DELETED - SEE ME FOR INPUT

KD

Hello Family:

How is it that people claim that Jesus was white, Although Joseph was black, Mary was black, Adam and Eve were black, and Moses (who was black) ended up marrying an Ethiopian (who was also black)?

Despite the creation of people in Spiritual history, How is it that God created all these black folks - under a white man?

Please clarify this.

CD
There is nothing to be carified, if we did a Historical Analysis of this we would find that non of these folk actually existed.

Hotep :)

DELETED - SEE ME FOR INPUT

KD

cedric .......



we are not under ....white man...

i mean if people want to put themselfs under them ...
i can not stop them(and please Please on my knees ..dont think i dont know what is going on there in the states as far as racism ..and the powers and how black people are still underpresssed .....cause some people say ..you dont know nothing cause you dont live here)


the rich man will not enter the heavenly kingdom....


And what is "'rich "' huh..


as far as Jezus .....our king...


i think he would like it verry much if people .....

look at him for who he was and what he has done..


not what colour he was.....


if you ask me personaly ...how do you think he would look like..



i would say......


he was in between these two colours black and white ...because he was jewish...


or he had all colours and with silk hair and an afro beard (jezus my best friend and savior i dont make fun of you here you know my heart i just try to explain and do youre work forgive me if i make a mistake but you know that i think you are beautifull nomather how you looked).... :hearts4:







cedric denson..


i love you brother :flowers:

and dont look at what sociaty does ...


try to look at


how this man walk and who he was ...
and what he means to you...






Lovelibertylady:heart:

he was in between these two colours black and white ...because he was jewish...

You do realize that there are Jews in Ethiopia, that are jet Black, yes?



or he had all colours and with silk hair and an afro beard

Am I reading your statement correctly, that you're saying that a human being had "all colors" of skin?

Meaning, his foot was blue, while his are was green?

There is not a human being walking this earth, past present or future that has looked like this.

Further, the Bible is very demonstrative in giving his appearance: "hair of wool, feet (skin) of burnt brass".

This is a Black man all day.

That is, assuming he historically exsisted in the first place.

PEACE

There is nothing to be carified, if we did a Historical Analysis of this we would find that non of these folk actually existed.

Hotep :)

How can you say who existed and who didnt?

How can you say who existed and who didnt?

History can.

If you can provide some empirical evidence that Abraham, Moses, David, etc. were actual, living, historical people, then your perspective is proven.

There is very little evidence that these people were nothing more than characters in the the Biblical story.

PEACE

Is there a Tomb or body of any of the charactors of the bible? If so were are they please elaborate?

How can you say who existed and who didnt?
Is there a Tomb or body of any of the charactors of the bible? If so were are they please elaborate?

History can.

If you can provide some empirical evidence that Abraham, Moses, David, etc. were actual, living, historical people, then your perspective is proven.

There is very little evidence that these people were nothing more than characters in the the Biblical story.

PEACE

How can we prove that anyone from ancient times existed all we have are writings about people from those times.

How can we prove that anyone from ancient times existed all we have are writings about people from those times.

This subject seems to be overlapping from another thread, so I suggest we go into detail about it over there.

However, suffice it to say, that if you can't actually prove the physical exsistences of your Biblical characters, beyond the realm of the book in which they appear, then perhaps you should scrutinize your staunch adherance to your BELIEF a little more.

PEACE

Cedric

Respect

How is it that people claim that Jesus was white, Although Joseph was black, Mary was black, Adam and Eve were black, and Moses (who was black) ended up marrying an Ethiopian (who was also black)?

Despite the creation of people in Spiritual history, How is it that God created all these black folks - under a white man?

Please clarify this.
In reaction to the white supremist notions of making everyone in the Bible and history "white"...some black people have decided to arbitrarily make everyone black.

Let us not allow our zeal to destroy white supremacy blind us from historic realities.

The simple fact is Adam and Eve were most likely black and the Ethiopians were definately black (racially speaking), but Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and Moses were brown skinned Asians.

DELETED - SEE ME FOR INPUT

KD

This subject seems to be overlapping from another thread, so I suggest we go into detail about it over there.

However, suffice it to say, that if you can't actually prove the physical exsistences of your Biblical characters, beyond the realm of the book in which they appear, then perhaps you should scrutinize your staunch adherance to your BELIEF a little more.

PEACE

there is more proof that biblical people existed than Alexander the great or Hannibal and there are sources outside of the bible like the Qur'an that speak of Jesus and King Solomon and Abraham to name a few

OC

and there are sources outside of the bible like the Qur'an that speak of Jesus and KIng Solomon and Abraham to name a few

:geek:Although we agree on the existance of Jesus, I pretty much know what Sam's response is gonna be to this statement.

I can probably save him the effort and post it myself....but I'll digress....

OC



:geek:Although we agree on the existance of Jesus, I pretty much know what Sam's response is gonna be to this statement.

I can probably save him the effort and post it myself....but I'll digress....

Samurai's argument is a poor one. the only proof of anyone from antiquity is what is written down so you cant come up with any physical evidence of anyone from those times.

OC

Samurai's argument is a poor one. the only proof of anyone from antiquity is what is written down so you cant come up with any physical evidence of anyone from those times.

Well since he claims to be God and says he doesn't need to read books, perhaps he'll provide absolute proof that Jesus didn't exist for both of us when he gets back from ABC (another bad creation).

OC



Well since he claims to be God and says he doesn't need to read books, perhaps he'll provide absolute proof that Jesus didn't exist for both of us when he gets back from ABC (another bad creation).

It will be a very sad sight when the people who have rejected Christ have to stand before God and not have Jesus to excuse their sins because they refused to believe.

there is more proof that biblical people existed than Alexander the great or Hannibal and there are sources outside of the bible like the Qur'an that speak of Jesus and King Solomon and Abraham to name a few

This is a joke.

I don't believe you've actually even read a book, outside of the Bible.

For one, there are PICTURES of both ALEXANDER and HANNIBAL.

Most of the Judeo-Christian world can't even agree on what ABRAHAM and SOLOMON looked like.

Both ALEXANDER and HANNIBAL have their faces impressed upon coins of the monetary systems of their times.

ALEXANDER named numerous cities in various lands after him He declared himself Emperor, from Africa to Persia to India. The citizens of those lands have public records with his official Seal on it.

SOLOMON was supposedly a "King", what lands were named after him? Why does no other society during his supposed "time" have no record of his kingship?

What does SOLOMON have, besides passages in the BIBLE?

Comparing fictitious characters to actual historical personages does not solidify your claim.

How's about we step outside the realm of what was written (which you seem to be stuck in), and deal with the actual physical evidence, if there is any.

I challenge you to do this.

PEACE

Hotep
Brother these are the same arguments that I receive here at the job but they never seem to give any proof, they would rather debate historical fact and not have to prove their mythical bible, this just dazzle's me on a daily. The power in that program is unbelievable.

Hotep

Hotep
Brother these are the same arguments that I receive here at the job but they never seem to give any proof, they would rather debate historical fact and not have to prove their mythical bible, this just dazzle's me on a daily. The power in that program is unbelievable.

Hotep

PEACE NAT:

Your last word in your statement fits the best. It is un(not)believable for me.

However, you have to keep in mind, that the Judeo-Christian religious system does not, nor has it ever promoted intellectual growth.

Which is why most of the people you see here are always talking about BELIEVING.

It's a pathology that the European has woven into our minds, since he force-fed this system upon us.

Look at how the pathology works:

Blacks excel in "religious" matters, but lag behind in academia and intellectual pursuits.

The Divine Mind knows that the consciousness is based on both the academic (left side of the brain) merged with the spiritual (right side).

Our people walk through life, totally unbalanced.

It's sad. :(

HOTEPU

OC



Well since he claims to be God and says he doesn't need to read books, perhaps he'll provide absolute proof that Jesus didn't exist for both of us when he gets back from ABC (another bad creation).

EGOMETER: 2


(scaled 1-5)

PEACE NAT:

Your last word in your statement fits the best. It is un(not)believable for me.

However, you have to keep in mind, that the Judeo-Christian religious system does not, nor has it ever promoted intellectual growth.

Which is why most of the people you see here are always talking about BELIEVING.

It's a pathology that the European has woven into our minds, since he force-fed this system upon us.

Look at how the pathology works:

Blacks excel in "religious" matters, but lag behind in academia and intellectual pursuits.

The Divine Mind knows that the consciousness is based on both the academic (left side of the brain) merged with the spiritual (right side).

Our people walk through life, totally unbalanced.

It's sad. :(

HOTEPU

If people of Judeo-christian belief lag behind in academics then I guess Issac Newton, Martin Luther King jr. and Albert Einstein were all dummies. You disprove your own arguments everytime you write something new Samurai so keep writing. Peace

If people of Judeo-christian belief lag behind in academics then I guess Issac Newton, Martin Luther King jr. and Albert Einstein were all dummies. You disprove your own arguments everytime you write something new Samurai so keep writing. Peace
How does this disprove anything please explain?

How does this disprove anything please explain?Samurai implied people of faith are not as smart as other people Newton ,King and Einstien were all men of faith they all believed in God.

Samurai implied people of faith are not as smart as other people Newton ,King and Einstien were all men of faith they all believed in God.
He said the Judeo-Christrian Religous System does not promote intellectual growth, and that is on point, He did not say specific people as you would have one to believe.

He said the Judeo-Christrian Religous System does not promote intellectual growth, and that is on point, He did not say specific people as you would have one to believe.

He said that blacks lag behind beacuse of Judeo Christian belief if that were so these people would never have done the things in which they are famous for doing

He said the Judeo-Christrian Religous System does not promote intellectual growth, and that is on point, He did not say specific people as you would have one to believe.

True indeed, this is what I said.

However, I'll go through his statements:

Issac Newton,

He was not Black, first of all.

Second, he was very little of a Christian, if at all, as you can see in his biography here:

http://www.isaac-newton.info/isaac-newton/

He was more of a philosopher, than a religious believer.

I don't see why you mentioned him.

Or......

Albert Einstein

For that matter. He wasn't Black either. And though he was Jewish, he rejected much of the religous sensationalism that had plagued mankind during his time (and ironically still does).

Like NEWTON, EINSTEIN was more of a philosopher, and actually rejected most of Judeo-Christian perspectives.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Albert_Einstein

As for DR. KING, please enlighten us as to precisely what his intellectual expertise was.

He was only a DR in divinity, a title which some of the most ignorant of Southern Baptist preachers possess as well.

He may have been one of the most intellectual of Black people during his time in this part of the world, but considering our social and educational condition during that time, that's not really saying that much.

Thus, even though your implications of my statements are a bit off the mark, your examples are still incorrect.

PEACE

He said that blacks lag behind beacuse of Judeo Christian belief if that were so these people would never have done the things in which they are famous for doing

Only 1 of the people you mentioned was Black.

I Knew you would do it that way :)
Break it down Brotha Break it down

Hotep

Only 1 of the people you mentioned was Black.

Jesse Jackson
Bishop Desmond Tutu
Denzel Washington
Sojourner Truth
Coretta Scott King
Frederick Douglas
Harriet Tubman
Is that enough black people for you?

True indeed, this is what I said.

However, I'll go through his statements:



He was not Black, first of all.

Second, he was very little of a Christian, if at all, as you can see in his biography here:

http://www.isaac-newton.info/isaac-newton/

He was more of a philosopher, than a religious believer.

I don't see why you mentioned him.

Or......



For that matter. He wasn't Black either. And though he was Jewish, he rejected much of the religous sensationalism that had plagued mankind during his time (and ironically still does).

Like NEWTON, EINSTEIN was more of a philosopher, and actually rejected most of Judeo-Christian perspectives.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Albert_Einstein

As for DR. KING, please enlighten us as to precisely what his intellectual expertise was.

He was only a DR in divinity, a title which some of the most ignorant of Southern Baptist preachers possess as well.

He may have been one of the most intellectual of Black people during his time in this part of the world, but considering our social and educational condition during that time, that's not really saying that much.

Thus, even though your implications of my statements are a bit off the mark, your examples are still incorrect.

PEACE

Obviously you failed to notice that Newton Obsevation Upon The Prophesies of Daniel And The Apocolyse of St. John where notes that the prophesies of the old and new testaments have been fulfilled up to that point in history.I suggest you do some more reading .

Jesse Jackson
Bishop Desmond Tutu
Denzel Washington
Sojourner Truth
Coretta Scott King
Frederick Douglas
Harriet Tubman
Is that enough black people for you?

You're just being silly now, but I'll play your game, if only briefly:

Bishop Desmond Tutu

Hardly an intellectual.

Denzel Washington

A pretty wise brother, based on interviews I've seen/read from him, but he didn't even go to school beyond high school.

Sojourner Truth

You're joking right? She couldn't even read.

Coretta Scott King

Same as Dr King.

Frederick Douglas

One of the biggest sell-out Negroes of all history.

Harriet Tubman

See Sojourner Truth.

Now, you mind telling me why you mentioned these people? None of them are intellectual by any stretch of the imagination.

For that matter, I don't think you even know what "intellectual" means; you certainly don't have much respect for it, considering your statement in that other thread adjacent to this one (about "Hatred of God", or some such non-sense).

PEACE

You're just being silly now, but I'll play your game, if only briefly:



Hardly an intellectual.



A pretty wise brother, based on interviews I've seen/read from him, but he didn't even go to school beyond high school.



You're joking right? She couldn't even read.



Same as Dr King.



One of the biggest sell-out Negroes of all history.



See Sojourner Truth.

Now, you mind telling me why you mentioned these people? None of them are intellectual by any stretch of the imagination.

For that matter, I don't think you even know what "intellectual" means; you certainly don't have much respect for it, considering your statement in that other thread adjacent to this one (about "Hatred of God", or some such non-sense).

PEACE

You clearly dont know what intellectual means so i will give you the meaning.
INTELLECTUAL - 1 Needin or using intellect 2 Of the intellect 3 Having or showing intellect 4 Directed or inclined toward things that involve the intellect.

So which one of the people I mentioned werent intelligent? Your problem is that science and academia is your religon and scientist and academics are your gods. One day I hope you realize the one true God.

Ego-Meter

Respect


EGOMETER: 2
My...my.... my...

If I get a 2 for my statment...

Then what does a man get who calls himself God?

You clearly dont know what intellectual means so i will give you the meaning.
INTELLECTUAL - 1 Needin or using intellect 2 Of the intellect 3 Having or showing intellect 4 Directed or inclined toward things that involve the intellect.

*shakes head*

Let's try this another way:

INTELLECT (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/intellect.html)

in·tel·lect [ ínt’l èkt ] (plural in·tel·lects)


noun

1. mental ability: somebody’s ability to think, reason, and understand
appeals to the intellect rather than the emotions
a highly developed intellect


2. intelligent person: a very intelligent and knowledgeable person
The commission called on some of our most notable intellects in its search for solutions.

Please take notice to the terms in red above.

So which one of the people I mentioned werent intelligent?

I didn't say "intelligent". I said intellectual.

Now let's look at another definition:

INTELLECTUAL (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861621689/intellectual.html)

in·tel·lec·tu·al [ ìnt’l ékchoo əl ]


adjective

1. relating to thinking: relating to or involving the mental processes of abstract thinking and reasoning rather than the emotions


2. intelligent and knowledgeable: having a highly developed ability to think, reason, and understand, especially in combination with wide knowledge


3. for intelligent people: intended for, appealing to, or done by intelligent people
intellectual pursuits

Please check out the second definition.

I don't know where you cooked up that abridged definition of yours, but intellect and intellectualism are far more defined than that.


Your problem is that science and academia is your religon and scientist and academics are your gods. One day I hope you realize the one true God.

Thank you for telling me what my "problem" is. At least I know that EINSTEIN wasn't Black. :rolleyes:

Now, here are some TRULY intellectual Black men, from around the world:

ISHAKAMUSH BARASHANGO

CHEIKH ANTA DIOP

RA UN NEFER AMEN

THEOPHILE BARENGA

MUATA ASHBY

These men are not only accomplished scholars in academics, but also in spirituality as well.

You would do yourself great honor by taking the time to study them, instead of confusing ALBERT EINSTEIN and ISAAC NEWTON with Black people.

PEACE

*shakes head*

Let's try this another way:

INTELLECT (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/intellect.html)

in·tel·lect [ ínt’l èkt ] (plural in·tel·lects)


noun

1. mental ability: somebody’s ability to think, reason, and understand
appeals to the intellect rather than the emotions
a highly developed intellect


2. intelligent person: a very intelligent and knowledgeable person
The commission called on some of our most notable intellects in its search for solutions.

Please take notice to the terms in red above.



I didn't say "intelligent". I said intellectual.

Now let's look at another definition:

INTELLECTUAL (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861621689/intellectual.html)

in·tel·lec·tu·al [ ìnt’l ékchoo əl ]


adjective

1. relating to thinking: relating to or involving the mental processes of abstract thinking and reasoning rather than the emotions


2. intelligent and knowledgeable: having a highly developed ability to think, reason, and understand, especially in combination with wide knowledge


3. for intelligent people: intended for, appealing to, or done by intelligent people
intellectual pursuits

Please check out the second definition.

I don't know where you cooked up that abridged definition of yours, but intellect and intellectualism are far more defined than that.




Thank you for telling me what my "problem" is. At least I know that EINSTEIN wasn't Black. :rolleyes:

Now, here are some TRULY intellectual Black men, from around the world:

ISHAKAMUSH BARASHANGO

CHEIKH ANTA DIOP

RA UN NEFER AMEN

THEOPHILE BARENGA

MUATA ASHBY

These men are not only accomplished scholars in academics, but also in spirituality as well.

You would do yourself great honor by taking the time to study them, instead of confusing ALBERT EINSTEIN and ISAAC NEWTON with Black people.

PEACE

Who said Einstein and Newton were black?
They were men of faith who were intellectuals they believed in the God of the bible if you knew anything about these two men you would know that.

Who said Einstein and Newton were black?
They were men of faith who were intellectuals they believed in the God of the bible if you knew anything about these two men you would know that.

First of all, you mentioned them in a discussion about BLACK PEOPLE. Go back and read the train of posts, since you can't even keep up with what's going on.

Second, you are the most unread individual I've ever seen.

Please quote one source, where either NEWTON or EINSTEIN accepted the "God of the Bible" as their respective beliefs.

I bet you right now, that you can't.

If you had actually read either of the 3 prominent biographies about EINSTEIN, then you would know what he has to say about JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY, even though he was a Jew himself (there are a great many JEWS that do not approach their ideas from a "religious" perspective).

But of course, since you spurn all things academic, I wouldnt' reason that you've actually read any of them.

So hopefully, your next response here, will be providing some quotes and sources.

PEACE

First of all, you mentioned them in a discussion about BLACK PEOPLE. Go back and read the train of posts, since you can't even keep up with what's going on.

Second, you are the most unread individual I've ever seen.

Please quote one source, where either NEWTON or EINSTEIN accepted the "God of the Bible" as their respective beliefs.

I bet you right now, that you can't.

If you had actually read either of the 3 prominent biographies about EINSTEIN, then you would know what he has to say about JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY, even though he was a Jew himself (there are a great many JEWS that do not approach their ideas from a "religious" perspective).

But of course, since you spurn all things academic, I wouldnt' reason that you've actually read any of them.

So hopefully, your next response here, will be providing some quotes and sources.

PEACE

I already showed you the book written by Newton titled Observations Upon The Prophesies Of Daniel And The Apocolyse Of St. John where he noted that the prophesies of the old and new testaments had been fulfill up to that point . If you were as well read as you thought you would have known that.
Einstein also thought there was a God.

Here is a website that will help to explain to you the difference between aramaic and hebrew. Please stop with the name calling . I wont continue with this if we cant have a mature debate.
http://www.Jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1707&letter=A&search=aramaic

I already showed you the book written by Newton titled Observations Upon The Prophesies Of Daniel And The Apocolyse Of St. John where he noted that the prophesies of the old and new testaments had been fulfill up to that point . If you were as well read as you thought you would have known that.

In order to understand a book, one must understand the person that wrote it.

Here is a bio on NEWTON, that gives more in-depth views into that book:

http://www.humanistictexts.org/newton.htm

Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the son of a farmer, was born in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, England. He rose to be head boy at the grammar school of Grantham, a town about six miles from his small hamlet. When his mechanical ingenuity and interest in mathematical problems caused relatives to recognize he would not be happy in farming, he was sent to Trinity College, Cambridge. Seeking information on trigonometry he put aside Euclid’s Elements as "a trifling book" and turned instead to Descarte’s Geometry. When he did badly in an examination on the Elements he reviewed it more carefully and concluded it was a work of considerable merit. In 1667, he took the degree of Master of Arts and was subsequently elected a fellow of Trinity College. In the following years he engaged in optical and chemical experiments and began his development of a theory of fluxions, later known as the calculus; he also investigated other branches of pure mathematics. Newton became Lucasian professor of mathematics in 1669, lecturing primarily on optics.



Newton was due to lose his position of Lucasian professor in 1675, as he had not met the religious requirements of the post. However, a patent from the crown enabled him to retain his position without the obligation to take holy orders, removing a source of financial anxiety. Although Newton did not meet the requirements of religious orthodoxy, he maintained a deep interest in theology, the history of religion, biblical scripture and prophesies, the chronology of ancient kingdoms, and in numerology. He devoted much time also to the study of chemistry and the works of the alchemists.

As you can see, NEWTON did not pursue religion in the devotional aspect, you you might do, but instead in the intellectual way.

Unless you proclaim to have an interest in ALCHEMY and NUMEROLOGY as well?

Does your version of Christianity teach this?

There's more:

Newton was elected to the Royal Society in 1672 at a meeting where his invention of the reflecting telescope was described. His first paper read before the society concerned the composition of white light, which had led him to recognize that different colors came to a focus at different distances from a lens. This led to his proposal for a mirror in a telescope as an alternative. He further concluded that color was an inherent property of different types of light, later publishing many papers on various aspects of optics.

The ROYAL SOCIETY is a MASONIC group.

Does that fit withing your religious Christian devotional view as well?

When a more accurate value for the size of the earth was established by P. Picard in 1674, a recalculation by Newton validated his original idea of gravitation determining the moon’s orbit. In 1684, when a discussion about gravity arose, Newton was able to draw on previous calculations to explain that a planet moving in the sun’s gravity traveled in an ellipse. In 1685 he sent a long paper to the Royal Society, describing this finding and summarizing his theory of gravity, which became the core of his book entitled Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), published in 1686 and 1687. This was the superb culmination of the remarkable insights into motion gained by Galileo earlier in the century. Galileo found that an object continues to move uniformly in a straight line if not acted upon by a force. If acted on by a force, it accelerates: the product of its mass and acceleration equals the force. To these two laws, Newton added a third: if one object exerts a force on another, the second exerts an equal and opposite force on the first. From these laws Newton was able to show how Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion arose, to calculate corrections to Kepler’s orbits, and to describe many other effects such as the precession of the equinoxes. Newton’s analysis of motion in the universe was unsurpassed until the advent of Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is still accurate for the vast majority of calculations of motion.

In 1690 Newton wrote a Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of the Scripture. Shortly afterwards, he realized that it discredited two Biblical passages supporting the Christian doctrine of the trinity, and the consequences this could have in the England of his day alarmed him. The practice of burning heretics alive continued well into the Eighteenth Century. He therefore sought to have this book published in France. When a version in Latin, the common language of Europe, was proposed, Newton withdrew the manuscript from publication. In analyzing the mathematics of the solar system, Newton clearly places the sun at the center of planetary orbits; but he takes care to remark that others may envision the planets as revolving around the earth.

This clearly states that NEWTON was not a fan of Judeo-Christian thought whatsoever.

If you don't mind, I'd like for you to post some info from the book that you mentioned.

Here is a website that will help to explain to you the difference between aramaic and hebrew.

I'm not sure why you mentioned the ARAMAIC-HEBREW issue here, since this is the wrong thread for it.

However, since you did, I don't believe you read that thread in its entirety, lest you would have seen that it did not demonstrate the grammatical or scriptoral differences between these 2 languages--it only gives a historical pathology of them.

That link also gives numerous other implications about other things that I've mentioned previously here on this site as well--such as the book of ZOHAR, a PHOENICIAN/CANAANITE scripture, where the Bible comes from, and some other things.

A discussion for another time, perhaps.

Please stop with the name calling . I wont continue with this if we cant have a mature debate.

I would ask that you please refrain from admonishing people for their actions, when you are guilty of the very same.

You asserted yourself to make the claims that people are somehow deluded about their "imaginary beliefs" and whatnot yourself.

Take the initiative to set the standard that you wish for others to follow.

PEACE

In order to understand a book, one must understand the person that wrote it.

Here is a bio on NEWTON, that gives more in-depth views into that book:

http://www.humanistictexts.org/newton.htm

Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the son of a farmer, was born in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, England. He rose to be head boy at the grammar school of Grantham, a town about six miles from his small hamlet. When his mechanical ingenuity and interest in mathematical problems caused relatives to recognize he would not be happy in farming, he was sent to Trinity College, Cambridge. Seeking information on trigonometry he put aside Euclid’s Elements as "a trifling book" and turned instead to Descarte’s Geometry. When he did badly in an examination on the Elements he reviewed it more carefully and concluded it was a work of considerable merit. In 1667, he took the degree of Master of Arts and was subsequently elected a fellow of Trinity College. In the following years he engaged in optical and chemical experiments and began his development of a theory of fluxions, later known as the calculus; he also investigated other branches of pure mathematics. Newton became Lucasian professor of mathematics in 1669, lecturing primarily on optics.



Newton was due to lose his position of Lucasian professor in 1675, as he had not met the religious requirements of the post. However, a patent from the crown enabled him to retain his position without the obligation to take holy orders, removing a source of financial anxiety. Although Newton did not meet the requirements of religious orthodoxy, he maintained a deep interest in theology, the history of religion, biblical scripture and prophesies, the chronology of ancient kingdoms, and in numerology. He devoted much time also to the study of chemistry and the works of the alchemists.

As you can see, NEWTON did not pursue religion in the devotional aspect, you you might do, but instead in the intellectual way.

Unless you proclaim to have an interest in ALCHEMY and NUMEROLOGY as well?

Does your version of Christianity teach this?

There's more:

Newton was elected to the Royal Society in 1672 at a meeting where his invention of the reflecting telescope was described. His first paper read before the society concerned the composition of white light, which had led him to recognize that different colors came to a focus at different distances from a lens. This led to his proposal for a mirror in a telescope as an alternative. He further concluded that color was an inherent property of different types of light, later publishing many papers on various aspects of optics.

The ROYAL SOCIETY is a MASONIC group.

Does that fit withing your religious Christian devotional view as well?

When a more accurate value for the size of the earth was established by P. Picard in 1674, a recalculation by Newton validated his original idea of gravitation determining the moon’s orbit. In 1684, when a discussion about gravity arose, Newton was able to draw on previous calculations to explain that a planet moving in the sun’s gravity traveled in an ellipse. In 1685 he sent a long paper to the Royal Society, describing this finding and summarizing his theory of gravity, which became the core of his book entitled Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), published in 1686 and 1687. This was the superb culmination of the remarkable insights into motion gained by Galileo earlier in the century. Galileo found that an object continues to move uniformly in a straight line if not acted upon by a force. If acted on by a force, it accelerates: the product of its mass and acceleration equals the force. To these two laws, Newton added a third: if one object exerts a force on another, the second exerts an equal and opposite force on the first. From these laws Newton was able to show how Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion arose, to calculate corrections to Kepler’s orbits, and to describe many other effects such as the precession of the equinoxes. Newton’s analysis of motion in the universe was unsurpassed until the advent of Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is still accurate for the vast majority of calculations of motion.

In 1690 Newton wrote a Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of the Scripture. Shortly afterwards, he realized that it discredited two Biblical passages supporting the Christian doctrine of the trinity, and the consequences this could have in the England of his day alarmed him. The practice of burning heretics alive continued well into the Eighteenth Century. He therefore sought to have this book published in France. When a version in Latin, the common language of Europe, was proposed, Newton withdrew the manuscript from publication. In analyzing the mathematics of the solar system, Newton clearly places the sun at the center of planetary orbits; but he takes care to remark that others may envision the planets as revolving around the earth.

This clearly states that NEWTON was not a fan of Judeo-Christian thought whatsoever.

If you don't mind, I'd like for you to post some info from the book that you mentioned.



I'm not sure why you mentioned the ARAMAIC-HEBREW issue here, since this is the wrong thread for it.

However, since you did, I don't believe you read that thread in its entirety, lest you would have seen that it did not demonstrate the grammatical or scriptoral differences between these 2 languages--it only gives a historical pathology of them.

That link also gives numerous other implications about other things that I've mentioned previously here on this site as well--such as the book of ZOHAR, a PHOENICIAN/CANAANITE scripture, where the Bible comes from, and some other things.

A discussion for another time, perhaps.



I would ask that you please refrain from admonishing people for their actions, when you are guilty of the very same.

You asserted yourself to make the claims that people are somehow deluded about their "imaginary beliefs" and whatnot yourself.

Take the initiative to set the standard that you wish for others to follow.

PEACE

Now you are changing the topic. I proved that Newton believe in the bible now you want to debate how devout he was about his belief. I proved my point so you can either admit it or continue to delude yourself. I hope one day God gives you a revelation of the truth. Peace

Now you are changing the topic.

I did no such thing. go back and (re)read what I posted.

I proved that Newton believe in the bible now you want to debate how devout he was about his belief.

The info that I posted, indicates that he didn't BELIEVE in the Bible whatsoever.

How does one BELIEVE in a book that he wrote an entire book about, in attempts to disprove it?

Did you even bother to read the info I posted?

Here it is again:

In 1690 Newton wrote a Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of the Scripture. Shortly afterwards, he realized that it discredited two Biblical passages supporting the Christian doctrine of the trinity, and the consequences this could have in the England of his day alarmed him. The practice of burning heretics alive continued well into the Eighteenth Century. He therefore sought to have this book published in France.

Here, it clearly states that the book NEWTON wrote was aimed at disproving the doctrine of the Trinity for Christianity.

NEWTON was not a Christian believer in the slightest.

He was, however, what you yourself would call a person whose "academic pursuits caused him to Hate God".


I proved my point so you can either admit it or continue to delude yourself. I hope one day God gives you a revelation of the truth. Peace

And then you wish to talk to me about "mature debate"........ :rolleyes:

You didn't prove anything. For that matter, you didn't even read my points, for the sake of comparing them to yours.

One rule about debating, is that you can't declare that "you won", just because you BELIEVE that your point is superlative to all others.

There is no clear victor, if both sides still oppose.

And why does your responses always end in what "God" is supposed to show me?

God has shown me precisely what I need to see. I could tell you that you could "either admit that, or continue to delude yourself", but of course you would see how pointless such a ridiculous statement is.

PEACE

I did no such thing. go back and (re)read what I posted.



The info that I posted, indicates that he didn't BELIEVE in the Bible whatsoever.

How does one BELIEVE in a book that he wrote an entire book about, in attempts to disprove it?

Did you even bother to read the info I posted?

Here it is again:

In 1690 Newton wrote a Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of the Scripture. Shortly afterwards, he realized that it discredited two Biblical passages supporting the Christian doctrine of the trinity, and the consequences this could have in the England of his day alarmed him. The practice of burning heretics alive continued well into the Eighteenth Century. He therefore sought to have this book published in France.

Here, it clearly states that the book NEWTON wrote was aimed at disproving the doctrine of the Trinity for Christianity.

NEWTON was not a Christian believer in the slightest.

He was, however, what you yourself would call a person whose "academic pursuits caused him to Hate God".




And then you wish to talk to me about "mature debate"........ :rolleyes:

You didn't prove anything. For that matter, you didn't even read my points, for the sake of comparing them to yours.

One rule about debating, is that you can't declare that "you won", just because you BELIEVE that your point is superlative to all others.

There is no clear victor, if both sides still oppose.

And why does your responses always end in what "God" is supposed to show me?

God has shown me precisely what I need to see. I could tell you that you could "either admit that, or continue to delude yourself", but of course you would see how pointless such a ridiculous statement is.

PEACE

He was only saying that there maybe some minor errors in the bible not that the entire bible was wrong.

He was only saying that there maybe some minor errors in the bible not that the entire bible was wrong.

Have you actually read Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of the Scripture?

That particular piece collapses the entire premise of Christianity.

I would suggest that you actually read this stuff, before you comment on it.

Have you actually read Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of the Scripture?

That particular piece collapses the entire premise of Christianity.

I would suggest that you actually read this stuff, before you comment on it.

No book can do that it is impossible. All does in this book is spout similarly incorrect statements about christianity as you do. You do have true understanding of the bible only a shallow knowledge of the bible.

No book can do that it is impossible. All does in this book is spout similarly incorrect statements about christianity as you do. You do have true understanding of the bible only a shallow knowledge of the bible.

Man, are you trying not to pay attention ON PURPOSE?

This is not about my views about the Bible. It's about NEWTON's views.

Please read his works, and stop trying to debate religion with me.

Ego-Meter

Respect



My...my.... my...

If I get a 2 for my statment...

Then what does a man get who calls himself God?

EGOMETER: If the "man" who calls himself God is a student of Esoteric spirituality, then his study/mission IS to become God. No ego involved.

If he is a practitioner of an Exoteric religion and calls himself God, that is an oxymoron...One cannot serve Two masters.

Now you are changing the topic. I proved that Newton believe in the bible now you want to debate how devout he was about his belief. I proved my point so you can either admit it or continue to delude yourself. I hope one day God gives you a revelation of the truth. Peace

EGOMETER OBSERVATION: "I, I, I..."

EGOMETER READING: 2

Ego-Meter


If the "man" who calls himself God is a student of Esoteric spirituality, then his study/mission IS to become God. No ego involved.
Hmmm....

You said his mission is to BEOME God (hopefully), but he's not "God" yet.

So wouldn't calling one's self God before being qualified, register rather high on the Ego-Meter?

Ego-Meter



Hmmm....

You said his mission is to BEOME God (hopefully), but he's not "God" yet.

So wouldn't calling one's self God before being qualified, register rather high on the Ego-Meter?

EGOMETER: As I stated in a previous thread to INFOMOETRY, I am not here to expound, clarify, or give "opinions".

Quote:
If the "man" who calls himself God is a student of Esoteric spirituality, then his study/mission IS to become God. No ego involved.

Doesn't get much clearer than that. Do you know how long Samurai has been studying and practicing? Are you qualified to make a decision as to whether Samurai is a God? Are you familiar with the concept of what "Esoteric" is? You must dissolve your own rather large EGO in order to comprehend what was stated.

Ego-Meter



Hmmm....

You said his mission is to BEOME God (hopefully), but he's not "God" yet.

So wouldn't calling one's self God before being qualified, register rather high on the Ego-Meter?

Becoming (one with) GOD is an ever-living journey. It's never complete. But that does not mean that GOD is not present within me the entire time.

GOD speaks to me and through me.

"I and my Father are One".

PEACE

Sam

Becoming (one with) GOD is an ever-living journey. It's never complete. But that does not mean that GOD is not present within me the entire time.

GOD speaks to me and through me.

David Koresh said the same thing.

Jim Jones said the same things.

There are thousands of people in the nut-house who say they are God or claim that God speaks to them yet neither you nor them can control most of what happens in your lives.

The real God is ever showing you who is really in charge by certain events that happen in your lives....... but do you ever take heed?


Like my grandmother used to say: A hard head makes a soft @ss.

Sam

David Koresh said the same thing.

Jim Jones said the same things.

And?

Why would you pick the worst examples to post here? Wicked white men who had no other agenda than to control a group of people.

That's who you compare me to?

What about The DALAI LAMMA? Or the Sages of the DOGON? Or the Shamans of the NAVAJO?

Each of them make the same claims, yet none of these men have performed wicked acts, certainly not to any degree that those Devils you mentioned have done.

There are thousands of people in the nut-house who say they are God or claim that God speaks to them yet neither you nor them can control most of what happens in your lives.

For every thousand that you name, there are a thousand that are just the opposite.

Besides, once again, you're not listening (what else is new), so I'll say it again:

Being the SOUL CONTROLLER of one's universe is an ever-living journey. My journey is no where near complete......Is yours?

The real God is ever showing you who is really in charge by certain events that happen in your lives....... but do you ever take heed?

You can keep your "real God".......I have no usage for an imaginary character that you read about in a book.

Like my grandmother used to say: A hard head makes a soft @ss.

Did she say that, right after singing an "Ol' Negro Spiritual" as well?

:rolleyes:

No book can do that it is impossible. All does in this book is spout similarly incorrect statements about christianity as you do. You do have true understanding of the bible only a shallow knowledge of the bible.
How do you make such a broad statement " no book can do that" I personally recommend you read
Anthony T. Broder's book Nile Valley Contributions to Civilization and then make that statement if you still can.

How do you make such a broad statement " no book can do that" I personally recommend you read
Anthony T. Broder's book Nile Valley Contributions to Civilization and then make that statement if you still can.
the bible is the word of God so if you say the bible is untrue then you are calling God a liar.

the bible is the word of God so if you say the bible is untrue then you are calling God a liar.

peace,

that is not neccessarily true!

- First it must be proven to be the word of God.

- Next you must show & prove WHICH GOD you are referring too!!

- as neither of these can be done using the book falsely called the Bible, then one can not make FEAR based statements to others as it was done to them to MAKE THEM BELIEVE............

I humbly oleave you in peace!

the bible is the word of God so if you say the bible is untrue then you are calling God a liar.

The only thing that the Bible--or any book, for that matter--is, the word of MAN, regarding how he perceives something (in this case, God).

There wasn't a giant hand that came out of the sky that wrote anything down with a golden pen.

People need to get their heads out of the clouds and see things clearly, for what they are, instead of what they appear to be.

PEACE

The only thing that the Bible--or any book, for that matter--is, the word of MAN, regarding how he perceives something (in this case, God).

There wasn't a giant hand that came out of the sky that wrote anything down with a golden pen.

People need to get their heads out of the clouds and see things clearly, for what they are, instead of what they appear to be.

PEACE
You should take your own advice.

I think god is sort of on a higher plane than everyone. Being on some next level stuff no one can know his true form so he appears to us as a being of pure energy which no one can distinguish really

You should take your own advice.

I have taken my "own advice"; I understand that "there wasn't a giant hand that came out of the sky that wrote anything down with a golden pen."

Do you?

I have taken my "own advice"; I understand that "there wasn't a giant hand that came out of the sky that wrote anything down with a golden pen."

Do you?

God inspired people to write the bible.

God inspired people to write the bible.

How do you KNOW this?

Further, is the Bible the only book(s) that God inspired people to write?

Also, you apparently aren't aware of how the Bible is/was formulated. There was never a such thing as a "Bible" during the time these various scrolls here and there were compiled.

The term "Biblos" didn't come into play until Nicea under the auspices of Constantine.

Did "God inspire" him as well to do what he did?

PEACE

How do you KNOW this?

Further, is the Bible the only book(s) that God inspired people to write?

Also, you apparently aren't aware of how the Bible is/was formulated. There was never a such thing as a "Bible" during the time these various scrolls here and there were compiled.

The term "Biblos" didn't come into play until Nicea under the auspices of Constantine.

Did "God inspire" him as well to do what he did?

PEACE
God inspires people to do many things but anything that goes against the bible is not God inspired.

There is nothing to be carified, if we did a Historical Analysis of this we would find that non of these folk actually existed.

Hotep :)

There are secular historians that recognize Jesus existed as a human being. Other religions also acknowlege his existence, they just don't believe he was God like Christians.

There are secular historians that recognize Jesus existed as a human being. Other religions also acknowlege his existence, they just don't believe he was God like Christians.

A religious acknowledgement is not the same as historical evidence.

The jury has always been out on secular history, because of the lack of congruent evidence.

Until someone provides empirical evidence, there is no conclusive proof that the characters in the Bible were/are anything but that.

PEACE

A religious acknowledgement is not the same as historical evidence.

The jury has always been out on secular history, because of the lack of congruent evidence.

Until someone provides empirical evidence, there is no conclusive proof that the characters in the Bible were/are anything but that.

PEACE

Most historian agree that Jesus was real but I guess you know better than they do right Sam?

Samunray whatever you want brother.....

like i said colour . does not mather to him. (jezus ) (i have no problem with painting him brown in my paintings or whatever colour )....


how you see him....ok..


but that we got the message ...

that he send out and who he was and what he did...

Martin luther King was Black to ..
but we didnt get his message..
Bob marley was Black to..

but we put the joint over the message he send out.....




dear cedric denson...


did it help you a little bit...
what i wrote down ..


i hope i did not bring you more confussion than that there already is...

fooks make it so difficult for themselves sumthimes...


i just hope you are in peace and happy...


you know what i mean....



cause that is what jezus wants


Much love bro :heart:




Lovelibertylady:heart:

Samunray whatever you want brother.....

like i said colour . does not mather to him. (jezus ) (i have no problem with painting him brown in my paintings or whatever colour )....


how you see him....ok..


but that we got the message ...

that he send out and who he was and what he did...

Martin luther King was Black to ..
but we didnt get his message..
Bob marley was Black to..

but we put the joint over the message he send out.....

I'm really not certain what to make of this. No one is miscontruing the message with/from the man.

Yes, King and Marley were black, but it would do both their legacies an injustice, if someone saw fit to paint them both white 2000 years from now.

If all their (Christ, King, Marley) messages were messages of truth, then it is not Truth if their images have been misportrayed.

Truth is truth in ALL things, not just in some.

How are we following truth, if we are looking at the picture of MichaelAngelo?

PEACE

I’m sure there were many Black African-Asiatic ascetics walking around Jerusalem since the most ancient of times, now what were all of their names and who was deeper than who, is a question for only the seers.

But the question of Jesus complexion or color is full of white racist venom. Basically, the liberal white Christian always said, “it doesn't matter what color Jesus is” …right…as long as he’s white. :lol:

I always find it interesting how people love to enjoy and celebrate color in all aspects of nature, life and art. Color is a natural calibrator in nature…you can judge if something is ripe or inviting…it is used to denote sex and species or even poisonous reptiles in the animal kingdom and it has very important subconscious affects on our minds scientifically and metaphysically. But when it comes to people, its not important (unless somebody snatch a white woman’s purse and someone is calling the police)

What would a colorless world look like? It is an insult when whites try to cunningly placate to Blacks and say, “I don’t see any color when I’m looking at you”. That statement is a subconscious attempt by white folks to devalue your existence and the presence of melanin in your skin…basically making the interaction an even playing field, but giving them home advantage.

Like Dr. Cain Hope Felder once said, “the question is not, where are the Black folks in the bible, but where are the white folks”, But hey…he was only a esteemed Black New Testament professor at Howard University...that's right, a Black man just like Jesus.

Yeah, it is kind of ignorant when people say Jesus is whatever color you want him to be. Bull crap. Regardless of whether or not one believes he was a part of God, he still was a human in flesh and blood form. The race of a flesh and blood humans is not determined by whatever color another person imagines.

Anyway, it makes sense that whites would see Jesus as white, because they want to link themselves as being on the level of godliness.

God inspires people to do many things but anything that goes against the bible is not God inspired.


- with that said, I guess now you will show and prove what is A BIBLE & how YOU determine this!!!!!!!!

- with so many versions (once again) please tell us which VERSION is the correct one, if any!!!

- is the bible the "Old Testament" or the "new Testament" & if one got old, then who inspired the writing of the NEW??????

- If GOD of the bible is all wise and perfect God, why would there be a need for both of these books????

questions asked are sometimes really, answers anticipated!!!!

- with that said, I guess now you will show and prove what is A BIBLE & how YOU determine this!!!!!!!!

- with so many versions (once again) please tell us which VERSION is the correct one, if any!!!

- is the bible the "Old Testament" or the "new Testament" & if one got old, then who inspired the writing of the NEW??????

- If GOD of the bible is all wise and perfect God, why would there be a need for both of these books????

questions asked are sometimes really, answers anticipated!!!!

old and new testaments are inspired by God the old was before Christ so people needed something to look to to keep them moral but when Christ came all people had to do is look to Christ.

Yeah, it is kind of ignorant when people say Jesus is whatever color you want him to be. Bull crap. Regardless of whether or not one believes he was a part of God, he still was a human in flesh and blood form. The race of a flesh and blood humans is not determined by whatever color another person imagines.

Anyway, it makes sense that whites would see Jesus as white, because they want to link themselves as being on the level of godliness.

Its not important what color Jesus was God didnt allow their to be any images of what Jesus actually looked because he knew people would worship that image instead of worshipping him.

old and new testaments are inspired by God the old was before Christ so people needed something to look to to keep them moral but when Christ came all people had to do is look to Christ.


who is Christ then??????????????????

Its not important what color Jesus was God didnt allow their to be any images of what Jesus actually looked because he knew people would worship that image instead of worshipping him.

Why did Revelation say Jesus had bronze skin and hair like sheep's wool?

who is Christ then??????????????????

Christ was God made flesh who has risen from death and will come back to rule over the earth one day probably not to distant from now.

Why did Revelation say Jesus had bronze skin and hair like sheep's wool?

this verse in revalation is the most commonly misunderstood verses in the bible.

When it says he has feet the color of brass and hair like wool the writer talking about a vision he had of Jesus in his glorified spirit body not a human body."His feet were like bronze that glows hot in a furnace"means that his feet were glowing like a metal thats in fire not that they were the the color of a black person. "His head and hair were like wool as white as snow" this means his head and hair were white in color not that his hair was wooly. Clearly this description of Jesus is not of a human being but of a spirit being.

Christ was God made flesh who has risen from death and will come back to rule over the earth one day probably not to distant from now.

christians have been saying this since the "New Testament" was made up with Paul as it's leader - I know you (Christians) are tired, Get some rest!!!!!!

this verse in revalation is the most commonly misunderstood verses in the bible.

When it says he has feet the color of brass and hair like wool the writer talking about a vision he had of Jesus in his glorified spirit body not a human body."His feet were like bronze that glows hot in a furnace"means that his feet were glowing like a metal thats in fire not that they were the the color of a black person. "His head and hair were like wool as white as snow" this means his head and hair were white in color not that his hair was wooly. Clearly this description of Jesus is not of a human being but of a spirit being.

- Surely you jest - does a spirit have hair in YOUR terms????

- Are you another black person who refuses to see Jesus as BLACK even though it's laid out in YOUR OWN SCRIPTURES?????

- A black Christian trying to find ways to make THEIR Jesus other than black as THEIR bibl describes is very amusing, yet Quite puzzeling to the "eye"....................like CBS, we'll be watching!!!!!!!

christians have been saying this since the "New Testament" was made up with Paul as it's leader - I know you (Christians) are tired, Get some rest!!!!!!

You can believe the truth or you can continue to believe lies . I hope one day you are able to see the truth .

You can believe the truth or you can continue to believe lies . I hope one day you are able to see the truth .


- this is what you say to everyone who does not believe what you believe, which leads me to believe you don't know what you believe!!!!!!

- this is what you say to everyone who does not believe what you believe, which leads me to believe you don't know what you believe!!!!!!

I told you what I believe over and over but you dont seem to know what you believe you only seem to know whwt you dont believe.

Yeah, it is kind of ignorant when people say Jesus is whatever color you want him to be. Bull crap. Regardless of whether or not one believes he was a part of God, he still was a human in flesh and blood form. The race of a flesh and blood humans is not determined by whatever color another person imagines.

Anyway, it makes sense that whites would see Jesus as white, because they want to link themselves as being on the level of godliness.

AAAAA-men...tell it, like it T.-I.- 'tis sister...!!! :D

I told you what I believe over and over but you dont seem to know what you believe you only seem to know whwt you dont believe.


EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!! :lol:

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then that means you are truly lost my brother. Pray to God and ask him to help you understand the bible then you will find your way through all the confusion that the devil uses to try to discombobulate us.

Then that means you are truly lost my brother. Pray to God and ask him to help you understand the bible then you will find your way through all the confusion that the devil uses to try to discombobulate us.

Isn't if funny how Christians are the first one's to bring up how cleavor and deceptive the DEVIL is!!!!!!!!!!! Yet they say that, how did you put it OCEOLO "that NO ONE KNOWS GOD, we just know that he loves us" (funny here that you did not use the word "believe".......Now how could you know the Devil so well and not know your own GOD, other than the HE (you don't even respect the femenine aspect of creation) loves us....???????????

- the way you (christians) speak of both makes them sound one in the same....

makes wonder just how well they know Satan and why they stick so closely to every word written in RED in the so-called bible.......

- but I will take your advice, as a matter of fact I have the bible in my hands right now and I think I'll take a look and see what it says about judging others.......as this has become all you seem to be able to do consistantly!!!

- I'll let ya know what I find!!!!

Isn't if funny how Christians are the first one's to bring up how cleavor and deceptive the DEVIL is!!!!!!!!!!! Yet they say that, how did you put it OCEOLO "that NO ONE KNOWS GOD, we just know that he loves us" (funny here that you did not use the word "believe".......Now how could you know the Devil so well and not know your own GOD, other than the HE (you don't even respect the femenine aspect of creation) loves us....???????????

- the way you (christians) speak of both makes them sound one in the same....

makes wonder just how well they know Satan and why they stick so closely to every word written in RED in the so-called bible.......

- but I will take your advice, as a matter of fact I have the bible in my hands right now and I think I'll take a look and see what it says about judging others.......as this has become all you seem to be able to do consistantly!!!

- I'll let ya know what I find!!!!

What I said was we dont know everything about God because he is to awesome to be fully understood by humanity but we do know enough to know that he loves us and what he wants from us . God has also told us about the devil so we can keep from being deceived by him.

I am not judging anyone but if someone is doing wrong you should always try to correct them and how I know right from wrong is because it is shown to us in the bible

What I said was we dont know everything about God because he is to awesome to be fully understood by humanity but we do know enough to know that he loves us and what he wants from us . God has also told us about the devil so we can keep from being deceived by him.

I am not judging anyone but if someone is doing wrong you should always try to correct them and how I know right from wrong is because it is shown to us in the bible

- must I quote your exact words which you have seemed to have forgotten....

OCEOLO said: "God is God and he is one but he reveals himself as father ,son and holy spirit but he is still just one god . This is hard to understand fully because of our limited humanistic knowledge God cant be adequately defined in our terms but the important thing is God is all good and all powerful and he loves us all."

so again if God can't be adequately defined by a Christian, then why is it so easy for Christians to call others the DEVIL or say they are being controlled by Devils, or unclean spirits????????? This, without a doubt is saying that YOU (christians) know the Devil better than your own God.........

Keep in mind that Christianity is still Anti-Christ spelled backwards as the y & I in the english language are interchangeable./

- must I quote your exact words which you have seemed to have forgotten....

OCEOLO said: "God is God and he is one but he reveals himself as father ,son and holy spirit but he is still just one god . This is hard to understand fully because of our limited humanistic knowledge God cant be adequately defined in our terms but the important thing is God is all good and all powerful and he loves us all."

so again if God can't be adequately defined by a Christian, then why is it so easy for Christians to call others the DEVIL or say they are being controlled by Devils, or unclean spirits?????????

Keep in mind that Christianity is still Anti-Christ spelled backwards as the y & I in the english language are interchangeable./

The bible tells us about the devil and the ways in which he trys to lead us astray so a christian can usually tell when the devil is at work.

Why do you have this strange fixation with words and what they spell when viewed backwards . These things are just coincidences nothing more.

The bible tells us about the devil and the ways in which he trys to lead us astray so a christian can usually tell when the devil is at work.

Why do you have this strange fixation with words and what they spell when viewed backwards . These things are just coincidences nothing more.


a strange fixation?????? the only word I have ever shown backwards here is CHRISTIANITY, so for you to say I have a fixation is very misleading to others viewing......but I overstand that that is the CHRISTIAN way!!!!!!

- to say things with no proof, I mean....................

Hotep

The proof only leads to the Fact that the (White-Race) Europian is a Lier. And that they Re-Wrote History (Our-Story) and Put them-selves in Our-Place. In other words, They (Europians) Stole Our (Afrikan) Legacy and Birth Right. So,...Now that we know, if there is no more doupt that is,...What are we going to do about it???

Ase`