Is It Wrong or Contrary To Be Black And Christian??
Options
Comments
-
Israelites wrote: »anybody that feels or believes the Word of ? has ANYTHING to do w/christianity has been misinformed..... the NT confirms the prophecy of the OT, the bible goes in on religion as a whole but folks to blind to see... Whatever was taken out by the roman catholics was done by the hand of the Most High, nothing they added or took away from HIS WORD changed any meaning that would throw us off of the true meaning of Christ & doing the WILL of the Father...
The LORD stated he would publish HIS WORD in everyone's language in order for ALL to receive HIS WORD, so for all that talk of learning Hebrew to understand it, is non sense (my people had the LORD in their presence when they had their OWN language & still was thrown into captivity do to their disobedience) & often used by those who DON'T UNDERSTAND the book in their own langauge.
True priest of ? know & understand the book, & true priest of ? should have some understanding of HISTORY before they try to defend any religion especially Christianity (mother ? ), all other religions stem from them (they're the harlots of the mother ? )
The WORD was around before the gentiles /romans got their hands on it, THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE THE WORD WASN'T GIVEN TO THEM TO UNDERSTAND, but do to the disobedience of Israel, our ancestors went into captivity leaving the gentiles in charge of it...
what happens to people when they don't understand something? They MAKE UP stuff to fit their own beliefs & bring in false doctrine to feed to the masses (going to heaven or hell after one dies, praying over unclean foods,rapture, trinity, pagan holidays, "sun" day worship, etc etc.......these are the false doctrines brought in by the catholics)
the sad part is that EVERYTHING that they preach can not be found in the BIBLE nor is it backed by scripture & my people not wanting to "question" ? , just follows right along with what's being told to them instead of the proper research for the answer.
The LORD is the author of HIS WORD, man just wrote it down for others to read & follow (it was given to Israel to give to the World).... It's up to the person reading HIS WORD to get UNDERSTANDING of it before one tries to say it's corrupt or has been mistranslated by the slavemasters to throw us off... (those slavemasters didn't know what to add or take out, because if they did, we would see christmas in the bible, the name of Zeus, Horus or any other pagan ? they wanted us to follow, etc.... that's if they were in control)
the catholics were able to paint a picture of a suppose "christ" that everybody has been following since birth... but with the proper research you can find out who that suppose "christ" really is.
the folks on this board love to hear themselves talk & downplay the MOST HIGH, i feel for you but I can also understand where you coming from...if you had serious questions about the book & have been getting the same answers for years that doesn't make sense, I would question the Bible & the Most High as well.. But if you serious about wanting to know, it's up to you search the scriptures & find the answers out of the mouth of two or three witnesses using both the Ot & Nt.... the whole one verse out of a chapter isn't going to cut it or answer anything....
But again people just love to hear themselves talk & some just love to show how ignorant they are & will remain that way by choice.
What up Blue, you still arguing with folks I see...lol...
Why don't you post here more? -
when your argument is basically "BC means Before Caesar and the logic is everything was secretly changed around to hide the fact that it means Before Caesar," it's still weird.
You don't think it's possible that they tyrants and elites changed the calender just like they changed 'religion'? They agenda is world ? , and they have pretty much achieved that. You think changing the calender is weird like they wouldn't do such a thing in order to benefit themselves? It's like they say, truth is stranger than fiction. Anything that is weird, you should gravitate towards it, to be honest. You know what else is weird? basing a time line off of someone that never existed. -
when your argument is basically "BC means Before Caesar and the logic is everything was secretly changed around to hide the fact that it means Before Caesar," it's still weird.
Not weird at all. Many historians have made the argument that BC means before Caesar. Remember at that particular point in time, Romans ruled, not Christians. Christians were an insignificant fringe group with no power or clout whatsoever. What are the chances that a polytheistic Nation of people at that time the most powerful the world had ever seen would mark time based on a group hardly anyone had heard of? BC designation has only been in 1500 years in the western world.
It is not like Christians have not co-opted things and used them for their own benefit.(i.e sun worship, Easter, The Cross, etc) -
what i mainly think is that it's convenient that your argument is based around "elites changed the calendar."You don't think it's possible that they tyrants and elites changed the calender just like they changed 'religion'?
so are we saying that Romans ruled when the BC/AD term was developed? in this case i am not sure why they'd "hide" that BC means before Caesar; if it's done to celebrate Caesar (whichever Caesar)... why not just outright do it and be done with it?Not weird at all. Many historians have made the argument that BC means before Caesar. Remember at that particular point in time, Romans ruled, not Christians. Christians were an insignificant fringe group with no power or clout whatsoever. What are the chances that a polytheistic Nation of people at that time the most powerful the world had ever seen would mark time based on a group hardly anyone had heard of? BC designation has only been in 1500 years in the western world.
and "many historians" have made EVERY kind of argument under the sun. -
what i mainly think is that it's convenient that your argument is based around "elites changed the calendar."
.... um ok. I don't get how you came up with that, but sure...so are we saying that Romans ruled when the BC/AD term was developed? in this case i am not sure why they'd "hide" that BC means before Caesar; if it's done to celebrate Caesar (whichever Caesar)... why not just outright do it and be done with it?
and "many historians" have made EVERY kind of argument under the sun.
That would defeat the purpose of creating the religion in the first place. BC was known as "Before Caesar" before they changed it to Before Christ around the time Constantine formulated Christianity. Why is that so hard to understand? -
You don't think it's possible that they tyrants and elites changed the calender just like they changed 'religion'? They agenda is world ? , and they have pretty much achieved that. You think changing the calender is weird like they wouldn't do such a thing in order to benefit themselves? It's like they say, truth is stranger than fiction. Anything that is weird, you should gravitate towards it, to be honest. You know what else is weird? basing a time line off of someone that never existed.
oh come, you are grasping unto straws here -
oh come, you are grasping unto straws here
No you
___________________________________________ -
[QUOTE=janklow;717270
so are we saying that Romans ruled when the BC/AD term was developed? in this case i am not sure why they'd "hide" that BC means before Caesar; if it's done to celebrate Caesar (whichever Caesar)... why not just outright do it and be done with it?
and "many historians" have made EVERY kind of argument under the sun.[/QUOTE]
The argument is not against the Romans, but against Christians who decided to co opted the terminology. -
SMH. Its like Groundhog's Day up in this piece....
Concerning the thread subject : ITS ALL GREEK TO ME. -
i suppose i am disputing that there was a "BC" concept that was changed under Constantine. that's when people started with the Anno Domini concept?BC was known as "Before Caesar" before they changed it to Before Christ around the time Constantine formulated Christianity. Why is that so hard to understand?
if it's meant to honor Caesar, what's the purpose of co-opting it and keeping the Caesar part a secret? and if it's been changed "Before Christ" and no longer refers to Caesar at all... does it really honor Caesar?The argument is not against the Romans, but against Christians who decided to co opted the terminology. -
i suppose i am disputing that there was a "BC" concept that was changed under Constantine. that's when people started with the Anno Domini concept?
if it's meant to honor Caesar, what's the purpose of co-opting it and keeping the Caesar part a secret? and if it's been changed "Before Christ" and no longer refers to Caesar at all... does it really honor Caesar?
It was meant to Honor Caesar before Christianity was formulated and then they changed it to benefit their cause. To the Public, it's Before Christ, to the elites that are in the know, they know it's really Before Caesar. That type of thing. -
oliverlang wrote: »There has been good things that came from christianity, such as foundations for the hopeless, inspiration, guidence, food for poor, housing shelters, etc...
None of these things require being affiliated to any religion LOL -
if it's meant to honor Caesar, what's the purpose of co-opting it and keeping the Caesar part a secret? and if it's been changed "Before Christ" and no longer refers to Caesar at all... does it really honor Caesar?
why would a Christian care about Caesar getting the honor, when the Roman authorities have been their enemies? Is that what your asking? I retract an earlier statement.
Coopting anything is done to weaken the movement. Co-opting is always done in a good name but there is another motive. They coopted the movement ofJesus and weakened it. They don't mind Jesus getting the credit as long as they stay in power. Sort of like when Congress opens sessions and has a religious leader open in prayer then when he is finished they tell em "Get out ? , we have some bidness to attend to".
Or the March on Washington in 63. It was originally a grass roots working class movement with an angry tone. There was a thought that people were going to tear ? up. White folks said eff that and joined the movement and all the bourgeois negroes jumped on board. The tone went from an angry protest to a love fest. The negros name was still on it but white folks ran it. Financed it and directed it.
They don't care who gets credit as long as they maintain control. Only negros want symbol without substance. A ? willn take a pay cut if the job has a title. -
let me be clear that one of the things i don't think is accurate is that they started saying "Before Christ" under ConstantineIt was meant to Honor Caesar before Christianity was formulated and then they changed it to benefit their cause.
so who is co-opting who in this? because i thought you said the Christians were co-opting it, but now it's that the Romans are co-opting it?why would a Christian care about Caesar getting the honor, when the Roman authorities have been their enemies? Is that what your asking? I retract an earlier statement. -
let me be clear that one of the things i don't think is accurate is that they started saying "Before Christ" under Constantine
so who is co-opting who in this? because i thought you said the Christians were co-opting it, but now it's that the Romans are co-opting it?
When do you think they started using that term? -
let me be clear that one of the things i don't think is accurate is that they started saying "Before Christ" under Constantine
so who is co-opting who in this? because i thought you said the Christians were co-opting it, but now it's that the Romans are co-opting it?
Yes to both. The Romans became Christians and introduced a lot of foreign concepts so they could appease the polytheistic, heathen practicing new converts. And from the best of my knowledge BC did not start until a few centuries after Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. -
at least two hundred years after Constantine diedWhen do you think they started using that term?
i suppose my thinking if that IF the Romans are now Christians (or the Romans that matter, whatever) and IF their usage of BC was mean to honor Christ (which is why it'd be packaged with the whole AD concept)... then it really DOES mean Before Christ, even if there was ever a prior usage. hey, Christmas is still very religious to people no matter what the holiday's origin is.Yes to both. The Romans became Christians and introduced a lot of foreign concepts so they could appease the polytheistic, heathen practicing new converts. -
-
oliverlang wrote: »While I don't believe in Christianity, I don't think Christanity is the problem. For instance, you have a knife that has cut apples for years and then one day someone takes the knife and kills someone. Is it the knife's fault (Christianity)? Or the murderer (slave masters)? As much as I disagree with Christianity, it wasn't created specifically for slavery. Christianity, like anything else, can be used for good or bad.
But Crhistianity came from Europeans who forced their believes on the rest of the world. -
But Crhistianity came from Europeans
This is certainly debatable, if not completely inaccurate. -
oliverlang wrote: »This is certainly debatable, if not completely inaccurate.
He actually is 100% correct.
Christianity is a European styled theology on the Teachings of Jesus. They named it, shaped it, packaged it and presented it to the world.
Prior to them there was no Christianity(which is a greek word), per se. People followed the teachings of Jesus but didn't apply a name, religious customs or traditions to it.
Even Billy Graham said he believes in the Teachings of Christ, not Christianity. -
He actually is 100% correct.
Christianity is a European styled theology on the Teachings of Jesus. They named it, shaped it, packaged it and presented it to the world.
Prior to them there was no Christianity(which is a greek word), per se. People followed the teachings of Jesus but didn't apply a name, religious customs or traditions to it.
Even Billy Graham said he believes in the Teachings of Christ, not Christianity.
Teachings of Christ is "Christianity," whatever way you want to package it. The origins of it go back to the immediate followers of Christ, which is what I was referring to and why it's debatable. Christianity was not established by Europeans with the intent to enslave Africans. -
oliverlang wrote: »Teachings of Christ is "Christianity," whatever way you want to package it. The origins of it go back to the immediate followers of Christ, which is what I was referring to and why it's debatable. Christianity was not established by Europeans with the intent to enslave Africans.
Any religion that teaches there is a mystery ? is teaching slavery. -
nusouthorigin wrote: »Any religion that teaches there is a mystery ? is teaching slavery.
Agreed...But, a Christian who previously led a life of crime and drug addiction, and has been rehabilitated by Christianity will claim they have a new found freedom with the help of this mystery ? . While I believe they could have replaced Christianity with anything (an appreciation for life, their family, their self, etc), who am I to say they are a slave? -
oliverlang wrote: »Teachings of Christ is "Christianity," whatever way you want to package it. The origins of it go back to the immediate followers of Christ, which is what I was referring to and why it's debatable. Christianity was not established by Europeans with the intent to enslave Africans.
There are eople who adhere to the teachings of Jesus who do not accept the label, teachings, or practices of Chrisitainity. It is a defacto movement started by Europeans to coopt Eastern control.
Bible-European
Christ - European
White Jesus- European
Cross - European
Easter-European
Christmas-European
