[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Why The Apostle Paul Did Not Write An ‘Epistle To The Bantus’ Thousands of mainstream denominational Christians have literally lost their lives in a vain attempt to bring the Gospel of Christ to the Third Word. We can find no better an example of this vanity than in the 1951 Hollywood movie, The African Queen, where Christian missionaries — played by Katharine Hepburn and Robert Morley — comically attempt to teach African natives to sing Christian hymns: Remarkably, this film depicted Africans as they were — not in some remote colonial past — but rather as recently as World War II — and it is still accurate for much of Africa today. No doubt this “racist” film will soon be demonized and disappear down the memory hole of political correctness. After 500 years of proselytizing the natives, very little has come of these efforts — as the natives backslide into their own cultural traditions without constant supervision and oversight of White missionaries and supervisors. Many Christians continue to justify this missionary work based on their misunderstandings of the meaning of certain verses in Scripture that they believe command them to bring the gospel literally to “all nations” and “all people,” such as Luke 2:31, Mark 11:17, and Mark 16:15. Of course, this is a very easy mistake to make when you approach every verse in the Bible literally and superficially — as if the Bible was originally written in modern English — or even more preposterously — that the King James Version is the only translation on which God personally put His imprimatur. The apostles surely did not understand the term “all nations” and “all people” the same way we do today — which is as a secular, geographical political entity with internationally recognized borders. The apostles understood “the nations” in a biblical context — not a secular one as we do — and the biblical context is quite clear — it refers only to “the nations” described in Genesis 10 descended directly from Noah — along with the Israelite nations descended from Jacob-Israel — the Twelve Tribes of Israel. And the idea that all “races” could have somehow descended from Noah and his family — or from Adam and Eve — who were all of one Adamic people or family is completely irrational. These Genesis “nations” were literally tribes — extended families — not confined in fixed geographical boundaries. The Greek word “ethnos” has been arbitrarily mistranslated in our modern Bibles as both “gentiles” and “the nations” — depending on which context will allow for it not to sound absurd. Christians further compounded this problem when they redefined “gentile” not to mean just “the nations” but rather any “non-Jew” — widening the scope of “the nations” to the furthest recesses of the African jungles and Asian rice paddies. This one mistranslation has caused tens of thousands of White people to lose their lives taking the gospel to peoples that were never meant to be part of “the nations” — in their zeal to prove their worthiness to the Lord. Africans have had their own tribal beliefs handed down to them for eons — and who are we to think that we are doing them any favors by imposing our God upon them — a “racist” religious colonialism at its most egregious? Who are we to deprive them of — and demonize — their cultural gods which exist outside the narrow scope of the Bible? If our God considered them among His nations, Paul would have written an epistle to them, but he didn’t — and it wasn’t an oversight on his part. Every people that Paul did write epistles to — whether the Colossians, Corinthians, Thessalonians, or Ephesians — can easily be shown to be legitimate descendants of those Genesis 10 nations. That’s because Paul knew what “the nations” actually meant — unlike most modern denominational Christians — to their own personal detriment. Poster Comment: This thesis is indisputable. Look how all the NT epistles start, e.g. "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours". These were all white Israelites, not jews as widely believed. with the possible exception of Paul. Turning the world's heathens Christian is a lovely idea, but at what cost -- to us and them? Missionaries are like soldiers -- you can'tell me that if they'd stayed home to fix what was wrong in their home countries we wouldn't all be better off. The real war against most countries is clearly waged by their own scribes and pharisees (media and prostiticians), as seen all thru the good book and every news presentation today. What better testimony could there be to the turd world than a true, lawful, wide-awake Christian population filling every white country and rooting out every major evil from among 'em? As it is religion merely lulls them into passivity. Just yesterday I again heard a preacher stressing that your conduct and character are the real witness to your faith. What's true of individuals applies to countries -- the Bible clearly implies this over and over. Hepburn discusses filming The African Queen among many other things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1e4330P_EM Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#2. To: NeoconsNailed (#0)
Paul wrote to established Christian congregations not to heathens.
Pleasantly shocked you agree.
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||