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

Here is a link to this page:

Yeshua(Jesus) Vs Christianity

1 - 1011 - 13
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 6/25/2020 8:12:09 AM


I love hearing from you. Let me say that first. Not just your words but your energy. Very positive vibe.

I also highly respect your judgement and reasoning.

How non-violent Yeshua was, I can't say that I know. I suspect though, he wasn't nearly as non-violent as we have been led to believe. They try to make him seem like Ghandi, as if Yeshua wasn't talking about having his own kingdom as a messiah. When he died I think it sparked a new narrative, by later writers, to make his death okay and try to fit it into this sacrificial lamb concept. But what if the Sanhedrin never turned him over to Rome? What if he wasn't sold out as a rebel leader?

Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

Luke 23:1 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

I quote this because, for anyone who wants to follow this conversation, it's important to understand what "Messiah" means to which "Christ" is just the Greek translation. It IS a king. Not a heavenly king in space, but literally a king of the nation of Yisrael. Since there was no king, it was really up to the Romans whether to think this man was a crazy dreamer or if he was actually a threat. And he was likable. The Greeks liked him. And they knew he was popular so it wasn't in their best interest to execute him. And we know that his disciples were infiltrated by the zealots. That's who Judas was. The zealots wanted to fight.

So on one hand we have the pharisees who see Yeshua as a political/theological threat because they needed people to follow Moses and them as the continuity of Mosaic law. That's where they derived their power and authority; not to mention their right to collect tithes. Another important point for those following is that Yeshua was a rabbi, not a priest. Modern Christianity falsely blends the two roles, partially claiming that Yeshua acted and took the place of priest so that now they are no longer needed. On the other hand you have the zealots who think Yeshua could be the one to rally the twelve tribes around in order to fight Rome for their freedom.

So with Judas being an inside man, how could he have stayed so long if he thought Yeshua was so nonviolent that he wasn't willing to fight for the throne? Also, statements made by Yeshua are taken to have meaning after the second coming. However, if the writers sought to create a narrative to make his death part of the plan, then it means that those statements were not about a second coming at all.

Matthew 26

50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.

51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

The way Yeshua speaks to his disciples is similar to how a king in hiding would speak to his chief retainers.

29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

I don't think the 12 disciples is a mistake either. This would give each tribe a representative in Yeshua's council. I think we can easily establish that his followers believed he was trying achieve an earthly kingdom. The question is how you get there under Roman occupation.

This is only my belief, and you may disagree, but I don't think Yeshua was a pacifist at all. I think he simply recognized there's a time and place for different things. Before he could gather the 12 tribes together it would not be the right time for violence. And Yeshua certainly understood the political boundaries he had to work within. He was popular but he wasn't THAT popular. He knew he needed support, even in the sanhedrin. I think that's why he was close with Nicodemus. But I can't overlook the fact that his disciples were armed. Swords didn't magically appear when they took Yeshua. At some point these fisherman and tent makers had consciously determine that they needed to bear arms. And they were ready to fight to protect their master.

In other places in the gospels, you can see Yeshua treated as royalty. When the woman washes his feet with her tears, he allows this but not long after he establishes a tradition of washing his disciple's feet to show that he wouldn't be an arrogant king but rather one who was the greatest servant. Christians regard this as being "godly" behavior and worship as opposed royal behavior. They wanted a god because the God of the bible was/is famously quiet and invisible. Being invisible, Moses was able to act as 3rd party. But this eventually wasn't enough and the people wanted kings. Once this was established so was the way in which royalty were treated.

So if this is true, and Yeshua was trying to become a wise and just king like Haile Selassie, then at some point he would have had to lead his people against Rome. But he would have known that he would at least need all 12 tribes. Could it be... that the gospels... this message sent to the 12 tribes... was about gaining their support? If the 12 tribes started following him maybe then he'd have a shot at Rome. But this would have to have all been done under Rome's nose and this seems to be exactly what the Jews had sold him out for.

And its possible that Judas wasn't a zealot. It's possible that he was a spy for members of the sanhedrin who knew that someday a messiah would come to bring peace but pushed the idea farther into the future. It's possible that Yeshua was a zealot and that he was from a different faction than Barabas. It's possible that the zealots who eventually fought in 70 AD were previously followers of Yeshua. And of course, after they were wiped out it would have been much easier to change the story without the permission of Yeshua or any of his disciples who were all dead.

And on the issue of poverty, again, I don't think Yeshua was for that. Consider the parable of the 3 servants or the "Good steward". The one considered good was the one who did the most with what he was given. Yeshua said "In my father's house there are many rooms" and he talks about treasures in heaven. It wasn't that he believed you had to be poor but rather saw wealth as a temptation that was difficult to resist. He said it was as hard for a rich man enter heaven as a camel to pass through the small gate in the city wall. It was never impossible. It was just like the person was too attached to all their earthly possessions. This view is similar to Buddhist philosophy. Yeshua said that this utopian (heavenly) kingdom would require sacrifice to create. Children may be at odds with parents, brother against brother, etc. This is all made to sound like it's all spiritual metaphor but it is more likely that it was a very real reflection of them wanting to build a new nation.

And of course their original nation wouldn't have existed without Abraham who was insanely wealthy and Jacob who was also pretty wealthy. So Yeshua said the poor will be with you always. Poor is a relative term. It doesn't exist without its counterpart. So I think it's not that Yeshua wanted anyone to be poor but rather advanced the notion that there was an upper class of people who weren't all moral and kind and loving and good; that these qualities came harder to them because they were more likely to be corrupt, spoiled, arrogant, etc.

Luke 14
11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee.
13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:

The chapter continues speaking on how all are welcome in Yeshua's kingdom. I think this is important since it helps paint a picture of the current class divide and how it was probably similar to the US and other modern countries. But instead of telling everyone to be poor he's saying that the poor should be welcomed and included.

Messenger: Cedric Sent: 6/26/2020 1:28:55 AM

Bessed Love Idren

IPXninja, Give thanks for the I’s kind words and Raspect. Helps to give I man strength. I see the I has a vast knowledge of the bible, and Yeshua’s teachings and story, that far surpasses I own. I man sight the I’s passion for truth and willingness to share knowledge with others. I give thanks that InI can reason.

The main reason I brought up Yeshua’s pacifism was the context InI were reasoning on. How later writers and deceiving shepherds try to turn Yeshua into a Ghandi figure and use that misconception to their own advantage to subdue InI. I like that the I brought up a great example of the disciples being armed and willing to defend themselves and their king and their faith with action. I think that is a commonly overlooked part of the story so I give thanks to the I for educating I man.

I think it is a good question to Iditate on, what if Yeshua had not been crucified and he had been able to create a kingdom. All good points that the I makes that the problem would be multifaceted, dealing with unifying the tribes and breaking from the rule of Rome while trying to stay alive. To I man, these bring comparisons to HIM Haile Selassie I reacting to the invasion of Italy and the genius political strategy it took on HIM’s part to maneuver Ithiopia to freedom. Maybe Haile Selassie I being the christ in his kingly character with the head of government on his shoulders is a living example of what Yeshua’s kingdom would have been. Gathering the tribes and creating a foundation for InI forevermore was established by HIM with Shashamane. I like the questions the I asks on the gospel being a message to the 12 tribes and if Judas was a radical he would not see Yeshua as an always-pacifist or maybe Judas wasn’t a zealot and the story was changed later to hide Yeshua’s true power and actions towards creating an earthly kingdom. All great ideas to question and Iditate on. Give thanks.

Give thanks for evidence that Yeshua did not require InI to live in poverty. I was bringing that up as an issue I had with Yeshua, again with the context of the story that is usually told to InI. It is good to be able to sight truth in Yeshua’s words to clear up babylon confusion. I still know many more examples of the church using the words of Yeshua to argue for people to give away all their money to the church. I have an atheist uncle whose relationship to the Most High has been seemingly forever damaged by being raised in a large family that lived uncomfortably poor because it was “God’s will”. I know his parents were not the only ones hoodwinked into living in poverty because of the words attributed to Yeshua. So I man give thanks for the I providing evidence that can help tell the complete story. InI can sight the bountiful riches of HIM Haile Selassie I as a living example for how a kingly (or christly) man can handle riches and still be righteous.

I think it is important to challenge babylon narrative glorifying the death of Yeshua. I think there is evidence in the bible that the only reason Yeshua’s resurrection is referenced is to sight an Itinuation of JAH spirit in InI as the living example. I love the evidence shown in the bible that Yeshua was never identifiable by his former body when he appeared to his disciples after his death. The story that Mary Magdalene does not recognize Yeshua until he speaks her name (John 20:1-16). His disciples are kept from recognizing Yeshua until after a long time of interaction with a fellow traveller (Luke 24:13-35). In another story, his disciples are fishing offshore and can’t recognize that it is Yeshua who calls to them. Even though they are far away, we are still shown evidence they don’t recognize Yeshua’s former body when they come closer and it says none of them dared ask him, “Who are you?” (John 21:1-14). I sight all these as evidence as InI as the living JAH because his disciples were talking to real people, who were alive but looked nothing like Yeshua. To me that means they were realeyesing the truth that the spirit of JAH lives in InI Itinually, whether the body of Yeshua or HIM is alive or gone. To I man this evidence changes the overall point of the resurrection story to be more based in reality.

I think the story of his death was meant to be an example to cherish the life InI live and give thanks for the power InI have to create while we are alive. If InI are not careful it can be taken from us too early, even by people we consider to be our Idren. I think later writers glorified his death because they had an agenda to take advantage of people and benefit from their lifelong toils, but I don’t think that was the initial intention of telling the sad story of how Yeshua was given up by his own people. Hmmm sounds familiar but once again I am reminded of HIM Haile Selassie I and the careless Ethiopians who crucified HIM. More examples that Rastafari is Reality.


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 7/1/2020 5:12:07 PM

Cedric: To I man, these bring comparisons to HIM Haile Selassie I reacting to the invasion of Italy and the genius political strategy it took on HIM’s part to maneuver Ithiopia to freedom.

I completely agree. Yeshua understood that a lot of the problems he faced would be political. Even though he didn't agree with Moshe he did have to somewhat align with all those who did. Even though he wasn't democratically elected, in a sense, he could not be the Mashiach without the support from the people because they would have to fight for him. He certainly couldn't do it while under Roman rule. When we speak of HIM Haile Selassie, he succeeded where Yeshua failed. They both fought against Rome. However, HIM Haile Selassie was able to draw upon the religion inspired by Yeshua, in order to lead his people as well as make political allies and diplomacy. He was well liked internationally. I have to believe that his Christianity was an advantage because Yeshua had paved the way for both Israelite and gentile to seek the same spirituality. And I think this underscores the importance, not of religion (as religion is the outer form) but of spirituality (which is the life blood within), in the movement towards love, peace, and harmony.

Even though Yeshua failed in becoming the king. His spirit, one could say, came back again. And that spirit defeated Rome.

Cedric: or maybe Judas wasn’t a zealot and the story was changed later to hide Yeshua’s true power and actions towards creating an earthly kingdom.

The story of the zealots is very interesting because they were so zealous that they were willing to lie and deceive the people. They thought that Yeshua could be the one to lead them, but they weren't stuck on old prophecies. They were trying to make their own future as their present circumstances required more immediate action. They were completely unlike the masses of black people who sit and wait to be saved by some prophetic ordinance. The zealots are a prime suspect in changing the story of Yeshua in order to fit a similar narrative to the group that created the very name "Assassin" because the Muslim Arabs used hashish and a story of heaven to get them to throw their lives away for the Muslim cause.

I think that we often forget how dangerous Christians can be. They weren't passive at all. The cult story that helped engineer their consciousness also used the carrot known as heaven and the stick known as hell in order to prepare them for war. At any point if someone leads them and triggers this religious switch there is no telling what they will do if they feel they have the mandate of heaven. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Trail of Tears, the Enslavement of our African people, Nazism, all these things were done under a holy mandate. And the Pope is the one who they have created this mantle for but the protestant movement severely hurt his power similar to what it says in Revelations. The only thing holding Christians in check is that and the separation of Church and State.

So we have to be aware that the bible is a great resource for knowledge and wisdom. However, it is also a source of mental and psychological programming that can be used for both good and evil. The zealots may very well have created the story to explain the failure and death of Yeshua while still attempting to harness his political power as a martyr who could beat death and who promised to come back and save those who were on his side. To this day there are still battle hymns in Christian hymnals talking about war and fighting. I think Yeshua had a better assessment of how massive the Roman Empire and it's army was and that required a seed to be planted in order to form an even larger army. This could possibly be where the idea of Armageddon comes from. But this is definitely what threatened Rome to the point that Rome conceded to the religion of Yeshua with the wholly political conversion of Constantine. And that's where Rome fought back by using this religion and installing its own leaders to control it. This then becomes the "beast" power with the whore of Babylon riding on top.

Cedric: I was bringing that up as an issue I had with Yeshua, again with the context of the story that is usually told to InI.

I think that had more to do with the sect of Judaism he was a part of. Speculation suggests he was at least influenced by the Essenes, but I don't think these names are important. There were somewhat cult like communities and often when one is acquiring a lot of knowledge on the scripture it's extremely difficult to do when one is also making money. When I was studying I was a poor student myself. Now I just further connect and integrate the things I've already learned. But for Yeshua it was extra difficult because not only did he not have the internet but only rich people owned their own personal copy of the kodesh scriptures. So he would have had to spend a lot of time with people who either had their own copy (which could have been a very different version, mixed with other rabbinic writings from their scholars) or he could have spent a lot of time in the synagogue. I tend to think it may have been the former.

Cedric: I have an atheist uncle whose relationship to the Most High has been seemingly forever damaged by being raised in a large family that lived uncomfortably poor because it was “God’s will”.

That is an unfortunate interpretation. Yeshua taught that the kingdom of heaven was like a marriage supper where all were welcome. You cannot be a king and not care about the poor. But no king wants to be king over a completely impoverished nation. So what? So he can miraculously feed everyone? No. A poor country makes a poor king. Tithes didn't necessarily help "the poor". It helped people who could "become" poor because they lacked a man (husband/father) to provide. Many of the Israelites were wealthy in terms of land and cattle. Not only did they have enough that they could set aside a portion of their land and not harvest it for the poor but keep in mind they had a system where the poor could gain employment for only 7 years and come out of it with enough to care for themselves. So poverty wasn't a desired circumstance but rather an "unfortunate condition" that people needed help getting OUT of. But if the master gives you only 1 talent and you go bury that then Yeshua called that evil and wicked. You are supposed to increase wealth. That's why wealth is given in the first place. But this highlights the problem in those teaching Yeshua who don't know Yeshua in the first place. And why it is important to correct the record. Anyone still living in poverty for this reason should be corrected. That is wickedness. Choosing poverty is wickedness. HIM Haile Selassie was criticized for the poverty that existed in his kingdom. But there is no king that can solve this problem completely. That's why Yeshua said (Matthew 26), when someone wanted to give him royal treatment, "The poor will be with you always". This doesn't mean the SAME poor people will always be poor but rather there will always be poor people. Staying that way on purpose is like refusing a gift and using that as an excuse to avoid labor. 6 days... According to the story Jah gave man 1 day for rest. That means 6 days were for work. If you are commanded to rest one how is that not a command to work six?

Cedric: I think it is important to challenge babylon narrative glorifying the death of Yeshua. I think there is evidence in the bible that the only reason Yeshua’s resurrection is referenced is to sight an Itinuation of JAH spirit in InI as the living example.

I agree. I will say that I'm not sure the original reason for this is spiritual. It was probably political. BUT I think everything in life has multiple dimensions. The physical is only one. So then you can read into the spiritual dimension or the psychological dimension. And you can gain knowledge, wisdom, and understanding from that. And clearly you have.

Cedric: I think the story of his death was meant to be an example to cherish the life InI live and give thanks for the power InI have to create while we are alive.

I believe he was executed for sedition after being sold out by his own people. And as scholars saw through the physical nature of these events they likened or compared him to a sacrificial lamb. I don't think they were wrong but I think it kept evolving and mutating from there until it became something else; the beast. The idea that he takes away the sins of the world? Nah... The sacrificial system is a great topic in itself. On one hand, highly symbolic. On the other hand, a tool to transfer wealth. And the beast actually recognized it for what it was and therefore they didn't do away with it.

1 - 1011 - 13

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I