Rasta Nicks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

No news is good news!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic: MessiaTafari MysTafari  (Read 6451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

christandselassie

  • BETA ISRAYL 4 LIFE!
  • New User
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • RASTAFARI!!!
MessiaTafari MysTafari
« on: April 02, 2013, 03:19:07 PM »

Hey guys.  I Man wanna talk about a new concept called MessiaTafari MysTafari.  It's definition is defined by the etymology of the words Messiah-Tafari and Mystical-Tafari; combining the Messianic with the Mystical.  It's nothing new really; it's a restoration of the gap between the Mystical and the Apocalyptical/Messianical (just making new words as to free Iself from Babylon).  It contains beliefs from the Twelve Tribes of Israel mansion (the belief that Christ is Messiah and HIM Haile Selassie I is a just a great King); it contains some concepts from the Buddhist religion (though ya guys can freely choose to accept Buddhism or not); it's also Progressive.  In other words, we listen to others and try to see if there's any way to challenge Iselves to find the truth of all things, ya know?
Logged
3 - 6 - 9
Birth, Middle Age, Death
Mind, Body, Spirit
Father, Son, Holy Ghost
Things come in three(s)

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2013, 02:07:29 PM »

if the i believe christ is the messiah i would say that would make the i a christian. i'm not a one to condemn peoples faith as there probably is as many paths to the almighty as there are people.

i think it is clear though that the root of christianity is christ, the root of buddhism is buddha and the root of rasta is him haile selassie the first jah rastafari.

i don't see any gap in rastafari. him is a timely manifestation that can not be replaced. the i can go study buddhism and see that him haile i is the compassionate one. buddha is teaching of him. christ is teaching of him.

if the i don't study deeply enough the i may miss tafari and the totality of him.
Logged

christandselassie

  • BETA ISRAYL 4 LIFE!
  • New User
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • RASTAFARI!!!
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2013, 08:18:16 PM »

@Oskar

InI overstand your views, man.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 08:19:33 PM by christandselassie »
Logged
3 - 6 - 9
Birth, Middle Age, Death
Mind, Body, Spirit
Father, Son, Holy Ghost
Things come in three(s)

Knowledge

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2013, 01:55:04 PM »

@christandselassie: If you feel that Christ is the messiah, then I concur  with the conclusion that has been made, i.e."that would make the I a christian." However, I do not share the suggestion that was then made, i.e. the root of rasta is him hailie selassie the first jah rastafari. Jah Rastafari is synonymous with the term The Godheadcreator, seen! So for one to state that Selassie I is the first jah rastafari is something of a misnomer (or oxymoron) insofar as Creation (which is allegedly billions of years old) was created by the Godheadcreator, (Jah Rastafari) so if we accept that The Creator is the first JahRastafari, then how does that fit in with the assertion made about H.I.M. Selassie I (who was born 1892?) as the first Jah Rastafari? This assertion implies there is more than one Jah Rastafari which is certainly not the case.

As for the notion that christ is the messiah, Really??
Logged

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2013, 01:59:14 AM »

it is haile selassie the first. i don't know where the i get that punctuation there. jah rastafari.
Logged

Knowledge

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2013, 05:13:37 PM »

Well most of the rasta if not all the rasta in Jamaica the Carribean, England, Europe and the USA who I know, refer to H.I.M. as Selassie I (the first) if you're saying that you dont hear a Ras reply to the greeting of Rastafari with Selassie I or reply to the utterance of "Selassie I" with "Rastafari or His majesty etc", then I honestly don't know which Rasta you ah deal with!!.. In fact I would be moved to ask a which part you deh, that you don't know the term? About you don't know where I get puntucation from!!..
When I say Selassie I, the I is an important part of the term, we can and do say Selassie, but with the acknowledgement (Respect) we have, we always say Selassie I. I remember inna 79 when I hail up Bob Marley inna England and say "Rastafari," to him, his reply to I was "Selassie I," so a long time we ah hail H.I.M. up that way. Seen!!

I don't know if it is just pure argument de I ah seek, but considering this issue is placed with the Selassie I reasoning section and the original poster actually makes the same reference in his posting, it makes one wonder!!

I hope that some of the ras who might read this, will inform this person about the term Selassie I.  
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 05:19:36 PM by Knowledge »
Logged

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2013, 02:42:14 AM »

i ain't responding to no greeting, a reasoning we a deal with. selassie the first will always be selassie the first.
Posted on: April 08, 2013, 09:51:29 PM
him haile selassie being in creation (born as a child in 1892 to grow into a man and emperor) don't mean he wasn't there before at the earliest of early at the beginning of time.

rasta claim the name as they recognize him. without him there would be no rasta. hence i say the root of rasta is him haile selassie the first.
Logged

Knowledge

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2013, 08:34:08 AM »

As I said Selassie I is the name of the man who we hail.
Further to the response you have made to I, instead of making a little one line statement, and called that a reasoning, why don't you elaborate pon your assertion as what you say isn't a valid explanation.
Logged

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2013, 02:37:07 PM »

i was saying that him haile selassie the first is the root (and core) of rasta. then the i come saying that 'for one to state that selassie i is the first jah rastafari is something of a misnomer'. i agree with that statement. yet the i bring it as if it was something i said or as an excuse to call it reasoning.

after i clarified the i mistake in punctuation the i come with how 'selassie i' is a greeting when what we were talking about was him haile i being the root of rasta. this time accusing i for seeking an argument and that i don't know about his majesty when the i is only further detracting from the real topic of the reasoning that him haile selassie the first is the root of rasta.

then after i clarify that it was not a greeting that we were talking about i further gave an explanation that is not easy to understand for someone not recognizing a spiritual aspect. an explanation in regard to the i questioning the unity of him haile selassie the first with the godheadcreator on the basis of him year of birth 1892.

when i said its a reasoning we are dealing with i was not referring to the one line of 6 words only, i was referring to the whole of the reasoning and to what the relation of what we say have to do with it.
Logged

Knowledge

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2013, 02:35:58 PM »

You state that Hailie Selassie is the root (and core of rasta,) which may well be true on a superficial level but not necessarily correct, as we already know that the root of Rasta is the Creator Jah Rastafari (Godhead Creator). You state that you clarified a mistake that I made with the punctuation, really? I don’t share your assertion, as I did not make any mistake in terms of what I wrote, and more to the point it, was I who gave you clarification. Indeed it would seem that my explanation has passed over you, I said the term “Selassie I” is used to acknowledge Jah Rastafari and vice versa, by Rastafarians the world over, so for you to state differently is very strange indeed. Maybe you just don’t overstand how the “I” is used as a term within Rasta. Indeed I just had to smile when you claim I accused you of seeking an argument, as I actually wrote
"I don't know if it is just pure argument de I ah seek," which cannot be said to be an accusation, can it? But in light of your jumbled response it does make one indeed wonder? Especially as you go on to accuse I of “detracting from the real topic of the reasoning.”  Which I find very strange, given that in your response you actually write that you” agreed with my statement!!”

You then go onto claim that you clarified that it was not a greeting you was going on about, you gave an explanation, where you state is "not easy to understand for someone not recognizing a spiritual aspect".  Well first of all what explanation was that? Because if you believe that the following two lines which you wrote actually represent an explanation then you best give it up.
him haile selassie being in creation (born as a child in 1892 to grow into a man and emperor) don't mean he wasn't there before at the earliest of early at the beginning of time.”
Yes H.I.M. born in creation from a mother and father (not a holy spirit)
 Which is different to the biblical Jesus who you ah hail, If Selassie I was born in 1892, then maybe you can explain how him was present before the beginning of time, How do you know that?

You then go on to claim that
rasta claim the name as they recognize him. without him there would be no rasta. hence i say the root of rasta is him haile selassie the first”

Again I would reply by saying that what you are stating is your belief, nothing factual, just your own assertion, which is fair enough, but again I would state that your assumption is wrong, or at best misleading, as many others would tell you that the term Rasta is derived from the term Jah Rastafari (Godhead Creator) and not Selassie I, which is actually the ceremonial name which was adopted by ‘Negus’ Tafari when he was crowned Emperor and which is widely accepted as meaning “the might of the trinity.”  Yeah it helps a lot, if one deals with just the truth and rights, and not seek to rely upon wild misinterpretation when one is trying to make a point, or should I say a valid point, seen!

So when you refer to the difficulty one may have, “due to (as you put it) a lack of recognition of the spiritual aspect”. It would be edifying to all, if you made yourself clear and actually said what you mean.  



« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 02:47:58 PM by Knowledge »
Logged

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2013, 06:18:38 PM »

what i said was and is that haile selassie the first is the root of rasta, to which the i said the i don't share that suggestion on the basis of there not being more than one jah rastafari. i never claimed there was more than one yet the i use this as a foundation to disagree. pure 'strawman' argument if there ever was one.

rastafari and haile selassie i and haile selassie the first is one and the same person whose unity with jah (godhead creator) i acknowledge is a matter of i faith and not something i can prove to anyone. it's a matter of personal revelation and if the i can't see it surely the i can't honestly claim to be and hail rastafari.

to recognize jesus is not something that is in conflict with or detract from hailing his majesty, which i do. love and unity is the teaching. anyone try to drive a splinter through it only show their grudge and opposition to the love that they both teach.
Logged

Knowledge

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2013, 11:48:29 AM »

You make your response by writing lies, as I certainly did not state as you claim that I did not share that suggestion because of there not being more than one Jah Rastafari. A straw man argument is when one resorts to placing a hypothetical person or situation in to the conversation in order to try and make a point that could not be made based on facts (i.e. the truth). Which is precisely what you have attempted to do (yet again) in the absence of a coherent explanation.
As you readily concede your argument is based on your faith, which I will reiterate again is fair enough, you’re entitled to your belief and you are allowed to express them, but don’t be asserting them as truth or facts, because they are certainly not. They are merely your own misinformed take on what you perceive to be the way things are, which incidentally you cannot even explain in a coherent or intelligent way.
Interesting enough the reference you make to Selassie I is factually incorrect as it is Jah Rastafari whom we acknowledge , Selassie I is a manifestation of the higher principle and was assumed as a mantle by Negus Tafari upon his coronation.
As for Jesus, you make you points based upon your blinkered faith, whilst entirely evading the facts, i.e. Natural Born Man = Selassie I, and Yeshua, whilst fictitious person resides in the book and is allegedly the only “virgin birth”.  Whereas you might want to accuse me of driving a wedge through your make belief misunderstanding, which incidentally I’m not bothered about, the truth is that I’m just stating the truth. Offensive as that maybe to you it is not a sin and more importantly, I do not need to make false misrepresentations to make a valid point. 
Logged

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2013, 02:36:39 PM »

the hypothetical situation that was placed is that there would be more than one jah rastafari. the one that brought that up in a argument was the i at the same time as the i was questioning selassie i unity with the godheadcreator. now the i further deny selassie i unity with the godheadcreator (which is what i know for i self yet recognize to be in the realm of faith) saying i assert it as truth or facts while the i say it is certainly not so, calling i faith of the unity between the godheadcreator and haile selassie the first a misinformed take on i perception.

i would object that i know for i self what i perceive. i acknowledge haile selassie jah rastafari as one and the same and in unity with the godheadcreator.

the i may think that denial is the anti-proof of a thing yet it is only the i belief. the i already contradict the i self claim of being a truthful person that don't need to make false misrepresentations to make a valid point by arguing that the birth of selassie the first in 1892 would make him separate from the godheadcreator.

the i will continue to be perplexed by the bible as long as the i take everything there letter by letter. a parable and something metaphysical does indeed appear to be fictitious until one penetrate the depth of the meaning. stop denying a thing based on the i limited understanding.

love and heights, selassie first
Logged

Knowledge

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2013, 12:37:09 PM »

Re the hypothetical situation you refer to, i.e. “that there would be more than one Jah Rastafari” Once again I see that you readily resort to distortion of the facts to try and make an invalid point. Rasta don’t deal with that, Rasta defend truth and rights, Rasta don’t lie, distort or invent falsehoods to try and make a point (or to conceal a truth) you make accusations against I that are simply not true and can be proved to be purely misrepresentations by anyone who reads the postings I have made. The fact that you persist with your distortions in order to bolster your misinformed point of view is disturbing to say the least.
You seem unable to write a truth or (even more worryingly) be able to articulate any points you may have in what could be considered a coherent manner, for instance what do you mean by "anti-proof"? I have never heard that term before please explain that within the context of this issue.
Furthermore, your reference to my belief is a prime example, of your distortion and embellishment of the truth, as at no time at all, have I ever expressed that I have a belief, so in the absence of that admission, I have to assume you’ve just simply made that up –to try and score a point, how petty,(and Christian)!
As for your comments re the bible, well that just goes to show the shallowness of your conviction, (spoken like a true Christian) the Bible is a book made up of words, which are supposed be truthful, so if there untruths therein, then I guess that says it all, doesn’t it.

Just to clarify your last point, I for one, do not accept anything based upon lies or mis-understanding. 
Logged

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: MessiaTafari MysTafari
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2013, 02:04:16 PM »

the i clearly put forward the hypothetical situation 'that there would be more than one jah rastafari' and said about this hypothetical situation 'it would be a misnomer' (april 07, 2013, 01:55:04 in this thread).

this is the same hypothetical argument that followed straight after the i stating disagreement with haile selassie the first being the root and core of rasta. this is not a distortion of facts, it is a straight recapture of what the i was saying at that time. plain and simple i can say that no rasta would deny his majesty.

what i mean with anti-proof in this context is that it would 'prove something wrong'. the way the i express the i self shows evidence of a belief that denial would prove something wrong. the i don't have to state that this is the i belief, it is something deduced from the i way of expressing the i self.

again, calling christianity petty is not in line with upholding the values and respect that his majesty is teaching. even if the i don't agree with a certain faith the i should not disrespect it.

a false thing in the bible may just as well be a misinterpretation or a lack of ability to see the depth or context/meaning of what is being said.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
 

Page created in 0.127 seconds with 21 queries.