Traditions of men in the JW Org

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I thought I was going to be reading  about your whiny  indignation at being called a liar ... but was pleasantly surprised by an irrefutable piece of logic and reasoning.

You are right!

So now the question arises .... WHY .... on this issue (apparently ALONE)  has the GB decided that "THIS ts the Hill we are willing to die on ..."?

For good detectives, information is related in some way ... and is cumulative ... hence the occasional revelation ...  "Hey! ...  (facepalms forehead with a slap) ... it all a ADDS UP!"

SOMEWHERE IN THIS MORASS IS A GEM OF TRUTH. 

ABOUT WHY.

I suppose it's like hunting for REAL gems.   You have to dig through tons and tons of irrelevant spoil material to get to them.

I really do have a laugh at your comments. Although to read that you say i am right is nice. 

However from line three onward it seems as if you are writing just for the fun of it. which is fine of course, but it makes no sense to me. 

The only reason why that I can fathom is that the GB love having control over people. And, like the Pharisees, they make up their own rules known as 'the traditions of men'. 

Traditions of men in the JW Org :-

Men must wear a suit and tie. Women are not allowed to wear trousers, must wear dress or skirt.

A witness must be dressed in a tidy manner at all times (even though Peter went fishing naked).

A Man is not allowed to be alone with a Woman he is not married to, unless it suits the elders of course..

A Witness can only celebrate the things the GB say they can.

Oh there is of course much more of the same... 

But, if you are saying that every man only has a woman friend to have sex with, then that is a narrow minded viewpoint. But it seems to be the viewpoint of the GB. To accuse people of having sex just because they have been in the same building together seems a bit OTT in my viewpoint. And then what of two brothers or two sisters ? Would the GB accuse them of the same these days ?  I've known brothers that live together in the same house, oh dear ! 

The question should arise as to WHY do the GB and the Elders not believe a child or adult when that one reports Child abuse ? 

The obvious answer is, that it is more convenient for the Org not to believe it, and therefore not to act on it. 

As for me, I'm not important. The scriptures tell us that none of us are important. So what is important of course is the sanctification of God's name and trying to serve God to the best of our ability.  This brings me back to square one. 

The GB are doing neither of the above. They are trying to clean the outside of the dish or cup but not cleaning the inside. Jesus called such people hypocrites. 

It really stuns me that some people cannot see that the GB are bringing shame on Jehovah's name. They are also stumbling so many people. 

 

 

 

[Anna]

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

A witness must be dressed in a tidy manner at all times (even though Peter went fishing naked).

Hmmm, I don't think it would go down well with the shoppers at Tesco if I went to the store in the buff.

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Hmmm, I don't think it would go down well with the shoppers at Tesco if I went to the store in the buff.

Having never seen you I cannot answer that  

I can't understand why Peter went fishing in the nude anyway. It must be a dirty smelly job.

But my point was that Jesus never rebuked Peter.  However the Elders will tell a brother off for attending a meeting whilst not wearing a tie. 

[Space Merchant]

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I really do have a laugh at your comments. Although to read that you say i am right is nice.

Would it not be wise to respond to JTR on the topic of which he posted in rather than start an entirely new topic that has little resolve?

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The only reason why that I can fathom is that the GB love having control over people. And, like the Pharisees, they make up their own rules known as 'the traditions of men'. 

A church who harbors leaders and or stewards, having authority over people of the church is not a Tradition of Men and it is hypocritical to think of it as such.

The structure of the church is of God's Order, the very reason we see in the Greek New Testament churches, with those being of authority in the church, hence being the head, and under them stewards and overseers, pastors, bishops and the like, the head with the church work as one, the head is only there to advise and instruct so that the church does not stray, did you miss what took place in the First Epistle to the Corinthians of how things went South only for Paul, write to them to correct the issue in a peaceable matter, even heeding word from a resident in the area regarding the issue?

Apostle Paul and anyone who is entrusted authority in the church is not a Pharisee, if you think of such, I suggest you tear out anything in relation to the church out of your Bible, as some have when this was raised to them.

Like I said before, the Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist, they do not make up their own rules, they go about following the Early Apostolic Church in order to keep the church spiritually upright, modest, maintain faith, nothing more.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Traditions of men in the JW Org :-

They are not different from Biblehub, Blueletter, UCG, Biblestudytools, Christaintoday, BibleGateway, Bible Org, and over a dozen others.

The social media platform is to not only profess the faith, but of what the Bible teaches. Examples being, if we are to understand as to why they do not celebrate Christmas, they will inform you and give the reason, furthermore, you can go back centuries, predating them to find out even Christians at that time did not like Christmas at all for it was not something to be practiced by Christians, I informed Matthew6969 about this sometime ago and at that time I was more of facts vs. going about things from memory.

So how is telling the history of the Christ Tradition of Men? Surely if you say this of their own platform, you should be able to give an example and or point. I do not see anything out of whack in this sense, therefore, this statement of yours is a bluff and or unfounded.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Men must wear a suit and tie. Women are not allowed to wear trousers, must wear dress or skirt.

Modesty, enough said. If modesty is not among them, Gang-Stalkers will be going to their churches in masses, and the category of Gang-Stalkers I am referring to is those with intent to go after men/women and subdue them into sexual immorality, something of which is very common and is seen all the time, thus those who claim to be Christian are not Christian for their actions and or what they have done, more or so, becoming a Gang-Stalker themselves.

A Christian should always be clean, always be modest, this is something the individual and or the church must adhere to without question. To do otherwise is only inviting of bad habits and or other associations that brings forth more unnecessary things into the church, regardless of who and or where.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

A witness must be dressed in a tidy manner at all times (even though Peter went fishing naked).

The Disciple of the Christ, Simon Peter was lightly claded, granted, the implication that he was wearing some kind of inner garment while working, and likely was not naked. Did you really think, Peter, a Fisherman, would go 100% willy, nilly, breeze between his legs and knees while going fishing? He wouldn't jump into the water with his everyday clothing, so he strips of his outer garments, leaving him with his inner garments when going fishing, mind you, this is how it is done in ancient times, for Peter girded up his outer garments, even the art of this verse/passage shows this, as seen here:

 

I suggest you take a GOOD look at Strong's 1903 ????????? > https://biblehub.com/greek/1903.htm

If you really think he went in there 100% birthday suit, you missed a lot of what is going on here, and you do not pay attention to the Greek Strong's in this sense when it shows you the truth of the matter. That being said, if Simon Peter was alive on earth in 2018, most certainty he wouldn't be going into the sea with a suit and tie, or his good clothing he bought at Marshall with perhaps his iPhone in his pocket that contains his Scriptural Notes and studies, water damage would waste all of that.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

A Man is not allowed to be alone with a Woman he is not married to, unless it suits the elders of course.

This is because in today's day and age, as with us being imperfect, fleshy desires can be made manifest, just as sin can manifest in actions being done and or by doing nothing or not doing what you are suppose to do. This rule also stems in the likes of culture, mainly if you know the type of person the man and or woman is.

When it comes to the church, people have to be careful, for even those among them can step away and stray from what the bible teaches, and will commit to actions that will surprise the church and or others.

For surely, John, if you had/have a wife, you wouldn't want her being in the presence, alone with someone who does not really give a care for your views, beliefs and or background, for his intent will be something of minor to something major, mainly if you yourself do not trust the guy, in my language such ones are refereed to as Boy [fille] à la recherche de problèmes, a man/woman who seeks trouble.

So any extra precautions is often necessary so one does not stumble, it can be done by the church and or a family itself, or relative.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

A Witness can only celebrate the things the GB say they can.

As far as I know, Jehovah's Witnesses main celebration is the Sacrifice the Christ has made for you, for them, for me, for all, in short, it is refereed to by them as the Memorial of Jesus Christ.

For Jesus never spoke of celebrating his birth, but rather, to remember his death and what it signifies.

These Traditional Holidays of Men do not stem from the Church, Christmas is an example because Jesus' birth is unknown and it was never on December, those who make claim can easily be defeated with a passage and Jewish Customs without much an effort.

People nowadays think Christmas is a Christian Holiday not realizing that even back then this Holiday was banned by Christians for a large number of reasons.

So if a Pastor says do not celebrate that or this, he is telling you. You have free will, you either take his word because it stems from what the Bible speaks against, or go about your own dwelling and celebrate such, not realizing anything of how the practice is in relation to spirits taking up a home, and or Sun God worship - the choice is yours.

Believe it or not, a lot of Christians, even Jews and Muslims do not celebrate most of the Holidays that most, mainly in the US, celebrate.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

But, if you are saying that every man only has a woman friend to have sex with, then that is a narrow minded viewpoint. But it seems to be the viewpoint of the GB. To accuse people of having sex just because they have been in the same building together seems a bit OTT in my viewpoint. And then what of two brothers or two sisters ? Would the GB accuse them of the same these days ?  I've known brothers that live together in the same house, oh dear ! 

When sexual impulses arise, people who are unmarried will most likely end up having intercourse, mainly such is very, very, VERY common today since the mentality of I Don't Need to Marry to Have a Relationship is on the rise, families being started when those who create the family structure are not married at all.

For marriage is something of importance to God and we, as Christians should respect and honor that. The Bible says a man will leave his mother and father to be his wife, never has the Bible says a Man will leave his mother and father to live with his wife, and then get married.

And those that do, have to keep themselves in check, mainly when the whole marry ceremony didn't even take place yet, keep it together until marriage or you only show you were not ready for marriage to begin with, a mistake many people make.

People are not accused of having intercourse when not even married yet, but there are those with concern with the possibility of something to take place.

As for the last bit, people do not take issue with brothers living with brothers, just as a college dorm with only men, the issue is of those of the opposite sex being together in the same space, mainly when the two are attractive to each other and are not even married yet.

The very reason this type of segregation of sexes exist other institutions such as boy/girl scouts, you cannot put them in the same room, the same goes for college dorms, you cannot do that either, yet some try to break the rules and next thing you know, breaking news and expelling from campus and so forth. It is no different with a church trying to maintain and be very concern regarding this matter.

I myself, if I was a father, I would not want my daughter to be living with someone who is highly attracted with her, for if anything happens, it would be dishonoring of the family name, when news hits one family member, everyone finds out an it is utter chaos, but if the two were married, no chaos will ensue, and or if such ones are mature enough to keep themselves in check, save themselves for marriage and so forth.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The question should arise as to WHY do the GB and the Elders not believe a child or adult when that one reports Child abuse ? 

You mention this time and time again and you will get the same answers over and over and over.

It isn't a matter of believing someone of abuse or not, it is a matter of what action the church is suppose to take for such a thing took place in their community, their circle, their church.

To be brief, the church will end up doing an internal investigation of their own, no different from other institutions and or cooperate institutions, etc. They will hold that information and will give said information if it is enough to be proven as evidence, the next thing they'll do is to instruct the abused and family to inform the police, for Religious and educational institutions normally, and it is common, do not want to succumb to the bystander effect regarding child abuse, but often times, they are through into the mix. Then comes trying to minimize those who seek blood regarding child abuse, hence the stories I posted before when families who are instructed to go to the police becomes the law themselves and will often become not helping the victim, but making things worse.

That being said, no one is stopping anyone from going to the police, as Child Abuse and Neglect Services TEACHES if one adults is of little to no help, seek another adult, I do not see how the PSA's and what is taught to children regarding child abuse isn't any clearer.

But not even these institutions are safe from Child Abuse, as of recent news even Playgrounds and Play-Areas in places like Restaurants abuse is done there now, Jungle Justice would have been the end of it but no one wants to be a bystander, and no one wants human blood on their hands for taking the law in their hands.

It is also good to mention C&N prevention teaches the signs of what an abuser tends to do, and the signs of someone who is abused, I, as do many, adhere to this and this is often brought up by the young ones I speak to at the B&G clubs.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

As for me, I'm not important. The scriptures tell us that none of us are important. So what is important of course is the sanctification of God's name and trying to serve God to the best of our ability.  This brings me back to square one. 

But doing everything for God and trying to follow the Bible 100% makes you an enemy, today's Christendom only follows 50% and or less. This goes with what you have mentioned about Peter not realizing the context, assuming he was literally naked and or the other thread when you didn't realize how incorrect you and Srecko were when even Biblehub shows you the Strong's for that word in question.

If little things are amissed, you are lacking spiritually. We may have hiccups in some cases, but this is unacceptable, do not be like the Trinitarian who revealed to himself that he himself defeated his own words, and those are still here.

If you read the Bible, such things should be obvious, we may not agree with someone else, but it is our duty as Christians to maintain that neutrality, we speak up to the accursed, and when dealing with anyone who profess to he Apostolic Age it is very tricky because anything can easily land you in front of the white throne of Judgement,examples like knowing of whom God approves when you cannot speak for God, God speaks for himself.

The very reason why I educate myself on faiths of others and what is actually accursed, so I do not make the mistake mainstream Christendom makes, for there is an example already of how feelings, and opinions vs. Biblical Fact in one case, when both Witness and Srecko had been refuted regarding church authority.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The GB are doing neither of the above. They are trying to clean the outside of the dish or cup but not cleaning the inside. Jesus called such people hypocrites. 

I do not see how they are hypocrites for following this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Age

Mind you, we must not forget what you stated early on regarding those leading a church just as Paul and others have done, which can be read in the Bible, in Paul's case, he was giving instruct, trying to reason with those of the church, mainly to those in the Church of Corinth, and we see the outcome in Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

It really stuns me that some people cannot see that the GB are bringing shame on Jehovah's name. They are also stumbling so many people. 

As far as I know, Restorationist will do what is necessary to follow the church and the teachings as time progresses, for if they were truly blind, people would see it, but the more they look at Restorationist Christians, the more then begin to question what is mainstream Christendom is doing. To add more fuel to the fire, you have Muslims pretty much exposing the lies of mainstream Christianity, thus nearly making the words of actual Christians in the correct. I've already posted a very nonsensical view of the holy spirit professed by the mainstream only for all 3 men to be defeated by a Muslim who reads the Bible.

And since we are talking about JWs here, the only JW I challenged a while back was a former Muslim turned JW, Pakistani known as Kathgar (a regular on the Dawah channels), for at the time, I was still learning, I challenged him on the actions of Israel and the only reason I id because of misinformation from an Agnostic guy who has a disdain for religion as a whole, at the same time in those debates taking place, I had to deal with tricky Trinitarians, those of whom who ignore the teachings of the church and rely on Bibles that contains errors and forgery, hence by dislike of the KJV, ONLY due to the Spurious text and erroneous changes.

[Space Merchant]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

Hmmm, I don't think it would go down well with the shoppers at Tesco if I went to the store in the buff.

I guess he wants Christians to sport the Charismatic Christian-look, Man-Bun included, somewhat tight pants, a Levi jacket and dark shades. For last I checked, a man who is to take the lead among the church is to suppose to shepherd the sheep that flock, not be borderline prepared for yoga sessions on a Saturday afternoon. Modesty is key, and it is important, just as it is important to maintain cleanliness.

That being said, Tesco? The Northern Fire Service Companies? If it is them, I assume those guys always dress the part for their business in a modest fashion.

[JOHN BUTLER]

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Would it not be wise to respond to JTR on the topic of which he posted in rather than start an entirely new topic that has little resolve?

A church who harbors leaders and or stewards, having authority over people of the church is not a Tradition of Men and it is hypocritical to think of it as such.

The structure of the church is of God's Order, the very reason we see in the Greek New Testament churches, with those being of authority in the church, hence being the head, and under them stewards and overseers, pastors, bishops and the like, the head with the church work as one, the head is only there to advise and instruct so that the church does not stray, did you miss what took place in the First Epistle to the Corinthians of how things went South only for Paul, write to them to correct the issue in a peaceable matter, even heeding word from a resident in the area regarding the issue?

Apostle Paul and anyone who is entrusted authority in the church is not a Pharisee, if you think of such, I suggest you tear out anything in relation to the church out of your Bible, as some have when this was raised to them.

Like I said before, the Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist, they do not make up their own rules, they go about following the Early Apostolic Church in order to keep the church spiritually upright, modest, maintain faith, nothing more.

They are not different from Biblehub, Blueletter, UCG, Biblestudytools, Christaintoday, BibleGateway, Bible Org, and over a dozen others.

The social media platform is to not only profess the faith, but of what the Bible teaches. Examples being, if we are to understand as to why they do not celebrate Christmas, they will inform you and give the reason, furthermore, you can go back centuries, predating them to find out even Christians at that time did not like Christmas at all for it was not something to be practiced by Christians, I informed Matthew6969 about this sometime ago and at that time I was more of facts vs. going about things from memory.

So how is telling the history of the Christ Tradition of Men? Surely if you say this of their own platform, you should be able to give an example and or point. I do not see anything out of whack in this sense, therefore, this statement of yours is a bluff and or unfounded.

Modesty, enough said. If modesty is not among them, Gang-Stalkers will be going to their churches in masses, and the category of Gang-Stalkers I am referring to is those with intent to go after men/women and subdue them into sexual immorality, something of which is very common and is seen all the time, thus those who claim to be Christian are not Christian for their actions and or what they have done, more or so, becoming a Gang-Stalker themselves.

A Christian should always be clean, always be modest, this is something the individual and or the church must adhere to without question. To do otherwise is only inviting of bad habits and or other associations that brings forth more unnecessary things into the church, regardless of who and or where.

The Disciple of the Christ, Simon Peter was lightly claded, granted, the implication that he was wearing some kind of inner garment while working, and likely was not naked. Did you really think, Peter, a Fisherman, would go 100% willy, nilly, breeze between his legs and knees while going fishing? He wouldn't jump into the water with his everyday clothing, so he strips of his outer garments, leaving him with his inner garments when going fishing, mind you, this is how it is done in ancient times, for Peter girded up his outer garments, even the art of this verse/passage shows this, as seen here:

 

I suggest you take a GOOD look at Strong's 1903 ????????? > https://biblehub.com/greek/1903.htm

If you really think he went in there 100% birthday suit, you missed a lot of what is going on here, and you do not pay attention to the Greek Strong's in this sense when it shows you the truth of the matter. That being said, if Simon Peter was alive on earth in 2018, most certainty he wouldn't be going into the sea with a suit and tie, or his good clothing he bought at Marshall with perhaps his iPhone in his pocket that contains his Scriptural Notes and studies, water damage would waste all of that.

This is because in today's day and age, as with us being imperfect, fleshy desires can be made manifest, just as sin can manifest in actions being done and or by doing nothing or not doing what you are suppose to do. This rule also stems in the likes of culture, mainly if you know the type of person the man and or woman is.

When it comes to the church, people have to be careful, for even those among them can step away and stray from what the bible teaches, and will commit to actions that will surprise the church and or others.

For surely, John, if you had/have a wife, you wouldn't want her being in the presence, alone with someone who does not really give a care for your views, beliefs and or background, for his intent will be something of minor to something major, mainly if you yourself do not trust the guy, in my language such ones are refereed to as Boy [fille] à la recherche de problèmes, a man/woman who seeks trouble.

So any extra precautions is often necessary so one does not stumble, it can be done by the church and or a family itself, or relative.

As far as I know, Jehovah's Witnesses main celebration is the Sacrifice the Christ has made for you, for them, for me, for all, in short, it is refereed to by them as the Memorial of Jesus Christ.

For Jesus never spoke of celebrating his birth, but rather, to remember his death and what it signifies.

These Traditional Holidays of Men do not stem from the Church, Christmas is an example because Jesus' birth is unknown and it was never on December, those who make claim can easily be defeated with a passage and Jewish Customs without much an effort.

People nowadays think Christmas is a Christian Holiday not realizing that even back then this Holiday was banned by Christians for a large number of reasons.

So if a Pastor says do not celebrate that or this, he is telling you. You have free will, you either take his word because it stems from what the Bible speaks against, or go about your own dwelling and celebrate such, not realizing anything of how the practice is in relation to spirits taking up a home, and or Sun God worship - the choice is yours.

Believe it or not, a lot of Christians, even Jews and Muslims do not celebrate most of the Holidays that most, mainly in the US, celebrate.

When sexual impulses arise, people who are unmarried will most likely end up having intercourse, mainly such is very, very, VERY common today since the mentality of I Don't Need to Marry to Have a Relationship is on the rise, families being started when those who create the family structure are not married at all.

For marriage is something of importance to God and we, as Christians should respect and honor that. The Bible says a man will leave his mother and father to be his wife, never has the Bible says a Man will leave his mother and father to live with his wife, and then get married.

And those that do, have to keep themselves in check, mainly when the whole marry ceremony didn't even take place yet, keep it together until marriage or you only show you were not ready for marriage to begin with, a mistake many people make.

People are not accused of having intercourse when not even married yet, but there are those with concern with the possibility of something to take place.

As for the last bit, people do not take issue with brothers living with brothers, just as a college dorm with only men, the issue is of those of the opposite sex being together in the same space, mainly when the two are attractive to each other and are not even married yet.

The very reason this type of segregation of sexes exist other institutions such as boy/girl scouts, you cannot put them in the same room, the same goes for college dorms, you cannot do that either, yet some try to break the rules and next thing you know, breaking news and expelling from campus and so forth. It is no different with a church trying to maintain and be very concern regarding this matter.

I myself, if I was a father, I would not want my daughter to be living with someone who is highly attracted with her, for if anything happens, it would be dishonoring of the family name, when news hits one family member, everyone finds out an it is utter chaos, but if the two were married, no chaos will ensue, and or if such ones are mature enough to keep themselves in check, save themselves for marriage and so forth.

You mention this time and time again and you will get the same answers over and over and over.

It isn't a matter of believing someone of abuse or not, it is a matter of what action the church is suppose to take for such a thing took place in their community, their circle, their church.

To be brief, the church will end up doing an internal investigation of their own, no different from other institutions and or cooperate institutions, etc. They will hold that information and will give said information if it is enough to be proven as evidence, the next thing they'll do is to instruct the abused and family to inform the police, for Religious and educational institutions normally, and it is common, do not want to succumb to the bystander effect regarding child abuse, but often times, they are through into the mix. Then comes trying to minimize those who seek blood regarding child abuse, hence the stories I posted before when families who are instructed to go to the police becomes the law themselves and will often become not helping the victim, but making things worse.

That being said, no one is stopping anyone from going to the police, as Child Abuse and Neglect Services TEACHES if one adults is of little to no help, seek another adult, I do not see how the PSA's and what is taught to children regarding child abuse isn't any clearer.

But not even these institutions are safe from Child Abuse, as of recent news even Playgrounds and Play-Areas in places like Restaurants abuse is done there now, Jungle Justice would have been the end of it but no one wants to be a bystander, and no one wants human blood on their hands for taking the law in their hands.

It is also good to mention C&N prevention teaches the signs of what an abuser tends to do, and the signs of someone who is abused, I, as do many, adhere to this and this is often brought up by the young ones I speak to at the B&G clubs.

But doing everything for God and trying to follow the Bible 100% makes you an enemy, today's Christendom only follows 50% and or less. This goes with what you have mentioned about Peter not realizing the context, assuming he was literally naked and or the other thread when you didn't realize how incorrect you and Srecko were when even Biblehub shows you the Strong's for that word in question.

If little things are amissed, you are lacking spiritually. We may have hiccups in some cases, but this is unacceptable, do not be like the Trinitarian who revealed to himself that he himself defeated his own words, and those are still here.

If you read the Bible, such things should be obvious, we may not agree with someone else, but it is our duty as Christians to maintain that neutrality, we speak up to the accursed, and when dealing with anyone who profess to he Apostolic Age it is very tricky because anything can easily land you in front of the white throne of Judgement,examples like knowing of whom God approves when you cannot speak for God, God speaks for himself.

The very reason why I educate myself on faiths of others and what is actually accursed, so I do not make the mistake mainstream Christendom makes, for there is an example already of how feelings, and opinions vs. Biblical Fact in one case, when both Witness and Srecko had been refuted regarding church authority.

I do not see how they are hypocrites for following this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Age

Mind you, we must not forget what you stated early on regarding those leading a church just as Paul and others have done, which can be read in the Bible, in Paul's case, he was giving instruct, trying to reason with those of the church, mainly to those in the Church of Corinth, and we see the outcome in Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

As far as I know, Restorationist will do what is necessary to follow the church and the teachings as time progresses, for if they were truly blind, people would see it, but the more they look at Restorationist Christians, the more then begin to question what is mainstream Christendom is doing. To add more fuel to the fire, you have Muslims pretty much exposing the lies of mainstream Christianity, thus nearly making the words of actual Christians in the correct. I've already posted a very nonsensical view of the holy spirit professed by the mainstream only for all 3 men to be defeated by a Muslim who reads the Bible.

And since we are talking about JWs here, the only JW I challenged a while back was a former Muslim turned JW, Pakistani known as Kathgar (a regular on the Dawah channels), for at the time, I was still learning, I challenged him on the actions of Israel and the only reason I id because of misinformation from an Agnostic guy who has a disdain for religion as a whole, at the same time in those debates taking place, I had to deal with tricky Trinitarians, those of whom who ignore the teachings of the church and rely on Bibles that contains errors and forgery, hence by dislike of the KJV, ONLY due to the Spurious text and erroneous changes.

The only part of your comment i will bother to answer is the point of Peter being naked whilst fishing.

I say naked because the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses have put exactly that in their translation of their newest Bible. 

If they see fit to use the word naked then i presume they mean naked. And they say they are guided by God's holy spirit. 

Please remember, I am only interested in what Jehovah's Witnesses say and do, and what instruction their leaders give them. 
 

[JOHN BUTLER]

6 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

I guess he wants Christians to sport the Charismatic Christian-look, Man-Bun included, somewhat tight pants, a Levi jacket and dark shades. For last I checked, a man who is to take the lead among the church is to suppose to shepherd the sheep that flock, not be borderline prepared for yoga sessions on a Saturday afternoon. Modesty is key, and it is important, just as it is important to maintain cleanliness.

That being said, Tesco? The Northern Fire Service Companies? If it is them, I assume those guys always dress the part for their business in a modest fashion.

I'll give you an instance. My brother 'invited' me to his house to help him take a ceiling down which he was having replaced. 

It was a very old ceiling, the house being over 100 years old. The work was very dirty. We took the ceiling down and left it of the room floor as there was lots of dust. So he suggested we went to McDonalds for some food to let the dust settle and clear our heads of the dust and grime. I agreed. However he changed his clothes to look smart before we went out. I said we would be continuing work when we returned so I would not change. Thereby came the difference of opinion. He said we should look smart at all time and I quoted God's word about Peter being naked and Jesus did not rebuke him. 

It is therefore my opinion that this 'being smart at all times' is teachings of men, not of God.

I can see the reasoning of being smart for meetings and field ministry, but not whilst working. 

Oh yes, the plasterer arrived to put up the plaster board and do the finishing work. He is a brother. He was so scruffy in his work overalls covered in paint and plaster i just had to laugh. 

[Space Merchant]

On 9/30/2018 at 5:11 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The only part of your comment i will bother to answer is the point of Peter being naked whilst fishing.

I say naked because the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses have put exactly that in their translation of their newest Bible. 

If they see fit to use the word naked then i presume they mean naked. And they say they are guided by God's holy spirit. 

Please remember, I am only interested in what Jehovah's Witnesses say and do, and what instruction their leaders give them. 
 

Like I told you about 2 Corinthians 5:20 regarding substitute/supplicate as with the understanding of ambassadors,

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/70398-2-corinthians-520-substitute-or-supplicate/?do=findComment&comment=108183

if the Strong's match up, there is no error and or problem. Once again you have proven yourself to be totally oblivious to the Greek Strong's, for last I checked Jehovah's Witnesses, as with other Christians follow both the Hebrew/Greek Strong's accordingly vs. those who do not, be it oblivious, ignorant and or dumbfounded to this fact, 1 Timothy 3:16 being an example whereas JWs are blamed for removing GOD/THEOS from the verse when in reality, other translations did the same because, wait for it, GOD/THEOS was never in the oldest source, something of which it was professed before, and one occasion I went off overboard, not going according to my updated notes on the matter, thus confusing myself, but in the end, the correction has been made.

Maintain your focus on Biblehub (https://biblehub.com/nas/john/21.htm) regarding verse 7 because if I use other sources with Strong's the evidence of being oblivious will stack up against you, so this will be very lite. Now, the word naked Or “lightly clad, poorly dressed, and or the wearing of only an under garment. In Greek, the word for this [naked] is gymnos/gumnos in actual Greek writing, it is γυμνός and it's Strong's number, in Greek, is 1131. This word has about 15 occurrences in Scripture and it means what the Strong's say: nakedness, poorly dressed, under garment only, again, Biblehub even points to you of where to find these occurrence, John 21:7 being one of them. Like I said in the last thread, you enjoy the use of Biblehub, use it properly, take a good look at the Strong's of a specific word and grasp it fully, otherwise you will be grilled for it. If this was CSE they would grill you thrice-fold, if this was Hyde Park, well, at this point it is like sending a man unarmed into the field of combat, therefore, understanding this information is crucial, for anyone can read the Bible and but to understand it, what the words mean and the context will show who knows their Bible and who does not, hence why I will respond here and tell you to, on your screen Mr. Butler, take time to read into the Strong's before you make a response like this.

Read, observe, meditate and apply: http://www.godrules.net/library/strongs2b/gre1131.htm | https://biblehub.com/greek/1131.htm | https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0006261

As for the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their note and study they even state the following: naked: Or “lightly clad.” The Greek word gy·mnosʹ can have the meaning “lightly clad; in the undergarment only.”—Jas 2:15, ftn.; see study note on Mt 25:36.

That being said, to speak on Jehovah's Witnesses regarding John 21:7 is rather weak on your part, granted of as to why and where they adhere to in terms of Textual and Biblical Criticism and correct use of Strong's being at play here and since this can easily be seen by those who knows such this, can see that you are incorrect, thus being in the wrong.

And I said what I said because of what you said here: 

On 9/29/2018 at 4:50 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I can't understand why Peter went fishing in the nude anyway. It must be a dirty smelly job.

But my point was that Jesus never rebuked Peter.  However the Elders will tell a brother off for attending a meeting whilst not wearing a tie. 

And

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

A witness must be dressed in a tidy manner at all times (even though Peter went fishing naked).

 

Hence the response.

On 9/30/2018 at 5:58 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I'll give you an instance. My brother 'invited' me to his house to help him take a ceiling down which he was having replaced. 

It was a very old ceiling, the house being over 100 years old. The work was very dirty. We took the ceiling down and left it of the room floor as there was lots of dust. So he suggested we went to McDonalds for some food to let the dust settle and clear our heads of the dust and grime. I agreed. However he changed his clothes to look smart before we went out. I said we would be continuing work when we returned so I would not change. Thereby came the difference of opinion. He said we should look smart at all time and I quoted God's word about Peter being naked and Jesus did not rebuke him. 

It is therefore my opinion that this 'being smart at all times' is teachings of men, not of God.

I can see the reasoning of being smart for meetings and field ministry, but not whilst working. 

Oh yes, the plasterer arrived to put up the plaster board and do the finishing work. He is a brother. He was so scruffy in his work overalls covered in paint and plaster i just had to laugh. 

Changed his clothing to look smart? As in smart what are you purposing here, Butler? There is no issue with someone having a change of clothing after doing some form of work, example would be working in a medical field where blood is on your work clothes, and so forth, so and so can either change into causal, a suit, what have you to go anywhere, some even choose not to change depending on the situation and or if their closing is not that messed up and or defiled.

This is another example of something you profess that is of your own and not of God, for what I see here is your brother made his decision to not retain clothing that is messed up, but rather go and change, so I do not see how this example pushes your resolve when you yourself revealed this is of your own opinion but never speak on what the Bible says.

As for anyone who puts their lives for the Missionary Work of the Good News Gospel and of the Messianic Age, such ones have to be modest while out and about doing this service, for Jesus himself was spoke of cleanness, as is spoken of in the Bible, so therefore, he making he decision to change his clothing, change out of his work clothes into something clean and presentable, is no issue at all.

So to say that is a Teaching of Men only reveals how wrong you are and basing something so minor on your own emotion and opinions, when you yourself stated you read the Bible, when the Bible speaks of cleanness about 45+ times and of being of modest appearance.

That being said, for that last part, in my eyes, a person who does the work of his hands is a show of someone who is hard working, mainly when you can see it on his or her hands and on their attire.

On 9/30/2018 at 5:58 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Thereby came the difference of opinion. He said we should look smart at all time and I quoted God's word about Peter being naked and Jesus did not rebuke him. 

Learn what the word "Naked" is in both Greek and Hebrew, do not make the same mistake Srecko does when comparing an English Dictionary in an attempt to counter the the Strong's itself, hence the pother thread I linked and you being totally unaware of such and assuming the man, a Fisherman of all people, was totally naked, or as you said, in the nude, when the context defeats you before it was even presented.

I also suggest looking into the history of Fishing regarding those times and onward, people use to do the same method even to this day whereas they stick to the old and yet still working techniques.

I do not see why the rebuke when Jesus himself knows the job of Fishermen, let alone him speaking of the Parable of Drawing in the Net (Matthew 13:47–52).

Other than that the next time you want to explain something, do so without yielding upon your ever so obvious man understanding vs. biblical understanding, for if one is to understand what is included in the Traditions of Men, using Man's Understanding regarding a passage and or verse is an evident one, which can be seen displayed by you here- Mark 7:8 [1-9] (see Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8)

As for our JW counterparts, or you since you are formerly a JW, on this forum, even their own word speaks against you in this matter: Remember, the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were inclined to make big issues of minor matters, sometimes of infractions of rules based on human standards and not on the instructions or principles of God’s Word. By one-sidedly emphasizing minor things, they obscured the weightier things of God’s Word. (Mark 7:1-9, 14, 15, 20-23; Matt. 23:23)

Read more, and research - know the difference of what is leavened and unleavened (1 Corinthians 5:8) otherwise you start a battle and lost it before it even starts.

John 21:7 on Biblehub: https://biblehub.com/john/21-7.htm

[JOHN BUTLER]

40 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Like I told you about 2 Corinthians 5:20 regarding substitute/supplicate as with the understanding of ambassadors,

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/70398-2-corinthians-520-substitute-or-supplicate/?do=findComment&comment=108183

if the Strong's match up, there is no error and or problem. Once again you have proven yourself to be totally oblivious to the Greek Strong's, for last I checked Jehovah's Witnesses, as with other Christians follow both the Hebrew/Greek Strong's accordingly vs. those who do not, be it oblivious, ignorant and or dumbfounded to this fact, 1 Timothy 3:16 being an example whereas JWs are blamed for removing GOD/THEOS from the verse when in reality, other translations did the same because, wait for it, GOD/THEOS was never in the oldest source, something of which it was professed before, and one occasion I went off overboard, not going according to my updated notes on the matter, thus confusing myself, but in the end, the correction has been made.

Maintain your focus on Biblehub (https://biblehub.com/nas/john/21.htm) regarding verse 7 because if I use other sources with Strong's the evidence of being oblivious will stack up against you, so this will be very lite. Now, the word naked Or “lightly clad, poorly dressed, and or the wearing of only an under garment. In Greek, the word for this [naked] is gymnos/gumnos in actual Greek writing, it is γυμνός and it's Strong's number, in Greek, is 1131. This word has about 15 occurrences in Scripture and it means what the Strong's say: nakedness, poorly dressed, under garment only, again, Biblehub even points to you of where to find these occurrence, John 21:7 being one of them. Like I said in the last thread, you enjoy the use of Biblehub, use it properly, take a good look at the Strong's of a specific word and grasp it fully, otherwise you will be grilled for it. If this was CSE they would grill you thrice-fold, if this was Hyde Park, well, at this point it is like sending a man unarmed into the field of combat, therefore, understanding this information is crucial, for anyone can read the Bible and but to understand it, what the words mean and the context will show who knows their Bible and who does not, hence why I will respond here and tell you to, on your screen Mr. Butler, take time to read into the Strong's before you make a response like this.

Read, observe, meditate and apply: http://www.godrules.net/library/strongs2b/gre1131.htm | https://biblehub.com/greek/1131.htm | https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0006261

As for the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their note and study they even state the following: naked: Or “lightly clad.” The Greek word gy·mnosʹ can have the meaning “lightly clad; in the undergarment only.”—Jas 2:15, ftn.; see study note on Mt 25:36.

That being said, to speak on Jehovah's Witnesses regarding John 21:7 is rather weak on your part, granted of as to why and where they adhere to in terms of Textual and Biblical Criticism and correct use of Strong's being at play here and since this can easily be seen by those who knows such this, can see that you are incorrect, thus being in the wrong.

And I said what I said because of what you said here: 

And

 

Hence the response.

Changed his clothing to look smart? As in smart what are you purposing here, Butler? There is no issue with someone having a change of clothing after doing some form of work, example would be working in a medical field where blood is on your work clothes, and so forth, so and so can either change into causal, a suit, what have you to go anywhere, some even choose not to change depending on the situation and or if their closing is not that messed up and or defiled.

This is another example of something you profess that is of your own and not of God, for what I see here is your brother made his decision to not retain clothing that is messed up, but rather go and change, so I do not see how this example pushes your resolve when you yourself revealed this is of your own opinion but never speak on what the Bible says.

As for anyone who puts their lives for the Missionary Work of the Good News Gospel and of the Messianic Age, such ones have to be modest while out and about doing this service, for Jesus himself was spoke of cleanness, as is spoken of in the Bible, so therefore, he making he decision to change his clothing, change out of his work clothes into something clean and presentable, is no issue at all.

So to say that is a Teaching of Men only reveals how wrong you are and basing something so minor on your own emotion and opinions, when you yourself stated you read the Bible, when the Bible speaks of cleanness about 45+ times and of being of modest appearance.

That being said, for that last part, in my eyes, a person who does the work of his hands is a show of someone who is hard working, mainly when you can see it on his or her hands and on their attire.

Learn what the word "Naked" is in both Greek and Hebrew, do not make the same mistake Srecko does when comparing an English Dictionary in an attempt to counter the the Strong's itself, hence the pother thread I linked and you being totally unaware of such and assuming the man, a Fisherman of all people, was totally naked, or as you said, in the nude, when the context defeats you before it was even presented.

I also suggest looking into the history of Fishing regarding those times and onward, people use to do the same method even to this day whereas they stick to the old and yet still working techniques.

I do not see why the rebuke when Jesus himself knows the job of Fishermen, let alone him speaking of the Parable of Drawing in the Net (Matthew 13:47–52).

Other than that the next time you want to explain something, do so without yielding upon your ever so obvious man understanding vs. biblical understanding, for if one is to understand what is included in the Traditions of Men, using Man's Understanding regarding a passage and or verse is an evident one, which can be seen displayed by you here- Mark 7:8 [1-9] (see Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8)

As for our JW counterparts, or you since you are formerly a JW, on this forum, even their own word speaks against you in this matter: Remember, the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were inclined to make big issues of minor matters, sometimes of infractions of rules based on human standards and not on the instructions or principles of God’s Word. By one-sidedly emphasizing minor things, they obscured the weightier things of God’s Word. (Mark 7:1-9, 14, 15, 20-23; Matt. 23:23)

Read more, and research - know the difference of what is leavened and unleavened (1 Corinthians 5:8) otherwise you start a battle and lost it before it even starts.

John 21:7 on Biblehub: https://biblehub.com/john/21-7.htm

Oh dear we get back to the same point i tell you every time. 

I'm only interested in what the JW Org and their Governing Body do and say. 

When the Governing Body put the word naked in that scripture they did not expect that every reader would do deep research to find out what naked means in Greek. Come on SM I think you are the one making mountains out of mole hills here. 

When the Governing Body say something they are saying it to 8 million baptised people and another 8 million Bible students. I don't think the GB expect them all to research each and every word they say and write. 

When the word naked in written in English in an English Bible, it means exactly that naked.  If they wanted to get the idea over that Peter was 'lightly clad', 'in his underwear' they would have written that. 

Enough said. 

 

[Space Merchant]

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Oh dear we get back to the same point i tell you every time. 

No, my friend, we are focused and are on topic here, for the pieces on the chess board has not moved and nor shifted. For this is regarding the word "Naked" in the passage, be if of Jehovah's Witnesses or not, the focus of the verse is in the Bible and it is the Bible I will speak of, you can continue to bring up JWs but the very original source of the Bible still stands, and your former JW counterparts are aware to the fact of what the word means in the Greek text, to which you are putting in application the literally vs. the Bible.

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I'm only interested in what the JW Org and their Governing Body do and say. 

Ok..... So what of John 21:7 regarding the word Naked? I see in their translation it says the following:

Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter: “It is the Lord!” Now Simon Peter, on hearing that it was the Lord, put on* his outer garment, for he was naked, and plunged into the sea.

*- Or “wrapped around himself; girded about himself.”

According to their understanding of the massage, as stated already:

• the disciple whom Jesus loved: That is, the one whom Jesus especially loved. This is the fourth of five occurrences mentioning a certain disciple “whom Jesus [or “he”] loved” or “for whom Jesus had affection.” (Joh 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20) It is generally believed that this disciple was the apostle John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James.—Mt 4:21; Mr 1:19; Lu 5:10; Joh 21:2; the reasons for this identification are given in the study notes on Joh 13:23; 21:20.

 

• naked: Or “lightly clad.” The Greek word gy·mnosʹ can have the meaning “lightly clad; in the undergarment only.”—Jas 2:15, ftn.; see study note on Mt 25:36.

You spoke of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses yourself, formerly, so I ask you here what issue you take with the word Naked when the Greek Strong's matches up with what their Bible professes?

Like I said, we are focused here when it comes to the Bible, and the verse in question is in the Bible of all translations, even the JW one. I don't need to bring up the verse on Bible Hub because that was the final link to which I posted in my last response, but I can quote myself for you:

15 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

John 21:7 on Biblehub: https://biblehub.com/john/21-7.htm

And now we have this:

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When the Governing Body put the word naked in that scripture they did not expect that every reader would do deep research to find out what naked means in Greek. Come on SM I think you are the one making mountains out of mole hills here. 

Are you sure? As with all translations that have footnotes, references and the like, it tells you exactly what a word in a verse means or what the passage is in connection to, etc. When this is regarding nakedness, it can mean several things and since we know Peter is a fishermen and fishermen at the time girdled their under garments, it is no surprise.

The word "naked" has always been in scripture, mainly in this specific verse, the very reason I said, and I quote:

15 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

In Greek, the word for this [naked] is gymnos/gumnos in actual Greek writing, it is γυμνός and it's Strong's number, in Greek, is 1131. This word has about 15 occurrences in Scripture and it means what the Strong's say: nakedness, poorly dressed, under garment only, again, Biblehub even points to you of where to find these occurrence, John 21:7 being one of them.

Go to any Bible website that gives context for such words, everyone here likes biblehub, you show yourself to be very liking of the site of which I can see on this forums, yet when Biblehub is used it is a different story - as which can be seen here to everyone even guests and elsewhere. I invite you to read, from Bible Hub, for it is, as you said it yourself, very interesting indeed.

I also pointed out this:  Strong's 1903 ἐπενδύτης > https://biblehub.com/greek/1903.htm

Here is what Biblehub had to say which is identical to what your former faith reads, for perhaps this will ring some bells for one who was formerly of Jehovah's Witnesses:

Quote

He girt his fisher's coat unto him (for he was naked).--That is, as the words in the original clearly imply, he put on, and girded round his body the garment which workmen customarily used. This seems to have been a kind of linen frock worn over the shirt, and the Talmud has adopted the Greek word here used to express it. The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and the rendering "fisher's coat" probably gives a correct idea of what is meant.

The common usage of the Greek and Hebrew words answering to the English word "naked," makes it probable that St. Peter was wearing some under-garment, and that reverence for the Lord, into whose presence he is about to go, led him to add to this the outer frock. (Comp. Acts 19:12.)

 

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When the Governing Body say something they are saying it to 8 million baptised people and another 8 million Bible students. I don't think the GB expect them all to research each and every word they say and write. 

In understanding the views and mind of Jehovah's Witnesses, their own religious leaders encourage them to do research in what the Bible says (you should know this, how this this slip from your radar), for if they didn't expect or have known no manuscript(s) information to be learnt by those of their community and or evidence to such then in God's name would they even be put on their website, thus they make available to the public?

To make matters even worse for you, on your part, this same information is scattered all over the internet, clearly not everything is bad on the internet when you have those who are true to themselves who speak but, mainly in the light of Biblical Theology, those even learning themselves.

That being said, I stated before, to JTR and others that the Jehovah's Witnesses are sitting at 8.45 million adherents (source), possibly, 8.5 million and they are growing fast for a minority faith community while on the other side of the spectrum mainstream Christianity is on a heavy decline and is being surpassed rapidly by Islam and I read somewhere Judaism is in the mix.

And that is their faith group alone, the numbers are far more bigger when you include study converts of JWs which is around like 21 million+ I would have to double check statistics in religion again for the numbers can change.

Other than that, back to focus regarding the verse in the Gospel of John for I will not let this glass of water spill over like elsewhere.

Now, Christians are suppose to make research and learn, for the Bible does speak about taking in knowledge of the Christ and his God, John 17:3 and ALL references, even outlined ones, being clear or what was said by Peter himself regarding accurate knowledge or perhaps Paul, I know you read things regarding Paul and his works; just as the Christ read and observe the law and learn about His God regarding the Law, we should read and research the Word daily to take in knowledge of God, of Jesus, of the Kingdom, the teachings of the Church and so forth, research is not a bad thing, for it keeps your the spiritual mind and body whole and strong.

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When the word naked in written in English in an English Bible, it means exactly that naked.  If they wanted to get the idea over that Peter was 'lightly clad', 'in his underwear' they would have written that. 

The English Bible adheres to manuscripts (check out Biblehub for it is indeed interesting), naked in the Greek text can be something entirely different in the English dictionary, just like what was states on Bible Hub regarding the word naked to today's language vs. that in the Scriptures.

So comparing the 2 will not help you with your resolve.

It's no idea and for you to say such only proves the point further that you truly do not read the word for context and or understanding, you do not need a JW to hold your hand to gain biblical context, it is Biblical Fact, the fact you are still remain ignorant to manuscript evidence of the oldest sources we have only shows that you defeated yourself here with this one verse, you yourself even made it known, which can be accessible on Biblehub, as with the another  interesting verse where you most likely overwhelmed with the truth, like I said, why is it now something different with you, Butler? Biblehub is right there, and I know you have access to it, you revealed such before.

Go do the research because if you read the Bible, best for you to understand it because if you lack mainly in something so elementary and minor, how can you teach the Word if you do not understand it yourself, even going as far as to assume said word is identical to the English word when the Strong's, in Greek mind you, shows you the references and occurrences of that one word? For if you do not accept truth of this matter, you will not be able to teach the elderly, other adults and or children, not even toddlers, for even they know everything has context when they read something as simple as Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat or Green Eggs and Ham.

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Enough said. 

I take the words of our church fathers and the Bible, I do not take your understanding for you reveal your own word to be of what this topic is about, Traditions of Men, in this sense, you display the obvious man's understanding here.

Do the research and then return here or simply remain silent as the truth stares you in the face, furthermore, do not speak of something you are still unaware of, for as Jesus used a child in his example to his disciples, we are to learn, we are to apply - you, must do the same.

That being said everything explained to you cannot be proven wrong, and the Bible has been used against you quite easily, even the source of the Bible itself and the evidence and Strong's we have in this day and age.

Therefore it can be said here, the one who mostly makes the attempt to speak of Traditions of Men, is most definitely the very one to be practicing Traditions of Men, and it is obvious and clear.

The truth has been professed to you, do what you will, for the truth isn't for everyone and sometimes the truth is too much to handle for it is that great. You have been burned, and rinsed.