Ancient Africa, The 3 Wise Men and the Nativity of Christ

Custom Search

[Nepsis]

Yesterday was Orthodox Christmas, in honor of this, here's a section of a book written by Abuna Yesehaq (who was sent by HIM to the new world with the purpose of meeting the spiritual needs of the African diaspora) about the possible Ethiopian, Sabaen and Nubian origins of the 3 wise kings who met Christ soon after his birth:

Jesus' birth was welcomed and glorified by the shepherds. He was praised by a multitude of heavenly hosts and worshiped by the three Wise Men (Magi).

The Bible correctly recognized the Wise Men as they came from the east to worship Christ. There is no clear identity, however, as to what part of the east they came from. The Bible contains the truth and is the word of God. (Of course, it is an inspired book and a guide for man, but, as a collection of writing by men who were inspired, it needs to be interpreted for clear understanding.)

“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the King, behold wise men from the east came to Jerusalem saying, ‘Where is He who was born King of the Jews?’ for we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship Him.” (St. Matthew 2:1) They were well informed through the prophets and through the Scriptures that some great king would arise in Judea. Besides, they were moved by divine guidance. They received special direction from Heaven leading them to follow the star and to inquire at Jerusalem.

Archaeologists and historians have tried to discover the origin of the Magi. One modern write, Prof. A.V. Gutschmidt, tried to place the wise men as coming from Persian provinces but admitted that he was not quite sure. Many other commentator vaguely state that these wise men were “from the east.” Hans Holzer in his book Star of the East states that one of the magi was emperor of Ethiopia. He also named them Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar- Caspar as king of Afghanistan, Melchior as a ruler in the Near East, and Balthasar as King of Ethiopia. An article written by William Leo Hansbury and E. Harper Johnson concerning the wise men identified them as Caspar, king of Ethiopia, Melchior, king of Nubia, and Balthazar, king of Saba. There is a contradiction between Hans Holzer and these other two writers. However, Holzer, who believes the name Bazan gradually became Balthazar (Balthasar), seems closer to the truth. Aleqa Taye, an Ethiopian historian, writes, “King Bazan ruled Ethiopia for 17 years, eight years before and nine years after Christ.”

Prof. August Dillman, a philologist, in his book Royal Ethiopia lists Ethiopian rulers from the time of the queen of Sheba to the last period of King Bazan. He also states that during the eight years of the reign of Bazan, Christ was born. 

The archaeologist Littmann discovered the tomb and relics of King Bazan and his family in Axum in 1904. From this he concluded that Bazan lived in the first century A.D. The inscription on the tomb was in Sabaean. Thus the king who worshiped Christ was Bazan, emperor of Ethiopia. This was the fulfillment of the prophecy of 68:31, “Ethiopia shall soon stretch forth her hands unto God.”

Another suggestion regarding the identity of the three wise men is presented thus:

“When the line of King Menelik I of Ethiopia (Son of Queen Makeda and King Solomon) had sat upon the Throne for thirty generations, one of the Royal line, cousin to the King then reigning and a famed student of Wisdom of the Stars, by name Gazpor (in northern lands called Gaspard), beheld the shining of the strange star in the East, and on his dromedary, with his two magi brethren, Melchior and Balthazar, came to Bethlehem to find the Saviour of the World.” [P. Wheeler, The Golden Legend of Ethiopia]

From this point of view it is not impossible to believe that all three wise men had come from one jurisdiction. History also recorded that during the time Christ was born, Ethiopia was inhabited by a powerful race of warriors who had also managed to bring parts of southern Arabia and Asia under its control.

When Herod heard of the visit of the wise men, he summoned them privately and inquired diligently as to the time of the star’s appearance. His main reason was to pinpoint the age of the child. He pretended he wished for an opportunity to worship Him also, but he really wanted to kill Him. He expected the Magi to return by way of Jerusalem, but they had special directions from God to keep away from Herod.

According to Matthew’s account, the arrival of the wise men was later than the birth of Christ. It was probably after the purification, which took place forty days after His birth. The flight into Egypt took place soon after the Magi’s departure, and the purification also took place before the flight into Egypt.

It has been suggested by most writers that Caspar brought gold, Melchior brought frankincense, and Balthazar’s gift was myrrh. Why should the king of Ethiopia bring a gift of myrrh to Christ when he could without any problem bring gold unless there may have been an arrangement as to what gift each should bring for the occasion? It was traditional for Ethiopian emperors to send gold with their gifts. When the queen of Sheba visited Solomon, she took gold along with other gifts with her to Palestine. It is also possible that all three gifts had come from the jurisdiction of Ethiopia, since Ethiopia dominated several countries at that time, including Nubia and South Arabia. Therefore, in this regard, Hansbury and Harper Johnson also may be right.

From The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church: "The Wise Men and the Nativity of Christ" p. 9-11]

Blessed Nativity
+

[Oskar]

blessed christmas

[Knowledge]

Complete Nonsense

[JAHwalkwidme]

Knowledge, I overstand where the I is coming from.  But I must say, it looks like you think you know everything or that you feel intellectually superior to others here.  Everything you read/hear/see should be examined and thought upon, even if it sounds like nonsense.  Your ears must be open or you will not learn. I know that many truths of the universe sound like nonsense to some people, so don't have such confidence that your mindset is Iducive to the learning the I must go through at this time. There may be shackles on the I's mind that the I has not yet recognised.

Blessed love and guidance

[Nepsis]

The information that Abuna Yesehaq of blessed memory felt was worthwhile to put forth in his book is freely given, no compulsion to accept any part of it for Orthodox much less the general public who may stumble upon it one way or another.  That should be clear by Abuna's tone, especially as he consciously sites multiple viewpoints that don't necessarily harmonize.  If it's worthless to Knowledge then it's worthless to Knowledge. 

Knowledge, am I wrong to site that you have no use at all for anything coming from the Christian Orthodox Catholic tradition?  For you it's a discredited and useless tradition, no?  Am I incorrect to say you see the forwarding of our community's traditions and accompanying ideas, beliefs, practices as nothing but negative?

[Knowledge]

Knowledge, I overstand where the I is coming from.  But I must say, it looks like you think you know everything or that you feel intellectually superior to others here.  Everything you read/hear/see should be examined and thought upon, even if it sounds like nonsense.  Your ears must be open or you will not learn. I know that many truths of the universe sound like nonsense to some people, so don't have such confidence that your mindset is Iducive to the learning the I must go through at this time. There may be shackles on the I's mind that the I has not yet recognised.

Blessed love and guidance

J-W-M.

If as you say, you Over-stand (as opposed to under-stand) where I'm coming from, then how come you are making such assertions about I? To be fair (which I am) you do state that "it looks like" So if it's that, i.e. you are enquiring about what I have written, then in response, I will say, I know, what I know, I don't profess to know everything and as I have said many times, I like to write food for thought. Please be aware, that a lot of the information that some people swear by, is purely misinformation, untruths and lies, all tools of control.

All I am doing is asking the question, and based upon my teaching (and experience from the elders round my corner) it's fair to say that we have grown up with, let's just say a different set of knowledge (pardon the pun)  So no! I am not trying to be condescending, rather I am trying to find others who know certain things.

One Love - still 
Posted on: March 25, 2012, 11:35:32 AM

The information that Abuna Yesehaq of blessed memory felt was worthwhile to put forth in his book is freely given, no compulsion to accept any part of it for Orthodox much less the general public who may stumble upon it one way or another.  That should be clear by Abuna's tone, especially as he consciously sites multiple viewpoints that don't necessarily harmonize.  If it's worthless to Knowledge then it's worthless to Knowledge. 

Knowledge, am I wrong to site that you have no use at all for anything coming from the Christian Orthodox Catholic tradition?  For you it's a discredited and useless tradition, no?  Am I incorrect to say you see the forwarding of our community's traditions and accompanying ideas, beliefs, practices as nothing but negative?

In answer to your the first part of your question; Nepsis.

Yes, you are wrong to site that I have no use at all for anything from the Christian Orthodox Catholic Tradition. As there is indeed a use for everything, indeed the adage referring to trees, fruit and due season, springs to mind. 

In answer to the second part of your question; Whether it’s a discredited and useless tradition.               
I would respond by saying; if you sincerely believe in this tradition, or any tradition, then so be it. I would not seek to change you from your affinity, only you alone can do that. However, if we are talking about opinions, beliefs, or affinities based on facts then I think you have answered your own question.  But just to be clear, I assert that the Orthodox Catholicism you refer to, and the (Ancient African) tradition from whence the very concept of Religion originates, are two very different things.

In answer to the final part of your question, regarding beliefs, practices and ideas and whether I find them to be negative.
I see the whole concept of religion as practised within the system, by the system, to be based on negativity and suppression of the masses.
The whole premise upon which the idea, belief and faith is based upon is false. For instance just look at glaring clues contained within the Holy Bible aka Helios Biblios the book of Sun Worship. Indeed my statement of nonsense is referring to the lies contained therein for instance lets look at
Jesus; It's worth noting that the original name of the historical (i.e. Real) African person, was not Jesus or Iesous,(Isus) but Y'shua. The substitute name can be traced back to the Latin Iesus and the Greek Iesous. Which incidentally was when systematic takeover by “them” began in earnest. 

As according to the gospels, the genealogical line linking Jesus and King David seems to pass through Jesus’ father. But since Jesus was the product of a virgin conception, then he does not share in his father’s Davidic ancestry does he?  How then is Jesus a descendent of David?

Matthew says that his grandfather was Jacob, but when one reads Luke, he says it was Heli. Matthew also declares that Jesus was separated from King David by only twenty-eight generations, but Luke’s list shows a forty-three generation separation. What does this contradiction mean? Who was Jesus’ paternal grandfather?

I am not going to rehash what I have already written on many occasions on this site. However, the church-ification of how we are supposed to live, is only but one aspect of the systematic way we are kept under control by the system. So whether you are Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic, doesn’t really make a big difference to I, as both traditions are built upon mistruth and misconception. Indeed as the author mysteriously states; Are ye not as Children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. (Amos Ch9 V7.)
 

[Nepsis]

Knowledge,
Thanks.

My faith is what it is.  Among people, there is mostly resistance these days for orthodox faith.  Now I realize that the movement of opposition against orthodoxy has some level of apprecilovication at the same time.  The easy way out would be to not have to respond to hatred, and move on with my very complicated life.  But it is not available for I to be completely hated, and not shun or be shunned.

There are multiple answers to the apparent contradiction in the geneologies of the character who is called Y'Shua, Isa, Christ, Jesus, Yesus, Iesous, Kristos, Messiah or whatever is the man's proper name wherever you are.  The Character was related to David in more than one way.  If each geneology is true, and they do not jive on the surface, then it takes more effort to put it all in proper perspective.  The purpose of the authors of those passages of both gospel books were to show the Davidic lineage by the hebrew law.  After reading  the various early sources, I am satisfied that both authors achieved their purpose within the information and sources they had available to them, and I think the authors didn't draw upon the same sources.  The "Protoevangelion of James" is very interesting to me because it represents in the 2nd century what was orally forwarded by James, the bishop of Jerusalem and relative of the Lord by law, a witness to the Theotokos and not a Greek, Egyptian or Syrian affinity.   Not that there's anything wrong with Greeks, Egyptians and Syrians.

Jesus is a descendant of David by the law.  And by blood through his mother.  But also in spirit by his own spirit as creator and son of the Father.  His paternal grandfather, whether one wants to argue (according to the law) was Heli or Jacob, who both had the same wife only guards his legitimacy via the law, which he both fulfills and discards paradoxically he's technically above the law being the source of the law but still not disrespectful of the law  when he enters into history as a man and is subject to it (it is his law).  The whole purpose of the law was to reveal the Theotokos, and in Ethiopia a unique tradition related to her is that she ultimately fulfills the prophecy that "Ethiopia shall raise her hands to God".  For this reason the Theotokos is identified by Ethiopians as the Eternal Queen of the Nation of Ethiopians.  Jesus and Mary are important fulfillments of prophecies from both the young nation of Israel and the old nation of Ethiopia, and there is no reason to pit the old and the new against each other in my view.  It's the same Lord Jah.

[Knowledge]

Nepsis

I have read your response and I have noted your comments and points, as I have stated previously, I am not out to turn you from your
faith, Why would I? That’s not my purpose and its certainly not my intention. However, turning to the points you make in your response, I feel there are some points, that I need to address.

You state about there being a “movement of opposition against Orthodoxy,” Well I can assure you that I am not a part of any such movement. Further to that I take issue with your reference to having to “respond to hatred” as it implies that you take me as someone who is peddling hatred and stopping you from getting on with your very complicated life.  Which I can assure you I am not. If you feel that you have to respond to something I have submitted. Fair enough, but let’s keep it real.

Now moving on to you other points;
You state that “There are multiple answers to the apparent contradiction in the geneologies of the character who is called Y'Shua, Isa, Christ, Jesus, Yesus, Iesous, Kristos, Messiah or whatever is the man's proper name wherever you are.” I find that to be a disingenuous answer as I made it very clear in my previous post, that the correct name of the historical African person that the Jesus legend is based upon, was Y’shua and that Jesus Christ, Isos Kristos etc is Greek inspired. Which is the truth, but yet you respond to that fact by completely ignoring it and instead giving me a narrative that doesn’t stand upto real scrutiny.
 
You then state that  "The Character was related to David in more than one way.  If each geneology is true, and they do not jive on the surface, then it takes more effort to put it all in proper perspective.  The purpose of the authors of those passages of both gospel books were to show the Davidic lineage by the hebrew law." 
However, your response doesn’t really  merit a meaningful reply, but as there those who actually believe this type of assertion, I will respond by remarking that it seems funny to I, that Selassie I can trace his lineage back to David without any of the immaculate twists or turns that is referred to within the book.

After reading the various early sources, I am satisfied that both authors achieved their purpose within the information and sources they had available to them, and I think the authors didn't draw upon the same sources.  The "Protoevangelion of James" is very interesting to me because it represents in the 2nd century what was orally forwarded by James, the bishop of Jerusalem and relative of the Lord by law, a witness to the Theotokos and not a Greek, Egyptian or Syrian affinity.   Not that there's anything wrong with Greeks, Egyptians and Syrians.
Well you would have to say that as they are the main contributors to the Orthodox–ism which you live by.
 
"Jesus is a descendant of David by the law.  And by blood through his mother.  But also in spirit by his own spirit as creator and son of the Father."
You are talking nonsense. What you written here might turn a lesser mind fool, but please! I would welcome it if you could actually articulate what you actually mean by this, as it doesn’t make any sense at all.   


"His paternal grandfather, whether one wants to argue (according to the law) was Heli or Jacob, who both had the same wife only guards his legitimacy via the law, which he both fulfills and discards paradoxically he's technically above the law being the source of the law but still not disrespectful of the law  when he enters into history as a man and is subject to it (it is his law)."
In respect of this, where do you get this nonsense from? This is complete gibberish. So that I am on the right page, are you telling I man. that Heli and Jacob were married to the same woman? If you are, then how does that work? (I will wait for your explanation before I go running to verify)     

"The whole purpose of the law was to reveal the Theotokos, and in Ethiopia a unique tradition related to her is that she ultimately fulfills the prophecy that "Ethiopia shall raise her hands to God"." 
In your own words please explain exactly what do you mean by your reference to the prophecy that, "Ethiopia shall raise her hands to God".   

"For this reason the Theotokos is identified by Ethiopians as the Eternal Queen of the Nation of Ethiopians.  Jesus and Mary are important fulfillments of prophecies from both the young nation of Israel and the old nation of Ethiopia, and there is no reason to pit the old and the new against each other in my view.  It's the same Lord Jah."

Your reference to Theotokos is a reference to your Catholic Orthodoxy which as I stated before I am not out to change. Rather, I am just stating that if we are dealing with reality, then the Orthodox tradition, to which you adhere, has to be scrutinised without spectacles or any other lenses of confusion, so that people can Overstand for themselves. I note that all though you make your vague references, you don’t supply any real evidence or facts to support your assertion? If as you say, “fulfillments of prophecies from both the young nation of Israel and the old nation of Ethiopia, and there is no reason to pit the old and the new against each other in my view.“ 
Then taking into account the following quote. ‘Are ye not as Children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel?’ saith the Lord. (Amos Ch9 V7.) Then where is the Ethiopian historical version of events? Please note that I am referring to the authentic Nubian/Kushite History. I am not talking about the contrived Greco-Roman version of events. 
 
.   

Posted on: April 01, 2012, 01:30:05 PMNepsis

As you said, your faith is what it is. Which is fair enough, but the thing about faith (the placing of one's trust into that what is not known) is simply that, FAITH.  Where we are, we actually seek for KNOWLEDGE, (both Exoteric and Esoteric) we seek to feel it, we seek to know it, we don't just leave it to faith i.e. that what is not known.
Don't get me wrong, there is indeed a limit to that what can be known or revealed, however, we find out that limit (to the truth) by knowing it and not simply by relying on FAITH alone, as it the case with the many who rely solely on the revisionist accounts of the truth which they have been spoon-fed with, from the get go.

It was considered that would be useful to add this clarification to my previous response.

Peace. 

[Oskar]

i wouldn't say the name is that important, it's the teachings that is of matter. same way that a blood relative don't do anything it's following the teachings that matter. being greek, egyptian or syrian don't say anything about the quality of orthodox-ism or the lack thereof.

hold your faith, the lord god is one. only pitiful humans run division between faiths thinking they know more than most high god. remember what happened to the tower of babel when the people tried to make a mark of their greatness.

indeed it is good to seek to know that what is not known as far as possible yet remember that pretending to know that which is not known or impossible to know is arrogance and foolishness.

give thanks for selassie, give thanks for christ and give thanks for all the people who carry the humble majesty of the teachings.

[Knowledge]

i wouldn't say the name is that important, it's the teachings that is of matter. same way that a blood relative don't do anything it's following the teachings that matter. being greek, egyptian or syrian don't say anything about the quality of orthodox-ism or the lack thereof.

hold your faith, the lord god is one. only pitiful humans run division between faiths thinking they know more than most high god. remember what happened to the tower of babel when the people tried to make a mark of their greatness.

indeed it is good to seek to know that what is not known as far as possible yet remember that pretending to know that which is not known or impossible to know is arrogance and foolishness.

give thanks for selassie, give thanks for christ and give thanks for all the people who carry the humble majesty of the teachings.

Further to the response above, I would like to point out that what is important, is the truth.
Regardless of the opinions that are submitted indicating the contrary, the truth is the truth. Never mind the issues of quality, any teaching that stems from a lie in the first instant, surely cannot be considered to be the truth. Can it?
Hence, whether it’s Greek, Egyptian or Syrian, if it does not stem from the true origin then how can it be considered valid?

In terms of the next paragraph I would respond by saying I am at a loss as to what point is being made here. Although I do note, with a degree of bemusement, that the examples referred to within the paragraph are just expressed opinions and not anything definitive. 
As for the snide comment regarding pretending to know, I would respond by saying "We know what we know, No-thing more, nor No-thing less." 

In respect of closing line; Yeah it’s alright you writing “give thanks for Selassie I” (or as you write it selassie) etc, But give thanks to whom or what?  Indeed, this sounds arrogant, a bit like pretending to know that which is not known.  Then again maybe it’s just me 

[Oskar]

there is no contention so don't bring it. the point and the truth is that the origin is from the most high. that is what i give thanks for, not that one location is worth any more than the next. love and goodwill towards all people no matter where they are.

[Nepsis]

Nepsis

I have read your response and I have noted your comments and points, as I have stated previously, I am not out to turn you from your
faith, Why would I?

I don't know everything about you, but it might be hobby or something.

You state about there being a “movement of opposition against Orthodoxy,” Well I can assure you that I am not a part of any such movement. Further to that I take issue with your reference to having to “respond to hatred” as it implies that you take me as someone who is peddling hatred and stopping you from getting on with your very complicated life.  Which I can assure you I am not. If you feel that you have to respond to something I have submitted. Fair enough, but let’s keep it real.

No I don't think you peddle hatred and you can't stop my life! 

Now moving on to you other points;
You state that “There are multiple answers to the apparent contradiction in the geneologies of the character who is called Y'Shua, Isa, Christ, Jesus, Yesus, Iesous, Kristos, Messiah or whatever is the man's proper name wherever you are.” I find that to be a disingenuous answer as I made it very clear in my previous post, that the correct name of the historical African person that the Jesus legend is based upon, was Y’shua and that Jesus Christ, Isos Kristos etc is Greek inspired. Which is the truth, but yet you respond to that fact by completely ignoring it and instead giving me a narrative that doesn’t stand upto real scrutiny.

I don't care if different regions and peoples have different name variants.  You're welcome to care about that, but I do not.  I don't take issue with you wanting to use the "Y'shua" word.  It is beautiful.

However, your response doesn’t really  merit a meaningful reply, but as there those who actually believe this type of assertion, I will respond by remarking that it seems funny to I, that Selassie I can trace his lineage back to David without any of the immaculate twists or turns that is referred to within the book.

If you're going to reply, and call yourself out for being meaningless, who am I to argue with that bro?

After reading the various early sources, I am satisfied that both authors achieved their purpose within the information and sources they had available to them, and I think the authors didn't draw upon the same sources.  The "Protoevangelion of James" is very interesting to me because it represents in the 2nd century what was orally forwarded by James, the bishop of Jerusalem and relative of the Lord by law, a witness to the Theotokos and not a Greek, Egyptian or Syrian affinity.   Not that there's anything wrong with Greeks, Egyptians and Syrians.
Well you would have to say that as they are the main contributors to the Orthodox–ism which you live by.

There is a wide variety of thought, action, and history with each of the people above.  They have their virtues and their imperfections.  I'm happy to learn from Greeks, Egyptians and Syrians, as I'm happy to learn from all people of the World past and present.  This is actually an attitude I find among Rastas that I apprecilove. 

"Jesus is a descendant of David by the law.  And by blood through his mother.  But also in spirit by his own spirit as creator and son of the Father."

You are talking nonsense. What you written here might turn a lesser mind fool, but please! I would welcome it if you could actually articulate what you actually mean by this, as it doesn’t make any sense at all.   

I refer to the law of Moses by which the gospel authors attempted to show Isa's lineage from David.  And as Logos, the author of all things, Isa is Christ as he takes on the human nature he created in the first place.  So he is related to David as originator and progeny.  The Christ follows his own law.  He is free.  That's the point.  It is beyond human understanding, which might be why it doesn't make sense to you. 

"His paternal grandfather, whether one wants to argue (according to the law) was Heli or Jacob, who both had the same wife only guards his legitimacy via the law, which he both fulfills and discards paradoxically he's technically above the law being the source of the law but still not disrespectful of the law  when he enters into history as a man and is subject to it (it is his law)."
In respect of this, where do you get this nonsense from? This is complete gibberish. So that I am on the right page, are you telling I man. that Heli and Jacob were married to the same woman? If you are, then how does that work? (I will wait for your explanation before I go running to verify)     

Yes, one explanation forwarded about Heli and Jacob was that they married the same woman.  One died, the next one married his widow.

"The whole purpose of the law was to reveal the Theotokos, and in Ethiopia a unique tradition related to her is that she ultimately fulfills the prophecy that "Ethiopia shall raise her hands to God"." 
In your own words please explain exactly what do you mean by your reference to the prophecy that, "Ethiopia shall raise her hands to God".   

"For this reason the Theotokos is identified by Ethiopians as the Eternal Queen of the Nation of Ethiopians.  Jesus and Mary are important fulfillments of prophecies from both the young nation of Israel and the old nation of Ethiopia, and there is no reason to pit the old and the new against each other in my view.  It's the same Lord Jah."

Your reference to Theotokos is a reference to your Catholic Orthodoxy which as I stated before I am not out to change. Rather, I am just stating that if we are dealing with reality, then the Orthodox tradition, to which you adhere, has to be scrutinised without spectacles or any other lenses of confusion, so that people can Overstand for themselves. I note that all though you make your vague references, you don’t supply any real evidence or facts to support your assertion? If as you say, “fulfillments of prophecies from both the young nation of Israel and the old nation of Ethiopia, and there is no reason to pit the old and the new against each other in my view.“ 
Then taking into account the following quote. ‘Are ye not as Children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel?’ saith the Lord. (Amos Ch9 V7.) Then where is the Ethiopian historical version of events? Please note that I am referring to the authentic Nubian/Kushite History. I am not talking about the contrived Greco-Roman version of events. 

You might look into this site for that: http://ethkogserv.org

   

Posted on: April 01, 2012, 01:30:05 PMNepsis

As you said, your faith is what it is. Which is fair enough, but the thing about faith (the placing of one's trust into that what is not known) is simply that, FAITH.  Where we are, we actually seek for KNOWLEDGE, (both Exoteric and Esoteric) we seek to feel it, we seek to know it, we don't just leave it to faith i.e. that what is not known.
Don't get me wrong, there is indeed a limit to that what can be known or revealed, however, we find out that limit (to the truth) by knowing it and not simply by relying on FAITH alone, as it the case with the many who rely solely on the revisionist accounts of the truth which they have been spoon-fed with, from the get go.

It was considered that would be useful to add this clarification to my previous response.

Peace. 

My understanding of faith is that it is necessary for one who is lost or blind to be able to see.  But faith is not an end in itself and is just the beginning on the path to knowledge.  Knowledge comes after faith, as faith must be verified through experience.  Experience ultimately teaches though.

The traditions passed through history by written text and word of mouth only provide a framework, but knowledge of their underlying truth is up to the person who puts them into practice, seeks their deeper meaning, and makes it real within their own spiritual life.  This is why I don't get hung up on things like apparent contradictions in geneologies.  There is always more than meets the eye is what I've come to learn.  For example, there are interpretations of the geneologies that are ancient and show how they reflect sacred geomotry/numerology.  The reality is that as we grow spiritually, in self knowledge partaking in divine nature, and these texts, along with things we contemplate in nature, continue to reveal new layers of meaning and truth.  Truth is not a duality.  I hope I'm making some sense to you.

Peace back

[Knowledge]

Nepsis I have posted my response to the points you have raised (in italics), my answers are in bold,


I don't know everything about you, but it might be hobby or something.
As I already told you I am not out to turn you from your belief and I can also assure you that this not a hobby of mine.   

No I don't think you peddle hatred and you can't stop my life!
In light of my previous response, why would you think that I want to stop your life? 
 

I don't care if different regions and peoples have different name variants.  You're welcome to care about that, but I do not.  I don't take issue with you wanting to use the "Y'shua" word.  It is beautiful.
You have lost I, what is the point you are trying to make? The fact that you concede that different regions and peoples have  different name variants, only serves to amplify the point I was making. I stated that  the correct name of the historical African person that the Jesus legend is based upon, was Y’shua and that Jesus Christ, Isos Kristos etc is Greek inspired. You have not responded with anything to suggest that I have written is an untruth.
Quote
However, your response doesn’t really  merit a meaningful reply, but as there those who actually believe this type of assertion, I will respond by remarking that it seems funny to I, that Selassie I can trace his lineage back to David without any of the immaculate twists or turns that is referred to within the book.

If you're going to reply, and call yourself out for being meaningless, who am I to argue with that bro?   
Again I do not overstand the point you are trying to make, and I also note that; in regard to what I wrote, you have completely ducked the issue with your facetious one liner.
Quote
There is a wide variety of thought, action, and history with each of the people above.  They have their virtues and their imperfections.  I'm happy to learn from Greeks, Egyptians and Syrians, as I'm happy to learn from all people of the World past and present.  This is actually an attitude I find among Rastas that I apprecilove.   
Yo Nepsis, I completely overstand that you are going to make this kind of statement, you have to! Indeed I would be very surprised if you didn’t. However, the teachings you are immersing yourself in, is exactly the type of lessons that have served to build this system, this Babylon that surrounds. Of course I am aware that in order to Overstand the effect one must be aware of the causes, but there is a distinct difference in between aware of causes and being indoctrinated to the point that their doctrine and dogma actually controls you.   

Quote
I refer to the law of Moses by which the gospel authors attempted to show Isa's lineage from David.  And as Logos, the author of all things, Isa is Christ as he takes on the human nature he created in the first place.  So he is related to David as originator and progeny.  The Christ follows his own law.  He is free.  That's the point.  It is beyond human understanding, which might be why it doesn't make sense to you.
In responding to this reply, I would point out that the biblical Moses that you are referring to, is not the actual historical person that the story is based upon. You also say that Christ created the human nature. I was under the impression that it was the creator (who is referred to by the biblical Christ character, as My Father in heaven) who created Man (Male and Female).  However not wanting to be side tracked, How can Jesus be related to David when Jesus (as according to you) has no earthly father?  If, as you state, It is beyond human understanding, then how on earth do you know about it and how does that observation tie in your comments regarding Christ taking on human nature? 

Quote
Yes, one explanation forwarded about Heli and Jacob was that they married the same woman.  One died, the next one married his widow.
If as I assume, we are talking about biological relationships, then notwithstanding my previous point. The question that I am asking you, is which one of them is supposed to be his biological grandparent? Also I am wondering as to why the gospel authors in attempting to show the lineage of Christ, chose not to explain all these issues? [/b]

Quote
You might look into this site for that: http://ethkogserv.org
I could look for the answers in the site you have provided, but as I was asking you for an answer I find your reply to be simply a disingenuous attempt to evade the question.



 
My understanding of faith is that it is necessary for one who is lost or blind to be able to see.  But faith is not an end in itself and is just the beginning on the path to knowledge.  Knowledge comes after faith, as faith must be verified through experience.  Experience ultimately teaches though.

The traditions passed through history by written text and word of mouth only provide a framework, but knowledge of their underlying truth is up to the person who puts them into practice, seeks their deeper meaning, and makes it real within their own spiritual life.  This is why I don't get hung up on things like apparent contradictions in geneologies.  There is always more than meets the eye is what I've come to learn.  For example, there are interpretations of the geneologies that are ancient and show how they reflect sacred geomotry/numerology.  The reality is that as we grow spiritually, in self knowledge partaking in divine nature, and these texts, along with things we contemplate in nature, continue to reveal new layers of meaning and truth.  Truth is not a duality.  I hope I'm making some sense to you.

Peace back

Further to your understanding of faith; as I have stated previously, I see Faith as the process of putting your trust into something you don’t know. Therefore what you have said in terms of the lost and blind is what is to be expected from someone who adheres to the doctrine of faith.

The traditions that are passed on in terms of Religion and such, are is propaganda that has been seared into the psyche of the masses by way of torture and brutality not to mention the subverting
Of the truth and the real meanings. Therefore rather than being hung up on mis interpretations of geneaolgy and other such matters, The texts you refer to are merely the written doctrine  of some Men.
I come am from those who seek for the truth, and in order to do that, one needs to know!!

Of course truth is not a duality, how can it be?  There is indeed only one truth i.e. that which cannot be distorted or denied, which in itself presents a factual account of those things that have preceded us.  The only hidden truths and meanings are those that have been deliberately hidden by the system.

[Oskar]

what are you doing arguing about genealogies when christ himself teaches that whoever does the will of most high god is his mother and brother and relative.

[Knowledge]

what are you doing arguing about genealogies when christ himself teaches that whoever does the will of most high god is his mother and brother and relative.

I am not arguing over genealogy, I am merely expressing a VALID point. However, Further to the point you make above referring to Christ, why don't you elaborate further!!

In response to the point you have made, I seem to recall the following teaching from within the book of Luke 14.26
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." So you in light of my recollection I look forward to a similar response from you in relation to your subjective assertion, i.e. Chapter and verse..


As I notice that a fundamental difference between you and I, is that, unlike you I don't hint, I'll just come up with the information or evidence to furnish the points I am making.  Seen??