Black Spirituality Religion : The 2 Gods in the Bible

Discussion in 'Black Spirituality / Religion - General Discussion' started by Blackbird, Jun 10, 2004.

  1. 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
    Hello All,

    A couple of days ago, I was discussing the names or titles for God in the Bible with a brother of mine, a Palo priest. As we were looking at descriptions of God, along with anthropological and historical research, my "brother" said some of the OT titles and characteristics for God were similar to Siete Rayos, a Palo nkisi (spirit) and Shango, a Yoruba orisa (spirit). Then when we went into the NT, we found that God now had the qualities and characteristics of Obatala, a Yoruba orisa. The NT god's son, Jesus, exhibited qualities of the children of Obatala, who are the priest/esses of Obatala.

    Clearly, the personalities of both entities are distinct and at times, antithetical. Obatala and Shango can be regarded the same way. Shango is the "hotter", more aggressive and warlike orisa, whereas, Obatala is "cooler", a more fatherly, more reserved, moral creator of humanity. From an ATR perspective, there are 2 distinct entities illustrated in the Bible as both God, when neither could be since God has no personality as the Source and Originator of all things being, becoming and living.

    We came to the conclusion, that perhaps, Judeo-Christians elevated one particular spirit to the status of the All and his cult rose in prominence as the only one out of many. This could possibly explain the territorial, but covertly religious battles between them (Hebrews) and the "false" or other gods-worshipping Canaanites, hence, the origin of the fear of the OT's god of his "chosen" (particular cult group) worshipping other "gods". Following the timeline down, the emergence of Jesus represents the rise to dominance of another spirit over the pre-existing "God."

    It is understood the OT god was a political statement, as much as, a religious one as it help to solidfy a group of 12 tribes into a confederation and subsequently, a nation-state. The OT god is referred to on many occasions as the "God of Israel", not the world, and the Israelites were his "chosen people." This can be incorporated into a national statement, very similar to the United States and its religious-national statement, "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under God, Indivisible." The God of Israel is separate from the national or state gods of the surrounding people and as such, validates the uniqueness of the mission of the Israelite people and their "preferred" status in the region. It was a religion of identity, cultural surival and fortitude.

    In the time of Jesus, the Roman conquest of Palestine and former Greek colonization introduced a more cosmopolitian aspect to Palestinian life. The Jews became increasingly Hellenized and were under a Roman system of governance, thus a new national statement to consolidate the people was required. The difference of this national statement was it reflected the new signs of the times. No longer independent and sovereign, the people of the Jewish cultural sphere, or rather a downtrodden Palestinian, mainly Galilean base, needed something to re-invoke national pride, as well as, offer a placebo-like effect to tyranny and oppression with the hopes of seeking salvation in heaven. However, due to the foreign influence on the population, this national statement had to be more encompassing - its sphere of influence had to go beyond the old tribal affiliations of the Hebrews. "God" becomes less warlike, less jealous and less territorial. He becomes more forgiving, more loving, and universally cosmopolitian. His statement is more of "peace" rather than "war." There is a transformation in God as his worldview expands from being tribalistic and narrowly-based to catholic.

    If this postulation is even somewhat true, it seems at best, most Jews, Christians and Muslims have an imbalance going on with the energies of the universe, one that needs to be reconciled.

    Again, this is only one person's interpretation and not intended to be offensive or a put-down. My mind is very scientific due to my training so I try to look at all factors and not get emotional or subjective.

    Blackbird
     
  2. Joyce

    Joyce Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    56
    Occupation:
    people
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +56
    Since you don't subscribe to any part of the bible and see it as a vain book...I am curious...why even bring up this subject with such detail and specifics??? :huh: Just curious. At this forum I noticed so many here reject the sayings and teachings of the bible, yet it is one of the most populars subjects chosen for discussion here at this forum...hmmm.
     
  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
    Whew! I knew I would get a reaction. I brought this up because of my particular field of study. I would do the same even about the ATRs. I don't have to be a part of something to make sense of it. Also, it was like a revelation for me and I wanted to share my opinion. On the thread about {paraphrasing} "Make Man in Our Image", I posted a possible answer. While posting, I was sharing some of my research notes with my godbrother, who seen alot of similarities. This started me to thinking. I began seeing 2 separate and distinct entities, both that resemble 2 spirits in the Yoruba pantheon. I was making sense of it from my background and decided to share my conclusions.

    I wouldn't go as far to say I view the Bible as a vain book. I understand the Bible from a cultural support perspective and with this viewpoint in mind, it is valid as is any other thing. All cultures use their perspective of deity to validate their existence. "God" is a very motivating concept to unify and unite, as well as, to explain. Look at how most of us take our religious beliefs so personally and to heart. Human existence, notwithstanding the trials and tribulations, rests upon our perspective of the divine. America uses it all the time. Bottomline..... religion issues from culture/worldview and as such is culturally relevant.

    I think the reason the Bible and Christianity appear so frequently as topics is because most people, especially AAs, have been impacted by their influence. Besides, both have been used to cause alot of help or hurt for millions of people. I can't speak for everyone, but this is why I think so.

    Blackbird
     
  4. Radical Faith

    Radical Faith Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,818
    Likes Received:
    137
    Occupation:
    Operations Manager
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +137


    Hi Blackbird

    There is only one God that reveals himself in three ways. God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit. God the father is a transcendant being. Meaning God is one of a kind, unique unto himself and comparable to nothing known by man. This is way our finite mind can't conceive the infinite God. We simple have never seen anything like God. God son is Jesus Christ. To understand who Jesus is read Colossians 1:15-23. Then there's the Holy Spirit. The holy spirit is mentioned numberous time in the Bible. The holy spirit is the invisible spirit of God that fills us, communicates with us and even guides and protects us. If you are a believer then you understand the Triune God or Holy Trinity. It doesn't matter what man may think the truth is the truth. The truth is not politically correct either it's just correct.

    Peace

    Radical Faith
     
  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
    Alafia Radical Faith,

    I understand your passion, as much as, Sista Joyce's. You were correct when you said, "It doesn't matter what man may think the truth is the truth. The truth is not politically correct either it's just correct."

    What I was giving was a general sypnosis of the OT's deity and the NT's deity. You have only quoted me things found in the new, not the old. Which is funny as well.

    Why is there a "new" and an "old"? Why not a First Testament and a Second Testament? Similar to a 1 Peter and 2 Peter or 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel. It would be funny for there to an Old Peter and a New Peter. Where am I going? Basically, I'm saying if there is only 1 God in the Bible, the New Testament would actually be His/Her/It's 2 Testament.

    Some would say this is mere semantics (a likely cop-out), but as someone understands the realm of semiotics, the point of contention is thoroughly valid. It has to deal with the choice of words and the symbolics implied. Taken into context, the "New" Testament is just that - different from the former or old. If it was not different, there would only be one testament of God because everything God says is indivisible. God only has 1 testament, nothing old or nothing new.

    You have yet to explain the coherency between a God in Judges 20 and Titus 3:6.

    I shall continue later...

    Blackbird
     
  6. Joyce

    Joyce Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    56
    Occupation:
    people
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +56
    Blackbird,

    Just as I will never fully understand the depth of your faith unless I accept it, the same goes for you. I would have to be "initiated" into your way of faith before I can begin to accept it as truth. In the same way, why should I try to debate with you on something you don't even base faith on anyway? That would be stupid. Now if you accepted Christ as the way, the truth and the life...then we could discuss the things of God together but since you do not deem the bible as a book of truth for yourself...why even discuss it??? :driveby: I sense that you are simply looking for an argument or debate of sorts and where will that get us. What will be accomplished?
     
  7. 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
    Greetings Joyce,

    Once again, I was posting a research item. This was done by yours truly. I understand your apprehension, but can I not voice my opinion or hypothesis? Regardless, of our religious orientation, documents are out there to research. If you found research information concerning the origin and nature of Ifa, I would not shun it. I recognize that religion is culturally-based and all are culturally-valid. I recognize the right to validity and relevancy of Christianity as a truth. The fact of the matter is you can not separate your subjectivity from any topic can you. So I guess people are only 5,000 years old beginning with Adam and Eve.

    Contrary to your statement, Sista Joyce, I accepted Christianity as my faith. I was born and raised in the Church and attended Bible study, Prayer session, Sunday School, Morning and Evening worship and Vocational Bible school. I went to church voluntarily, not because "mama" made me and was at one time a minister. My life has always been devoted for the search of truth and I never shun things that didn't agree with my leanings. I felt I had been lied to and deceived that's why I left the church. I noticed the condition of my people and neighborhood. I noticed that young gang-members, quick to shoot and kill each other, knew about Jesus and God and would often preach to each other about what was biblically right. I know your faith, I was subjectively in your faith, had faith in your faith, until the faith disappointed me on all levels.

    I'm not here to debate. I posted what I thought was reasonable about the Christian Bible based on my research and that was that. I knew it would get a response, but was not soliciting a debate. I simply asked a question... about the God in Judges and the God in Titus.

    Blackbird
     
  8. Joyce

    Joyce Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    56
    Occupation:
    people
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +56


    You said: I'm not here to debate. I posted what I thought was reasonable about the Christian Bible based on my research and that was that. I knew it would get a response, but was not soliciting a debate.

    Okay...I stand corrected yet leary. But let's have a discussion :spin:

    You said: Why is there a "new" and an "old"? Why not a First Testament and a Second Testament?


    May I submit to you that the bible is made up of 66 books total. The english translators themselves place the subheading "Old" and "New" in reference to the birth of Christ 500 years after the book of Malachi was written. In between this (between Malachi and the book of Matthew) time, it was termed the dark ages because nothing was recorded or should I say found to be recorded. Malachi is the last book to be written before Matthew. It is not that first covenant (the old testament) is "outdated" but rather it is fulfilled through Jesus Christ in the "new" covenant. At first, animal sacrifice was required to "cover" the sins of the hebrew people. However, this only lasted for a year. When Christ came, His sacrifice on the Cross for your sins and mine was permanent with no need for animal sacrifice or making spirits happy by feeding them at dinner time. Christ did what man could not do in that he fulfilled the law of God. The strength of sin is derived from man's tendency to bring laws that he could not keep though he bragged that he could. However, Christ became the final sacrificial lamb for you and I...no need to kill anything anymore.
     
  9. Sekhemu

    Sekhemu Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Messages:
    6,489
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    priest
    Location:
    new jersey
    Ratings:
    +1,064

    It is the Christian god who says he sent his jesus to wash away our sins, Naturally one would have to believe in the idea of sin to accept this premise. Something I most vehemently can not
     
  10. Music Producer

    Music Producer Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +94
    The reason we have the Old Testaments and the New Testaments is because we have a universal concept of good and evil, righteousness and wickedness. We as being human cannot perceive one or the other without having knowledge of one or the other.

    The Old Testaments represent the good. The New Testaments represent the evil. One is the work of GOD, one is the allowed work of Satan.

    And it was all revealed to Israel.


    Deut:4:28: And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

    Deut:28:36: The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.

    Deut:28:64: And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.


    The New Testaments fulfill that and they have servants in whom their whole existence is to induce that fulfillment. For it is the word of GOD, thus it must play itself out. You will not get true and meaningful answers from servants of Jesus, their entire concept of religion is confirming him to you and that is it, not to explain and not to debate. This is what I discovered setting in collage theology classes. It is their whole concept of religion.
     
Loading...