On The Second Coming of Christ

[loverofhumanity]

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Selah. Hail Jah Rastafari!


Blessed Greetings everyone. Late last night, I was meditating on The Holy Bible and on Jesus Christ when I began to connect the dots of His Return to the Coming of Haile Selassie I.

(Something important to consider: different Rastas will have different understandings of who exactly Haile Selassie I is.)

In the Book of Revelation, Christ will return as an earthly ruler, and His Titles will be King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Root of David. There are so many individuals who have claimed to be Christ Returned, or of whom this is said. Only one of them possessed these titles: Emperor Haile Selassie I.


When I encountered this claim with Bahá’u’lláh, it never made truly sense to me. Bahá’u’lláh was not a king or a ruler of any sort. Haile Selassie was the Emperor of Ethiopia. This doubt was only furthered by the fact that Bahá’í teachings do not conform to fundamental Christian teachings such as the Trinity and the bodily resurrection of Christ, but rather these are denied. At least, if any person will claim to be Jesus Christ returned, their life and teaching would conform 100% to what He taught. Haile Selassie’s Life and Teachings do (even absent of any claim of being Christ returned). 100%. Many times, He is recorded as having referred to Jesus Christ as “Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”, stressing the importance of sincerely believing in the Gospel.

Thusly, I understand that it’s more fitting to be a Rasta than to have been a Bahá’í, coming from my being brought up as a devout Christian. Between the two of these, I am convinced that Haile Selassie I is far more likely to be Christ Returned in His Kingly Character than Bahá’u’lláh is. With this said, I harbor no ill will towards him or his followers in any regard. Peace and Blessings.

One point about the Bible is that in the 1833 and 1858 versions of the Arabic Bible the Word Baha’u’llah is mentioned. This is the verse where it says there was no need of the sun to provide light.

http://bahaistudies.net/kf/bibles.html

 

[Dawnofhope]

That’s true, Adrian. Maybe I’m being too literal in my understanding of Scripture?

Its good to focus on one specific aspect of the Messiah as you have done, but other aspects of prophecy need to be met too.

Historically the Jews believed Simon bar Kokhba was their Messiah and warrior King to defeat the Romans.

Simon bar Kokhba - Wikipedia

He led his people to defeat against the Romans after a 2 1/2 year war.

 

[sooda]

One point about the Bible is that in the 1833 and 1858 versions of the Arabic Bible the Word Baha’u’llah is mentioned. This is the verse where it says there was no need of the sun to provide light.

http://bahaistudies.net/kf/bibles.html

You really can't take that literally... Its ridiculous.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Judah was always dominated by Israel.. David is glorified all out of proportion to his accomplishments. I am beginning to think all of expectations of an anointed warrior king are just more of their mythology.

It appears the Gospel of Matthew was written AFTER the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD... and the Sermon on the Mount was created about the same time.

It's hard to know with much of the Hebrew Bible as the is often so little outside the text that supports historicity. King David was around 3,000 years ago but I understand there are independent references to a couple of Kings he defeated.

Mythology aside, the Gospels themselves do emphasise Jesus as 'Son of David'. There seems to be little doubt about the Jews desire to be freed from the Romans and how they would have cherished a Messianic figure like King David (real or imaging) who would free them.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You really can't take that literally... Its ridiculous.

It’s there for anyone to see.

 

[sooda]

Its good to focus on one specific aspect of the Messiah as you have done, but other aspects of prophecy need to be met too.

Historically the Jews believed Simon bar Kokhba was their Messiah and warrior King to defeat the Romans.

Simon bar Kokhba - Wikipedia

He led his people to defeat against the Romans after a 2 1/2 year war.

Jewish messiah claimants

• Simon of Peraea (ca. 4 BC), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by...
• Athronges (ca. 3 BC), a shepherd turned rebel leader.
• Judas of Galilee (?), son of Hezekiah/Ezekias, a member of the Zealots faction who led...
• Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC — AD 30-?), a wandering prophet and teacher who was crucified by...

List of messiahs : Wikis (The Full Wiki)
www.thefullwiki.org/List_of_messiahs

 

[sooda]

It's hard to know with much of the Hebrew Bible as the is often so little outside the text that supports historicity. King David was around 3,000 years ago but I understand there are independent references to a couple of Kings he defeated.

Mythology aside, the Gospels themselves do emphasise Jesus as 'Son of David'. There seems to be little doubt about the Jews desire to be freed from the Romans and how they would have cherished a Messianic figure like King David (real or imaging) who would free them.

Which independent kings? Rome didn't control Palestine during David's time. Egypt did.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Which independent kings? Rome didn't control Palestine during David's time. Egypt did.

Historians of the Ancient Near East agree that David probably existed around 1000 BCE, but that there is little that can be said about him as a historical figure. It was initially thought that there were no evidence outside of the Bible concerning David, but the Tel Dan Stele, an inscribed stone erected by a king of Damascus in the late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE to commemorate his victory over two enemy kings, contains the phrase Hebrew: ביתדוד‎, bytdwd, consisting of the Hebrew words "house" and "David", which most scholars translate as "House (Dynasty) of David". Ancient Near East historians generally doubt that the united monarchy as described in the Bible existed.

David - Wikipedia

 

[sooda]

Historians of the Ancient Near East agree that David probably existed around 1000 BCE, but that there is little that can be said about him as a historical figure. It was initially thought that there were no evidence outside of the Bible concerning David, but the Tel Dan Stele, an inscribed stone erected by a king of Damascus in the late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE to commemorate his victory over two enemy kings, contains the phrase Hebrew: ביתדוד‎, bytdwd, consisting of the Hebrew words "house" and "David", which most scholars translate as "House (Dynasty) of David". Ancient Near East historians generally doubt that the united monarchy as described in the Bible existed.

David - Wikipedia

The stele was erected a couple hundred years after David. He wasn't really a king.. More like a tribal chieftain. Jerusalem was tiny.. Maybe 10 acres with a very small population so he couldn't have had much of a military force.

 

[LightSeeker9]

The Ubaid period (c. 6500–3800 BC) is a prehistoric period of Mesopotamia.

About 12-13,000 years ago glaciers began to retreat turning the Sahara and Arabia to deserts instead of well watered savannas.

The Natufians, found in Jericho, Egypt and the Jordan Basin. date to 12,000 years ago and we don't know what color they were either. They established agriculture.

Add the Black Sea Breech which was a slow rising flood and that also rapidly dispersed agricultural techniques... so those people and their herds were also on the move.

Also, we know that Africans crossed the Red Sea into Western Arabia about 100,000 years ago. Their tools are the same.

As the Arabian peninsula dried up people began migrating north to Mesopotamia and the Levant in waves..

None of that gives a clue as to skin color or whether they had wooly hair or not.

Are you basing your beliefs on the creation stories in Genesis?

You have to use common sense. Look at the time range. This is before any diversion on race comes about. The first time you start to see another race of people emerge is when the Hyksos invade who were asiatic/ oriental (and darker in tone) then the Hittites, Assyrians, Persians , then GREEKS (Caucasian) and Rome ( Caucasian) who were in a state of beast hood in the Caucasus mountains previously before. If you do you your research you’ll see that the Natufians are black dark skinned people also and anytime you speak on Egypt it is VERY apparent that they were Dark skinned African people. It’s on all the walls. It’s clear in our statues, our deities , Pyramids texts, Koffin texts, scripts etc; so to even debate about the color of the people is nonsense and for anyone who derived from them. Using modern people as to comparison to back in ancient times is unfair due to the mixing of Caucasians today after invading and conquering of empires. You need to also have a good understanding of Genealogy because it’s evident you don’t . Black people are prime, original, and eldest people on this earth. The physical evidence to this day stands to show. Backed up by History, Physical evidence, Science of the genes and DNA. Even searching through the so called scriptures.

 

[LightSeeker9]

The Ubaid period (c. 6500–3800 BC) is a prehistoric period of Mesopotamia.

About 12-13,000 years ago glaciers began to retreat turning the Sahara and Arabia to deserts instead of well watered savannas.

The Natufians, found in Jericho, Egypt and the Jordan Basin. date to 12,000 years ago and we don't know what color they were either. They established agriculture.

Add the Black Sea Breech which was a slow rising flood and that also rapidly dispersed agricultural techniques... so those people and their herds were also on the move.

Also, we know that Africans crossed the Red Sea into Western Arabia about 100,000 years ago. Their tools are the same.

As the Arabian peninsula dried up people began migrating north to Mesopotamia and the Levant in waves..

None of that gives a clue as to skin color or whether they had wooly hair or not.

Are you basing your beliefs on the creation stories in Genesis?

And I don’t go by the Bible’s creation story. I have an over standing of the Bible scriptures and the fallacies of the Bible. I don’t hold every thing to be true so I exclude it from my argument unless someone wants to take it there for perspective sake.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Selah. Hail Jah Rastafari!


Blessed Greetings everyone. Late last night, I was meditating on The Holy Bible and on Jesus Christ when I began to connect the dots of His Return to the Coming of Haile Selassie I.

(Something important to consider: different Rastas will have different understandings of who exactly Haile Selassie I is.)

In the Book of Revelation, Christ will return as an earthly ruler, and His Titles will be King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Root of David. There are so many individuals who have claimed to be Christ Returned, or of whom this is said. Only one of them possessed these titles: Emperor Haile Selassie I.


When I encountered this claim with Bahá’u’lláh, it never made truly sense to me. Bahá’u’lláh was not a king or a ruler of any sort. Haile Selassie was the Emperor of Ethiopia. This doubt was only furthered by the fact that Bahá’í teachings do not conform to fundamental Christian teachings such as the Trinity and the bodily resurrection of Christ, but rather these are denied. At least, if any person will claim to be Jesus Christ returned, their life and teaching would conform 100% to what He taught. Haile Selassie’s Life and Teachings do (even absent of any claim of being Christ returned). 100%. Many times, He is recorded as having referred to Jesus Christ as “Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”, stressing the importance of sincerely believing in the Gospel.

Thusly, I understand that it’s more fitting to be a Rasta than to have been a Bahá’í, coming from my being brought up as a devout Christian. Between the two of these, I am convinced that Haile Selassie I is far more likely to be Christ Returned in His Kingly Character than Bahá’u’lláh is. With this said, I harbor no ill will towards him or his followers in any regard. Peace and Blessings.

The resurrection from the dead and millennial peace in Israel would be the true marks.

 

[David T]

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Selah. Hail Jah Rastafari!


Blessed Greetings everyone. Late last night, I was meditating on The Holy Bible and on Jesus Christ when I began to connect the dots of His Return to the Coming of Haile Selassie I.

(Something important to consider: different Rastas will have different understandings of who exactly Haile Selassie I is.)

In the Book of Revelation, Christ will return as an earthly ruler, and His Titles will be King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Root of David. There are so many individuals who have claimed to be Christ Returned, or of whom this is said. Only one of them possessed these titles: Emperor Haile Selassie I.


When I encountered this claim with Bahá’u’lláh, it never made truly sense to me. Bahá’u’lláh was not a king or a ruler of any sort. Haile Selassie was the Emperor of Ethiopia. This doubt was only furthered by the fact that Bahá’í teachings do not conform to fundamental Christian teachings such as the Trinity and the bodily resurrection of Christ, but rather these are denied. At least, if any person will claim to be Jesus Christ returned, their life and teaching would conform 100% to what He taught. Haile Selassie’s Life and Teachings do (even absent of any claim of being Christ returned). 100%. Many times, He is recorded as having referred to Jesus Christ as “Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”, stressing the importance of sincerely believing in the Gospel.

Thusly, I understand that it’s more fitting to be a Rasta than to have been a Bahá’í, coming from my being brought up as a devout Christian. Between the two of these, I am convinced that Haile Selassie I is far more likely to be Christ Returned in His Kingly Character than Bahá’u’lláh is. With this said, I harbor no ill will towards him or his followers in any regard. Peace and Blessings.

"In the Book of Revelation"

I stopped reading since the book says do not add or take away a single word .So if I read further I would be reading words added to the text, inspite of the text saying do not do that.

If there was ever a text thats self aware of it's own rorsasch quality it's this text. That unto itself I find interesting .

 

[LightSeeker9]

"In the Book of Revelation"

I stopped reading since the book says do not add or take away a single word .So if I read further I would be reading words added to the text, inspite of the text saying do not do that.

If there was ever a text thats self aware of it's own rorsasch quality it's this text. That unto itself I find interesting .

My brother. We have to stop believing in these fallacies of this bible which has tampered with over thousands of years hence all these different versions. Why does God have to have different versions of the word of god. It’s a mental enslavement of the mind. You never can put things together and make Any since of things is because it’s not factual and is thrown together.

 

[Enoch07]

In the Book of Revelation, Christ will return as an earthly ruler, and His Titles will be King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Root of David.

He doesn't return as a ruler.

Because if He’s Christ Returned, He is divine.

Depends on which bit of scripture you are referring to.

The return of Christ is not in mortal physical form.

@Deeje nails it here. When Christ does return it is not in a physical state, and all that behold him will no longer be in a physical state. When Christ returns we all dead.

 

[LightSeeker9]

He doesn't return as a ruler.



Depends on which bit of scripture you are referring to.

@Deeje nails it here. When Christ does return it is not in a physical state, and all that behold him will no longer be in a physical state. When Christ returns we all dead.

Do you expect for someone to crack the sky open with angels and rage war for the chosen people ? Is that you expect Jesus to do ?

 

[Enoch07]

Do you expect for someone to crack the sky open with angels and rage war for the chosen people ? Is that you expect Jesus to do ?

No

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The black black gene which is the wooly/ kinky/ curly haired dark skin gene which is encoded In melanin which is the same in the cosmos and our sun, dark matter etc is the dominate gene and to the Caucasian gene, blue eyed blond hair is the most recessive gene. You can produce the black, red , yellow , white (albino) seed from black people but white can not produce nothing but white being the recessive gene. So with that being said the original man cannot be nothing other than a black dark skinned African man. Being indigenous to Africa. The oldest bones were found all around Africa of Afrocentric bone structure as opposed to others

Racist bull****. White people do not have albinism and modern African people are not the original Homo sapiens (in terms of genetics and such) - no modern people group can claim that. You're actually putting black people down in a way by casting them them as primitive throwbacks that the other races came from. The truth is that Africans have continued to adapt and mix like all other ethnic groups. Stop filling your head with racist black supremacist garbage and crack open an anthropology book.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Same way Egypt is teeming with pale-Arabs and posing as true Egyptian

Copts are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians and they're not "black".

 

[Deeje]

He doesn't return as a ruler.

If he is "King of Kings" then he is most definitely a ruler. God appointed him as both king and judge. No one could be a better king or judge than one who has lived and died as a human. Granted immortality as a reward for his faithful course, Jesus would never live and die again as a human. That was never part of God's purpose in sending him.

Those who are taken to heaven to rule with Jesus, die the same death and experience the same resurrection as He did. (1 Peter 3:18) So all who make up the body of rulers in God's Kingdom will be empathetic to the human condition.

Another role they have is as priests. (Revelation 20:6) Priests will represent us and intercede before God on our behalf. We who survive the end of this present system of things will still be in our imperfect flesh, here on earth. Christ and his "bride" will bring their rulership to us and bring us back to God. (Revelation 21:2-4)

Jesus is also given the role as High Priest, which is very appropriate. (Hebrews 4:14)

Depends on which bit of scripture you are referring to.

Actually I believe that it depends on how you interpret scripture, which cannot be done without God imparting the correct understanding. (John 6:65) How can we know if we have the correct understanding? By the way Christ's disciples stick to his teachings, regardless of whether they are popular or not. They will die for the truth.....they will never bend it to suit themselves or to save their lives. (Matthew 16:25) And they will be part of a united global brotherhood who all recognise each other as a loved family member regardless of race, social status or educational level. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

@Deeje nails it here. When Christ does return it is not in a physical state, and all that behold him will no longer be in a physical state. When Christ returns we all dead.

I don't know how you ever reach this conclusion....? God did not create this earth and everything on it for nothing. (Isaiah 45:18) This was to be man's permanent home. If humans had not been led to abuse their free will in the beginning, death would never have been part of the human experience. This was to be our paradise....to be enjoyed forever with God as our only King and Law giver. We were put here to take care of the earth as God's representatives......which is why we were endowed with his moral qualities and intellectual attributes.

How many laws did God give Adam and his wife? Just one simple command. If they had obeyed it, they would still be here enjoying life with all their progeny in a paradise that they would have spread to the ends of the earth. We are promised that all will return to God's original purpose. (Isaiah 55:11)

This is what my many years of deep Bible study have taught me.