers in those ancient times that Jesus is deity of The Deity, and the only true Deity was the Supreme God, the Father. Irenaeus, along with all the early Christian witnesses, reveal that the early church of the first 250 years was most definitely not a church who worshiped a 3 in 1 God.
Against Heresies
In his work, Against Heresies, it is recognized that he was writing against Gnostic like groups of various kinds, who had turned away from the teachings Orthodox Christian Church.
Irenaeus claims against them were that they did not follow the teachings handed down by the Apostles and the scriptures, resulting in many groups, Sects, with bizarre beliefs. They use scriptures used by Christians, however, Irenaeus wasn’t writing against men who have heretical views that sound somewhat Christian. These are extreme heretical movements that claim to have the true knowledge of Christianity by taking in numerous concepts with Christian belief. He is not debating his points against other Christians who have went astray, but men who are completely distorting Christian beliefs and merging them with various forms of Gnostic-Platonic philosophy and or that of non Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, as a means of forming their own unique religions.
This work of Irenaeus is very important to a solid understanding of the identity of God for two reasons.
First, Irenaeus is defending the apostolic traditions of the church. Second, the Gnostics preached other gods and Irenaeus must argue, even considering it a Christian heresy, for Irenaeus knew who the true identity of the One and Only Christian God and will do anything it takes to defend this truth.
His main defense and offense:
(1) The Church follows the teachings handed down by the Apostles (Apostolic Age), which includes their Scriptures, and follows them without contradictions and does not fall victim to wild and outlandish speculations.
(2) The Church has this universally accepted belief concerning God and Christ handed down from the Apostles (Apostolic Age), which he himself holds, and is defending, and by which he is also refuting the deceptions of these men who are competing as a power against the Christian church. And if, anyone was not given over to a growing Platonism in the church, it was Irenaeus. He is no philosopher and simply takes the scriptures as they are without delving into deeper questions. And in fact, one of Irenaeus' main themes in this work, is to establish the identity of the one and only true God which he repeatedly insists is the Father alone, through reasoning from the scriptures. The mass of overwhelming evidence Irenaeus leaves us for the early church's true belief concerning God is certainly decisive.
John, proclaiming One God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, by whom all things were made.... But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, he, namely, the only-begotten Son of the Only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men. (I,9,2).
What I find interesting is you probably didn’t know the actual name of the chapter in book 3. The actual title of said chapter is
“Jesus Christ Was Not a Mere Man, Begotten from Joseph in the Ordinary Course of Nature, But Was Very God, Begotten of the Father Most High, and Very Man, Born' Of the Virgin.”
You have cut up into pieces of what the chapter is trying to tell the reader, allow me to post what is says:
But again, those who assert that He was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience, are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son, as He does Himself declare: "If the Son shall make
The full paragraph to “Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19”, 2. It would seem you only picked a “portion” of it and highlighted that one part of the paragraph, not realizing what Irenaeus had said before in the previous paragraph before I post it, I will show you exactly where you took that part from in full:
For this reason [it is, said], "Who shall declare His generation?” since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him? " But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He [Jesus] is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; that He sat upon the foal of an ass; that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; -all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him. - (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19, 2)
Now for what was said before the, previously to the above information, we see what Irenaeus at the time believed about Jesus being The Word and the Son of God:
To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: “I said, You are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but you shall die like men.”He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. - (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19, 1)
 
We see here again in Chapter 4, of which you only pulled a portion of said paragraph, not realizing, once again, what Irenaeus was talking about, allow me to post that paragraph so you can see for yourself. Also with all due respect, Irenaeus indeed identified the Holy Spirit as a Person (said spirit has no personality whatsoever), however, never once did he claim that it was God, or that it, the Son and the Father are “selfsame” (remember this word for what you will see later) in this specific paragraph, as you claim:
Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not receiving His Word, but imagining that they could know the Father [apart] by Himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being ignorant of that God who spake in human shape to Abraham, and again to Moses, saying, "I have surely seen the affliction of My people in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them." For the Son, who is the Word of God, arranged these things beforehand from the beginning, the Father being in no want of angels, in order that He might call the creation into being, and form man, for whom also the creation was made; nor, again, standing in need of any instrumentality for the framing of created things, or for the ordering of those things which had reference to man; while, [at the same time, ] He has a vast and unspeakable number of servants. For His offspring and His similitude do minister to Him in every respect; that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject. Vain, therefore, ark those who, because of that declaration, "No man knoweth the Father, but the Son," do introduce another unknown Father. - (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 7, p.4)
Irenaeus establishes in Chapter 20 that the Holy Spirit, that is his Wisdom, was God's power that was used to create man and all things, for he made all things through both the word and wisdom, nowhere in Chapter 20 did he establish, specifically, the Holy Spirit was an “Eternal Person”. In attention, the title of Chapter 20 even states: That One God Formed All Things in the World, by Means of the Word and the Holy Spirit, you can find that out in your bible as well, if you really look that is, anyways to the paragraph you seem to misinterpret:
As regards His greatness, therefore, it is not possible to know God, for it is impossible that the Father can be measured; but as regards His love (for this it is which leads us to God by His Word), when we obey Him, we do always learn that there is so great a God, and that it is He who by Himself has established, and selected, and adorned, and contains all things; and among the all things, both ourselves and this our world. We also then were made, along with those things which are contained by Him. And this is He of whom the Scripture says, "And God formed man, taking clay of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life." It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; " He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world. - (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 20, 1).
You sure about that? I say “no” to that. And some didn’t claim it, Irenaeus wrote it himself. You just choose to ignore it.
Check this out: In this, Irenaeus speaks a common voice with all his early Christians brethren, Jesus is deity [god] of The Deity [God], and the only true Deity was the Supreme God, the Father. Also he refer to Christian(s) as “God(s)”, does that make “us” begotten Gods? Not really. You have to understand how the people spoke back then and not just jump to a conclusion and or “accept as is”, do the research.
As for the other part of your comment, not quite, Ireaneus made it clear as to who Jesus is, and who God is throughout his books he speaks of both and uses Deity and deity as well as God and god, in one of his writings he even referred to Christian(s) and I quote “which is begotten of God is God”, hence Christian(s) are God(s), when in truth, regarding to what he really met in his books that all sons of God are gods and or godlike (regarding Angels), even God said it himself, Psalm 82:6, said that his followers (as well as the angels) are gods it is also within the Law of the Jews as Jesus spoke of in John 10:34, 35, as well as Paul also mentioning “many gods and many lords in heaven or on earth”, 1 Corinthians 8:6. Ireaneus isn’t a fool and if one understands or even read his books, they would know exactly what he met. Ireaneus wouldn’t be foolish for literal think that Jesus, Christian men and women, angels are literal Gods that are equal to the Father, which is absurd, in addition, it would put all of his work into contradiction and make him no different than the ones he is against. Read his work and you will get a BETTER understanding. Any Christian knows what “Begotten” means in terms of a Parent to a child (Abraham to Isaac, Hebrew 11:17) In addition to that, throughout his books when he speaks of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, he references them time and time again “The Word and The Wisdom” of God, he also referred to Jesus as The Son of God. Just because he refers to Jesus as such, then you would also have to take into account as to what he says on others. Plus if Ireaneus truly believed Jesus was fully “God”, you would have mentioned that, but you didn’t because, it is unfounded. Bene Elohim/Benai Ha Elohim (Son(s) of God) have a meaning, it isn’t hard to learn/look this up via studying the bible.
So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God.* And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father. Because to created things the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable, therefore those who are to draw near to God must have their access to the Father through the Son. (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 47)
[* ftn.] [178](I, i. 18: to gar ek theou gennethen theos estin.) For Irenaeus, as is evidenced throughout his writings, this is also true of Christians who are also begotten of God. [178]
Also I suggest you start reading his books a little more.
You are taking the paragraph in chapter 5 out of context (why mention book 4 if it is not found there), in addition, it doesn’t prove anything about the Trinity, as you claim. This is the full paragraph:
God, then, is one and the same, who rolls up the heaven as a scroll, and renews the face of the earth, who made the things of time. For man, so that coming to maturity in them, he may produce the fruit of immortality, and who, through His kindness, also gifts them eternal things, "that in the ages to come He may show the surpassing riches of His grace," who was announced by the law and the prophets, whom Christ confessed as His Father. Now He is the Creator, and He it is who is God over all, as Isaiah says, "I am witness, says the LORD God [YAHWEH], and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am. Before me there was no other God, neither shall be after me. I am God, and besides me there is no Saviour. I have proclaimed, and I have saved." And again, "I myself am the first God, and I am above things to come." For neither in an ambiguous, nor arrogant, nor boastful manner, does He say these things, but since it was impossible, without God, to come to a knowledge of God, He instructs men, through his Word, to know God. To those, therefore, who are ignorant of these matters, and on this account imagine that they have discovered another Father, justly does one say, "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.".... He is the God of the living; and His Word is He who also spoke to Moses.... Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers. (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 5, 2).
Reading it in full speaks volumes. Not to mention the actual title of Chapter 5 that says: The Author Returns to His Former Argument, and Shows that There Was But One God Announced by the Law and Prophets, Whom Christ Confesses as His Father, and Who, Through His Word, One Living God with Him, Made Himself Known to Men in Both Covenants.
 
Interestingly enough, the term “God of the Living” (“of the Living God”) is found in the bible (Hebrews 10:31; 12:22, Rev 7:2, Matthew 16:16, Jeremiah 10:10, Luke 20:38), in addition, everywhere it is used, it is referring to the Father.
If you were to read ahead from that paragraph that, it would most definitely destroy what the claim you just said here with minimum effort, shooting yourself in the foot, if you will. In addition, if you read carefully as to what paragraph 1 in the same chapter or anything from paragraph 3 to 5.
Also what you said “the name of God is applicable to both the Father and the Son” is unfounded. Why you may ask? Simple, for NO such thing was said in Chapter 5 in book 4.
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it…
(Read Psalms 110:1)
Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.
For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth (Read
(Psalm 45:6-7)
For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God-both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: "God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods." He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church.  - (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 6, 1)
Not sure if you actually read the title to Chapter 6 in book 3, you make it obvious, especially in regards to context. And Yes I agree with this statement, that God and Jesus, The Father and The Son, in this very chapter are spoken of as two different persons, and both identify as Lord, further proving that they are literally NOT one God (3 in 1). For it is God the Father who does the anointed, and the anointed one is Jesus Christ himself. Jesus acknowledged an anointing via prophecy in Isaiah 61:1 that is applied to himself, whereas the praise” LORD [YHWH] has anointed me” is appears. In Luke 4:18, Jesus states clearly that God has anointed him using his Spirit. You already agreed on that, hence your comment in regards to the actual statement above, but with ample evidence of them not literally being a 3-in-1 God, you would just ignore what the book even says.
That just tells me you “didn’t” read the full paragraph, this is what it really says about how the early church views God and his Son:
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. - (Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 10, 1)
If you continue to read into the other paragraphs, it continues to put a strong emphasis on the faith and belief of the church and of its members. As it continues on to say in the next paragraph, just a single sentence: As I [Irenaeus] have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. - (Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 10, 2)
Now what is this preaching they received as well as their belief? “SHE” the church, believes in One God, The Father Almighty. “She” believes in One Christ Jesus, The Son of God and The Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the administrations of God.
Just take a look at the first few sentences of paragraph 1 in Chapter 10. I don’t see how you missed this, and I have no doubt in my mind if you read it from start to finish, you would disagree with Irenaeus on the spot.
Lastly, take a good look at this [Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father]. As to my pervious comment in Irenaeus’ other book, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, anyone can figure this out so there is no further need to go into detail, in addition, as I said before, you didn’t read the other portions of the same paragraph, let alone took the time to read the book, at least some of it (even though I hyperlinked in one of my comments aside from a basic Irenaeus’ quote).
You really missed many, many points when you don’t read the full paragraph, out of curiosity did you know exactly Irenaeus was talking about, let alone against, in this very paragraph? Just to give you a hint, that chapter 13 have nothing to do with God the Father or Jesus, he was speaking of Gnosticism (Their version of God and their verse of LOGOs, the word; their hersey) the title even states the following: The First Order of Production Maintained by the Heretics is Altogether Indefensible.
If that isn’t enough for you, this is what the chapter was referring to Gnosticism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon_(Gnosticism)
http://www.pfrs.org/gnosticism/Gnosticism01.pdf
You have taken Irenaeus’ words and his writings out of context, again, and didn’t really see what his real message is and that of the early church. You take bits and pieces from these parts the books, not realizing what the chapter is about or what was said before/after of which you posted. Irenaeus, who “fought heresies and defended the church”, makes it crystal clear of what he believes and what the Christians in his time, of the church, believed.
Quote: There is no doubt that Irenaeus had a subordinationist view of the Godhead and extended the term God (as theoi or elohim) to include the Son and those also of the adoption. We know without doubt that the Council of the Sons of God were the elohim (god/deity) (cf. also Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7; the Psalms and Rev. 4 and 5). Thus the adoption, by definition, had to include the loyal Host also (see below). He seems to indicate here that Christ gathered the elect, whereas we know from Scripture that it is God who gives the elect to Christ in order that they be gathered (Jn. 17:11-12; Heb. 2:13; 9:15). The exclusive use of the term to the physical elect may be incorrect given Irenaeus’ application here. The loyal Host are also included in the council from the understanding in Revelation 4 and 5 – thus the loyal Host are also the Ecclesia of God. There is no doubt that the term elohim or theoi was held to extend to the Church and that this was the understanding of the first century Church both from John to Polycarp who taught Irenaeus and on into the second and subsequent centuries.
It is clear that Irenaeus held that only God the Father was the true God of the Bible and he was creator of all others.
Really? I don’t think so. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies only contains “5 books” (Books I, II, III, IV, and V being the “final volume). Unless, you mean Book 4, Chapter 6, with its title being: Explanation of the words of Christ, "No man knows the Father, but the Son," etc.; which words the heretics misinterpret.
I already know what Book 3, chapter 1 and 6 says, since I already read it, I invite you to read it too, for context of course. Yes I had read it, in full. But apparently you didn't.
Nope. Irenaeus speaks for himself in his own writings. Plus I already made mention to it. It wasn't hard to miss, especially in his books.
I’m surprised you quoted from John Norman Davidson Kelly’s “Christian Doctrine”, a Patristic Scholar who is a Protestant. That being said, you missed what he said on the start of page 107, and what he continues on to say about Irenaeus’ belief in pages 108-110. In addition to that, he quoted Irenaeus, and from that quote, I already made comment to.
But going on with JND, do you believe that: The Father, the only God, is a single personage and that the Word, that is the Son and the Spirit that acts through.
What is interesting is that you didn’t get to the several remaining sentences of Chapter 25, let alone the context to what you quoted as to what the writer has stated after that.
Before we start on Tertullian, here is a brief bit of information about what he wrote pertaining to his wirings and what it is about: The book, Against Praxeas, is the main document written by Tertullian which illustrates his beliefs concerning the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Scholars strongly believe it was written after he became a Montanist (AD 210).
Now then, since you left out a bit of Chapter 25, I will continue it off from what you quoted” These Three are, ONE essence, not one Person” It continues to read:
Continuing from what you quoted (what’s actual there, after said quote): I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. Run through the whole Gospel, and you will find that He whom you believe to be the Father (described as acting for the Father, although you, for your part, forsooth, suppose that the Father, being the husbandman, John 15:1 must surely have been on earth) is once more recognised by the Son as in heaven, when, lifting up His eyes thereto, John 17:1 He commended His disciples to the safe-keeping of the Father. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
The mid portion of the same chapter continues to say:
John 17:11 We have, moreover, in that other Gospel a clear revelation, i.e. of the Son's distinction from the Father, My God, why have You forsaken me? Matthew 27:46 and again, (in the third Gospel,) Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit. Luke 23:46 But even if (we had not these passages, we meet with satisfactory evidence) after His resurrection and glorious victory over death. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
Now that all the restraint of His humiliation is taken away, He might, if possible, have shown Himself as the Father to so faithful a woman (as Mary Magdalene) when she approached to touch Him, out of love, not from curiosity, nor with Thomas' incredulity. But not so; Jesus says unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren (and even in this He proves Himself to be the Son; for if He had been the Father, He would have called them His children, (instead of His brethren), and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
The final portions of that SAME chapter:
Now, does this mean, I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or as the Son to the Father, and as the Word to God? Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? John 20:31 Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father, but the Son. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
So we know that Tertullian didn’t believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity or Triad as he calls in other writings, were All 3 as One God. We see in chapter 25, he is pointing out that the 3 are separate and distinct essence, quote: Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete (meaning Holy Spirit; Comforter/Helper), produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, ONE essence, not one Person” So in short, Tertullian knows that the Father, God, is one, Jesus being the Son, is also one, and the Holy Spirit is one, for he describes the Holy Spirit in the opening of chapter 25 that the “there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. Referencing John 14:16 at the opening of the chapter, even addressing John 16:14.
The way I see it, what I “can” agree with is that Tertullian sees that there is a distinction between the 3. In regarding both the Father and the Son, we see how he makes a clear distinction between the 2, two persons, a Father and a Son; therefore, they are NOT one person.
I am sure you are aware of the title of Chapter 2? I will spare you on the title of this chapter… Also once again you only take “a small part” of something and accept it “as is” without understanding and or context. I reference this time because I will just state what Chapter 2 entails:
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
So clearly we see that Tertullian, again, shows a clear distinction between The Father and The Son, even stating that the Only God also has a Son. Trinitarians will say that Tertullian didn’t mean that, but unfortunately it is said and done and part of history.
Let’s continue:
Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her — being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
 
So we now see here, he makes it clear once again, that the Father and the Son are 2 different persons. For he believed that the Father sent the Son, Jesus Christ to earth via bestow Holy Spirit to the Virgin Jew Mary, who became pregnant. Being both a Man and God (godlike ones, sons of the Most High, Psalm 82:6), he is called Jesus Christ, believing him to have suffered, died and buried, only to be resurrected by the Father (literally dozen verses in the bible says this), raised up again out of death (Firstborn from the dead) and ascends to the Father to be seated at his right hand side. I don’t see how you still think Jesus is literally God the Father after reading something like that. But truly I say to you, that you don’t agree with Tertullian, especially now since he makes such a thing clear.
Let’s continue:
That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever — that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of various persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
Don’t you agree with Tertullian? That is something to look at, especially in all of Tertullian’s works in chronological order, including the Against Praxeas book. Let’s continue:
 
As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
 
Tertullian, as I stated somewhere else, was the first to coin the word “Trinity” for he believed God, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not only separate beings, but they work in some way as a unity of some sort. Nowhere in his work he claims that The Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit is “one” person or a “three in one” person, as some Trinitarians claim to say this today, people like James White for example. To Tertullian, the idea of God becoming human is absurd, for God is incorruptible, the very opposite of corruptible, the case was different with Jesus, for he has only been made immortal AFTER God resurrected him from the dead.
 
Tertullian was the first to directly assert the essential unity of the three “persons”, but his logic and arguments are essentially subordinationist - (see Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 570).
You also left out the closing conclusion of that same chapter, which speaks briefly on what Tertullian was talking about from the beginning of the Chapter:
 
For there is the Spirit Himself who speaks, and the Father to whom He speaks, and the Son of whom He speaks. In the same manner, the other passages also establish each one of several Persons in His special character — addressed as they in some cases are to the Father or to the Son respecting the Son, in other cases to the Son or to the Father concerning the Father, and again in other instances to the (Holy) Spirit.
 
Tertullian never once said that all of them are, together one God. That goes against what he was trying to tell us since Chapter 1. Just because the word is coined, Trinity doesn’t mean Tertullian considers all 3 of them in 1, a single God. Once again, he has made the distinction between the 3, and in his writings he uses bible scriptures, of which you ignored.
If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; (Gen.1:26)" whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us (Gen.3:22)," He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make;" and, "in our image;" and, "become as one of us." - (Against Praxeas, chapter, 12)
 
That was just a portion of Chapter 12, for its full version goes more in depth of the distinction between the Father and the Son, as well as how the Father use of the Holy Spirit. Tertullian makes a “fine” point in this chapter, for thinking The God and the Son are the same, let alone throwing the Holy Spirit into the mix, is quite really an absurd idea, and in Tertullian’s words, "a heresy".
Just going to cut this one short because every comment you make is the same pattern, taking bits and pieces out and assuming without reading the “full context” of what Tertullian is trying to tell us.
For I should give the name of sun even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 13)
 
And viola, now you see what he tells us with the closing comments of chapter 13, it concludes to the point that both God is the Father and his Word, that is Jesus Christ, is the Son. Nowhere does he claim they are the same person, and or in Tertullian’s words, “selfsame person.”
The root of Unitarianism, as do most Christians, were Subordinationist. Like it or not, it is true and it is history, it is as true as the bibles using the oldest and reliable sources that some bibles seem to ignore. I don’t see how and why are you still in denial of this, but hey, some Christians today don’t like their history or past in those ancient days, trying to change and twist what our early church fathers were about.
 
Subordinationism is a belief within early Christianity that asserts that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being, meaning that apart from God, The Son and the Holy Spirit are apart from the True God himself, thus making them separate. It has been around in the Pre/Ante-Niece Era, The Apostolic Age and has been around since the practice of Arianism started to spread, even outlasting the practice of Arianism.
Unitarianism is a belief that the God in Christianity is one Entity/Deity/Elohim. For the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit are separate from each other. Unitarians also believe that Jesus was inspired by God in his moral teachings, and that Jesus is a savior, but he was a normal human, born of a Jew into the Law, he was a man, The Word, from God, that became flesh. Unitarianism is NOT one single Christian denomination, it is a collection of both extant and extinct Christian denominations, whether historically related to each other or not, which share a common theological concept of the oneness nature of God.
Very much alike, very similar to each other, all of us who are Non-Trinitarians have our roots in Subordinationism. But apparently, it is too hard for you to believe this, but I will leave that information up for the others, even the Jehovah’s Witnesses so they know where majority of Christianity originated from before the Council of Nicaea.
Not quite. I pulled the information from the source I linked before. Other websites have the same quotes (technically it is called the internet so most items will be identical), some closer to said quote, I don’t dwell in Catholicism, nor would I dwell in anything to do with websites that believe apparitions of Mary” are often seen in their churches, like the one in Egypt, as they claim. I am completely baffled to how you do not know the history of Binitarians (which of whom Irenaeus was against; the Binitarians also had a role in the Trinity doctrine itself), allow me to note the following clearly:
 
During Alexandria and the rise of Binitarianism, Subordinationst Unitarians, wrongly called Arians or Eusebians by the later Trinitarians.
The Canons of the Council of Nicea have been lost. It was later established that there were only 20, which commenced the introduction of aberrations such as: domiciliary rules for the clergy living with females, i.e. celibacy; the persecution by the imposition of penance of Unitarians (incorrectly called Arians)
In 328 CE Constantine realised that the Athanasians were not the majority sect and were a source of division and persecution in the Empire and he recalled the five Unitarian leaders. (It is suggested this was at the urging of Constantia, widow of Licinius. However, it is more probable that she was merely a prominent Unitarian of the Eusebian or Arian faction). The problem with the Unitarian Christian system was that it followed the Bible tenets and was not concerned with the control of nations.
It was shown what the early position was over the first two centuries and how it became Modalist and then Binitarian from the beginning of the fourth century and from the Council of Nicaea, and finally Trinitarian from the introduction at the Council of Constantinople in 381 and the ratification from the Council of Chalcedon after 451. – (Early Theology of the Godhead, No. 127)
After the 325 Council of Nicaea defeated Arianism, the Council of Constantinople was called in 381 in order to attempt to deal with the binitarians, who were referred to as "Semi-Arians". However, as the Trinity was finalized at this time as official Christian doctrine, the offended Semi-Arians walked out. "They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was 'of one substance (homoousios) with the Father'. Semi-Arians taught that Christ was similar (homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate" - (Pfandl, Gerhard. The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists. Biblical Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD June 1999).
Athenagoras set the philosophical division between Christ and the other sons of God and began the inexorable march to adoption of the Binitarian worship found in the devotees of the cults of Attis, Adonis and Osirus, and from the Mysteries and which were established at Nicaea in 325. It is a form of the Noetian Heresy denounced by the Smyrna trained disciples. The canons of Nicaea were destroyed as heresy and that system was removed from 327 with the restoration of the Subordinationst Unitarians, wrongly called Arians or Eusebians by the later Trinitarians. The restoration of Binitarianism and the grounds for Trinitarianism came with the appointment of Theodosius as emperor in the East by Gratian and his support of the Athansians in 381 at Constantinople, and from 451 from the Council of Chalcedon.
Other Note: The Binitarians considered a new faction that had a new and developed doctrine based on the pagan theology of the Triune God, which came in from the worship of Attis in Rome and Adonis among the Greeks. Trinitarians and Trinitarianism did not come into existence until 381.
You “may” want to check out the history of the Nicene Creed. A brief bit of information:
[Modalistic Monarchians allied together with the Semi-Trinitarians to formulate the early 325 Nicene Creed to counter the Arian threat which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Reasons why Modalists and the Semi-Trinitarians were able to sign the early Nicene Creed while the Arians could not]
What can be said is that things got really “brutal, bloody, violence, excommunications, eventually going on into the things of the following, the burning of writings and literature, killings and what not. Just so people can be “forced” to not believe in Arianism, since the Creed was met to target them. Anything in the name of Trinitarianism, right? I’m surprised you don’t know how bad things got, reasons being I linked a book for you to look at.
I dunno if anyone can agree with or say "Amen" regarding people plotting to kill Christians, force them to believe one doctrine, burn their writings, and the like. But I guess "Christian Violence" gives some people that rush when they praise that stuff, like getting wild off of caffeine kind of way.
You maaaaaaay wanna look at how Arius, and others have died. Let's just say it seems kinda Rated R for those who dig for this truth.
 
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
Everyone knows who Eusebius is, one of the well known church Fathers in his time, hence his title “The Father of Church History”.
You really want to take that chance, with a person like me who occasionally quotes and or briefly speaks of Eusebius? By all means, I am up for it. As for you claim “works there is no mention of Binitarianism”, nowhere was his works mention, don’t see why you want to bring up his works when it will a contradictory to what you believe, but if you want to get into that topic, I am all for it. That being said, do you have any idea of what “heresies” Eusebius was even against???
There is a reason he is called “The Father of Church History”, don’t forget that.
Technically he has mention such heresy, just as the other church fathers have, in addition to that, you will be astounded by Eusebius’ belief if you actually took time to look it up.
You may want to check on what the Binitarians believed and their history, they have existed from the start of the 4th century and into and after the Council of Nicaea. Oh and they have referred to it, those who believed that The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are literally one being, or a 3-in-1 God, “selfsame”.
Irenaeus has fought and or was against Binitarianism. Others included Polycarp, Melito, Tertullian (although he himself did not hold a Binitarian view), Origen and Hippolytus, we have strong evidence that some sort of Binitarian view was held during the time of Smyrna era of the Church of God (the second, third, and early fourth centuries).
The early Church Fathers tend to fight against doctrines that are bad, this includes Binitarianism. Don’t add Eusebius into this if you don’t really know who he is. Don’t take chances with him, it won’t go too well for you if you do.
Also Unitarianism = Subordinationism = common belief of early church (one God, one Son, one Holy Spirit, etc) I gave you a “clear-cut” definition of both. You can’t deny Christian history and think you can get away with it.
 
 
Not quite, because you have only taken bits of information without even going to the book itself to look at the complete context, examples being this phrase:” rather God Himself, since He is the Word” Last I checked, God the Father’s name wasn’t “Nous” and the aspects of LOGOS were several spirit beings, as the Gnostics have taught, similar to their the Valentinians counterparts, the very portion paragraph in the Chapter of which you assume was talking about God the Father and Jesus who is the Son and The Word. Perhaps this would help you out:
My claims are not lacking, for us Unitarians believe that God is one and true. We believe that The Word and Wisdom of God is the Son (Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit (Wisdom), both from God the Father, the same views as the Pre-Nicene Christians held way before the Council of Nicaea for the majority of Christians were indeed Subordinationst.
For a guy who thought Irenaeus has “6 books in his “Against Heresies” perhaps it is you who need to do a bit more research on the Church, let alone the history of Christianity.
“[My Father is greater than I.] In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son.” –Tertullian
“For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son.” – Hippolytus
“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible” – Eusebius
 
MISC:
 
 

I do agree that Festivals should be all about worshiping the True God and he alone. For people in those ancient days have done things such as Passover, Weeks (Pentecost), Trumpet Blast in the Month of Ethanim, Festival of Dedication and Festival of Purim, etc. However, these festivals/feasts pertain to the worship of God, never has there been in the bible that such also pertains to the celebration of one's birth. Unless I am missing something and as well as what Solomon had said.
 
If I'm not mistaken, Jehovah's Witnesses have stated that true Christians do not celebrate said Holidays due to believing such Holidays displease God, they make a case in their articles, probably more (https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-christmas/ https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/birthdays/), which is actually true, therefore, God will be the judge as in who is doing what is right in terms of avoiding/partaking such traditions and the like or anything that deviates worship to God, since Christmas tends to collide with an alleged Birthday regarding those who think Jesus was born on that day.What is incorrect it wasn't said many times by the JWs, it was said great number of times by Christians in the past who did take action at times, long before they existed as bible students, long before most denominations, like ages ago, into the very days of even John's students and the early Church Fathers.
The celebration of one's birth is up to question Christendom and has been debated over and over among Christians, so them, the JWs, as do others, will say that in regards to True Christians, that those who really stick to true worship will ignore and or abandon those things. It doesn't contradict scripture because the one whom you show genuine worship to will be the judge of each of us individually, especially when it comes to the history of both Christmas and Birthdays, or any Holiday for that matter (that was also an issue with Christians in 3rd century and onward.)
In short, The Jehovah's Witnesses and other denominations will consider such as something that displeases God. We have seen in scripture of how God reacts to what displeases him and we seen how that turned out when he judges those people on the spot.
You can take the vile things out of Christmas, which is very good unlike some Christians who don't, however, you still got the celebration of one's birth (alleged).
But there is chance, some Christians do is not only get out all the Christmas antics, they also cease celebration of one's birth and they choose to worship to God on that day.
Examples being spreading the gospel to those who on't know God, learning about what Jesus did, what his Disciples did, what God's followers in the Old Testament did and take example, sing to God, teach the family and or friends about God and thanking God for the one sent who has sacrificed himself to provide us amnesty, a chance of redemption to repent for our sins. I know some who use the Holidays to read a really large portion of the bible, like a reading marathon/bible book club type of thing (reading to your pace verses/chapters in the bible), getting through a an X amount of gospels in a span of a day kind of. In short, these Christians make the day 100% spiritual since they have more free time.
---
End to first comment
---
dual post (because I'm feeling lazy and I just wanna put this here for others)
Since I feel someone may bring up Christmas and Holidays, JWs and Christmas/Holidays,  or Christians and Christmas/Holidays, I will just post this here just to shed "some" history and the fact that not celebrating holidays wasn't of JW origin.
(more of a to whom this may concern kinda thing, a dual post)
What people don't know was way back before the Jehovah's Witnesses ever existed, the belief that Christmas and or the celebration of one's birth is of pagan customs. I will just post information just to debunk that this is merely a Jehovah's Witnesses belief (JW-only belief), which will tread into Birthday territory too.
1855 Christmas was not just illegal in some parts, but considered Satanic. In the 1560s, Christmas was in fact banned, by Christians (Protestants) as well as Puritans English Reformed Protestants in the 1600s. Anyone caught celebrating it, even if a Christian was caught celebrating it, they'd have serious consequences ahead of them, as well as a financial consequence.
If you go further back in ancient days, like way back 3rd century, you have Origen of Alexandria (185 AD-254AD). Despite the fact he was not part of the Church of God, the writings of the early 3rd century Catholic theologian shows us that even that late Orthodox Catholics were against the celebration of birthdays. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday (Martindale C. Christmas, 1908).
He wrote:
Said Holidays of birth celebration and Christmas eventually became intertwined with Christianity around the 4th century, even becoming common among those who profess Christ, in addition to Infant Baptism being introduced. The Romans, especially Emperors, tend to have these celebrations of their birth (wild parties as they call it, while the Romans have started to accept Christianity. Romans also partook in Sol Invictus, even as Christians.
 
Other Info:
So in short, festivals of worship and the like is okay, however things that pertain to yearly celebration of one's birth and or Christmas based celebration (wild partying, Yule Tree/Sun God worship, Satuernila, etc). Yes these things can be taken out of Christmas and make it free of those things, but then you got the yearly celebration of one's birth part.
The Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, back in their bible student days did celebrate Christians and I assume Birthdays too, in fact they are open about it too, but they have come to the realization that Christmas or these Holidays are not Christian at all. Years before them, Christians consider the Holiday pagan, even when they have members of theirs migrate to America, they still hold things view, and even before them, you have both Christians and Catholics who oppose these celebrations, some have given in, but others held on to these views still, that such acts displeases God.
So today, you will have Christians who will say True Christians don;t celebrate those things, they can say it, some will tend to judge one who does celebrate it, others will take both a physical and verbal approach that can lead to minor to major situations. As I said, God himself will judge and biblically we have seen him react to some festivals that displeases him or festivals that do not have anything to do with worship to him.
No one is able to go either way. But you do have a choice. But since you said that you use the for worship and talking about God, that is a good thing and respects t you for that, but as I said about being careful about including things into worship, examples being celebration of someone's birth even though the birth date itself is unknown,  is some murky-water type situation.
I already told Cos that us Unitarians, as do most Christians, have roots back to the Pre-Nience days, The Apostolic Age, and like our early Christian counterparts if we have to make change to make sure our faith doesn't mix in with what is not good, we have to really pick ourselves back up, should we stumble a bit or should we fall.
In the end, each and every one of us have time to adjust ourselves, for we are all imperfect anyways, JWs are also imperfect, for we all have flaws and think something is right/wrong when it is the opposite. We do what is best to build our faith, or as my pop's tells me, be strong physically, mentally and spiritually, and to keep ourselves clean with a Christian based lifestyle and attitude.
As for God, he will be the judge for each and everyone one of us. He will judge us Unitarians, The Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptist, Muslims, whatever denomination, he will judge.
 
check out my sources if you want (3 of 11 ):
http://www.cogwriter.com/birthdays.htm
https://rcg.org/articles/abcc.html
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/
 
One thing I'd like to add is out of 2 billion Christians, 27 million plus Christians (the only recent statistic I can find, the other was Halloween-only): https://www.theodysseyonline.com/christians-groups-that-dont-celebrate-christmas
 

 
The Tl;DR
Worship can also translate to homage, bow down to/him, latreai, obeisance. Jesus was exalted that is why the angels had shown an act of obeisance to him, which is vastly different from God because God is already Superior. (This is also a command given to the Angels by God to do so, not something a human being would be doing as to your comment). Also a Man who is worshiping Jesus= Arian/Arianism compared to a Man worshiping God=Not Arian/Not Arianism.
Obeisance/Worship/Honor/Homage/Reverence/etc = to Proskyneo/Proskuneos=Shahhah/Shachhah (In Hebrew) whereas in Hebraic sense it equals to Worship and or Obeisance, the act of such resembles Prostration (The act of obeisance or worship via standing in silence, lying flat on the floor face down, etc).
No The former Jehovah's Witness was actual right: Spirit Creatures=Angels, command by God to do what? Worship and or show Obeisance to/To honor. Why? Because God said so. Why in terms of Jesus? Because God exalted him, making him Superior to the Angels. He also places Jesus at the right side of his him if you continue reading.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones who uses a different word in place of worship, few other bibles also use obeisance, as well as bow down to, homage, etc, even in different languages you might find something like adoration, or prostration. Even other Christians will say the same thing, those who know what the word means in both ancient Greek and Hebraic sense, and take no issue or rip out their hair if worship is obeisance, or homage, etc.
As for Unitarianism, it traces back to it's root, in fact, the root to all Christianity in the Pre-Nicene era, and that root is called Subordinationist, the belief of God, the Son, The Holy Spirit, however, they do not believe that all of them are literally a 3-in-1 Deity. This belief is when one knows who God is and know how his Word and his Spirit is used, especially in terms of creation; subordinates to the Father's being.
Other: First you accused and or assume that I am a Jehovah's Witness, when it is evident I am not, however, I do respect them because of a specific bible verse when it comes to "Men of Peace". Second, you accuse Unitarianism of being Arian, when you clearly recognize what I said, we don't worship Jesus, that is wrong, we worship God the Father, which is correct. Arians, even to this day, worship Jesus, they don't consider him a mediator, they pray to Jesus only, etc. the complete opposite of what we, as well as others do. Plus no one in their right mind you practice Arianism if they know what Jesus did in regard to The Shema (Shema Yisrael, something Trinitarians can't stand to talk about or even speak of). Arians not only ignore The Shema, but they act as if it never existed. That being said, you ask me a lot of questions, the only thing I would ask of you 2 simple question:
"How can you have free will if it's punishment for disobedience?" And Why to Trinitarians oppose The Shema; and or even know what it is based on or represents? That is all  
Now then, on to the other stuff.
 
Long Verison
I don't see why you had to use parentheses when I already establish that this man is no longer a Jehovah's Witness, this debate was not only old, but it was among the best Christian debates next to Christians vs Atheists, Adnan Rashid vs James White, and Hamza Myatt vs. Godwin, there are numerous debates and it is often done by Christians from Non-Trinitarianism and Trinitarianism, Baptist, Protestants, Muslims, etc. As for the former Jehovah's Witnesses, even to this day he still defends them because he is a Non-Trinitarian who is on the side of Monotheistic Christianity.
I am aware the NWT has Obeisance, and I am aware that Worship and what Mr. Stafford has said. But what you fail to realize is the word is also used "Proskyneo" (Proskuneo) that can be translated to either "Homage", "Bow Down/To/Bow Before", "Worship", as well as "Obeisance", it can also be translated to Latreia, Prostration (The act of obeisance or worship via standing in silence, lying flat on the floor face down, etc)., or Reverence in other languages. As for the word itself it has the same meaning as the other mention. I also said that it has another meaning, for you brought up that:
 
What Mr. Stafford was referring to was in Hebrews 1:6 whereas it says: And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
You can see his book when it comes to defending, not for just the Watchtower, but for God the Father and Jesus, what he says on worship can be seen in page 5 via scrolling (literal page num. 364): http://www.elihubooks.com/data/topical_index/000/000/259/JWD3_Chap_5_sec_worship_051210_SITE.pdf
The Ex-JW turned apologist makes himself even clearer as to the word worship and or obeisance.
Also the other links, I dunno if you saw them, Brother Kel speaks on the same thing and what worship/homage/obeisance means in terms of Jesus when he was made superior than the other angels.
If you want to be hardcore about it, the English word "worship" in Hebrew "Shahhah/Shachah". This Hebrew word appears 172 times in the Biblical text, however, only translated as "worship" 99 times in the KJV. As Hebrew instructor Jeff Benner has said:
So to a man, it is God alone he must worship. The angels themselves worship God an to the some they were commanded to pay homage/worship/obeisance before the one who has been exalted, the only reason why the Angels bow down to Jesus because we are told why, very obvious in text.
As I said before, Obeisance
So what were the angels commanded to do (What God the Father commanded them to do)? Pay obeisance (to bow down, to honor) to Jesus, for not only he was exalted by God (given power and authority, is the anointed one, the horn of salvation, the king). You can use the word worship if you like. Also last I checked, Jehovah's Witnesses don't worship (as in pray to directly, glorify, etc) Jesus, they do this with God the Father, Yahweh/Jehovah. The worship in a sense that is given to Yahweh, if done to Jesus, is Arianism, for Arians practice worship to Jesus only and do not consider Jesus as the mediator to God.
In the debate, James White (in every debate) doesn't think that angels are to show any obeisance/worship (whatever floats your boat) to Jesus, however the bible makes it clear as to whom Yahweh made superior to the angels, thus why they so this honor and respect to (Not in the same sense as God) and if you read the verse even further, you will see what position Jesus has on God's throne, at his right hand side, The Son next to the Father, vice versa.
You also claim that:
Well there are few Bibles that use the word "Obeisance". An example would be the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (ABP) that was complete bible translated in 2003 (Not easy to copy, but you can see it).
Several examples of Hebrew 1:6 in terms of Angels showing obeisance/honor,worship, etc to Jesus
Another, uses a word similar to it "Bow Before Him", this can be seen in the Young's Literal Translation (YLT), complete bible translated in 1862.
 
Revised English Version (REV), complete translated in 1989:
 
The Latin Vulgate is a late-4th-century Latin translation of the Bible that became the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible during the 16th century.
NOTE: Obeisance being used in the bible, the word that is said to be used by ONLY the Jehovah's Witnesses is false because there are few bibles, even in other languages as well that will have something in a similar sense. The perks of those who can speak other languages, huh.Ones I didn't mention, which you can look up:
Twentieth Century New Testament (TCNT)-1898-1901 Word used: bow down before him
New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)-1985 Word used: Homage
The Complete Bible in Modern English (MEV)-2014 word used: Honor/Honour
To they all equal to worship and or obeisance? Yes.
The list goes on, even into other languages an other translations, take your pick because there is  TONS of translations and editions, as well as revised ones, some to modern English and or chosen language. It proves the point that "worship" not only has other meanings, but other words that pertain to "worship" still remains the same.
Obeisance or paying homage is an act of bowing to or honoring someone. There is no issue with saying worship, obeisance, homage, reverence, etc or if used in a bible translation. Plus you yourself thought before I was talking about JWs or any Christian worshiping Jesus (again, Jesus worship is Arian). If you watch the video, you would understand what that JW (now an ex-JW) met.
 
Plus you be surprised that Mr. Stafford, even though he isn't a Jehovah's Witnesses anymore still speaks to anyone, even JWs, former JWs, or those who want to be JWs because Stafford still holds dearly to what the Bible says about God and about Jesus, hence his status as The JW Apologist, as many have called him, especially in terms of his blogs and writings, in addition, this guy has never lost a debate, ever. One Pastor in particular didn't fair too well against him, Pastor Rob Bowman, to a degree, Greg Stafford is literally the Jehovah's Witness version of Hamza Myatt/Adnan Rashid, both who are Muslims and prominent Speaker's Corner (Hyde Park) debaters, and both never lost against a Trinitarian, including James White. If you do go to those videos, I advise caution because the comment section puts what you know about the bible to the test.
 
A quote from another Christian when it comes to worship/obeisance in terms of Jesus Christ:
As for our history being traced back to the Apostolic Age and or the Pre-Nicene Creed is true. Because during those days, before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), majority of Christianity were Subordinationist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism), including us Unitarians, hence why I quoted "Unitarianism traces their roots back to the Apostolic Age".
An example is St Irenaeus, Clement, Trurellian, and many many more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Age), but to focus on where we trace our history as Subs we can look into what, since I will be focusing on St Irenaeus, on what he says in some of his writings, examples being:
Irenaeus speaks of both the Word (LOGOS) and Wisdom, for us today it is the Son Jesus Christ and and Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is like God's hands, in which he uses to bring this universe and the living creatures on land and sea, as well as the sky into existence, by his hand the heavens were also made, even the Angels, Sons of the Most High (Bene Elohims who are/come into existence because of El Shaddai).
We know clearly that human being as the image of God (came into existence because of God/called Sons of God).
We also know that The Word of the LORD is the one who brought forth the teachings of God so people may learn about God and they have a choice to take to heart these teachings or to ignore it, for no one is forcing them.
And we know that the Father is capable of creating humanity and all living things for everything came into existence through his LOGOS. Angels were also created by the Father through the Word, as for the Holy Spirit is God's power or force that he uses to create things, his breathe, his hands, his fingers, as to what the bible compares said Spirit to. That same spirit can be used/bestowed among others as well as those who follow God, in short used on behalf of his servants, if that makes better sense, in addition to operate in a variety of ways in all persons (examples being, Mary becoming pregnant, Zechariah being able to speak, the list goes on).
 
 
Other quotes
During Alexandria and the rise of Binitarianism, Subordinationst Unitarians, wrongly called Arians or Eusebians by the later Trinitarians.
Document and the writings of Tertullian are Unitarian: http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p088.html
Difference in Socinianism/Unitarianism to Arianism:
You also see that:
I can pull up even more if you want. But I see this is starting to term from Jehovah's Witnesses to Unitarians.
So the claim as we, also Christians don't have history that traces back to the Apostolic Age, is false. Our views pertains to those days, and we as well know the difference between an Arian believe and what isn't. I will gladly post even more information if that isn't enough for you.
 
As I stated in my TL;DR, I always comment you, but now I ask you something.
"How can you have free will if it's punishment for disobedience?"
Why to Trinitarians oppose The Shema; and or even know what it is based on or represents?
 
Well I gotta admit, you like putting people to task,huh.

Actually he did, especially on how he was able to tread with ease in that debate with a guy who hates JWs so much he can't sleep at night. Plus I purposely left out more to what was said after that claim and the verses it was pertaining to. The JW did bring interesting points and what the bible says, in addition, the reason he isn't a JW anymore because with what he knows he wanted to start his own religion almost. However, he is pretty critical on defending JWs, hence his position as a JW apologist, especially with what he even said in his own words about John 1:1 or any claim that Jesus is God.
For the JW was speaking about Angels showing obeisance to Jesus, and what the word really means. For the Son is higher than the angels and for that reason the Angels bow down to him. So what is said is true, do spirit creatures receive worship? Because God made it so for he makes it evident he has put Jesus in a superior position.
Well this is the debate, I think it would interest you, the first time I seen it is when the Muslims brought it up to prove there is literally 2 factions of Christianity:
Monotheistic Christianity vs Trinitarianism
 
Also 2 other videos from a guy who is neutral with some Christians, even though he is a Christian himself on this same topic of Jesus and Worship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-ju6wxH_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XESkf_QrSig
 
As for Unitarians, quote:
 

Yes, obeying the law (pay taxes, follow the rules, etc.), however when it comes to one's faith being put at risk or to cease, as was said before, it would prompt Christians to try and prevent this from happening, one of the reasons I posted that link to my source in regards to the church fathers and of OSCE, as well as the remarks about Paul by one of the most well known Fathers. The same can be said about early Christians who defended themselves when their faith has been threaten. The other link I provided stated nearly something similar of the like, which I didn't put in my post before.
The thing is with modern day churches, it is said they tend to police themselves sometimes, seeing if they can handle situations on their own and if things do get worse than outside authority will be needed, others have also address such situations or problems and even speaks on the mistake of members of a church who have done something wrong, each church and denomination varies on this subject, even to us Unitarians. There was actually something to this regard that was mentioned on this video I watched on YouTube a while back, if I find it I would post it here, the same thing was brought up too by the anti-religion groups that also spoke on those videos. So in short, yes churches are enabled to deal with internal issues, however, if such issues become problematic, aid from outside authorities is necessary. Some matters don't really become public and or it is briefly mentioned regardless if said church accepts aid from outside or decide to handle the situation internally. However, regardless of the problem, churches and or church leaders should address situations, publicly if they wish, if it is due to a problem with the church, a problem with a member, etc, so at least the people are aware of what is going on.This goes for conflicts in a church too, especially if a pastor or leader has multiple churches with a multitude of members. In our case us Unitarians, if a problem does take place, there would be internal investigation first, if something is deemed problematic, without causing tension in a church, we would go speak with authorities, especially if there is conflict or misconduct that would result in something bad, i. e. a member of a church wanting to/planning to inflict serious injury to someone in the same church. Even though churches have main leaders too, those who they appoint to a specific church and the like, pastors or deacons, they too are subjected to this, but each and every one of them handles situations differently than the next, not sure if the Jehovah's Witnesses are set up this way, assuming their leaders are pastors and that the elders are deacons, if that is it.
But in the realm of Human Rights, the attack of one's religion or belief, acts of antisemitism, attacks from the irreligion groups that affect those of a faith, things of the nature, it will most definitely result in members of  faith/denomination to petition anything of that nature that is done to them, especially if it is a ban, suspension or cease of worship of their faith, they'll fight/defend themselves, thus preventing the teaching of God from stopping. In regards of the OSCE, the meeting of people of faith who come as representatives of their faith, in this case, The Jehovah's Witnesses who had their representatives there, does not automatically make anyone there complying with government officials on decisions done in world affairs, but they come to make petitions known in terms of Human Rights, and what can be agreed upon to prevent their practice of worship is not hindered by other groups and or those who persecute said faith. Religion-wise, that is pretty much the core of OSCE. The usual OSCE meetings consist of representatives from each denomination that routinely attend conferences of the OSCE. During these conferences people of their faith sit together, apart from others who sit with their faith groups alongside government officials and representatives from other religions to discuss these issues.

Not denying anything.
Unitarian theology is Socinian/semi-Socinianism, vastly different from Arianism, thus making us not Arian or Semi-Arian. There is a huge difference. Plus in the past, the Polish Reformation separated from the Calvinist. Plus core beliefs and principles of a group doesn't make them 100% Arian or for what Arius had taught. Most Unitarian opponents do not even know what Socinian even is.
That being said,  the Jehovah's Witnesses are often referred to as "modern-day Arians" or they are sometimes referred to as "Half/Semi-Arians", usually by their opponents and or those who do not like them. There are some similarities in theology and doctrine, the Witnesses differ from Arians, examples being: saying that the Son can fully know the Father (something which Arius himself denied), denial of personality to the Holy Spirit (Arians believe the Holy Spirit had a mind of it's own, and a personality, so to speak). The original Arians prayed to Jesus and he alone while Jehovah's Witnesses pray to God, with the mediator being Jesus Christ, hence, no one goes to the Father expect through me, John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
The verse that tells us Jesus is the mediator, 1 Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,"
Other groups which oppose the belief in the Trinity are not necessarily Arian. The Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians, Seventh-Day Adventist and others. Unitarians themselves are typically Socinian in Christology and not Arian. Binitarians believe that God is two persons, the Father and the Son, but they believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person.
Once again, there are difference, unless you can name a true Arian church that not only deny Trinity, but prays to Jesus, believes that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person, and that Jesus doesn't know his own Father who is also his God, etc. (There is more difference on Arians vs Non-Arians, but I leave that up to you for research).
Anyways for me, I am not shy about understanding the beliefs of others, but beliefs that has no foundation, base, or understanding is obviously not something that originates with God.
 
Plus it is not only the 4th century you should be looking at. It is from the 2nd Century with the Early Christian Schisms (and Trinity Origins) to the 4th and onward. Luckily for you I will provide you with video links so you can better understand the council and the creeds that became a reality in those days:
 

There was a lot of talk in December of Christmas not being a Christian holiday, even by opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses. There was an interesting video I saw from a brother in Christ about this, he isn't a JW, but he, as many others brought up good points.
Another video by a Christian man, rumored to have died and or been killed  (I myself thought he perished), since he was off YouTube for a couple of years, his friends and family said he either died or went off grid and were very worried, but miraculously, he returned (very much alive and wasn't dead after all) and he sees holidays in the same light, not being Christian, and such should not be done by Christians, his channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ2chBk4nLQ3tXdmGU5F4tw
Plus, we believe that Jesus was born, even though is unknown, around (September-October), something of that sort, I forget what they called the name of that month though, I'd have to look into what it was titled again.
 

There was a lot of talk in December of Christmas not being a Christian holiday, even by opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses. There was an interesting video I saw from a brother in Christ about this, he isn't a JW, but he, as many others brought up good points.
Another video by a Christian man, rumored to have died and or been killed  (I myself thought he perished), since he was off YouTube for a couple of years, his friends and family said he either died or went off grid and were very worried, but miraculously, he returned (very much alive and wasn't dead after all) and he sees holidays in the same light, not being Christian, and such should not be done by Christians, his channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ2chBk4nLQ3tXdmGU5F4tw
Plus, we believe that Jesus was born, even though is unknown, around (September-October), something of that sort, I forget what they called the name of that month though, I'd have to look into what it was titled again.
 

It is kinda funny how some who use John 1:1 and claim Jesus is God has no idea of the biblical, historical and scriptural context via manuscripts.
That being said, it is correctly translated to "a god" or "was a god", and such as been stated waaaaaaaay before Jehovah's Witnesses/Bible Students have been established.
I will not go into detail because when I tend to explain something, I go full on context, and I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are in the write for correcting the wording in that text.
Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist (simple wiki search):
You see here most tend to go with "a god" or "was a god", in addition, ancient Greek differs from modern Greek. In ancient times, they rarely use uppercase letters.
 
NOTE: some translations tend to use Divine or divine, Deity or deity, vice versa. what is 100% true regardless of translation, "The Word was With God". Another thing to add, Jesus can't be God the Father because
A::: Shema Yisrael, something that Jesus had to do since he was a Jew born in the law and he included this in prayer to God
and
B::: When Jesus was a Baby, Zechariah thanked God, even giving God praise in Luke 1:68, 69, he began to speak due to Holy Spirit bestowed upon him for Zechariah spoke to God pretty much about Lord Jesus who was still in the womb of Mary. Jesus is refereed to as the Horn of Salvation, in English, The Savior (Born Powerful Savior).
Sahidic Coptic to English - In the beginning existed the word and the word existed with the god and a god was the word
14th century: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word" – Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate)
1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
1864: "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
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" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago
1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[16]
1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1962, 1979: "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)
1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible
1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible 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
1993: "The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.[17]
 
I speak to defend the scriptures, and that is what I intend to do.

It is kinda funny how some who use John 1:1 and claim Jesus is God has no idea of the biblical, historical and scriptural context via manuscripts.
That being said, it is correctly translated to "a god" or "was a god", and such as been stated waaaaaaaay before Jehovah's Witnesses/Bible Students have been established.
I will not go into detail because when I tend to explain something, I go full on context, and I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are in the write for correcting the wording in that text.
Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist (simple wiki search):
You see here most tend to go with "a god" or "was a god", in addition, ancient Greek differs from modern Greek. In ancient times, they rarely use uppercase letters.
 
NOTE: some translations tend to use Divine or divine, Deity or deity, vice versa. what is 100% true regardless of translation, "The Word was With God". Another thing to add, Jesus can't be God the Father because
A::: Shema Yisrael, something that Jesus had to do since he was a Jew born in the law and he included this in prayer to God
and
B::: When Jesus was a Baby, Zechariah thanked God, even giving God praise in Luke 1:68, 69, he began to speak due to Holy Spirit bestowed upon him for Zechariah spoke to God pretty much about Lord Jesus who was still in the womb of Mary. Jesus is refereed to as the Horn of Salvation, in English, The Savior (Born Powerful Savior).
Sahidic Coptic to English - In the beginning existed the word and the word existed with the god and a god was the word
14th century: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word" – Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate)
1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
1864: "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
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" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago
1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[16]
1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1962, 1979: "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)
1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible
1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible 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
1993: "The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.[17]
 
I speak to defend the scriptures, and that is what I intend to do.

I kinda like seeing the witnesses having a good time, raising their hands, clapping, dancing. As long as they are doing it to worship God. That's how the bible describes cheerful worship. 
 

Yes this was heard, however you fail to know everything else that surrounds Australia itself in regards to its laws and customs. However bashing of one's religion is "childish", but it seems evident from a man who likes to waste his time.
For me I respect the Jehovah's Witnesses a lot, this is coming from a guy who knows Christian history and manuscripts of the oldest source, which the Jehovah's Witnesses stick to. Believe it or not, a friend of mine who is a Jehovah's Witnesses is the reason why my brother is no longer a depressed wreck because of an "issue" he had before he moved out, a clean and new man. Other then that, they are doing a lot of right bible-wise and as a Christian compared to most.
 
FYI, if you are one of the guy's I ran into before, please tell your troop to not make fun of the Manchester Bombing whereas people were killed in cold blood. It would put my heart at ease when you guys actual act "human" when such things take place.
At the end of the say there is good people, and there is bad people, and only bad people will have the intent to do bad whereas the opposite will have the intent to do what is good.
 

As I stated before, there are many Russians who don't like where things are going, they fear a Soviet-Era based Russia, and the worse is yet to come as March 2018 continues to come closer by the day.

There is a lot going in Russia that some do not realize, and has caused an uproar in the Russian community; I stated this before and what I say is true.
That being said, as March 2018 draws near, the FSB and Kremlin continue to play the same tactic with opposers, so called "Heroes" and religious minorities.
 
It is better to see things going on in Moscow by looking up news in Russia by the media that has not been blocked by the State Duma.

A Bethelite friend took my husband and I to his Sunday meeting, which happened to be the congregation that Brother Benson attended. He was just another wonderful brother, sharing in encouraging others. May Jehovah be praised. Jehovah is the impartial God. Talent, wealth, poverty, health, none of these are how Jehovah calls us. People from every walk of life may become his dedicated servants.