Black History : Negro Slavery and The Myth of Ham's Curse

I think that this is a good example of private interpretations. This is a good time to refer to what God has said, God is the one who gave the circumcision as a covenant, He gave specific boundaries and how it should be done. This is a time when I think it is best to refer to what God has said because we have two disciples who disagree....who should be the tiebreaker...Jesus and His words. Anything that God has amended He has let us know about it, this was not one of those things.

Think about what you are saying. Yes, we should refer to what God said.

But, how are we to know what God said?

Is the inerrant Word Of God perfectly portrayed in the bible?

Herein is the problem we are wrestling with. Christianity has self-proclaimed herself as the religion of Christ. And Christianity insists that the Christian bible is the inerrant Word Of God.

But, on what authority are we to accept what Christianity is proclaiming? Even the bible itself, in the first chapter of the gospel of John, provides a description of the Word Of God which those who are willing to be honest about the matter must admit points to Christ, not the bible, as the Word Of God.

When Christian doctrine disagrees with the Comforter [aka the Holy Spirit], who will you believe?

This Is A Critical Question In These The Last Days Of Babylon.
 
Think about what you are saying. Yes, we should refer to what God said.

But, how are we to know what God said?

Is the inerrant Word Of God perfectly portrayed in the bible?

Herein is the problem we are wrestling with. Christianity has self-proclaimed herself as the religion of Christ. And Christianity insists that the Christian bible is the inerrant Word Of God.

But, on what authority are we to accept what Christianity is proclaiming? Even the bible itself, in the first chapter of the gospel of John, provides a description of the Word Of God which those who are willing to be honest about the matter must admit points to Christ, not the bible, as the Word Of God.

When Christian doctrine disagrees with the Comforter [aka the Holy Spirit], who will you believe?

This Is A Critical Question In These The Last Days Of Babylon.



In the Spirit of Sankofa,




.......Okay, I see you've started skipping posts again, lol... Forcing me to interrupt this fascinating conversation. Oh well, at the end of the day, its all about the Relationship we have with Jesus/Yashua/Eashoa.

And brother, you don't have to reply to the open post, really... we've been full circle now in our discourse for awhile...tc istlota...


Peace In,

 
In the Spirit of Sankofa,




.......Okay, I see you've started skipping posts again, lol... Forcing me to interrupt this fascinating conversation. Oh well, at the end of the day, its all about the Relationship we have with Jesus/Yashua/Eashoa.

And brother, you don't have to reply to the open post, really... we've been full circle now in our discourse for awhile...tc istlota...


Peace In,

Which explains, in part, what I choose to respond to. We know where each other stands on a few topics now. No point in rehashing that. When you ask specific questions, which I have not previously answered, I am more likely to respond. Beyond that, you are entitled to your point of view.

Regarding the relationship we have with Jesus, perhaps you have noticed that sometimes I include 'the Christ' after Jesus, as in 'Jesus the Christ'? It is to promote thinking as to how/if distinctions should be made between Jesus the son of Man vs Jesus the son of God.

I became intriqued by the fact that, in the red words, Jesus usually refers to himself as the son of Man. Yet, he is frequently called the son of God by others --- Satan, Pharisees, believers, and at least once he 'sorta' refers to himself as the son of God:

John 11:1- 4 "Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby."
Was Jesus referring to himself, here, as the Son of God? It certainly seems so. But, my perception, everything Jesus said and did, no matter how trivial it might seem on the surface, was for an imminently good reason.

This used to drive the Pharisees crazy. They wanted him to say it plainly, because, of course, they wanted a case to place before White Folks --- oops, I mean their Roman colonizers --- to try and get them, specifically Pilate, to crucify Jesus for them. Classic case of the Beast and the Whore of Babylon [the Church and the State] working together to fulfill the will of their father the Dragon:

Matthew 26:59- 68 "Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?"
Now ... what was it about the son of Man claiming to be the Christ, the Son of God, that so enraged them? I mean, just look at them, they got so mad they started hollering at him, slapping the brother around, spitting on him, and worse. :thinking:

Don't we see similiar righteous indignation even in our time ... when church folks get all riled up after someone dares to suggest that maybe, just maybe, their relationship with the Father is not what it is supposed to be?
 
Which explains, in part, what I choose to respond to. We know where each other stands on a few topics now. No point in rehashing that. When you ask specific questions, which I have not previously answered, I am more likely to respond. Beyond that, you are entitled to your point of view.

Regarding the relationship we have with Jesus, perhaps you have noticed that sometimes I include 'the Christ' after Jesus, as in 'Jesus the Christ'? It is to promote thinking as to how/if distinctions should be made between Jesus the son of Man vs Jesus the son of God.

I became intriqued by the fact that, in the red words, Jesus usually refers to himself as the son of Man. Yet, he is frequently called the son of God by others --- Satan, Pharisees, believers, and at least once he 'sorta' refers to himself as the son of God:

John 11:1- 4 "Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby."
Was Jesus referring to himself, here, as the Son of God? It certainly seems so. But, my perception, everything Jesus said and did, no matter how trivial it might seem on the surface, was for an imminently good reason.

This used to drive the Pharisees crazy. They wanted him to say it plainly, because, of course, they wanted a case to place before White Folks --- oops, I mean their Roman colonizers --- to try and get them, specifically Pilate, to crucify Jesus for them. Classic case of the Beast and the Whore of Babylon [the Church and the State] working together to fulfill the will of their father the Dragon:

Matthew 26:59- 68 "Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?"
Now ... what was it about the son of Man claiming to be the Christ, the Son of God, that so enraged them? I mean, just look at them, they got so mad they started hollering at him, slapping the brother around, spitting on him, and worse. :thinking:

Don't we see similiar righteous indignation even in our time ... when church folks get all riled up after someone dares to suggest that maybe, just maybe, their relationship with the Father is not what it is supposed to be?


In the Spirit of Sankofa,




.......Its good to know your method of answering my posts, thanks; however, there was a quasi question asked not answered before, couched below:


Clyde said...Here's were you've erred, God did prevent one of the disciples from getting it wrong, and by the writings (Word of God/Bible), even you are able to capture the proper interpretation of that argument, agreed?


At any rate, we have a mutual understanding, and this concludes our conversation for now, if you can agree. A no reply will suffice and affirm.

Peace In,
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

It's a lot going on and I know I have not been here for a long time but it is about to change.
Blessings sent to all journeying in 2024 so far
Back
Top