Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=7203&start_row=61


How do I&I read the bible?

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 74
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/3/2021 10:15:17 AM
Reply

But wait... aren't I denying the bible by disputing European doctrines based on the NT? No.

First of all, if you study, you must understand that the bible is a LIBRARY of books. At the time of Yeshua that LIBRARY was only the TNK (Tanakh). What's that? The Law, The Prophets, and Writings that we, today, call the OT. But the only reason we call it the "OT" is because of the "NT". If you didn't have an NT you would only call the OT "THE BIBLE" or "The Scriptures". The Europeans decided which books they were going to have in their "NT". This decision was not made by Yeshua or his disciples because those writings didn't even exist for them.

The Ethiopian Church kept its independence from Roman Catholicism or translated: Roman "Universal Christianity". Some people don't know what "Catholic" means. But what it is telling you is that they (catholics) were the ones who reigned over ALL "Christianity". At least that was their intent. That's why they called it "Catholic" or "universal". They simply failed to fully fulfill that intent but it wasn't for lack of trying.

But the question you should be asking is "why did they feel they could even be so bold since it wasn't their religion to begin with?"

And that would be the right question.

The easiest mistake to make is to believe that your religion is perfect and the tradition you are following is perfect and therefore if you simply do what others did then how could you ever be wrong? But if THAT was the case then what was Yeshua doing, going against his elders, going against the Sanhedrin? Why was he a reformer? Shouldn't he have simply followed the path that tradition had set before him? You have to study to show yourself approved. You can't just copy someone else; even if that person is Yeshua or H.I.M. They wouldn't want that. Following in their footsteps requires having the knowledge and wisdom to know when you need to do something different.



Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/3/2021 10:17:50 AM
Reply

When you start digging you will find a whole rabbit hole of information that should LEAD YOU BACK to the pure religion of the Hebrews. Because there was a time period, after the execution of Yeshua, where there were essentially 2 factions. I won't call them both Christianity because they weren't.

1 Faction were people who were descendants of the 12 tribes of Yisrael. They were led by their own people and there was NO REASON to change the name of their religion or adopt a new religion because Yeshua was a REFORMER, not a religion creator. He saw himself as fulfilling a role within his own religion after the manner of John the Baptist. So this faction was a "JEWISH SECT". Okay? This is important. Imagine, having all Rastafarians under one SECT and then a white dude comes along and takes everything he likes from Rastafarianism and starts his own new religion for white folks and then those white folks take African slaves, and then they teach those slaves their own version. It's not likely to be the same as the original. So faction 1 was based on "Go to the lost sheep of the house of Yisrael". There were 12 disciples because the intent was to bring the tribes back together and rule them as one nation.

Ultimately the Bible is deeply NATIONALISTIC, not religious. Big difference. One cares about nationality, the other cares about "churches".

Faction 2 came about after the events of the bible. The seed for Faction 2 was started by Paul and the disciples. And you can even see the rift forming in the NT between these 2 factions because the first faction was traditional. In traditional Hebrew/Israelite culture converts were also immigrants. Converts could be "grafted in" and Yeshua said he was the vine that would enable this for all of his followers regardless of their ethnicity. And that's why there is the story of the Samaritans because he wanted everyone to be treated the same. But faction 2 wasn't about conversion to being an Israelite. Yisrael was the people under the COVENANT (like a contract). This word is also translated to "TESTAMENT". Not even every dictionary explicitly points this out. One of the biggest reasons faction 2 didn't convert, although they like converting other people into faction 2, is because they had to be CIRCUMCIZED.

The history of circumcision is long, but for the SOUND TEACHING of the "OT" it was necessary. Because it was the proof that a person was entering into this covenant, this contract, with JAH. Read the NT. Faction 1 still kept the Shabbat and the Feast days. But you could NOT keep all the feast days if you were not circumcised because those things were meant for people of the covenant. So long story short there was a rift and so this is most likely the reason that the gentiles didn't continue under Hebrew rabbis (teachers) and leadership.

The problem with this, aside from the covenant issues, is that their doctrines weren't perfectly grounded in Hebrew culture. So some years after Yeshua died, and after there was a purge in 70 AD that wiped out possibly most of faction 1 because they were, if they were good followers, gearing up to battle Rome in the name of the messiah because messiah basically means KING. H.I.M was a KING, not simply some righteous savior. So in many ways, Selassie was a truer version of "the messiah" than Yeshua but since we are about "consciousness" it is the same MIND. And that's what makes a Rasta, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.

And so the dumbest thing (no offense) we can do is try to have some kind of Rasta purity test based on tradition. It's about having that same mind/consciousness.

Faction 2 was loyal to Rome. Therefore Faction 2 fought for Rome. They had a "KING" already. And that was Constantine. And so as soon as he "converted" they all believed they were on the same page. In reality, they had simply appropriated part of the culture of the Hebrews the same way Europeans today have appropriated many other things. Am I mad at this appropriation? No. We didn't invent basketball. They did. Walter Camp invented football. Johan Cruyff invented modern soccer. The problem wasn't "oh no, white people are involved". The problem was they were confused.



Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/3/2021 10:22:43 AM
Reply

If you research the pre-trinity beliefs that confusion will be laid bare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#:~:text=Nontrinitarianism%20is%20a%20form%20of,(from%20the%20Greek%20ousia).

quote:
According to churches that consider the decisions of ecumenical councils final, trinitarianism was definitively declared to be Christian doctrine at the 4th-century ecumenical councils,[1][2][3] that of the First Council of Nicaea (325), which declared the full divinity of the Son,[4] and the First Council of Constantinople (381), which declared the divinity of the Holy Spirit.[5]

In terms of number of adherents, nontrinitarian denominations comprise a small minority of modern Christians. The largest nontrinitarian Christian denominations are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo and the Iglesia ni Cristo, though there are a number of other smaller groups, including Christadelphians, Church of the Blessed Hope, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Living Church of God, Assemblies of Yahweh, Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Christians, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International, and the United Church of God.[6]

end-quote

You can see a couple of Hebrew Israelite groups on this nontrinitarian list because the Hebrew Israelite movement was about going back to the old ways. Why?

Because understand this quote from the same article:

"The doctrine of the Trinity, as held in mainstream Christianity, is not present in the other major Abrahamic religions."

So Judaism and any other religion based on Abraham (based on the BIBLE) do not adhere to the Trinity. It was a NEW doctrine that came in with Faction 2's version of Christianity.

quote:

Most nontrinitarians take the position that the doctrine of the earliest form of Christianity was nontrinitarian, but that early Christianity was either strictly Unitarian or Binitarian, or Modalist as in the case of the Montanists, Marcionites, and Christian Gnostics. For them, early Christianity eventually changed after the edicts of Emperor Constantine I and his sentence pronounced on Arius, which was later followed by the declaration by Emperor Theodosius I in the Edict of Thessalonica, cunctos populos of February 380 that Christianity as defined in the Nicene Creed was the official religion of the Roman Empire. A year later, the Second Ecumenical Council confirmed this in a revised Creed. Nontrinitarians dispute the veracity of the Nicene Creed based on its adoption nearly 300 years after the life of Jesus as a result of conflict within pre-Nicene early Christianity during a dramatic shift in Christianity's status.


Who was Arius?

quote: Arius (/ə;ˈ;raɪ;ə;s, ˈ;ɛ;ə;ri-/; Koinē; Greek: Ἄ;ρ;ε;ι;ο;ς;, Áreios; 250 or 256–336) was a Cyrenaic presbyter and ascetic,[1] and priest in Baucalis in Alexandria, Egypt, who is most known for having been the founder of the heresy known as Arianism.[2] His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in Christianity, which emphasized God the Father's uniqueness and Christ's subordination under the Father,[3] and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325.

... from the Early Life section

quote:
Though Arius was also accused by his opponents of being too liberal, and too loose in his theology, engaging in heresy (as defined by his opponents), some historians argue that Arius was actually quite conservative,[11] and that he deplored how, in his view, Christian theology was being too freely mixed with Greek paganism.


-end quote-

THIS.... is what I'm talking about! It should be well known and understood that Christian theology was being mixed with Greek paganism. I'm not saying anything new here! This isn't some kind of great revelation. It should be common knowledge. But Christianity DOESN'T TEACH IT. There shouldn't be a debate about this either. Christmas is on December 25th for a reason. That day wasn't plucked at random, nor is it biblical. They picked that day because it is the birth of the sun-hence the sun god. Constantine was a sun-worshiper. That's why Christians go to church on SUN-day and do not keep Shabbat. While all these "changes" could be considered by many to be trivial, if you know JAH from the OT and you know his interactions with his people, they start to feel less trivial and more like major offenses to JAH because in each case you're taking something sacred/holy that JAH gave and twisting it to match Gree paganism.

The problem is that a lot of us have accepted these things at different points in our lives and it takes study to get out of it; to purify one's self. But that FIRE... that purification... is also part of what the RELIGION of Rastafari should be (Again, IMHO). The fire burns away all unrighteousness and all lies and all fakeness and all imposters and all wickedness and false doctrine. There should be no expectation for even a master teacher to be perfect. We all seek to live up to the standards that are taught to us. So too was Haile Selassie I taught Christianity. And by withstanding European colonialism he also provided a way to also escape European philosophy, dogma, and all the Greek paganism that was mixed in. These things are like a virus. They spread around the world and infect the world. Getting rid of them isn't easy because at this point it is entrenched in habits and rituals and traditions. But these traditions do not erase the past or the fact that we have adopted paganism as a way of life.



Messenger: Jahcub I Sent: 5/7/2021 9:32:48 AM
Reply

Halie Selassie = The Power of the Trinity

The Trinity has existed in Africa long before there were any Greeks or Romans to speak of it, and long before Constantine was on the scene. In fact it was African Christians like St. Athanasius, who fought against the teachings of Arius, in favor of the Trinity.

History has been whitewashed. They even try to depict St. Athanasius as a white man, however when you read how people described his appearance he is a black man hailing out of Egypt:

http://blog.adw.org/2018/05/vivid-description-st-athanasius/

I sight the African story of history and do my best to remove the whitewashed European version. Christianity is African. As well as the original teachings and many of the ones who were involved in it's creation are also African:



The purest true to the roots Christianity and Judaism are found in Ithiopia. As you said IPXninja: "The Ethiopian Church kept its independence from Roman Catholicism".
The Ithiopians don't sight December 25th as the Birth of Christ, they sight it on January 7th. Their Ible has many books that other Christian bibles do not; such as the Book of Enoch. And the Ithopians have a Judaic trodition that did not get corrupted by Babylon, pre-Babalonian Talmud. Their Israelites did not go into Babylonian captivity.

IXPninja: "You have to study to show yourself approved. You can't just copy someone else; even if that person is Yeshua or H.I.M. They wouldn't want that. Following in their footsteps requires having the knowledge and wisdom to know when you need to do something different."

I study and apply. I choose to follow the teachings of His Majesty, and not some devils philosophy.

JAH Love and Guidance
RastafarI


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/11/2021 8:52:08 AM
Reply

Jahcub I: Halie Selassie = The Power of the Trinity

My dear brutha, we all know what the name means. My parents gave me a Christian name. Before it was Christian it was Hebrew, if you catch my drift. Haile Selassie wasn't born with that name. He assumed it 2 years after he became king as I assume you already know as well. And he was a Christian, just like my parents were Christians when they named me. Having a Christian tradition makes it more likely that you will share Christian beliefs and values just as Yeshua shared Hebrew beliefs and values which included the understanding of true monotheism in which there is one God and, like I said earlier, they had to repeat this 3 times a day.

It is made abundantly clear in the scriptures what this means. Here is what Jah says in his own words.

Isaiah 45
5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

So how do you interpret this through the Christian doctrine of the Trinity? See... you keep interjecting and ignoring what I'm saying because you're falling back on Christian TRADITION. Am I mad at you? No, of course not. It doesn't change the love and respect I have towards you just like it doesn't change the love and respect I have/had towards my parents who raised me in Christianity. But still, it was my Christian father who gave me a book in response to my then teenage questions about the Trinity which turned me on to the FACT that early Christians were DEBATING over this idea before Christianity ever formulated the Trinity doctrine. That's why there are PRE-TRINITY beliefs. You say...

Jahcub I: The Trinity has existed in Africa long before there were any Greeks or Romans to speak of it, and long before Constantine was on the scene. In fact it was African Christians like St. Athanasius, who fought against the teachings of Arius, in favor of the Trinity.

I say where? Because in my mind the Trinity CLEARLY existed in Babylon long before it was accepted in Christianity. The concept of the FATHER+MOTHER+CHILD is illustrated in the Nimrod+Semiramis+Tammuz trinity. So yes, the concept, my dear brutha, was not new but that is part of the PROBLEM not the solution because if you are trying to keep your religion PURE... then, like I said with certain church fathers who saw the creeping in of paganism, pure religion has to go back and compare itself to THE SCRIPTURES. So, my dear brutha, I don't want you to show me Christianity as an origin of the Trinity. I want you to show me where the SCRIPTURES gives Christianity this idea in the first place in spite of NUMEROUS texts that DENY the existence of any one else that could be called God. The verse I showed you is ONE OF MANY that you find when you go back to the Scriptures and put away the "traditions of men".


But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. - Matthew 15:9

Now, in my past I would dump 10-20 monotheistic verses on people I debated this subject with but I don't think that's fair. I do want to leave you with one more though.

Isaiah 44:8
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

What happened to Christianity is that it adopted and merged with paganism. It's not that the Ethiopian church said no to Christmas and Easter. They simply celebrate these pagan holy days at different times from the western church. That doesn't mean that the Ethiopian tradition is pagan-free. If that were so they wouldn't celebrate Easter (Fasika) instead of Passover.

Again... I'm not mad at them because they are following tradition just like I did when I was young.

But what I'm trying to tell you is that the tradition of Yeshua, wasn't to be a god, but rather to reform his religion according to higher consciousness. Was he the messiah? No. But Christians were so busy trying to salvage that reputation and make him into something he never claimed to be (and not just them but also other factions as you saw during his lifetime which is why he was betrayed by one of his own disciples), that they left his actual beliefs and practices. Did Yeshua ask anyone to recognize SUN-day (or the first day of the week) because of the resurrection? No. Who was it that made that decision? And how is it that THE SAME decision was reached in Eastern and Western Christianity?

I'm not trying to change your mind. You can believe whatever you wish. Truly. Again... not mad at anyone. I'm just trying to tell you what the bible says and get people to think and ask questions. Because that spirit of reformation is part of the tradition of Yeshua; not to create a whole new religion, but to have a pure religion and spirituality.

There is one God, but the SPIRIT of that one God, the bible teaches, exists "above all, in all, and through you all". And therefore this should be understood as consciousness. "Let this same mind be in you that was in Yeshua ha Mashiach."


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/11/2021 9:14:30 AM
Reply

One of the things I love about Yeshua is that he felt FREE. Not everyone does. The Mosaic climate was one of fear. Because if you offended the law in many ways people were not asked, but COMMANDED, to take up stones and stone you to death. This solidified Moses's power because it shut up any dissent but it stifled creativity and questions by forcing people to adopt thus saith Moses.

But the same way John the Baptist spoke truth to power, Yeshua was willing to do the same to his own people. He, tried to free them, (at least at this point when he was simply a rabbi), not from Rome, but from THEMSELVES. They had added useless traditions that made religion more difficult and hid any kind of spiritual path.

And so he fought this and tried to elevate their minds to focus on love and harmony. He saw the corruption and saw how the people were the victims in the equation. He saw that the rules were so strict because people wanted power and CONTROL. That desire didn't suddenly go away when he died. People still wanted power. People still wanted control. And knowledge is power. So whoever controlled the knowledge of God also controlled the power of God.

"Let he that hath an ear..."

So if we have that same mind... that same consciousness... we should be able to question and oppose these all these traditions that we can see have departed from Scripture. Again, I'm not saying you have to agree. I'm saying Yeshua would not have wanted everyone to simply follow a NEW set of traditions; especially when they have 1: no spiritual value, 2: pagan in origin, 3: solidify the power of a small minority of people trying to rule.

Because it's no coincidence that Christianity evolved with ROME at the helm. It's no coincidence that we were slaves brought to the west, not allowed to read and write, but taught Christianity. There is no coincidence in the fact that a Catholic priest recommended us to be slaves. How could they do such a thing if they were following Yeshua?

They weren't.

They were following themselves. That is the power of tradition.

selah



Messenger: Jahcub I Sent: 5/15/2021 7:58:03 PM
Reply

IXPninja,

JAH is One. The Trinity is One. Haile Selassie I is the Power of the Trinity. Iyesus Kristos a Jew, Haile Selassie I a Christan, and Iman a RastafarI. RastafarI are mystics and InI sight that JAH is One.

IXPninja: "I say where? Because in my mind the Trinity CLEARLY existed in Babylon long before it was accepted in Christianity."

The Trinity existed in Kemet as Ausar, Auset, and Heru long before it was in Babylon. And the Israelites and Yeshua spent a long time in Kemet. The Old and New Testaments are full of Kemetic teachings. And so, if the Kemetic teachings are pagan, than so are most of the teachings in the Ible, from both the Old and New Testaments.


IPXninja: "So, my dear brutha, I don't want you to show me Christianity as an origin of the Trinity. I want you to show me where the SCRIPTURES gives Christianity this idea in the first place in spite of NUMEROUS texts that DENY the existence of any one else that could be called God."

Well this is an old debate amongst early Christians. There were those early Christians and Church Fathers who sighted the Trinity and there were those that did not. The ones that sighted the Trinity did so with scripture like these:

Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

2 Corinthians 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."

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works."

John 14:16-17 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you."

Hebrews 1:8-9 "But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”


They also sighted the Trinity when JAH spoke in the plural form, the Elohim:

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”


I&I read the Bible with love and appreciation; and with clear conscience accept the Bible and its great message.

JAH RasTafarI




Messenger: Black Christ Salvation Sent: 5/26/2021 7:00:27 AM
Reply




Messenger: Jahcub I Sent: 5/27/2021 8:21:11 PM
Reply




Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 6/1/2021 5:06:41 PM
Reply

Jahcub:The Trinity existed in Kemet as Ausar, Auset, and Heru long before it was in Babylon. And the Israelites and Yeshua spent a long time in Kemet. The Old and New Testaments are full of Kemetic teachings. And so, if the Kemetic teachings are pagan, than so are most of the teachings in the Ible, from both the Old and New Testaments.

Exactly.

Jahcub: Well this is an old debate amongst early Christians. There were those early Christians and Church Fathers who sighted the Trinity and there were those that did not. The ones that sighted the Trinity did so with scripture like these:

Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

Yep, and these were weak then as they are now. For example, Yeshua calls YHWH his Father, not the ruach hakodesh even though the NT says that it was by the ruach that Mary conceived. Of course the reason for this is because the Hebrews understood the ruach to be the presence of YHWH. They called it the "holy" spirit in order to distinguish it from other spirits.

All one must do to combat this interpretation is ask 2 questions:

1. Is God a spirit? (John 4:24)
2. Is The Father holy?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes then the Father = The Holy Spirit.

2 Corinthians 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."

Paul wrote many letters. Here is how most of them started.

1 Corinthians 1:3 - 3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

God is introduced as "our FATHER" while "Jesus Christ" is introduced as "the Lord". What is another name for lord? Master. What's another name for master? Teacher. What is the hebrew equivalent of teacher? Rabbi. So calling someone a lord (or baal) is not the same as calling someone God. And even calling someone god in Hebrew does not mean the same as calling them God in Hebrew. God (EL) means "power". When used of YHWH they combined this word with others or pluralized it (plural-intensive) as a means of saying "all powerful" or "almighty". Only one person can have "ALL power" or "ALL might". It is a superlative description. The second you say 2 are sharing all the power? That is the second that one of them ceases to have ALL(capitalized for emphasis; I don't yell) power.

And so judges and kings were also called "elohim" if speaking of them in the plural. But elohim, used for a singular God meant that he was singularly all powerful. That is plural intensive. It is NOT plural intensive if it is simply plural. Paul, a Hebrew, never departs from this understanding. You can have a ONENESS with God THROUGH the spirit but that doesn't mean you are God too. It just means there is a connection and an expression of the divine in you.

4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

This statement would be worded totally different if Paul was saying Jesus was God. No, the title he was giving Jesus was "Christ/Messiah" which is the equivalent of saying he is the chosen KING of Yisrael. God isn't a "messiah" as this is a lower title possessed by human leaders. What Paul believed was that God, YHWH, The Father, had a plan (of salvation), from the very beginning. And he believed Yeshua/Jesus was the fulfillment of that plan. Therefore "with him" from the beginning, but not as a person.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This is kind of the same thing execept the word for word is logos.

http://www.linkedword.com/john/1/-1/0

if you read the definition, it talks about speech and doctrine. White people weren't sure what John meant so, for example, this definition also tells you that a Greek philosopher first used the term logo for "divine plan". Again, this could be understood as the same plan of salvation that YHWH had from the beginning. However, it could also simply be talking about the actual "word of God". It is the same word of God that spoke creation into existence. So all things were made by the literal Word. The word is compared in John 1:4 to life. What is the "bread of life"? When Yeshua was tempted with food he said

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

So please understand that this is where you get the "LIVING WORD" from. SO the life in John 1:4 is the same "word" of God from Matthew 4:4. Literally talking about the words that come out of God's mouth. Do you see?

John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works."

The holy spirit is not a new concept in the NT. In a similar way that they believed one could be possessed by evil spirits/demons; they also believed that the spirit of God could FILL a person like a vessel.

Exodus 28:3
And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron's garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.

see this context is even less literal than this second one.

Exodus 31:3
And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,

so when you compare Exodus 35:31 to Luke 2:40 to Acts 2:4 you see consistency in the message; not a new doctrine. But you have to learn this from Hebrews, not Christians. Because they were influenced by pagan ideas. They were never monotheists. But the Hebrews, aside from their spiritual fornications, were commanded to repeat the Shema 3 times a day (Deut 6:4).

Hebrews 1:8-9 "But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

Again... this is reference back to David; a HUMAN king.

Psalm 45:7
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Verse 1 tells us this was about the king (David). David and every other king of Yisrael were ANOINTED (cap for emphasis). That is why it says "anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows". Who were his fellows? Other Israelites. This anointing was a coronation ceremony. God doesn't need to get coronated or promoted "above his fellows" because there is nothing higher than God and there are no "fellows" on his level to be made higher than them. And by who? Again... these misunderstandings were a result of 2 different CULTURES colliding. And the fact is that the Greek didn't have a continuous line of Hebrew rabbis. They started their own religion based on their own ideas of what Paul and Jesus had taught. And that was largely based on stories whose interpretations, Yeshua clearly tells you, were explained privately to his disciples; not public knowledge.

So Christians could be just as wrong, trying to interpret the NT as the Pharisees were wrong, trying to stone Yeshua for what they perceived him to be saying in John 10:18-21.

So before he said "I and my Father are one" he said "29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."

John 13:16
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

and...

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

There is no such thing as a co-equal God where one person is greater than another. So clearly many people simply misunderstood.

And it was understood by his true followers that (1 John 4:4) God was something inside them ALL who sought righteousness according to 1 John 3. The seed of God, the consciousness of God, was in his children. That is why Acts 13:33 said (just like Psalm 2:7), "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee"

or...

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

these are future tense. "I WILL BE". "He SHALL BE". If this was the case from the beginning then you could not say these things using a future tense. Not to mention "this day" (whenever that was exactly) is an indication that BEFORE that day, the conditions were NOT MET for him to be his son.

So again... this was not something understood by modern Christianity.

P.S - glad you didn't try to cite the Johanine Comma


1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 74

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
 
Haile Selassie I