₦airaland Forum

Humans are the only creatures endowed with the freedom to make choices. Spirits where not. In other words spirits do only what God has created them to do. If you read the enuma Elish, that was the major reason God created man.
Spiritual beings are just personification of natural laws and principles..Light is light in Nigeria and Spain. It does not change. Same with darkness..
Man on the other hand can change his mind at will. That is why a man CAN NEVER be God. He is limited by time and space..

MaxInDHouse:
Humans are free to do all the things that come to our minds only setting standards for right and wrong we must leave completely for God to handle. Genesis 2:17
As long as we stay clear away from that each person is free to do whatever he/she likes provided you're not going to hurt yourself!

Where does Jesus come in ?

Somehow I believe the idea in your comment. God has placed both life and death, good and evil, light and darkness in front of us. It is now left for us to choose.
But in his infinite mercy and goodness he has given us the Torah to guide our choices in other for us to have an interesting and fulfilling life here on earth...
But ultimately at the end, the spirit returns to God and the body back to earth. Ecclesiastes 12:7.

I choose life so I am keeping the Torah just like he advised. You don't really need to be in a group or Cult to do so...

Alexandro15:
God did not sanction it? I thought you protestants belong to the "sola scriptura" group.

Those words were Jesus own words recorded by the four gospels. Unless you are telling me that God did not sanction Jesus words.

Jesus has got nothing to do with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He never said he had a son how much more of sending him as a sacrifice for sin. He hates human sacrifice. It is an abomination to him....


So know the God you are serving .

peggywebbs:
Your topic is Eucharist adoration...I answered you pointing at the instruction of Jesus Christ and you're asking me to trade words with you on the old testament. Are you confused?

It only shows you still don't understand what the Eucharist symbolises. It's not hard to read, the information is online and everywhere. If you don't understand the breaking of the bread and drinking of wine that Jesus Christ had with the disciples, Its just sad.

Do you think I have time for unhealthy arguments that does not profit the body of Christ? Anyway, I pray for you.

You are breaking God's commandments 1 through to 4 and you still think you are on God's side.

You are lost.
Jesus has got nothing to do with the creator of heaven and earth. He is just a Roman creation to deceive gullible people like you....

Flee from idolatry..

Alexandro15:
Jesus was plain enough when he said, "This is my Body...this is my Blood...do in memory of me."

As a consequence, we believe and do acknowledge that we adore the true and holy presence of Jesus in that little Host. In other words, that little Host you so despise is the true Body of Jesus.

It is biblical.

No its not. It is paganism and idolatry.

God did not sanction it...

It was concocted by the romans.

Saved from poverty or ?

Water spirit ...if your natural element is water..

peggywebbs:
I mentioned a portion of the Bible and you asked me to quote the old testament for you. Lazy Christians, just come here to argue blindly...go and read your Bible and grow in the knowledge of God. We should be mature Christians and not babies as Apostle Paul said...if you like ask me where he said it...mtchew

Is this how you dodge question.just tell me what God said the Messiah was coming to accomplish in the old testament...thats all I want.

From my own personal research this is what the Messiah is coming to accomplish, please which of them did jebus fulfill?

The Book of Jeremiah in the Tenakh states that the Messiah will be a great leader descended from King David.

The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, a king who will reign wisely.
Jeremiah 23:5
The Book of Isaiah teaches that the Messiah will be a political leader and judge. He will create a fair government in Israel, which will become a centre for all politics worldwide.

when the Messiah comes, he will:

Rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.

Bring about the end of war so that everyone can live in peace.

Unite all people regardless of differences like religion or culture.

Bring a true awareness of God to all people.

Signal the end of the world.

Jews use the Hebrew term olam ha-ba, which means ‘the world to come’, to refer to the time after the Messiah’s arrival, which is also called the Messianic Age.

What if there is no Adam...just metaphors ?

Will you have sense ?

peggywebbs:
My people perish for lack of knowledge. If you don't understand why and how things are done, then your best bet is to go into deep research. Take dive into the history of theology and religion. You see one of the problems we have in this last days is how Christians turn against each other.

It was the same thing that happened during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some people were so fixated on the old testament that they argued their way even when they saw the Messiah. They refused to acknowledge him, they charged him with blasfemy, false religion and all sorts of accusations.

Today, its either an argument against Catholic church or Jehovah witness saying nobody except them are the true Christians. We turn against each other and we condemn ourselves. We as the body of Christ are supposed to learn from each other, grow in faith and be led by the Holy Spirit. Instead we play Judge and Executioner. How can the Holy Spirit be in conflict? God is not an author of confusion. It is not in your place to judge people's religious practice. Serve your God in the way you understand instead of playing critic to other people's worship practices.

I am Catholic and proud. I do not worship any image or symbol. I understand my church's practices and traditions. I will tell anyone who is interested in knowing why these traditions exist, to go and deepen their knowledge and understanding.

At least it is the same Bible that is in front of you where Jesus broke the bread and said this is my body giving to you for the forgiveness of sins. He told his disciples to do this tradition in rememberance that he shed his blood for our sins. The Holy Eucharist is not an idol it is a symbol of the blessed sacrament, of the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross. When you see a silver and gold object, people connect with Christ on the cross and make their supplications. They do not worship the blessed sacrament, instead they are reminded of the Lord Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross. It may make no sense to you but again what do we know, if you don't seek the truth, how do you know it? Instead you open pages of the Bible and be arguing like a blind Christian. A true Christian will seek answers. Enough said, have a blessed week.

What did God say the Messiah was coming to do?

Give relevant old testament quotes to support your answer..

I will wait.

Wiseandtrue:
I guess putting up a serpent for the Israelites to look and be healed is also idolatry

the Ark of the Covenant carried, worshipped and danced to by King David is also idolatry

Stay away From things you can't explain

Lol....very funny..

Are those things you mention God?

Eucharistic adoration has increased dramatically in Roman Catholic Churches through­out America and Africa, especially Nigeria. Chapels have been set up in churches where Catholics can worship the faith-based presence of Jesus. Some chapels offer Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration whereby the consecrated host is exposed and adored in a monstrance without interruption 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Parishioners commit them­selves to a specific day, and time (one hour) every week. When they look upon the Host, they believe they are looking upon Jesus, whom they believe is “the almighty God, who created heaven and earth.”

The monstrance is a silver or gold stand with rays depicting a sunburst and a circular window where the Host is placed. It comes from the Latin word “monstrare” to show or to expose to view. This practice of idolatry within the Roman Catholic Church is as what the prophet Jeremiah, speaking for God, denounced this practice by saying: “Every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; For his molten images are deceitful, and there is no breath in them. They are worthless, a work of mockery; in the time of their punishment they will perish (Jer. 10:14-15).

Idolatry’s Punishment Is Death

Worshipping the Host is a violation of the 2nd commandment: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…” (Exod. 20:1-5). Catholics who worship the Wafer can be closely compared to the Israelites who worshiped the golden calf (Exod. 32:4). Their punishment imposed by God for this most serious sin was death (Exod. 32:27-28).

The prophet Isaiah declares God’s immeasurable greatness and then asks, “To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?” (Isaiah 40:18). Any image of God is therefore an insult to His glorious holiness and majestic perfection.

Idolatry Is A Pagan Practice

From ancient times only pagan religions used images in the worship of their deities. This type of idolatry is just one of many pagan practices that crept into the Roman Catholic Church over time. Catholics must know that the God does not dwell in the inner sub­stance of a wafer.

What Should Roman Catholics Do?

“Flee from idolatry” “Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs” Jonah 2:8.

Leverage2021:
As a Muslim you just called allah stupid because he claims he sent Jesus

Not Allah...but the authors of the Qur'an...

There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus of Nazareth existence.

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about a man called Jesus of Nazareth is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference to clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.
Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the "Lord" and his indirect revelations from the Hebrew Bible. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).
There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.
So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?
Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus of Nazareth existence.

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about a man called Jesus of Nazareth is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference to clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.
Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the "Lord" and his indirect revelations from the Hebrew Bible. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).
There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.
So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?
Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

Bishopkingsley:
I have a rule in nairaland

I don't abuse and insult people and I don't take it

Saying that your sick is very evil to say so apologies or we end our conversation

I am sorry, but I could not just help it.

You are trying to interpret somebody's property for the person. Does it make any sense to you. They wrote it for themselves, not for the whole world. They have got nothing to do with Jesus and Christianity, it did not originate from them. God never told any of their prophet he was sending his son as a sacrifice for sin. Your comment there was just laughable to say the least...

alphaNomega:
sonmvayina, don't be afraid to spell "GOD", it looks ridiculous the way you wrote it

Sign of respect...

LordReed:
I encourage you, it does seem dark now but there is light at the end of the tunnel. Keep keeping on.

Thanks a lot..

The Exodus from Egypt occurs in every human being, in every era, in every year and in every day.
I know I should be rejoicing…
I am grateful to those who have been constantly helping me know the Torah. They have been really kind and helpful to me.
But I am feeling really depressed because of what I discovered. All of a sudden, all of my experiences and plans have changed…I had served Jesus for as long as I can remember.
Now, I am back to zero…everything I knew was not the truth. I literally gave my life to Jesus and separated mysef from my non-believer friends. All of my friends around the world and even here in my state are believers. I feel so overwhelmed… I have been trying to know more about G-d but I feel like I am having a breakdown ,I somehow feel isolated from the people I knew. It has been a rough ride but I know I am on the side of my creator. He will not let me down or forsake me.

Who did Hashem give Torah to, who did he give authority to interpret scripture? Christians? Messy-antic believers? Who has more knowledge of it and the Hebrew language? Who spends their every day from the moment they wake in yeshiva, shul, etc studying and studying day in and day out? Not Christians, not messy-antic believers. No one is going to grab the hem of a Christian. No one is going to grab the hem of those gone off the derech into messy-antics. All authority belongs to Hashem and to the rabbis in every age. Stay firm. Stay strong

Bishopkingsley:
The holy one of God Jesus

Our devotion is directed to the God who spoke to us at Sinai and to Him alone. This core belief of Judaism is clearly stated in Exodus 20:1, 2. The passage records how God told the people: “I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt from the house of bondage, you shall not recognize other gods before me”. This concept is repeated in Deuteronomy 4:35, where Moses reminds us: “You have been shown in order that you know that the Lord, He is the God there is none beside Him.”

You are just very funny or maybe you are sick.. the Torah was given to the jews. You can not interpret it for them...

Kobojunkie:
So, instead of listening to the Truth of God Himself, you listen instead to a gbanga ?

How do you listen to God himself ?

Or you mean what others wrote that God said and you can't verify?

Matthew 1:20-23 says "an angel of the L-rd appeared to him (Joseph) in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the L-rd had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “G-d with us”)."

This passage is rife with lies and mistakes.

Immanuel does not mean "G-d with us." It means G-d IS with us (as in G-d is with us in times of trouble). Isaiah was telling the king that G-d was with the Jewish people at a time when they feared two kingdoms who were about to attack them.

In a nutshell Isaiah told the king "Don't worry about those kings -- G-d is with us!"

There are many names that include the Hebrew word salvation -- Joshua and Hosea being two biblical names. The Hebrew word for salvation - יְשׁוּעָה y'shu'ah (which is feminine) simply means being “rescued” from danger—typically by the rescuer engaging in physical combat (fighting) with an assailant who is attacking the person being “saved”.

Thus the angel saying Mary named the boy Jesus "because he will save his people from their sins" makes no sense as that is not what the word means. Your immortal soul does not need "saving" and in the Hebrew Bible the term refers to physical lives being rescued from danger...

There is no prophecy that a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son in the T'nach. The word for virgin isn't in Isaiah 7 -- and the woman is already pregnant -- some 700 years before Jesus!

The prophecy in the T'nach (Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7:14) was for King Ahaz who lived 700 years before Jesus -- ergo a prophecy about for him had nothing to do with Jesus, or his birth.

Jesus was never called Immanuel -- he was called Jesus.

1. Let's discuss each point in more detail to prove the statements. עִמָּנוּ (Imanu) mean "with us", and אֵל (el) means mighty and powerful. אֵל (el) often used to describe G-d and is part of other words as well. The verb "to be" is implicit in the expression עִמָּנוּ אֵל. So, the two-word expression עִמָּנוּ אֵל (Imanu-el) means "G-d IS with us."

The term Immanuel is found three times in Isaiah.

In Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7:14 the term עִמָּנוּאֵל is clearly a personal name: "....and she will name him Imanu'el." In Y'shayahu / Isaiah 8:10, it is clearly a phrase "G-d is with us!" and not a personal name: "Devise a plan but it will be scotched; say your piece but it will not succeed, because G-d is with us!" In the case of Y'shayahu / Isaiah 8:8 it seems to again be referring to a person (and is his name): "....and its wingspan will extend across the entire width of your country, Imanu'el !"

Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7:14 says "she shall call his name Immanuel."

Matthew says she (Mary) names him Jesus, but THEY will call him Immanuel.

Whoever "they" might be this is not a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy which clearly says SHE (the mother) will name him Immanuel.

This may seem unimportant -- but it turns Matthew's "fulfillment" into a false claim of prophetic fulfillment.

"She" the child's mother names him -- not some unknown "they."

"She" naming him was unusual at the time as fathers normally named their children in those days... If the pregnant woman was Isaiah's wife (as many think) she herself was a prophet... that could explain why the mother was naming her son...

2. There is no prophecy that a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son.

This could be a very, very long discussion as this is a key argument on the part of missionaries.

It is silly, too, because if Jesus WERE a virgin birth he would have no claim to being the messiah.

The messiah must be of the tribe of Judah -- and tribal status is only passed through the biological father impregnating a Jewish woman and thus passing on the tribe. If Jesus was a virgin birth he had no tribe and thus could not be the messiah.

Missionaries insist that the Hebrew הָעַלְמָה ha-al'mah (the young woman) means virgin. There are literally books and websites galore trying to convince people that ha-al'mah (the young woman) means virgin.

The Hebrew word for "virgin" is בתולה / b'tulah.

The Hebrew for "young woman" is עַלְמָה al'mah (the הָ / ha prefix means "the".

Young women may or may not be virgins, and a virgin may or may not be young! The two words are not interchangeable.

The mistranslation to "virgin" seems to stem from the Greek word παρθενος / parthenos which is often (but not always) translated as "virgin."

At one time the Greek word παρθενος / parthenos was used to describe an unmarried woman -- virgin or no virgin. It also did not infer youth (as does the Hebrew word עַלְמָה / al'mah ). The Christian Septuagint / LXX used the word παρθενος / parthenos to speak of refers Dinah in B'reshit / Genesis 34:3, right after she was raped by Shechem and was no longer a virgin.

As far back as the first century of the common era Jews tried to correct Christians on "virgin" in Isaiah 7. Justin Martyr (100 CE, so VERY EARLY Christian) wrote in "Trypho the Jew" that Jews of his era said:

"You (Jews) and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son."

Ergo this debate has gone on nearly since the beginning of Christianity, with Jews trying to correct this Christian translation error and Christians ignoring us.

Since most pagan religions had virgin births the early Christians most likely did not want to be corrected, and with the passage of time many missionaries now believe that Jews "changed" the meaning of the word הָעַלְמָה ha-al'mah (the young woman) -- which is easily shown to be untrue since Hebrew words are based on root words and their is a corresponding word for "young man"!

Still, by focusing on the word ha-al'mah (the young woman) missionaries are obsessing over the wrong word. The focus should be on the next word -- הָרָה harah. It is easy enough to debunk the virgin birth "prophecy" claim of Y'shayahu / Isaiah without focusing on the word הָעַלְמָה ha-al'mah (the young woman).

In Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7:14. הָרָה harah is the adjective "pregnant." (not "will conceive". The words הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה hinneh ha-al'mah harah mean "there [pointing to her] is a pregnant young woman"

Since Isaiah was literally pointing out a pregnant woman to King Ahaz 700 years before Jesus this prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus or the messiah being "born of a virgin." הָעַלְמָה ha-al'mah (the young woman) says nothing about the young woman being a virgin or not being a virgin (although most pregnant women are not virgins).

Leaving , mistranslated as "virgin" (הָעַלְמָה ha-al'mah) untranslated, save for noting that the prefix ha- (which is normally the definite article "the" is being used here with poetic license in the sense of the demonstrative pronoun "that", lending emphasis to "that al'mah over there." In other words Isaiah was pointing to the "al'mah / young woman" as he spoke to King Ahaz.

But although the focus always seems to be on whether or not הָעַלְמָה ha-al'mah means virgin or young woman it is not terribly important in the context of the discussion at hand. Virgins get pregnant all the time (on their wedding night for example, or in Jewish law if she remains "in tact" after sexual relations -- or even if she becomes impregnated without penetration (believe it or not it is possible)...

No, that isn't terribly important -- although "virgin" is most definitely a mistranslation...

What are the important words?

The words in question are הָרָה harah and וְיֹלֶֽדֶת v'yoledet.

In Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7:14. הָרָה harah is the adjective "pregnant." (not "will conceive". The words הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה hinneh ha-al'mah harah mean "there [pointing to her] is a pregnant young woman"

Not "will conceive."

Pregnant.

The word : וְיֹלֶֽדֶת v'yoledet (the fourth word in the prophet's statement) is the feminine singular present participle of the root ילד (to give birth), and means "[she] is giving birth"....

If the woman is about to give birth in front of Ahaz and Isaiah how can this be a prophecy about Jesus who would not be born for another 700 years?

Isaiah is saying literally: "she is about to give birth [at any moment]", and used the present participle just to indicate immediacy. The word after v'yoledet, i.e. בֵּן bén, simply means "a son."

The word in Isaiah 7 is not virgin -- but even if it were "virgin" the prophecy is clearly not about the messiah or Jesus. The woman was giving birth, or very close to it, 700 years before Jesus.

To understand the prophecy of Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7:14 read the chapter starting with the first line. The chapter is a warning to King Ahaz of Judah (who lived 700 years before Jesus). Isaiah tells King Ahaz that he needn't fear the two kings he is worried about.

The prophecy of Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7 is fulfilled in Melachim Beit / II Kings 16.

Feel free to share this post but it is copyrighted. If you share it you must credit me as the author, Sophiee Saguy. Provide a link back to this page, too. Thank you.

Not one of the gospel writers were eye witnesses. That is a claim they themselves don't make. We don't know who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. None of the gospels are written in first person. None of gospels say, I am Matthew, I am Mark, I am Luke or I am John. None of the gospels say, I was walking down the street and "J-s" came to me. The gospels were written 40, 50, 60 years after the death of J-s.

The writer of John doesn't say, I'm John the disciple whom J-s loved, its just the opposite. In John 21:24, whoever that writer is, says that he's getting his information he can trust is from John the disciple who J-s loved. So the author is saying, I'm not him and many people miss that.

written decades later by anonymous Roman authors, gospel names ascribed much later. unreliable testimony based on twisted oral traditions and hearsay. fictional accounts and story devices. virulent antisemitism by theme, subtext, and direct content, written by the enemies of the Jewish people. the NT is pure pagan hogwash that no devout Jew would ever have written.

Jesus is serapis christus.

An idol created by the Greek/Roman to deceive the gullible.

Worship your creator and follow his commandments.

God is the totality of existence...not a man or human being..

It is tantamount to idolatry to worship a man as God. It is the greatest sin against the creator..

Bishopkingsley:
They all where talking about the Messiah if you are looking for the word Jesus you won't see it

But look at what God said about the seed who will defeat Satan

That seed is the Messiah Jesus

Which seed?
Is God a prophet??

Bishopkingsley:
You ran away from the proves I gave you about the Torah identification of the Messiah

Now there was no impregnate action because God spoke a word and a child began to grow in the belly of the virgin

https://www.nairaland.com/6821515/how-torah-hebrews-scriptures-identified

You did not...you just made them up...

I have checked and there Is nothing there that says anything about jes_s ......

I will impregnate another man's wife and let the romans kill him before I can forgive you...and save you from the hell I created...

Sound leggit.

She is also Mary the mother of Jesus in Christianity..

Babylonian cults: Prostitution was a huge part of the cult of Ishtar/Inanna/Libertas. In ancient times, “Liberty" (Roman deity), symbolized the freedom to fulfill one's sexual desires. In Babylonian culture, it was viewed as a sin to reject sex and it was done in the open in common settings. Babylon also had dedicated temples that were set up specifically for prostitution. The exchange wasn't always for money; it was a ritualistic practice to give thanks to the gods.

“When you build your shrine altar for prostitution at the beginning of every street and made your high places in every public square, you were not like a prostitute because you refused payment (Ezekiel 16:31 – Amplified Bible).

Rituals connected to this female include a sacred marriage. In ancient Babylon, every marriage needed to be consecrated with sex. According to the Code of Hammurabi, “if a man takes a woman to wife, but has no intercourse with her or does not draw up a marriage contract, this woman is not a wife to him. The Code of Hammurabi also made provision for punishments pertaining to sexual transgressions .
Marriage markets were another part of Babylonian culture. Massive markets would be set up and woman were sold off to the highest bidder; subsequently, they had to have sexual intercourse to make the marriage official.
Ishtar and her consort/son/lover appear in various cults and religions and are identified by numerous names. The trinity are often associated with pregnancy (fertility), lust/pleasures, marriage and violence. Their festivals include Easter and Christmas, celebrating her cult and the birth, death and resurrection of her son/lover. Other practices include the sacrifices of humans, children and animals.
Before Christianity was made the official religion by the Roman Empire, homosexuality was also freely practiced and Babylonians had sex with animals as well.
We are warned in Jeremiah 44 against the worship of the "Queen of Heaven".
#BabylonianCults

Lucifer is the goddess of death...she is going to try. But she will fail..