Miles....do a study on the

Pulling Down of Strongholds.

There are Differrent Strongholds that can take hold of

a person's life...

which are usually passed on from generation to generation.


One stronghold for example, is called a Religious

Stronghold...another example of a stronghold is a

stronghold of Error......etc etc etc.


But a believer can pray to have any stronghold broken

off one's life .

Jesus is not a demi-god.

Sorry someone might have said that on here about Jesus ..but

that statement is incorrect.

I'm sure he wasn't. But it's extremely important to Christianity that he was indeed born of a virgin mortal woman who had been impregnated by a God. That's a demigod. Period.

But I agree. He was most likely just a mortal human like the rest of us.

Abra......

JESUS was FULLY man as well as FULLY God.

(a demi-god is ONLY PART man and only PART god).

Again....JESUS was FULLY GOD as well as FULLY MAN!!!


FULLY...not just part!!!!!

BIG DIFFERENCE !!!


IF Jesus were NOT God (EQUALLY God WITH the Father) ,

then His dying on that cross accomplished nothing.....

cause ONLY GOD HIMSELF ( Jesus is EQUALLY God WITH the

Father ,THUS, making Jesus JUST AS MUCH GOD AS THE FATHER)

could bear the sins of the world for us.


It was GOD with us..... thru GOD the SON ,Who came and dwelt

among us, and paid for the sins of

the whole world on that cross.


NO demi-god or some part god, could EVER do this...neither

could

a mere mortal man pay for the sins of the World.



It took GOD HIMSELF( thru God the Son) to Do this....otherwise,

man would still be dead in his sins!!!



Again....Jesus is FULLY GOD as well as FULLY man.,,,NOT just

part God and part man.

Again.....Big difference here!!!

your logic about those who say Yahweh made a mistake so jc came in this case.. is so sad but true.. they do need a demigod. thats what all the old fables had.. Horus is even the picture of jc. they never study or they would never say such things.either the bible is one or not.. Yahshua said to be perfect as his father in heaven is perfect but they openly need to say he was WRONG not man .. No WAy.. Just like the Pharasees they gotta change things for thier own power. thats what religions of the World that have to have. so yes a jc and a mohammad are equal.. they need to save you from the world.. oh Heavens Yes. many sects that disagree on a point or 2 and call each other brothers when it comes to a gang fight. but they are all seperate because who's the Big Cheese. each one is but they relate in Power. who will Bomb who.. You need saved.Hallelujah and you give me an AMEN Brother. I got the Spirit and you don't. HAA. I am saved and Izza gonna save you. Or do you know about Hell? Hell the spirit saved me but disagree and I feel for ya but you will rot in Hell..nawing and nashing of Teeth.Oh My!!! Just say the sinners prayer Just Say the sinners Prayer.. songs like a song .. well it does. But doesn't the creator then who made a mistake..Oh My. Can't Be. Bring on the JC. fear based the Pharasees all over again.. saying no law when they keep making up thier laws.. its what they want when they want it.. like a terrorist.. shoot ya from behind.your right they are all the same in the end.Do or ELSE.. Blessings..Miles

you say more for me than I ever could

That is both silly, and utterly impossible.

To begin with, if an all powerful God who can do anything wanted to become incarnate in the flesh as a man, he would not need to have been born from a mortal woman and been raised from a baby. He could have simply appeared as a fully grown man out of nowhere.

So this doesn't fit in with the biblical fables of Jesus as a demigod who was partly descendant from King David, the adulterous and murderous King. The fables claim that Jesus was "The Christ" who would necessary have to have been a descendant of King David.

Moreover it's utterly foolish to try to claim that Jesus was "fully God" and "Fully Man" at the same time. That would be an impossibility because men are supposed to have a free will that differs from God's. Otherwise, what would be the point in having them obey God if they already have precisely the same personality and will?

God, as a man, would not be required to do anything other than agree with himself and agree to obey himself. That would be utterly stupid. So it makes absolutely no sense to even suggest that Jesus could have been both fully God and fully man simultaneously. That's just more Christian propaganda and proselytizing baloney.

The tenants of Christianity simply cannot be true. They do not even begin to make any kind of rational sense at all.




The whole idea that a God had to have himself nailed to a pole by the objects of his creation before he could forgive them of their transgressions has to be the most asinine idea that any religious fable has ever come up with.

I could never respect such an idiotic and inept "God" much less worship such a lame being. At the very best all I could do is feel grossly sorry for it.

I most certainly would not want to obey such an idiotic being for the rest of eternity.

So even if these fables were true, all they would be telling us is that our creator is dumber than most barroom drunkards.



MorningSong with all due respect, how can you possible expect me to believe in a supposedly supreme infinitely intelligent God who supposedly requires such dastardly payments for disobedience of his will and desire?

The very idea of a God who is appeased by having someone butchered on a pole (even if it's his very own self) is utterly disgusting and ignorant beyond belief.

You expect me to worship a God who is so sick and demented as that?

Seriously MorningSong, the very best I could do for such a God is feel extremely sorry for it.

What a pathetic image of a God.



And again, it doesn't help.

In fact, that ideology only ends up making things far worse.

The very notion of a God who can't forgive people unless there has been some hideous act performed to PAY for their disobedience is a mentality that I wouldn't even respect in a human, much less from a God.

In order for me to believe in your story I would need to believe that God himself is far more hideous than actual mortal humans whom I have met. In fact, I'd even need to believe that this God has less moral and ethical values than myself.

How can you expect me to believe in a so-called "God" who appears to me to be far lesser of a being than myself?

When I read the biblical fables of this God all that goes through my mind in just about every story is how I would have dealt with these situations far more wisely than these stories claim that God dealt with them.

So for me to believe in these fables I'd have to believe in a God who is far less wise than myself. Either far less wise, or far less capable than a supposedly "all-powerful" God is supposed to be.

They claim that "With God all things are possible". Well, as long as they are going to hold that to be true, then there is no excuse for the stupidity of the behavior of the Biblical God. He would either need to be grossly LIMITED in what he can do, or utterly stupid. There is no other viable explanation, IMHO.

A God who CHOOSES to have himself butchered and nailed to a pole as a symbol of "LOVE" when he supposedly had infinitely many better choices for dealing with the situation at hand would be, IMHO, an absurd idiot unworthy of respect, much less worship.

There is no way that this story can be salvaged.

The Hebrew fables of God have no more merit than any other ancient fables of the time. It was just the same old "demigod" rumors being spread around, and this one just happened to take off. No doubt because it was originally shoved onto people via sword point and threats of social rejection or worse.

It's a religion that gained power through threats. Even threats that if you fail to believe in it the God himself will do dastardly unthinkable horrid things to you.

Believe of be DAMNED, by both society and by God!

That is a truly despicable religion MorningSong.

I am so sorry that you were raised to believe in such a religion. You seem like a nice person. You could have been supporting a far pretty picture of God.

But unfortunately things are as they are.

It was prophesied this way in the old covenant, so it happened this way in the start of the new covenant. How would he get his message out if he just created himself a person? Who would he know? Who would he talk to, to spread the word? And how is that more sufficient then spreading the word to his people even starting at an early age?



One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Jesus being crucified fulfilled the old covenant which required sacrifice for forgiveness. The new covenant doesn't require as such. We are forgiven through Jesus if and when one accept Jesus as lord and saviour.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't!

There was no such prophesy in the Old Testament. There was no such
covenant to have a son of God murdered as a savior. Simply not in
the Old Testament.

Also a just and all powerful God can simply do whatever they want.
Easily give everyone in the universe a simultaneous vision - a
deity-gram as it were. Make everyone born with it in fact.





There was no old covenant requiring Jesus to be crucified by the
Romans. There was no requirement for physical sacrifice of any
human being for forgiveness. Nope. Never. Isaac came close but
that was it. God can forgive you though.



Shakes finger at James. Judge not lest ye be judged!!

In Psalm 41:9, King David wrote a prayer asking for mercy in his last days. In this prayer, which Christians acknowledge as being inspired by God, David wrote about a betrayal at the hand of a close friend with whom he had shared bread. This foreshadowed something that happened years later with Jesus. As explained in Matthew 26:47-50, Jesus was betrayed by Judas, one of the 12 apostles, shortly after Jesus and the apostles had shared bread during the Last Supper. Jesus was crucified by the Romans a short time later.



Matthew
5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 22
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


And many more. Heck Jesus said himself he came to fulfil the law and give us the new covenant.

Matthew 5:17

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament/old covenant. Which brings it to an end. This can be seen in things such as

Matthew 5:18

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The laws/covenants only hold power over us till all the prophecies are fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of the old covenant/old testament. Thus we were given a new.

No the crucifixion wasn't required, there was no physical sacrifice required to fulfil the covenant. It's the prophecies Jesus fulfilled that fulfilled the covenant. The crucifixion was merely the ending of his life on Earth, thus with that and the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, he completed the old covenant.

There is nothing in the Old Testament about sacrificing the messiah.
Killing is PROHIBITED. Period.

The writing of David you cited above says nothing about
it. All the stuff from Matthew is of course in the New Testament.

There was no such prophesy in the Old Testament or in an Old
Covenant.

You're just arguing for the sake of it, cause I said



It was the PROPHECIES from the old Testament that Jesus fulfilled in his life on Earth that completed the covenant. Jesus was crucified for doing this. He wasn't speaking blasphemy against the law as they seen him as doing. He was fulfilling the old covenant and giving us a new to replace what was completed.

Once all the prophecies of the covenant are fulfilled, that covenant is finished.

The "New Covenant versus Old Covenant" propaganda to support this bigoted religion cannot work.

This would be a God who is divided against himself, and a God who can't make up his mind how he would like for things to be.

It's asinine to proclaim that this was all "foretold" in prophecies as if God knew that he had screwed things up from the get go, and would eventually need to clean things up.

This kind of excuse for these absurd fables just can't be made to work.

The religion cannot be supported using any form of rationality.

It's a broken record that just keeps repeating the same age-old claims that simply cannot be justified.

The Jews themselves did not buy into this crap from the get go.

So in order for these hateful Christians to be right, their God would need to condemn the Jews no different from Adolf Hitler.

In fact, this kind of support for these ancient fables actually loans support to Hilter's kind antisemitism. And let's go ahead and extend that to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and basically everyone. According to the Christians the whole world is nothing but heathens. The Christians even renounce other Christian denominations that don't agree with their specific interpretations of the scriptures.

Christianity has become nothing more than a competition to see who can support divine hatred in the name of Jesus as "The Christ" with the most authority.

Witch Jesus marionette doll will will?

The one wielded by Cowboy? Or someone else's version perhaps Hilter's version of the Christ?

It's a hateful demeaning segregating religion who's only purpose is to condemn anyone and everyone who doesn't worship a specific version and interpretation of dogma.

That's not even what the scriptures themselves claim that Jesus stood for. That's just a gross abuse of the the rumors of Jesus.

You'll never sell Jesus to anyone using him as a vehicle to support religious bigotry and hatred in the name of Christianity.

If you truly care about Jesus at all you'd be far better off supporting him as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who has become the greatest victim of the religion called "Christianity".

Why continue to use Jesus as an excuse to support religious bigotry and hatred toward all who do not cower down to hateful dogma?

There's no point to it, and clearly the "fruit" of that sort of endeavor speaks for itself as being grossly evil and not divine in any imaginable sense.

How can you continue to support religious bigotry in Jesus' name?

There is absolutely no hatred involved at all. Only in your mind Abra. Even from the Christians of this world, I can't justify all the Christians in how they spread the word, for I do not know all the Christians. We don't hate you cause you don't believe, we don't look down on you. The hatred is only in your mind my friend.

Where is the most hatred being shown in the following examples?

1. A Christian out to spread the word of God in hopes to show someone the path to Heaven and eternal life.

or

2. A person that totally makes absurd comments about this person's belief? A person that doesn't just settle for not believing, but continuously puts that belief down?

Christians don't "put down" other beliefs. We do not go around saying things negative about them or their beliefs.

So where is the hatred truly Abra? A person's belief doesn't harm another. Me believing in Heaven, Jesus being the only path to Heaven, ect ect brings absolutely no harm to you or anything negative to you. So where is the hatred Abra?

Isn't it obvious?

It's at the fingertips of some posters...

Martin Luthers take on the Jews which Hitler Admired..just a small portion of his book The Lies (of the Jews)


On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und jren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

In the treatise, Luther describes Jews as a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[1] Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"[2] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".[3]

In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare against Christians and Christianity. Following this exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are (1) for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight; (2) for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings; (3) for their religious writings to be taken away; (4) for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do; (5) for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews; (6) for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and (7) for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.[4]

The prevailing scholarly view[5] since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazis displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.[6] Against this view, theologian Johannes Wallmann writes that the treatise had no continuity of influence in Germany, and was in fact largely ignored during the 18th and 19th centuries.[7] Hans Hillerbrand argues that to focus on Luther's role in the development of German antisemitism is to underestimate the "larger peculiarities of German history

Cite the prophesies. There is no prophesy which calls for Jesus'
martyrdom. Or any martyrdom. In the Old Testament it is just not
there.