Black Spirituality Religion : DESTROYING THE AFRICAN WOMAN PT.5

Discussion in 'Black Spirituality / Religion - General Discussion' started by Keita Kenyatta, Aug 31, 2009.

  1. Keita Kenyatta

    Keita Kenyatta going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,382
    ACCORDING TO THE RESEARCH OF OUR OWN AFRICAN SCHOLARS SUCH AS CHEIKH ANTA DIOP (who is so awesome that he's known as the pharaoh of African History). Dr. John H. Clark, Dr. Yosef Ben Jochhanan, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, Dr. Chancellor Williams, Oba T. Chaka, and a host of other black scholars, THERE WAS AN INVASION INTO ANCIENT KEMET IN 1675 B.C. by a group of people known as hyksos/haribu/hebrew/israelites/Jews. Below are the actual photos of the known races from the tomb of Rameses III during the time frame of 1200 b.c. In 1200 b.c. it is very clear that The so called Hebrews at that point in time were NOT BLACK! Being that this is the first that we ever hear of them, the question is, where were they and what were they doing in 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 b.c. or more? This is from the work of Dr. Cheihk Anta Diop. I have also included the Original from the tomb itself.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    All of our historians as well as the best of the European historians report that this invasion happened anywhere between 5 and 35 years BEFORE THE SO CALLED ABRAHAM CAME INTO KEMET. Even though the Bible itself in Galatians 4:21-24 says that the story of Abraham and his two sons is nothing but an allegory (meaning, something not real). I had to put it like this so that no one can say Keita's lying . If you want to say anyone is lying, say that the brightest and the best of OUR OWN HISTORIANS AND SCHOLARS ARE LYING and that the Bible is lying...AND THEN YOU CAN ONLY SAY THAT IF YOU PREFER THE STORY AND RESEARCH OF THE WHITE MAN OR THE ARAB. YOUR CHOICE !!

    According to all research, they held control of kemet for close to 100 years before being driven out. It was during their occupation of Kemet that they intensified their hate of the black female and any female principle as it relates to our people or history. What they were experiencing was something known as CULTURAL CLASH . I want you to be mindful that prior to this invasion that there is no mention or documentation of a hyksos or hebrew nation anywhere on the earth. Why would this be the case? Because they wandered from place to place. They had no set place, values or foundation that would allow them to settle in One place and establish a culture . This in essence means that their women were regarded as property and were deemed to be beneath and lower than the men...cause no woman worth her weight is going to be wandering all over the place and having her children or babies dragged with her, which explains why in African cultures our people
    settled down and began to build and construct civilizations.

    CULTURAL CLASH is when a people encounter another culture that opposes the values and principles of their own culture. In the culture of the Hebrews there was a male dominant cultural reality going on. A culture where women had no rights except as property. In this reality, a man could have a wife. If he died her brother got her next. She could be sold, killed or anything else at the will and discretion of her husband. All of this is evident in the Scriptures also.

    However, so great was the Hebrews hate for the Goddess religion that they sought to wipe it out and slaughter everyone who practiced it. As such, even in Revelations 17:1-5 with the final showdown, they chose to use a woman as the ultimate evil. the whore or harlot.

    In Zechaiah 5:5-8 there is a short story, but in the story the woman is described as WICKEDNESS.

    In the Book of Mary which is one of the books they took out of the Bible, we find the reason as to why they took it out. The Book of Mary says that Mary was also born through Divine means through her mother Anna. Now to keep it real, this makes good sense. If you were going to drink clean water, the water would have to first be in a clean glass. If Jesus/yashua is to represent the clean water, then the glass/Mary from which he supposedly came would have to be clean also.

    Be this as it is, they could not allow this book to remain a part of the Bible if they were going to elevate Jesus to a special status, for the Scriptures would have revealed that Mary had this status first !!

    How much has man's hand touched religious thought and Scriptures as it regards women? Let us see.

    Let you woman keep silent in churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ASK THEIR HUSBANDS AT HOME; FOR IT IS SHAMFUL FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN CHURCH .

    Obviously Paul is talking to the men...which is why he says; let your women keep silent in the churches .

    St. Chrysostom writes that; woman is a necessary evil, a desirable calamity, a deadly fasination, and a painted ill.

    St. Turtullian states that; Thou art the devils gate, the betrayer of the tree, the first deserter of divine law.

    St. Clement writes that; Above all, it seems right that we turn away from the sight of woman...the affection that rises from the desire which we call love, leads to the fire which will never cease in consequence of sin

    In the year 585 A.D. an assembly of Bishops at the Church Council of Macon, actually and solemnly debated WHETHER WOMAN WAS A HUMAN BEING-WHETHER SHE HAD A SOUL. (art. Geddicus, Philosophical Dict.)
     
  2. KMTSista

    KMTSista Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    259
    Location:
    Maryland
    Ratings:
    +259
    This is a good read. You would think if women are so evil, why even lay in bed with us at all for fornication? If they hate women so much, men should have slept with men. (hmmm)

    Why would God create a woman, who carries the egg that further builds civilizations (is it just me, but a man can't make a baby alone, therefore he needs a woman to do this, if women are wicked why provide HER with the egg), just to turn around and say that what He's created is wicked? To CREATE a body that can feed a baby by breast (Male and female)?

    It's a contradiction if you ask me.

    Where is Part 6?:geek:
     
  3. Blackbird

    Blackbird Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    3,972
    Likes Received:
    1,819
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Professional Hitman
    Location:
    Da Desert, literally
    Ratings:
    +1,820
    Interesting post.
     
  4. Chevron Dove

    Chevron Dove Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    2,582
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +2,730
    I'm familiar with CHEIKH ANTA DIOP, Dr. John H. Clark, Dr. Yosef Ben Jochhanan and, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima. As far as an invation in 1675 B.C., byway of the Hyksos, I do agree. But the terms 'Habiru, Israel and Hebrew' are not the same as 'the Hyksos'.

    But you start with 1675 B.C. and jumped to Rameses III in the 1200s B.C. and between the time of the Hyksos and the Rameses was the overthrow of two dynastic governments and also the EXODUS.

    The Hyksos -------------------------- the 13th-to-17th Dynasties
    The Thutmosis line [Moses Kings]------ the 18th Dynasty
    The Rameses line--------------------- the 19th Dynasty

    The Hebrews were enslaved from the time of the Hyksos until the end of the Thutmosis line as is the very name of MOSES should attest. Unlike what is taught today, the Hebrews were not enslaved by the Rameses. Do you believe that the Moses kings were white? If so, where did the black people go? How did the white people become so powerful that they could come into Africa and dominate black people all by themselves?

    You say there is no mention of Abraham before a certain time span and you put the dates of 2000, 3000, 4000 B.C.. Concerning the Hebrews, you say they were wanderers and etc. The Bible clearly says that AbraHam was from the line of Shem so, you would have to understand Semitism and anit-Semitism...aboriginal Shemites in order to understand the background of AbraHam. The Bible clearly states the history of the Hebrews as well.

    As far as Hebrew position on 'the goddess religion' how does this equate to hatred of Black women?

    Idolatry or the worship of ancient people is a religion in itself but, if the actual person worshiped has a flaw then, shouldn't this be of importance?

    It doesn't matter if the religion is based upon a man, woman, black or white, if the person is evil and works against their own humanity then, at least, this should be brought to the forefront.
     
  5. Blackbird

    Blackbird Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    3,972
    Likes Received:
    1,819
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Professional Hitman
    Location:
    Da Desert, literally
    Ratings:
    +1,820
    In your own words, Chevron Dove - good to meet your acquaintance - could you please provide me with a history of the Hebrews?

    Could you please explain this in greater detail?

    Agreed.

    Tuhwi
     
  6. Chevron Dove

    Chevron Dove Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    2,582
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +2,730
    Galatians 4:21-24

    Galatians 4:21-24

    I think there is a misunderstanding concerning the definition and meaning of the word ‘ALLEGORY’ and also, there is a misunderstanding about the scriptures quoted here.

    The very grammatical mark of a colon ‘:’ means the contents following the colon and you just listed one scripture, verse 24 of Galatians. You need to go beyond verse 24 and also consider the context of the whole chapter. But here is the definition of the word, ‘Allegory’:


    an allegory—1. symbolic work --a work in which the characters and events are to be understood as representing other things and symbolically expressing a deeper, often spiritual, moral, or political meaning

    the symbolic expression of a deeper meaning through a story or scene acted out by human, animal, or mythical characters

    --------------------------------------------------------------------- -

    The word ‘allegory’ means that there is a deeper meaning! It does not mean that it is a made up story!

    In addition, the author, Paul-the-Apostle wrote this book of Galatians or letter to ‘the Galatians’ I believe. The whole chapter is about inheritance through Sarah, the legitimate wife of AbraHam verses Hagar, the bondwoman that had another son for AbaHam. Paul explains a deeper meaning about the irony and present predicament of the legitimate descendants of AbraHam in that they turned away from their own inheritance and went after the world…

    Here is the whole chapter:


    [1] Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
    [2] But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
    [3] Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
    [4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
    [5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
    [6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
    [7] Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
    [8] Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
    [9] But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
    [10] Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
    [11] I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
    [12] Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.
    [13] Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
    [14] And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
    [15] Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
    [16] Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
    [17] They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them.
    [18] But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.
    [19] My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
    [20] I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
    [21] Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
    [22] For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
    [23] But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
    [24] Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
    [25] For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
    [26] But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
    [27] For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
    [28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
    [29] But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
    [30] Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
    [31] So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
     
  7. Chevron Dove

    Chevron Dove Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    2,582
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +2,730
    Greetings Blackbird

    If you will allow me, I would love to share with you my research now and a little later because, right now, I have to make it brief. But basically, a lot of my research is based on a comparison and contrast of words in context of history and a cross reference with many books during particular time spans.

    The very word 'Hebrew' stems from 'Abel' but the Greek spelling of Abel is 'HEBEL' and is in reference to 'Heb' or 'sheep'. Abel was a 'sheepherder' and the Hebrews were also 'shepherds'. This word-name too, is indicative of 'aboriginal people' meaning ancient blacks and in contrast the word for 'shepherd' used by indo-Europeans [ancient white people] was different. One word 'BEDOUIN' was another word for 'semi-nomadic' people from the east. Another contrast would be the very trade of 'SHEEP HERDING'!

    The Indo-Europeans thought negatively of 'sheep keepers'. Their trade of origin was 'CATTLE FARMING' and most of the words that identify them was based upon this trade such as in the word 'bos'.

    Anther fact is in the word 'Hebrew' versus the word 'Habiru' versus the word 'Hibiru' and 'Hyksos'. In ancient Canaanit script, the vowel becomes the indentifier. The word 'Hebrew' means 'blacks'. The word 'Habiru' means 'ethnic people' but, the word 'Hyksos' has a replacement letter for a specific reason. But, this has to be read in context in order to explain in further detail. I show you a few terms to show you what I am referencing:

    Kenaan- versus - Canaan
    Assyrian - versus - Syrian
    Ishtar - versus - Ashteroth
    Terah - versus- Thara...
    Edom -versus- Idum [Idumaea]

    There is both 'a distinction' and 'a similarity' in these terms and are based upon the very vowel but, it must be read in context of history and timespans.

    In the Bible and when Israel was to go before the pharaoh, his son Joseph told him not to say that he was 'a sheep keeper' because it was frowned upon in Egypt. The Egyptians were an ethnic people but, they were originated from the east and they edified 'the cow' in everyway. However, the Hebrews, other Shemites and even the early Hamites in Africa were sheep people and it was considered low caste. Sheeps wool 'stank' and so, the actual term 'HEBREW' was derogatory in ancient times.
     
  8. Chevron Dove

    Chevron Dove Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    2,582
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +2,730
    Hebrews

    Just like Bro Keita referenced in regards to 'when did the Hebrews' become apart of this particular history...

    They were not known that well in those times because they were, as the Bible states, a small band of Shemites, in 'the Middle East'.

    Because the Hebrew-Israelites are from Shem, they are of 'the priesthood' of Shem meaning, 'the high priesthood' and therefore, they were known by the land that they lived in.

    The Hebrews were known as 'SYRIANS' and the Syrians were black people. The ASSYRIANS [As-Shurians] were white [As] and lived in North Syria but, the SYRIANS [Shur] were black! And, Jacod lived in Syria and married women from that region. His relatives were in Syria not Assyria.

    The Egyptians did not enslave 'ASSYRIANS' but, they always enslaved 'SYRIANS'.

    I have much more to share but, I hope this is enough for now.
     
  9. Chevron Dove

    Chevron Dove Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    2,582
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +2,730
    On Hyksos

    I just want to add alittle of my findings on 'the Hyksos' as a contrast to the Hebrews;

    Based upon my research, the very word goes along with other history about them. The letter 'y' is a replacement letter of which in this context, it refers to 'Hex' [magic men] in reference to 'the Hyksos' in agreement with 'the Hittites' cultures in the north. This is part of the major confusion with the Hyksos in that some historians link them to 'Shem' but others are vague on their origins.

    The Hyksos people, no matter what their origins, bonded with 'the Hittites' and this is the key. They were known by their trade; HORSE AND CHARIOT.

    Along with the Hittites, the Hyksos formed a culture in Mitannia [Assyria] and in Central Turkey and Southern Russia in which they manufactured chariots and trained horses. It was this trade that they used to gain a foothold in Egypt. Even though, the Hyksoses are called 'Shepherd kings', they bonded with northern white people and eventually made a violent invasion and overthrow in Egypt and the Bible details that the Hebrews [i.e. Syrians] became enslaved in the delta region. Their main duties was that they were 'Grain Slaves' and 'brick builders' for the Hyksos-Hurrian government.

    The Hyksos capital was in the north while the Hurrians [blacks] dominated Thebes.

    There is much more to this story. And, I understand why the Hebrews are sometimes confused with 'the Hyksos'. But after 400 years of being suppressed and inter-mixed with the aboriginal Mizraim Hamites, the Hebrews became 'a pre-dominantly Hamitic-typed' race of people!
     
  10. Keita Kenyatta

    Keita Kenyatta going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,382
    Here's my feedback on this subject. Since I must respect the research of anyone who is sincere, I suggest that "you write a book to bring forth your new information regarding any biblical patriarch or tribes as listed in there". I know that the bible is not a history book and from where the stories were stolen. I once put out an offer of several hundred dollars to anyone who could prove that Abraham actually existed. I did this over 20 years ago and no one has collected the money yet. Logic states that if he wasn't real then everyone who supposedly came from him wasn't either.

    Now, I'm saying all of this to say that, if the works of our best scholars are incorrect, then those of us who claim to have new evidence of something different have a duty to inform our people of the errors that our scholars made and be able to prove it.

    If our duty becomes to prove that a religious book is true then we are already on shaky ground simply because we can not put our religious books down long enough to become an objective historian who is not swayed by any beliefs or religious thoughts what so ever. This is indeed the hard part. I say this as a former Christian, Muslim and everything else.

    Linguistics become even harder because there were no vowels in the so called ancient hebrew, arabic or kemetic languages. For example, where do we get the word "Jehovah or Yahway from?" Just who wrote this stuff anyway being that the oldest hebrew text can not exceed 500 b.c.?
     
Loading...

Users found this page by searching for:

  1. egypt habiru