sudan
B.E. Specialist
Posts: 414
|
Post by sudan on Dec 22, 2006 10:56:12 GMT -5
The Doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical! Look at the contradictions...
1. Did Jesus Christ have two fathers? The Father is the Father of the Son (I John 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). Which one is the true father?
2. How many Spirits are there? God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:24), the Lord Jesus is a Spirit (II Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is a Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).
3. If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God?
4. Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32).
5. Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? (John 5:19, 30; 6:38).
6. Similarly, what about other verses of Scripture indicating the inequality of the Son and the Father? (John 8:42; 14:28; I Corinthians 11:3).
7. Did "God the Son" die? The Bible says the Son died (Romans 5:10). If so, can God die? Can part of God die?
8. How can there be an eternal Son when the Bible speaks of the begotten Son, clearly indicating that the Son had a beginning? (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5-6).
9. If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother at that time? We know the Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4).
10. Did "God the Son" surrender His omnipresence while on earth? If so, how could he still be God?
11. If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchangeable), how can the reign of the Son have an ending? (I Corinthians 15:24-28).
12. If in answer to questions 3 through 11 we say only the human Son of God was limited in knowledge, was limited in power, and died, then how can we speak of "God the Son"? Are there two Sons?
13. Whom do we worship and to whom do we pray? Jesus said to worship the Father (John 4:21-24), yet Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59-60).
14. Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Certainly the Old Testament does not teach three but emphasizes oneness. If the New Testament adds to the Old Testament message and teaches three persons, then what is to prevent subsequent revelations of additional persons? If we apply trinitarian logic to interpret some verses of Scripture, we could teach a fourth person (Isaiah 48:16; Colossians 1:3; 2:2; I Thessalonians 3:11; James 1:27). Likewise, we could interpret some verses of Scripture to mean six more persons (Revelation 3:1; 5:6).
15. Are there three Spirits in a Christian's heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian (John 14:17, 23; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 3:14-17). Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).
16. There is only one throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2). Who sits upon it? We know Jesus does (Revelation 1:8,18, 4:8). Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?
17. If Jesus is on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? (Mark 16:19). Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? (Acts 7:55). Or is He in the Father's bosom? (John 1:18).
18. Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? Colossians 2:9 says the latter.
19. Given Matthew 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using the name of Jesus, even to the extent of rebaptism? (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; I Corinthians 1:13).
20. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father (Ephesians 1:20), or Jesus (John 2:19-21), or the Spirit? (Romans 8:11).
21. If Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? (Luke 12:10).
22. If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always speak of Him being sent from the Father or from Jesus? (John 14:26; 15:26).
23. Does the Father know something that the Holy Spirit does not know? If so, how can they be co-equal? Only the Father knows the day and hour of the Second Coming of Christ (Mark 13:32).
24. Did the trinity make the Old and New covenants? We know the LORD (Jehovah) did (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-13). If Jehovah is a trinity then Father, Son, and Spirit all had to die to make the new covenant effective (Hebrews 9:16-17).
25. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not?
26. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father? If not, why not?
"And now ,O Father,glorify Me together with Yourself,with the glory which I had with You before the world was." [John 17:5}
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God,did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. [Philippians 2:5-6]
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father.[Philippians 2:11]
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.[Colossians 2:9]
Then comes the end,when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father,when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. [1 Corinthians 15:24]
Now when all things are made subject to Him,then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him,that God may be all in all.
Answer this question? And He said to them," How can they say that the Christ is the son of David?" "Now David himself said in the book of Psalms: "The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool". Therefore David calls Him 'Lord';how is He then his Son? [Luke 20:41-44]
|
|
jazzlover
B.E. Sergeant First Class
It Takes Pressure to Make a Diamond
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by jazzlover on Dec 22, 2006 12:22:06 GMT -5
The word "trinity" is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence. In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the Trinity. Each has a will, loves, and says "I", and "You" when speaking. The Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father. Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God. There are three individual subsistences, or persons. The word "subsistence" means something that has a real existence. The word "person" denotes individuality and self awareness. The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is a strict monotheism which is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). Therefore, it is important to note that the doctrine of the trinity is not polytheistic as some of its critics proclaim. Trinitarianism is monotheistic by definition and those who claim it is polytheistic demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it really is.
The Trinity God is three persons Each person is divine There is only one God. Many theologians admit that the term "person" is not a perfect word to describe the three individual aspects/foci found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God there are not three entities, nor three beings. God, is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.
Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead. Each of the three persons is not the other two persons. Each of the three persons is related to the other two, but are distinct from them. The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. But this does not mean that the concept is not taught there. The word "bible" is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway. Likewise, the words "omniscience," which means "all knowing," "omnipotence," which means "all powerful," and "omnipresence," which means "present everywhere," are not found in the Bible either. But we use these words to describe the attributes of God. So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument.
Is there subordination in the Trinity?
There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity in regard to order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 5:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16). This subordination of order does not mean that each of the members of the Godhead are not equal or divine. For example, we see that the Father sent the Son. But this does not mean that the Son is not equal to the Father in essence and divine nature. A wife is to be subject to her husband but this does not negate her humanity, essence, or equality. By further analogy, a king and his servant both share human nature. Yet, the king sends the servant to do his will. Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). Does this mean that the one sent must, therefore, be of different nature than the one who sent him? Of course not. Critics of the Trinity will see this subordination as proof that the Trinity is false. They reason that if Jesus were truly God, then He would be completely equal to God the Father in all areas and would not, therefore, be subordinate to the Father in any way. But this objection is not logical. If we look at the analogy of the king and in the servant we certainly would not say that the servant was not human because he was sent. Being sent does not negate sameness in essence. Therefore, the fact that the Son is sent does not mean that He is not divine any more than when my wife sends me to get bread, I am not human. Is this confusing?
Another important point about the Trinity is that it can be a difficult concept to grasp. But this does not necessitate an argument against its validity. On the contrary, the fact that it is difficult is an argument for its truth. The Bible is the self revelation of an infinite God. Therefore, we are bound to encounter concepts which are difficult to understand -- especially when dealing with an incomprehensible God who exists in all places at all times. So, when we view descriptions and attributes of God manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that a completely comprehensible and understandable explanation of God's essence and nature is not possible. What we have, however, done is derive from the Scripture the truths that we can grasp and combine them into the doctrine we call The Trinity. The Trinity is, to a large extent, a mystery. After all, we are dealing with God Himself. It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God's word to their own reasoning and end in error. The following verses are often used to demonstrate that in the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed biblical. Matt. 28:18, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure." Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life." __________________ Sources: Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Everett Harrison, ed. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960.
Berkhoff's Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1988.
Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1994.
Hodge's Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1981.
|
|
jazzlover
B.E. Sergeant First Class
It Takes Pressure to Make a Diamond
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by jazzlover on Dec 22, 2006 12:27:01 GMT -5
Jesus He is the creator (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17). He is uncreated (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17). He is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 8:58 with Exodus 3:14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8). His Incarnation and His deity Hypostatic Union - Jesus has two natures in one person. He was not half God and half man. He is both Human and Divine. He was completely God and completely man. This is the correct position concerning His two natures. See Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. Jesus will remain as both God and man for eternity. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). "He was born under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and fulfilled all of the Law of God (John 4:34 ; 8:29), even to the point of death (Phil. 2:8). In His death He bore the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). Thus in the death of Christ the sins of His people were judged (Rom. 3:23-26) and forgotten (Heb. 8:12), and the result of His act of righteousness was eternal life (Rom. 5:18). Jesus is worshiped - (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6). Jesus is prayed to - (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2). Jesus is called God - (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). He is the exact representation of the nature of God (Heb. 1:3). His death and the atonement Jesus bore the sins of the world (1 John 2:2) in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). He was a propitiation, a satisfaction to God that appeased God's wrath. He atoned. He made right that which was wrong between us and God. His shed blood is what cleanses us from sin (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22; Rom. 5:9; 1 John 1:7-9). He removed the enmity between God and Man (Rom. 5:10). For whom did He die? - Some say for the sheep (Christians) only (John 10:11,15). The Sheep are the Christians. The Goats are the non-Christians (Matt. 25:32-46). Others say He died for everyone (1 John 2:2). Each side has good arguments. The Resurrection of Christ (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Jesus rose in the same body that He died in (John 2:19-21; Luke 24:36-43). Jesus' body is ‘resurrected.' We do not know exactly what His body is like, but the nature of the resurrected body is discussed by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:35-58. Right now Jesus is in heaven, still as, and eternally to be both God and man (1 Tim. 2:5; Col. 2:9). This is important because Jesus is the High Priest forever: "where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,” (Heb. 6:20). A spirit cannot be a high priest, only a man can do that. Furthermore, Jesus always lives to make intercession for us "Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them," (Heb. 7:25). The Ascension of Christ (Acts 1:1-11.). After the resurrection Jesus appeared to His disciples during a period of forty days. He completed His message to them then. In light of the cloud in the O.T. (Exodus 40:34; 1 Kings 8:10f.; Luke 9:34f.) as a manifestation of God's glory and presence, we have the necessary expectation of His glorious ascension. He ascended in full view of the apostles who wrote of what they saw. The Doctrine of the Deity of Christ is opposed to: Docetism - Jesus was truly spirit and only appeared to be a man. Gnosticism - Jesus was only a man taken over by the heavenly Christ which never became incarnate. The heavenly Christ returned to heaven before the crucifixion. Arianism - Jesus was created slightly lower than God. Then Jesus created all things. The Hypostatic Union (Jesus having two natures in one person) is opposed to: Kenosis - Jesus lessened Himself in the incarnation, i.e., God minus something. Eutychianism - The two natures of Jesus are completely ‘mixed' and indiscernible. Nestorianism - The two natures are not in contact with each other and that Jesus was two persons. Monophysitism - The two natures combined and became one, a new type of being. (Then Jesus would be neither God nor man, but a third something.) The Holy Spirit With the ascension of Christ we have the arrival of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; Acts 2) who ministers to the Church through the mediation of Christ (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Scriptures. He is fully God; He is not a force. He is the third person of the Trinity. He has a will - 1 Cor. 2:11 He speaks - Acts 13:2 He loves - Rom. 15:30 He can be grieved - Eph. 4:30 He convicts of sin - John 16:8 He creates - Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4 He gives gifts - 1 Cor. 12:8 He Intercedes - Rom. 8:26 He teaches - John 14:26 He testifies of Jesus - John 15:26 He baptizes - 1 Cor. 12:13 He guides - John 16:13 He encourages - Acts 9:31 He empowers - Micah 3:8 He gives joy - Rom. 14:17 He comforts - John 14:16-26 The Holy Spirit indwells the believer (Rom. 8:11) and continues to work in him to bring about sanctification (Rom. 15:16). The Holy Spirit illuminates the mind of the believer (1 Cor. 2:12,13) and reveals to Him the things of God (1 Cor. 2:10,13; 1 John 2:27). Salvation Salvation is the deliverance out of or the saving from the judgment of God upon the sinner. This judgment is known as damnation and consists of God casting the unsaved into the lake of eternal fire. The saved go to heaven to be with the Lord forever. God is the sole agent of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; John 1:12-13; Acts 13:48). Man does not cooperate with God to earn or keep salvation. If a person needed to do anything towards his/her salvation, then Jesus died needlessly (Gal. 3:21). Salvation is by faith, not by works (Rom. 3:21; Rom. 4:5; Gal. 3:21). It is a free gift (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9). In salvation, the sins of the Christian are borne in Christ on the cross and the merits of Christ's righteousness are counted to the Christian. The two main views on salvation in respect to man's choosing. Free will - Man is totally able to accept or reject God (John 3:16) based upon some quality or ability within him. Predestination - God predestines who He chooses into salvation (Eph. 1:1-11; Acts 13:48). There is nothing within man that will allow him to choose God. God must call. Justification and Sanctification Justification is the instantaneous event where God imputes to the believer, the righteousness of Christ. Sanctification means to be set apart for holy use. It means to consecrate. Where justification is that position of being declared righteous before God (Rom. 4:5; 5:9), sanctification is the growth in the life of the Christian in holiness in understanding, intent, thought, and action (1 Thess. 4:3-7). Sanctification is a transformation of the believer produced by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:22-23) where godly fruit is the result. The Christian's sanctification is tied to Christ: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me..." (Gal. 2:20, NIV). Further scriptures dealing with this are Rom. 6:1-23; Eph. 5:10-Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:17-6:18) The Church The church can be viewed in two ways: The visible church and the invisible church. The visible church is all who profess to be disciples of Christ. The invisible church is all who truly are saved. The church is called the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) with Christ as the head (Eph. 5:23). The church is to be united (Eph. 4:1-16) under one God (Eph. 4:4). The church is to be holy (1 Cor. 1:1-2; Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:9). The church is open to all (John 3:16) and to preach the word of God (Matt. 28:19-20). The church is called the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-23; Rev. 19:7), the church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23), the church of God (1 Cor. 1:2), God's building (1 Cor. 3:9), etc. The Resurrection The resurrection is when the dead in Christ are raised imperishable (1 Cor. 15:42,52-54). In general, God raises the dead (2 Cor. 1:9). Specifically it is said that Jesus raises the dead (John 5:21,25,28,29; 6:38-40,44,54; 1 Thess. 4:16). It is also said to be the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:11). The resurrection occurs at the return of Christ, (1 Thess. 4:16-17; 1 Cor. 15). The resurrection is physical. Jesus is called the first-fruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20,23) and the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5). He was raised in the same body He died in (John 2:19-21; Luke 24:39). Therefore, we shall also be raised in physical form as He was. It is not known exactly what our bodies will be like but it is thought that they will be like Jesus' resurrection body (Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:42-54), not in His divinity, but in the state of His resurrection. There will be a resurrection of the good and of the wicked (Acts 24:15). The good, the Christians, will be raised to everlasting life Matt. 25:31-34). The bad, the non-Christians, will be raised to everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:4-46). The Millennium Millennium means 1000 years. There are three main views concerning the Millennium. Amillennialism - that we are in the millennial reign of Christ now. This view asserts that Satan was bound when Jesus first came to earth. It holds that at the return of Christ the rapture occurs, the judgment of the wicked takes place, and the new heavens and earth are created. Premillennialism - that the millennial reign of Christ has not yet happened. This view asserts that Jesus will return (the rapture occurs near or at His return) and then bind Satan, cast him into the abyss, and rule on earth for 1000 years. At the end of that period Satan will be let loose to lead a rebellion. Jesus will then destroy him. Then comes the final judgment, followed by the new heavens and earth. Postmillennialism - that the church will usher in the millennium of Christ through the preaching of the word and the conversion of the world. There is debate on whether or not the millennium is a literal or figurative period. Some say the period must be a literal 1000 years (Rev. 20:2), others say the period may be interpreted figuratively (2 Pet. 3:8). There are very good arguments on both sides of the issue. Historically, the church has held mainly to Amillennialism and Premillennialism with each gaining prominence at one time or another during the past 2000 years. The Rapture The rapture is the time when, at Christ's coming, the Christians who are alive are changed into their resurrected bodies (1 Thess. 4:15-17). They are literally caught up to where Jesus is as He descends from heaven to collect His church. Those who have died beforehand come with Jesus and precede those who are on earth. The main debate on the Rapture is when it will occur in relation to the Tribulation. Pretribulation - the rapture will happen before the tribulation period. Midtribulation - the rapture will occur half-way through the tribulation period. Postribulation - the rapture will occur at the end of the tribulation period. The Final Judgment This is the judgment of all people (Matt. 25:31-46) at the end of all things (Matt. 13:40-43). This judgment for the Christian is regarding his works (2 Cor. 5:10). It does not affect salvation because being in Christ (Rom. 8:1) our works play no part in our salvation (Rom. 4:5). The reward of the Christian is to be with the Lord forever (1 Thess. 4:17) in the new heavens and new earth. For the wicked the Day of Judgment (2 Pet. 3:7) is a judgment upon all their sinful actions (Acts 17:31; 1 Cor. 13:11-15). The wicked will be cast into hell (2 Thess. 1:6-10; Matt. 13:40-42). The New Heavens and the New Earth At the consummation of all things, God will destroy the elements with intense heat (2 Pet. 3:12). There will be a new Earth which is the home of the righteous (2 Pet. 3:13). This heavenly life will be social since it is spoken of in the context of a perfect city (Heb. 12:28), as a holy temple (Ezekiel 40-48), and as a wedding feast (Rev. 19:7). This heavenly life will have no more marriage (Matt. 22:30), no death (Luke 20:36), no sorrow (Rev. 7:17), no pain (Rev. 21:4), etc. This condition of perfection and fellowship with the Lord will be without end (Matt. 25:46) in a condition of light without darkness (Rev. 22:5).
|
|
jazzlover
B.E. Sergeant First Class
It Takes Pressure to Make a Diamond
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by jazzlover on Dec 22, 2006 12:27:37 GMT -5
So much for your contradictions~!
|
|
sudan
B.E. Specialist
Posts: 414
|
Post by sudan on Dec 22, 2006 23:19:47 GMT -5
That sounds like a lot of white folks psychology. Do you have anything from the Black Perspective??
|
|
|
Post by ifayomi on Dec 23, 2006 0:51:25 GMT -5
Really folks I don't wanna argue, first would like to say all that stuff you spoutin mr Panther I know backwards and forwards and was much like you (not a putdown) I would have been what is known as (spelling) an apologetist, I knew and belived my doctrine was very strong in and on it, anyway just wanted to say that first.
but thought this might be good here since the long post are going here this is quite long Uhuru Osunkoya-Ifayomi
"Orthodox" Christianity and the birth of European Nationalism February 09, 2002 by Corey Gilkes
"By the time the fool has learnt the rules of the game, the players have all gone home". - African Proverb
For many of those who have studied slavery and colonialism it is well known that of all the institutions developed or exploited by European powers, religion was the most debilitating. The destruction of indigenous peoples' image of the Almighty did more to make them submissive to the will of the colonial powers than force of arms ever could. In the last two essays I attempted to throw light upon an aspect of Xianity that is almost completely overlooked by most devotees of the religion; the more esoteric meanings behind what is written in the scriptures. But there is still one other aspect of Xianity that needs to be looked at; an aspect which I believe is at the heart of Western European hegemony. That is the actual way in which the Christian religion has been used by the European to seize and maintain control societies and people.
The answer to the question of what effect Christianity had upon ancient and Medieval Europe is by no means as straightforward as it is made out to be by fundamentalists and apologists. Indeed the very question may be said to stem from a misconception that the influence was one-way - Europe, particularly ancient Europe being profoundly influenced by the tenets outlined in the bible [New Testament], the words first spoken to mortal man by Jesus of Nazareth. The truth is that the relationship enjoyed between Europe and Christianity [hereinafter referred to as orthodox or Western Christianity to distinguish it from the other forms of Christian and pre-Christian faiths that existed around the same time as the early Roman Church] can be summed up in one word, symbiosis. And even this was possible only after extensive "doctoring", editing and suppression of texts to suit the political needs of first the Roman Empire and later France, England, Spain, Portugal, etc. namely expansionism. The history of Christianity is the political history of Europe.With regard to the influence that Christianity has had upon ancient and medieval Europe [and ultimately the Americas] it is quite fair to say that the Church has left a legacy, a worldview that permeates every aspect of Western European-centred societies. Today, even though most Western societies can boast of a separation between Church and state, their very laws and cultural traits have been shaped in no small way by early ecclesiastical authorities. Actually, what the Church has done was to harmonise these cultural traits that have characterised European societies since primordial times.
We the "people of colour" have an amazing naivete with regard to religion particularly Christianity as defined by Western Europe. Most are familiar with the Christianity of faith. What is not so well known is its origin, the Christianity of history and how it impacted upon the faith; indeed there are many misconceptions about the faith and most people confuse the historic Christianity with the Christianity of faith. Many of the adherents who follow the faith for the sake of the "purest" aspects of the religion, believe, in their innocence that others do likewise. As such they staunchly defend a religion the origins and development of which they remain blissfully unaware. So much time is wasted arguing about which denomination is better or whether Creation or Evolution is true, or whether the Bible is the infallible Word of God. Little time is spared for carefully contemplating the extent to which religion has been used as a tool for exploitation and the lengths those who seek political and economic power would go and have already gone in the pursuit of such power. Indeed, due to our misreading of the bible and our love affair with Judaism and things Christian, very few even bother to challenge the implied right of Europeans to rule, so deeply have we internalised feelings of inferiority.
In examining the impact of Christianity upon ancient and Medieval Europe one thing is certain; the Church succeeded in uniting most of Europe. There is no doubt, as the fundamentalists argue, that Christianity has unified Western Europe in ways that transcended the narrow confines of tribalism. That it sought to include everyone through its message of a universal brotherhood. That it harnessed the warring tribes of Europe and in so doing unified the political, economic and social outlook of Western Europe by harnessing the various aspects of the continent's secular culture. However, there is another side to this story; one that is by no means as romanticised as it is often made out to be. Exactly how the Christian Church went about unifying and transforming Europe, if one looks at it honestly, is shameful to say the least. Christianity, as defined by Rome, Greece and to some extent Asia Minor, brought religious intolerance to a level never before seen. It provided justification for the taking of other people's lands by cleverly disguising ethnocentrism and an expansionist ideology in a message of universal brotherhood. Ironically it used this universal brotherhood message to maintain a hierarchical structure that saw Europe and European-centred societies at the pinnacle while the conquered lands and peoples occupied the lower rungs. It introduced chattel slavery and rape in places where such things did not exist before, wanton destruction and contempt for the environment notwithstanding its exhortations to the contrary. It reinvigorated old gender prejudices and superstitions thereby transforming Europe and Western influenced societies into neurotic, male-dominant, sexually repressed societies. In its rise to ascendancy orthodox Christian bishops forged biblical texts - such as the passages following Mark Chap16: 8 - in order to create the myth of an historical death and resurrection. It is this myth of an historical, fleshly death and resurrection of Jesus and his "appointment" of his disciple Peter that lies at the foundation of European expansionist ideologies and their perception of a divine right, a manifest destiny.
This, along with the "succession" initiated by Peter's "appointment", carried immense political weight and served as the basis for the Church's involvement in and manipulation of the political affairs of Europe. Popes crowned earthly monarch yet accounted to none; in fact the European concept of the divine right of kings, though pre-dating Christianity, was reinforced to a large extent by the Church's arrogating unto itself the power to create monarchs. Ecclesiastical law was held superior to secular law and in many cases served as the basis for these laws.
To understand this symbiotic relationship and how Europe has become what it has become, one must first understand the first three centuries of the Christian era. Most people have been encouraged to believe that Christianity sprang up as a fully developed New Order ordained by Jesus the Christ, Son of God, in the midst of a world wracked by sin. Some of them further believe that the religion has changed little from its beginnings some 2000 years ago. This romanticised view has little foundation in historical fact. The Gospels are by no means cohesive, eyewitness accounts; they are in fact extremely unreliable as historical documents. They are devoid of the historical detail that makes, for instance, Josephus' works so valuable. They give little or no indication of the turbulent political climate in Palestine and Rome at that time, the daily cruelties that resulted in thousands of crucifixions and not just one. The Book of Acts fares no better either and apart from the Letters of Paul [those that are not forgeries] it is almost impossible to extricate historical fact from romantic myth.
Now there are some religious systems that are largely the same way today as when they were conceived - specific schools of Buddhism and Islam, for example. However, the concepts, doctrines, myths and rituals of Christianity did not develop in one singular spontaneous upsurge. In fact, for the first two hundred odd years of the Christian era [CE], there were numerous "Christian" denominations, each with their own spiritual beliefs and Gospels, and each at war with the other groups over the question of these doctrines and their authenticity. For example, during these first three centuries certain Mandaean and Johannite sects, especially in the region of the Tigris-Euphrates basin, honoured John, and not Jesus as the messiah. Indeed, one of these sects still exists. For them, John was the "true prophet", while Jesus was "a rebel, a heretic, who led men astray, betrayed secret doctrines". To further compound the issue, the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 CE in retaliation for attacks by Jewish nationalists. This meant that many important documents and sacred Jewish writings were either destroyed or disappeared. The major difference we find between contemporary denominations and those of the first two centuries is that today's denominations, whether Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterians, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventists, etc, all regard the New Testament as authoritative. All of the faiths that arose out of the Reformation remained within the framework of orthodoxy.
Contrary to another popular myth, the first Christian Church was not established in Rome or anywhere in Europe. The first Christian nation was in Ethiopia [Cush]; this is "confirmed" in the book of Acts 8: 26-40. Those who insist that the early Church was founded in Rome [or Armenia] often dispute this. The argument against an Ethiopian beginning is often augmented by the fact that most religious scholars and theologians agree that neither Acts nor the Gospels can be relied upon for historical accuracy, having been written over sixty years after the events they describe supposedly took place.
However, the facts show that prior to Constantine's ascension to the throne in 312 CE, Christianity was not openly practiced in Rome. The Roman Christians were being persecuted because of their repeated attempts to subvert the social order [and NOT because of their religious beliefs as is so often said] and were forced to worship secretly in the catacombs [underground cemeteries] found under many ancient Roman cities.
But the Church was already flourishing in northeast Africa. Apart from Ethiopia, a Christian monastery was established in Kemet/Egypt in the 1st century CE by an African bishop named Pantaenus on the island of Phillae on the Nile. This monastery had seven Patriarchs, the equivalent of popes, and twenty-seven bishops.
Even monasticism originated in Egypt; another African, Anthony, called "the hermit of the Sahara", because he withdrew to that area to meditate in a life of poverty, became the first of the order of monks and nuns who lived the monastic life of seclusion. Note, however, that Anthony himself was only carrying on a tradition practiced by the priests and priestesses of the ancient Kemitic/Egyptian educational and spiritual system called the Mystery System. This was a highly complex, secret spiritual and philosophical order stretching back well over 4500 years BCE
The capital of Christendom up until Constantine's time was Alexandria, Egypt. Its bishops were instrumental in creating the organisational structure of the Church. Egypt and Ethiopia were securely Christian before Greece or Rome. Even later on such Africans as Augustine of Numidia, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage and Tertullian also of Carthage heavily influenced Christianity. There was also Bishop Origen and at least three Africans who became popes of Rome; St. Victor I [189-199] who is responsible for Easter being celebrated on a Sunday; St. Galasius I [492-496] and St. Miltiades [311-314].
However, it was Constantine who paved the way for Roman Christian domination. Scholars believe that his reign represented the turning point in Europe's history. One can say then that the starting point of this European manufactured myth begins with this historical figure. According to the general outline of the popular story Constantine became emperor after defeating his main rival Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge. He was said to have been inspired by a vision in the sky - later reinforced by a prophetic dream - of a luminous cross and an inscription which read "In Hoc Signo Vinces" [by this sign, conquer]. He then had emblazoned upon the shields of his soldiers, the Greek letters chi and rho, the first two letters of the word "Christos" and this resulted in his victory in battle and over paganism. Upon his ascension to the throne, he forbade all persecution of Christians, became a Christian and adopted Christianity as the state religion of Rome. Later, by virtue of a document that was "uncovered" in the 8th century, he was believed to have conferred upon the Pope some of his own secular power. The document was called the "Donation of Constantine".
That's pretty much the legend, and of course, the truth tells us a much different tale. Constantine did defeat Maxentius at Milvian Bridge, he did ascend the throne in the year 312 and during his reign Christian persecution was halted - sort of. But he had no mystical vision at all: the chi rho monogram can be traced back to Ancient Egypt via such "pagan" cultures as Pompeii centuries before the Xian Era. Further, his Edict of Milan of 313 forbade persecution of all forms of monotheism including Christianity - in other words his law was not drafted specifically for Christian benefit. Also, Constantine was neither converted to Xianity nor did he adopt Xianity as the state religion of Rome during his reign. Sol Invictus, a form of sun veneration, was the predominant religion in Rome and Constantine himself functioned as a Sol Invictus high priest, and he was never "converted" to Xianity until he lay upon his deathbed [and it appears that that happened because he was too feeble to protest]. As for the "Donation" in which he purportedly gave to Pope Sylvester, " …the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts, and cities of Italy and the Western regions….", and by which the Church asserted its prerogative to crown kings and assume temporal authority, this was nothing but a forgery. Ironically, the Church refused to relinquish all land and treasures acquired through this deception.
He halted the persecution of Christians - for strategic and political reasons only; this had nothing to do with seeing any "divine light", he needed support in order to consolidate his position on the throne. He allowed high Church dignitaries to become part of the civil administration. He donated the Lateran Palace to the bishop of Rome, which was then used as a means of establishing supremacy over rival centres of Christian authority in Alexandria and Antioch. In fact, much of what came to define Orthodox/Western Christianity was shaped by Bishop Eusebius who was Constantine's personal confidant. He presided over the Council of Nicea [325 CE]. At this council, the various warring Christian factions were forced to confront each other and attempt to reconcile their differences. Again, this was done out of political expediency; Constantine was seeking political and ecclesiastical unity so that Rome would be easier to manage; the many religions flourishing in Rome were too tribal and/or ethnic in their outlook to facilitate his expansionist aspirations. Christianity, with some doctoring, fit the bill. Indeed, Christianity as we know it today was to a great extent shaped in this ecumenical council. Jesus' divinity and the nature of his divinity were decided by a vote at this council. At Nicea Eusebius and other like-minded bishops vigorously implemented the reorganisation programme, selectively collecting documents and credos that suited their fancy and imposed them upon the Christian world. After this council any deviation from their "orthodoxy" was not viewed as a mere difference of opinion or misinterpretation, but an outright heresy. It was also at this council that Rome became, or more correctly, usurped, the official centre of Christian orthodoxy. The atmosphere of religious tolerance and diversity that typified Rome and its dominions was slowly being eroded because Christian authorities understood that such diversity posed a challenge to their political aspirations. One of the first "casualties" was the Nazarean form of teachings espoused by the Jesus figure and his disciples, which was not to become a new religion but was to adhere to Judaic Law. This was supplanted with Pauline thought. Thus, in the cruellest of ironies, the faiths that were much closer to the truth were now spurned as heretical and the denomination whose origins are nothing short of scandalous became - and remains - the "orthodoxy".
Note: as previously mentioned, up until Constantine's death in 334 Christianity was NOT the official state religion of Rome; Sol Invictus, which originated in Syria, was. Constantine himself functioned as a Sol Invictus chief priest and though he tolerated Christianity, he was not baptised until he was on his deathbed. But Roman Christian doctrine was similar to Sol Invictus anyway, as well as the Egyptian Osirian Drama and Mithraism, a survival of the ancient Persian Zoroastrian religion, which was also imported by Rome. By adopting the traditions of these belief systems, it became much easier to win over "pagan" devotees and Roman Christianity became increasingly secure politically and ecclesiastically in the Roman Empire, which by this time was virtually a "superpower". Also, by adopting these traditions Western Christianity gradually moved away from it's Judaic origins. Indeed, to ensure its survival and that it would remain in Rome's good graces "Orthodox" Xian writers set about changing and creating scriptural texts that shifted blame from the Romans to the Jews for the destruction of their Temple, their colonisation and the death of their messianic figure [contrary to popular belief the Jews lost everything not because they opposed the messiah or the concept of a messiah, but because they were so uncompromisingly messianic]. To this end we have the absurd passage [Matt 27:25] of a whole Jewish crowd saying to Pilate "[let] his blood be on us and our children"; something no crowd of Jews ever did. Further, the whole image we have of Jesus being condemned to death for his claims to being the messiah must be read in this context. Historically, crucifixion was a capital punishment reserved by the Romans for crimes against the state - i.e. treason - the Jews did not have the authority to crucify anyone and if the crimes were of a religious nature, the Jesus figure would certainly have been put to death for blasphemy by the Jews themselves - by stoning - with no need for the Romans.
The Council of Sardica [343-344C.E.] declared that "Rome is the see [unit] of Peter, to which all bishops must refer". This effective step toward centralisation was important not for granting a new right on Rome, but for reserving this right for Rome alone. In the 4th century the Eastern Orthodox bishops who had split with the West, consulted Rome only on very important matters. Alexandria, which had been the most ecumenical and tolerant city in the whole of the Roman Empire, became a haven for Jews. It also became a haven for Nazarean thought; it is said that Nazarean teachings greatly influenced the development of Egyptian Christianity - after all, it was in Egypt, Nag Hammadi, to be exact, where the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic Thomasine or Nazarean scrolls were found. Even so esteemed a Church Father as Clement of Alexandria was, in many respects, closer to Nazarean doctrine than he was to the Pauline orthodoxy of Rome. Egypt also served as repositories for the so-called "heresies" such as the Arian "heresy", which was one of the main issues of the Nicene Conference.
Nevertheless, by the 5th century Rome was further strengthening its position as the Universal [catholic] Church. Popes maintained that all Christians and not only bishops had the right to appeal to the bishop of Rome. Needless to say, this was stoutly resisted by the Churches of Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, Ireland and many other aforementioned sects, a schism that in some cases was to last up until the present.
|
|
|
Post by ifayomi on Dec 23, 2006 0:52:04 GMT -5
Part II
With the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christian Europe the continent began to slip into the Dark Ages in which all learning not approved by the Church was anathematised and suppressed. Books and libraries were closed, converted or burnt to the ground. In Alexandria, Egypt, African books containing centuries of knowledge on medicine, geography, navigation, astronomy, sacred science, etc were destroyed in orgies of violence. In other parts of Christian dominated Europe ancient academies were closed and such subjects as grammar, Latin and advanced mathematics were banned. Bathing and personal cleanliness were considered sinful and all forms of sensual pleasure were forbidden and regarded with what can only be described as maniacal fear. This was partly because such things were closely connected to ancient beliefs venerating the concept of the Divine Mother in addition to the accompanying male deity. The Church Fathers condemned marriages and it was considered sinful and the Church refused to participate in any until the 9th century. Sex was deemed sinful, nasty and even when it was finally tolerated [for the purpose of the producing a male child] there were strict regulations controlling when a married couple could engage in intercourse. Clement of Alexandria, influenced to some extent by Levite Judaism, disapproved of oral intercourse, intercourse with a pregnant, menstruating, menopausal or barren wife, in the morning, in the daytime and after dinner. The act itself was not to be enjoyed by either party or else it would be deemed lustful [The word "lust" in old Germanic language actually meant "religious joy"]. The effects of this kind of schizophrenia was so profound that tables in the late 19th century Victorian England had their legs covered lest it aroused a man's passionate feelings.
"Pagan" beliefs, particularly those of Persia, India and Egypt, which was the main rival, was on the one hand outlawed but on the other hand co-opted into Christian worship. African and Persian myths and festivals commemorating the change in the seasons or the growth of crops were spliced into Christianity since the very dawn of its existence. By the fall of the Roman Empire temples dedicated to the African Divine Mother Auset/Isis were converted to Christian temples along with the worship of the Madonna and Child. All this made it easier to convert pagan devotees into Christians. Since the Church was now controlling all books and centres of learning, history was rewritten to become a verification of Christian beliefs. In Europe time reckoning was hinged upon the supposed date of Jesus' birth.
As the Church's influence and authority increased so did their corruption. Murder, bribery, fornication, simony, pedophilia, forgery, larceny and the like became all but institutionalised by the Vatican. The Church along with some rich influential Jews in the royal courts who had "converted" to Christianity [conversos or Marranos], in a macabre business deal with the Arabs acquired spices and other exotic items from Asia Minor in exchange for humans and furs [in that order]. These humans were the "pagan" Slavic people of Central and Eastern Europe and it was from the exploitation of these people that we have the word "slave". Life for common Xian people of Europe was no easier as the Church and European monarchs exploited and enslaved their people [it's euphemistically called serfdom] through physical, financial and sexual exploitation. By the end of the 9th century the popularity and authority of the Church was being questioned. Things may not have gone well for the Church were it not for a very timely distraction that also made the expansionist ideology enter a new phase, the Crusades. This series of "holy" military campaigns spanned a period from 1095 to 1291 ended in humiliation for the Church but it did in its own way open European eyes to the world to the south. It also helped undermine the status of the Church and the lords in the eyes of the common people. By the end of the traumatic Black Death plague which swept Europe and wiped out over one-third of its population Europe had for the most part lost sentimental attachment with itself and the Church looking for a new avenue to vent pent up frustrations.
It found it in the Jews and especially the Moorish population: the African and Arab Muslims who invaded and settled in Europe especially Spain, Portugal and parts of France. These same African and Arab Muslims whose relatives had soundly defeated the Crusaders had preserved centuries of ancient knowledge and taught these subjects in Europe. Were it not for the Moors, Europe may never have recovered such knowledge. By the 1400's, weakened by infighting Islamic Europe was beginning to lose control. At the same time Christian Europe was beginning to rediscover itself and was slowly coming together to fight the "infidel". Augmented by the libraries and documents assembled by Prince Henry the so-called Navigator [there's no evidence that he actually was a sailor], Christian Europe began to recover some semblance of higher learning. Maps and charts, redrawn from ancient African and Arab source maps as well as from information provided by Jewish gold dealers who had been trading with states in the Sudan and inner West Africa, Europeans began going back to sea. By 1483, the last Moorish stronghold capitulated to the forces of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, paving the way for the Columbus expedition - itself a myth that should be addressed [see the letter on Columbus ]
Scholars argue that the Church's stranglehold really became loosened with the advent of the printing press and the rise of Protestantism. However, while this did indeed erode the authority of the Roman church, it must be remembered that the Reformers were not seeking to start a new religion. They were simply trying to curb the excesses and corruption of the Church and, finding it impossible to do so, branched out on their own. For many of them their outlook still remained Catholic and others, such as Calvin, were trying to create a society that lived in strict accordance to the tenets of the bible - the assumption here was that Christianity was a "book" religion, failing to consider that Christianity was also defined by extra-biblical traditions. Scholars such as Max Weber, argue that this was intimately connected with the rise of capitalism. John Calvin's ascetic Protestantism taught that there was a specific number already chosen by God to live in heaven. These persons were chosen even before they were born; and those who were not fortunate enough just could not get a place no matter how well behaved they were on earth. For him, humans were inherently sinful, depraved by original and actual sin. He stressed discipline - which he enforced to the point of despotism, unconditional obedience to God's will and ethical deeds. Unlike Luther who preached justification by faith and forgiveness of sins, Calvin's aim was not salvation; it was to glorify God. His philosophies influenced the expansionist ideologies of Europe in no small way. His views and methods of enforcing discipline also inspired the French Huguenots, the Scottish Presbyterians, the English Puritans, the Baptists and such individuals as John Knox and Theodore Beza.
The Europe that came out of the Dark and Middle Ages was a Europe that was deficient in land, people and especially resources. It solved the land and people problem by taking other people's land and enslaving and/or exterminating them. The Protestant ethic spurred European powers to create and maintain a system of slavery and colonisation that would ensure that the economies of Europe [and later the United States] would be fuelled by the enforced labour of enslaved and colonised peoples. To ease their consciences for their orgies of extermination and enslavement, they, with great assistance from the Church - Catholic and Protestant, created a rationale that convinced them that they were dealing with "uncivilised" people who were "savages, steeped in idolatry, who sacrifice human beings, eat human flesh and deal with the devil". An examination of the diaries and other historical documents written by European missionaries, merchants and soldiers show that this pretext was used time and again in the Americas, Africa and Asia.
It is an argument that is still used today except that "civilisation" and "Christianity" have been switched to "democracy", "free trade", "Globalisation", etc.
This is not meant to be an indictment of many individuals who are genuine in their beliefs. However, they in their innocence remain unaware of the circumstances surrounding the origin and development of their faith and the role it played in the enslavement and colonising of peoples, the shaping of an ideology that was the foundation for Western racism. It employed physical and psychological violence to validate the faith. By scrutinising the hidden history of Western Christianity and the pre-Judaic/Christian world, one could have a better understanding of what must be done to reverse the effects of this strange disease.
REFERENCES
Colliers Encyclopedia The Catholic Encyclopedia The Encyclopedia Biblica Tertullianus Against Marcion - Tertullian History of Christianity World's Crucified Saviors - Rev C H Vail Afrikan Origins of the Major World Religions - Prof. Yosef ben-Jochannan Irenaeus Against Heresies - Irenaeus African Origins of the Major "Western" Religions - Prof. Yosef ben-Jochannan Holy Blood Holy Grail - Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent Messianic Legacy - Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent Echoes of the Old Darkland - Charles S. Finch MD History of the First Council of Nice Introduction to African Civilisations - John Jackson Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth - John Jackson Man, God and Civilisations - John Jackson African Presence in Early Europe - edited by Dr. Ivan Van Sertima Black Athena Vol. I - Martin Bernal Ancient Egypt the Light of the World [2Vols.] - Gerald Massey Gerald Massey's Lectures - Gerald Massey Dead Sea Scrolls Deception - Henry Lincoln Who Is This King of Glory? A Critical Study of the Christus/Messiah Tradition -- Alvin Boyd Kuhn The Dictionary of Bible and Religion - editor William Gentz Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Vol. I - Edward Gibbon Forgery in Christianity - Joseph Wheless The Women's Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets - Barbara G. Walker The Dark Side of Christian History - Helen Ellerbie Women, Food and Sex in History -Soledad de Montalvo [4 vols.] The Passover Plot - Hugh Schonfield The Confessions of Augustine s- St Augustine The Holy City of God - St Augustine James; the Brother of Jesus - Robert Eisenman Crimes of the Popes - G W Foote & J Wheeler The World Christopher Columbus did not Discover - videotaped lecture by Dr John Henrik Clarke The Gnostic Gospels - Elaine Pagels Personal interviews with the late elder Clemey George The Columbus Conspiracy Capitalism and Slavery - Eric Williams Documents of West Indian history - Eric Williams The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews - edited by the Nation of Islam The Grandees - Stephen Birmingham African presence in Early Asia - Runoku Rashidi Critical Lessons in Slavery and the Slave Trade - John Henrik Clarke [ed.] The Log of Christopher Columbus - translated by Robert Fuson The Destruction of Black Civilisation : Great Issues of a Race from 4500 BC to 2000 AD - Chancellor Williams _________________ \\\\"We should allow no one to turn our heads. If we continually try to shape our identity in the form of others, we surely will not find our destiny. Man's destiny is the reflection of himself. We must be about the task of fortifying our ancient beliefs and traditional customs. It is only through this effort that strength is given.\\\\"
Nana Yao Opare Dinizulu The Akan Priests in America
|
|
jazzlover
B.E. Sergeant First Class
It Takes Pressure to Make a Diamond
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by jazzlover on Dec 23, 2006 14:38:37 GMT -5
THE LINEAGE OF JESUS FROM NOAH Jesus descended from the line of Shem; His lineage from Noah through Abraham is shown in Genesis 11:10-27 and Luke 3:34-38: Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Salah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram a.k.a Abraham. Jesus' lineage from Abraham through David is shown in Matthew 1 and Luke 3: Matt 1:2 Abraham, of Ur of the Chaldees & Sarah, Isaac & Rebekah, Jacob & Leah, Judah & Tamar [Canaanite ?], Perez, Hezron, [4] Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon & Rahab [Canaanite], Boaz & Ruth [Moabite], Obed, Jesse, David & Bethsheba, who probably was a non-Hamitic Hittite. (Moabites were Semitic -- descendants of Abraham's nephew Lot; see Genesis 20:36-37.) Historically, there are two unrelated peoples called "Hittites" -- one descended from Ham, (Hamitic) and one from Japheth and the Japheth groups were Caucasian. Having researched this further, I don't think that is correct. The Hittites are among the oldest of the Indo-European peoples. They are Japhethic, not Hamitic Rahab was a contemporary of Joshua, successor to Moses. Seventy Israelites went into captivity in Egypt and during the 400 years the Israelites were in captivity in Egypt they and their descendants intermarried with non-Israelites. (The Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, 400 in captivity.) The group of over 600,000 men plus women and children that left Egypt under Moses was a "mixed multitude". Ethnically, their ancestors were a combination of Hamitic Egyptians and Semitic Israelites. Although the Bible lays out Jesus' ancestors through Shem, it does not mention that His ancestors' would have had Hamitic blood from this intermixing, e.g. on their mothers' sides. Something Bible scholars rarely discuss is things of a sexual nature. The truth of the matter is whenever a race of people is taken captive rape and forced relationships are a matter of course. The prettiest of the Hebrews slaves were concubines for the Egyptians. How do I know this? Well study history, let’s look at American history. Even though white slave-owners did not consider us “human” they though our women were beautiful enough to sleep with, without our consent. There is no such animal as a pure blood black person in America; the same can be said for the Hebrews. If you still don’t believe me read the Book of Esther, she is a classic example of my point. Even in American history one of our Presidents impregnated a slave (Thomas Jefferson), Sally Hemmings was her name. Another example of this is the man Moses, when Moses was a baby in the small ark found by the Egyptians, how was he able to pass as an Egyptian? If he looked any different he would have had a problem posing as a Prince of Egypt! Point two, when Moses was exiled from Egypt he ran into some troublemakers that tried to steal water from the daughters of Jethro in the Land of Midian. After he saved the day, Zipphorah went back to Jethro and said “Father an Egyptian saved us from the raiders”, why did she say he was an Egyptian? He was stripped of his royal attire and crown, so WHAT identified him as an Egyptian? It was his SKIN color! Point number three is this, when Moses stood in God’s presence and God was preparing him to go back to Egypt and deliver his people, God had Moses place his hand into his bosom (robe). Moses put his hand in his robe and it said it came out white (leprosy), well what color was it before he placed it there? If he was a white man what difference would it have been in order for God to say that? My whole purpose for sharing this is we need to understand the TRUTH! The truth is that Moses and the children of Israel were NOT Anglo/European in appearance! As much as I loved the movie the 10 Commandments, it was not really VERY inaccurate; we always say we want truth, don’t we? Moses passed for an Egyptian because he was a man of color; Jews themselves were Semitic which alone leads us to believe they were brown or tan in complexion! I have been to Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco for extended periods of time, and I didn’t see any blond haired blue eyed people. And I am sure back then they were even darker because the Greco-Roman influence had not invaded North Africa yet. Mizraim was the second son of Ham, he was the father of the Egyptian people. If we can agree that Ham was the father of the Black race then why do we portray Egyptians as white? (See Genesis 10:6 and I Chronicles 1:8-11) Jesus' human paternal genealogy after David, mainly as shown in Matthew is: [7] Solomon (1Ch 3:5), Rehoboam, Abijah, [8] Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, [9] Uzziah (Ahaziah 1Ch 3:11), Joash (1Ch3:11), Amaziah (1Ch3:12), Azariah (1Ch3:12), [Matt 9] Jotham, Ahaz, [10] Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, [11] Josiah, [12] Jeconiah, Shealtiel, [13] Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, [14] Azor, Zadok, Akim, [15] Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, [16] Jacob, Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. Let’s look at Solomon! We all agree that he was the son of David, but what about his mother? Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite. Let’s examine her background a bit. Uriah was the Hittite NOT Bathsheba. Bath (sheba) was a Cushite name, she may have been a mixed breed of Semitic and Hamite. Bathsheba was a very beautiful woman, now this is NOT fact just my belief. I believe what made Bathsheba so remarkable was that fact that she did not look like a pure Hebrew woman. David had at least 3 wives already, why would Bathsheba get his attention? I think she was exotic in some way, perhaps she had thick hair and darker skin, almond shaped eyes, and big hips. Jesus’ maternal genealogy after David, as shown in Luke 3:23-31: Nathan (1Ch 3:5), Mattatha, Menna, [31] Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah, [30] Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, [29] Joshua, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, [28] Melki, Neri, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, [27] Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, [26] Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, [25] Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melki, Levi, [24] Matthat, Heli, Joseph, Jesus. What the church rarely deals with the intermarrying between Jew and non-Jew, and the forced inter-mingling through slavery and invading tribes and nations. Just as Black people in America are mixed with Spanish, English, Irish, and Portuguese so are the Hebrews mixed with Hamitic blood. Now the reverse of that is after the birth and death of Christ the Jew became mixed with European Blood, German, Roman, and Spanish. My family is a good example of this. My Grandfather was forced to marry his first wife because she got pregnant and he was accused of being the father, well he wasn’t the father! The baby had red hair and grey eyes, just like the white man that she was a housekeeper for. My grandfather still married her and raised my aunt Rosa as his own, what about the white man that impregnated her? Nothing! That is the way it was in 1903. Jews were oppressed too, and they suffered many of the same indignities that African-Americans did. Remember the Jews were taken into captivity not only in Egypt, but off and on throughout their history.
Chapter Four
THE BLACK PRESENCE IN JESUS' LINEAGE Jesus' male ancestors trace a line from Shem. However, ethnically and racially, they were mixed Semitic and Hamitic from the times spent in captivity in Egypt and Babylon. Rahab and probably Tamar were Canaanites. Although Canaanites spoke a Semitic language, they were descendants of Ham through his son Canaan. Bethsheba, who had been the wife of Uriah the Hittite, probably was a Hamitic Hittite herself. In the United States today the general view on whether someone is "black" is the One-Drop Rule -- if a person has any black ancestors s/he is considered "black", even with a clearly Anglo skin color, e.g., Mariah Carry, Vanessa L. Williams, LaToya Jackson. (cf., for example, The Politics of Egyptology and the History Kemet (Egypt)) We have already established that Jesus had black blood, I am not writing this book to promote Blackness but to promote truth. We have been forced for centuries to believe that not only is Jesus white, but everyone in the Bible except a couple of exceptions. Why am I making a big deal about this, because the story we have been given is a lie. When Black people were slaves we were told God was WHITE, His Son was WHITE and everyone in the Bible was WHITE! This caused severe inferiority in the Black race, and it also supported the myth of white superiority. I firmly believe the most important thing about Jesus is that He died for our sins and that He is the Son of God, that He is 100% man and 100% God, but promoting a false image of Jesus is just as bad as when Muslims deny His deity, if we give a false impression of His humanity that is wrong also.
|
|
|
Post by ifayomi on Dec 23, 2006 17:18:55 GMT -5
anyway folks , beleive what you believe , thats all your choice Peace Osunkoya-Ifayomi
|
|
sudan
B.E. Specialist
Posts: 414
|
Post by sudan on Dec 26, 2006 2:23:09 GMT -5
... .I must say ~ Ifayomi...YOU did an excellent job with that!!! Constantine, Constantine, Constantine. You know he did not commit to Christendom until he was on his death bed.
Now, Now ~ Mr Panther, you went directly to a white site for your answer. Why IS THAT!!!...... www.godonthe.net/wasblack.htm
...and I wasn't talking about Black or White...My questions were about the ~ TRINITY or TRIAD.
Trinity Translations If your preacher, teacher, minister, deacon or any other religious leader really cared, he would take time out to research the original language, rather than rely on poor translations. If they knew how to translate from the original Syriac (Arabic) and Galilean Arabic, the verse 1 John 5:7 that you are familiar with today did not exist. Neither did it exist in the original Hebrew and Greek that were translated from these original languages. It wasn’t until the onset of the Roman Catholic Church that this distortion was made. The Roman Catholics inserted the trinity verse when they tranlated the bible from Greek to Latin. Notice I say “inserted” and not “translated” because, as I already said, the original Greek did not have this verse. However, you will find some Greek translations that have been translated from Latin or English, and it is in these Greek translations that you will find either the whole trinity verse or only a portion of it.
1 John 5:7 is surrounded in controversy because there are two versions of this verse. So-called scholars say the verse used in most bibles today is either not the original verse, or they say that it is only partially genuine. These so-called scholars continue to argue back and forth on this subject because they really don’t want to admit that the trinity really has no basis in the teachings of Jesus.
I will refer to the Holy Bible from Ancient Manuscripts by George M. Lamsa, which is a bible that is translated from the original Aramic or Syriac language . . :
6 ¶This is he who came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and blood. 7 And the Spirit testifies that that very Spirit is the truth. 8 And there are three to bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one.
When you read 1 John 5:7 in your standard bible, which in this case is the Ryrie Study Bible (King James Version). . . you will read this:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Do you see what happened? . . . You will find that the original verse 5:7, has been actually pushed up to merge with verse 5:6www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/dr_george_lamsa_bible.htm
|
|
sudan
B.E. Specialist
Posts: 414
|
Post by sudan on Dec 26, 2006 2:46:35 GMT -5
The Real Trinity, Three Jesus’
1.Yashu’a Bar Maryam – Jesus The Son of Mary (The true one; a Messiah) (John 1:45) 2.Simon Bar Jesus – Son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (Christ) (Acts 13:6) 3.Cleophas, Jesus-Justus, Saint Issa – Son of Cleopatra and Mark Anthony (Holy Ghost) (Colossians 4:11)
These are the most prominent in the Bible....but there ARE some more. You (Christians) should ask yourself, which Jesus of the Bible are you following?
|
|
jazzlover
B.E. Sergeant First Class
It Takes Pressure to Make a Diamond
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by jazzlover on Dec 28, 2006 8:51:22 GMT -5
Looking for information on the doctrine of the Trinity? We have Biblical evidence for the Trinity doctrine being true and answers for those who say the Trinity is false. The Trinity Doctrine is the One God revealed through three distinct Persons as the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. Below will be some Biblical information on explaining the Trinity in simple terms and following that will be various articles dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Explaining the Trinity
The Bible teaches that there is only one God. (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:22)
The Bibles teaches that there is one who is called the Father and is identified as being God. (1 Peter 1:2)
The Bible teaches that there is one who is called Jesus and is identified as being God. (John 1:1-3&14-18, John 20:28-29, 1 John 1:1-4&5:20, Philippians 2:5-8, Revelation 1:17-18, Revelation 22:12-20)
The Bible teaches that there is one who is called the Holy Spirit and is identified as being God. (John 14:16-17, John 15:26, John 16:7-15, Acts 5:3-4, Acts 13:2, 1 Corinthians 12:4-18, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:15-18)
There are things in life that are triune in nature but one. For example: An egg is one but with three distinctions. You have the yoke, the white, and the shell, but all three composite the one egg. Another example: A piece of fruit such as the peach has three components. A peach has the outer layer (the skin), the inner layer (the juicy stuff known as the meat), and the core. All three components composite the one peach.
Other things that we have in our everyday lives that are triune is water. Water is one substance that can be liquid, gas, and solid distinctly or all at the same. The following quote is from the late Dr. Walter Martin: "It is a well-known fact of chemistry that plain water, when placed in a vacuum under 230 millimeters of gas pressure and at a temperature of 0 degrees Centigrade, solidifies into ice at the bottom of the container, remains liquid in the center and vaporizes at the top! At a given instant the same water is both solid, liquid and gas, yet all three are manifestations of the same basic substance or nature: H2O - hydrogen: two parts; oxygen: one. If one of the simplest of all created substances can be three in manifested form and yet remain one in nature, then the Creator of that substance can surely be Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three Persons and one Nature - without any violation of logic or reason whatever if He so wills."
If an egg, a peach, and water can have three distinct things and all be one at the same time, than the Almighty should have no problem. The word Trinity is way of explaining the belief in one God revealed through three distinct persons. Some people get all hung up on the issue of the Bible teaching there is only one God. No where does the Bible state God is only one person, but it does say God is one in Deuteronomy 6:4. The word for one there is the Hebrew word Echad, which means a composite unity. For examples of this consider Genesis 1:5, Genesis 2:24, Ezra 2:64, Ezekiel 37:17 where the same Hebrew word Echad is used and means one in unity, not in number! The Bible teaches there is one Church but many members and there is no problems with understanding this, yet when it comes to God some seem to have problems.
|
|
|
Post by darock on Feb 2, 2007 12:52:12 GMT -5
anyway folks , beleive what you believe , thats all your choice Peace Osunkoya-Ifayomi I guess God won. ;D
|
|