Yahushua is the true name of the Messiah: Not Jesus

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF: http://www.ellyah.com/nameson.htm)

 

Yahushua is the true name of the Messiah

***** Note that Joshua = Yoshua or Yahushua because there is no “J” sound in Hebrew. The “J” with its “J” sound didn’t come into the English language until about 500 years ago. In fact, the “J” isn’t even found in the original 1611 King James version. (proof)

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the Messiah’s name never was “Jesus” and that the name “Jesus” is actually an invention of man.

 In the King James Version of the scriptures, we find an interesting problem in its translation:

Acts 7:44(KJV) Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. 45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Isn’t this scripture referring to Joshua, son of Nun rather than the Savior? Yes. Here is another instance…

Hebr 4:7 (KJV) Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Again, the context reveals that this scripture is referring to Joshua, the son of Nun and not the Messiah. All other translations put “Joshua” here. Why then is it translated ‘Jesus’? The answer lies in the Greek/Latin corruption of the Messiah’s original Hebrew name. Originally, the name of the Messiah was , pronounced Yahushua. This is the Messiah’s original name. When the Gentiles tried to transliterate His name into Greek, they came up with ihsoun or “Iesous”. But originally, this word was from #3091 in the Hebrew which is . When Iesous was transliterated into Latin, it became “Iesus”, which was then carried over into English it became our modern day “Jesus” when the letter “J” developed. 

Therefore, the reason the King James Version has “Jesus” in those two verses is because the Messiah’s name is actually the same name as Joshua, Son of Nun… correctly pronounced “Yahushua”. It is quite evident that the modern form “Jesus” doesn’t even remotely resemble the original name that the disciples were praying in, baptizing in and receiving so much criticism for preaching in. This is fact. Do some research and see for yourself.

Secular References

Encyclopedia Americana:

“Jesus Christ— …Although Matthew (1:21) interprets the name originally Joshua, that is, ‘Yahweh is Salvation,’ and finds it especially appropriate for Jesus of Nazareth, it was a common one at that time.” (Vol.16, p. 41)

Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed.)

“Jesus Christ—…The same is true of the name Jesus. In the Septuagint it is the customary Greek form for the common Hebrew name Joshua;” (Vol. 10 p.149)

Religious Scholars

Barnes’ notes: (Note on Matt. 1:21)

“His name is Jesus: The name Jesus is the same as Saviour. It is derived from the verb signifying to save. In Hebrew it is the same as Joshua. In two places [Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8] in the New Testament it is used where is means Joshua, the leader of the Jews into Canaan, and in our translation the name Joshua should have been retained.”

Word studies in the New Testament, by Marvin R. Vincent—

“Jesus. The Greek form of a Hebrew name, which had been borne by two illustrious individuals in former periods of the Jewish History — Joshua, the successor of Moses, and Jeshua, the high priest, who with Zerubbabel took so active a part in the re-establishment of the civil and religious polity of the Jews in their return from Babylon. Its original and full form is Jehoshua, becoming by contraction Joshua or Jeshua.”

The Acts of the Apostles, by Jackson and Lake

“Jesus— This is the regular Greek translation of the Hebrew Joshua.”

Smith’s Bible Dictionary:

“Jesus Christ —- The name Jesus means Savior, and was a common name, derived from the ancient Hebrew Jehoshua.”

A dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings

“Jesus — The Greek form of the name Joshua or Jeshua. Jeshua —- Yahweh is Salvation or Yahweh is opulence.”

Alford’s Greek New Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary:

“Jesus — The same name as Joshua, the former deliverer of Israel.”

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion:

“Jesus (The Name) — Matthew’s gospel explains it as symbolic of His mission, ‘For he will save His people from their sins.’ This agrees with the popular meaning as ‘Yahweh saves…’ ” p.1886

Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The Sacred Name —- The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek “Iesous” which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning ‘Jehovah is Salvation’ ” Vol. 8, p. 374

Interpreter’s Bible: (Note on Matt. 1:21)

“Jesus: for He shall save: The play on words (Yeshua, Jesus; yoshia, shall save) is possible in Hebrew but not in Aramaic. The name Joshua means “Yahweh is salvation”

Matthew Henry’s Commentary

(on Matthew 1:21)

“Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the greek.”

Conclusion

It can be concluded then, that “Jesus” was not the Messiah’s name when He walked the earth. That is the purpose of this study. For information on why we should use the Messiah’s original name, click here. 

The Land: Israel And The Palestinians: And The U.S. And The Native Indians

 

Most people in the ‘wired’ world of today know about the struggles in the Holy Lands of Israel between the Nation of Israel and the displaced Palestinian population. For those of you who do not know the back story of this issue I will try to condense this issue into just a few sentences so as to not make a book out of this article. When World War Two broke out the Ottoman Empire ruled the current land of Israel. After the war the British took control of that region but in the U.N. in 1947 a resolution was passed to recreate the Nation of Israel so that the displaced Jewish population could have a Nation of their own again, and this came about in 1948. Because of all the turmoil in the U.N. about this issue the Jewish people were only given a small sliver of the land that they used to call home for over 2,000 years. The British had made an agreement with the U.N. that they would pull out of Palestine in May of 1948 and then give this land to the Jewish people for their homeland. It is sad that the people who lived there were displaced, these folks years later became known as the Palestinians, refugees, a people with no ‘home’. These ‘Refugees’ were eventually taken in by Jordan but were kicked out in 1967, again making them homeless. The Islamic people of the Middle-East own about 99% of the land in this region of the world yet none of them (except for the short stint in Jordan) would let them into their countries. Either this issue shows that the ‘Palestinians people’ are very lousy guests, and/or the Islamic countries of the region are really lousy hosts, or possibly both? I say that because a brother is suppose to take in and to help when their brothers and sisters are in need but the Islamic Nations have not done that.

 

In 1948 on the day that the British completed their pull out the tiny newborn Nation of Israel was attacked by all of their Arab neighbors in an attempt to push all of the Jewish people into the Mediterranean Sea. To make a long story shorter, the people of Israel won that war but just 19 years later the Arab Nations of the Middle-East attacked Israel once again in what has become know as the Six Day War. In this war which Israel won they captured a lot more land from the Arab population who had attacked Israel. Among the lands captured was the Golan Heights in the north and they captured the rest of Jerusalem, to the south they also captured the West Bank and Gaza all the way down to the border with Egypt. The people who started the war who were in the lands that Israel recovered were also now displaced adding to a lousy situation for the Islamic people who caused the war. By my understanding it is the land that Israel recaptured in that six-day war of 1967 that has been causing the biggest conflict with the U.N. (among others). It is this land that has become known as the “occupied territories”. Some world leaders think that Israel has no rights to this land and should not build anything on it.

 

Israel was given a much larger piece of the land by God Himself somewhere around the human year of 1,800 B.C.. They lived on this land until about the year 630 A.D. when Mohammad’s army murdered their way through many countries including the land that belonged to Israel. So, here is where I want to start making some comparisons with land issues inside the U.S.. The Islamic people in Palestine had lived in what is now Israel for about 1,400 years before the U.N. gave some of it back to Israel, it is easy to understand why the ‘displaced’ people are mad at the people who now live on that land. Yet they refuse to accept the fact that there was ever a Nation of Israel before the time of Mohammad no matter how much evidence they are shown. What I am saying is the people of Israel simply took back some of what was their own in 1948 and then again in 1967. In 2005 the Israeli government in an attempt for peace gave back the ‘West Bank’ and the Gaza Strip so that the Palestinian people could have a home of their own since none of the Arab countries would ever allow them to settle in any of their countries. Land for peace is what this event was called, that concept failed, all it did was to give Israel’s haters closer Bases in which to attack Israel from. I have often wondered why if there is going to be a ‘two nation’ reality why can’t the ‘West Bank’ be given “Statehood” status? With Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip there is no way to allow them to become a State. So, who’s land is it in your eyes?

 

Now I would like to talk about the Native American ‘Indians’ and their rights to the land that we call America. A little over 500 years ago Europeans discovered North America and started settling it as if the land was barren of other human beings. Most Europeans did not consider the Indian people who were already here, and had been for thousands of years, as being humans, they demonized them as nothing but Savages. For the next 400 years Europeans kept marching west, killing the Indian people and taking their lands. By the late 1800’s America reached from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and the Native Americans had almost been exterminated. When the newspapers in the east started showing and telling the people what was being done to the Indian people they raised such a ruckus that the extermination concept ended and the concept of Reservations began. The Indian people were ‘given’ the worst of the worst lands to be exiled upon, these were lands that the white man didn’t want, so the Indian people were forced to live there.

 

I am going to make a small example for the purpose of easy clarity. There is a large Navajo Reservation in southwest New Mexico and part of eastern Arizona. I am going to use them in this example. When Europeans discovered what is today the State of New Mexico less than 300 years ago they began ‘settling’ it by removing the Native Americans who had lived there for thousands of years. If today the Navajo people decided that they were tired of living on their Reservation and told the white, black and Mexican people to move off of their land or they would be removed by the Navajo Nation, what do you think would be the result? I know this would not happen, it’s just a conversation point, but what if the U.S. Government said, okay we agree with you so all non-Indian people have to leave the state of New Mexico, what do you think would happen? Now put that concept to all of the 50 States, if the United Nations and the World Court ruled in favor of the Native Americans and they told all of us non-indigenous people to pack up and get off of the Native Americans land, where would we all go? I honestly believe that the Native American people do have the right to tell us all to get off of their land, after all it was stolen by the end of a gun from them. Now back to Israel and the Palestinian people, the Islamic people stole the land  from the Jewish people at the point of a blade, they either had to leave their homes or die. What I am saying is that there is no such thing as Israel’s “occupation” of Arab lands, there is no such thing as Israel building on occupied lands. Just as the correct thing to do here in North America is to give back the occupied lands to its rightful owners because they were well established here long before Europeans crossed the Atlantic, the people of Islam should give back all of the land that was Israel before they were stolen from them. Here in North America there is an occupation” going on right now and has been for about 500 years. In Israel the only “occupation” going on is in the lands where believers of Islam are occupying land that belongs to Israel, it is not the other way around. I hope you liked the article, I am just trying to get people to think and to consider the truth of history.

A hitch in California as bilingual education is restored

 

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE WASHINGTON POST)

A hitch in California as bilingual education is restored

December 31 at 11:45 PM
While Californians passed a ballot measure to bring back bilingual education in the upcoming school year, educators say a challenge to getting the programs started will be finding more bilingual teachers.Nearly 20 years after banning most bilingual education, Californians voted in November to let schools restore it for English learners and English speakers whose parents want them to learn Spanish, Mandarin and other languages to compete globally.

Educators say growing interest in bilingual programs will boost already high demand for teachers trained and credentialed to teach the classes. Schools that already have such programs in California — and in other states, including Utah and Oregon — have brought teachers on visas from overseas to meet the need.

“There is already a shortage for bilingual teachers with just the demand we have right now,” said Joshua Speaks, a spokesman for the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

The overwhelming vote in favor of Proposition 58 is a huge turnaround from the backlash to bilingual education that followed a surge in immigration to California in the 1990s. Since then, some schools started bilingual programs, but parents of English learners had to sign annual waivers for their children to participate, and many districts were reluctant to take on the paperwork.

With the measure passed — 73.5 percent of voters supported it — many schools are expected to expand bilingual offerings or start programs. Among the most popular models are dual-language immersion programs mixing English learners and English speakers in the classroom and splitting instructional time between English and another language.

California’s Department of Education estimates that the state has at least 350 dual-language immersion programs, although the vast majority of the state’s 1.4 million English learners are taught using English immersion. Robert Oakes, a department spokesman, could not say how many districts will start bilingual programs but expects that many will.

“There is a hope and an expectation there will be a big expansion,” he said.

California already had a teacher shortage that followed the economic downturn. Areas where teachers are needed most include special education, science and bilingual education, Speaks said.

To be authorized to teach bilingual classes, teachers must take extra courses and exams. In the 2014-2015 school year, the state issued about 400 bilingual authorizations, Speaks said.

Cristina Alfaro, a professor of dual-language and English-learner education at San Diego State University, said her program annually graduates about 60 bilingual teachers.

“We don’t even credential enough to meet the demand for San Diego, and we have a lot of people from out of state and throughout the state who call us,” she said. “My phone rings off the hook.”

The lack of bilingual classrooms in California over the last two decades, especially at the high school level, has contributed to the dearth of bilingual teachers, said Nicole Knight, executive director of English Language Learner and Multilingual Achievement at Oakland Unified.

To meet the demand, school districts have looked overseas. Los Angeles Unified, which has more than 500 teachers in dual language immersion programs, brought nine teachers and two support staff on visas for Mandarin programs, said Barbara Jones, a district spokeswoman. In Oakland Unified, the district has brought visiting teachers from Mexico and Spain.

Common Myths Concerning Islam

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF ‘CREEPING SHARIA’S’ WEBSITE)

Common Myths Concerning Islam

A Muslim professor discusses “moderate Muslims.”

His definition of this term should be read very carefully. Also notice that he includes the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, Tariq Ramadan, as one of this group.

China has its problems with jihad. And then there were the bus bombings.

A Muslim doctor on how to take over an American hospital and make it a Muslim one.

Dhimmitude at the Washington Post.

Debating About Islam

Once you know something about Islam and try to talk to others, you may find yourself in a debate. Here are some of the “standards”.

CAN YOU READ ARABIC?
Everyone from Muslims to atheists uses this. The implication is that Arabic is a unique language that can’t be translated and therefore, how could you know what you are talking about? First, the Koran claims to be a universal message for all humanity for all times. If the message is universal, then it must be able to be understood by all. If the message cannot be understood by everybody, then by definition it is not universal. So, which is it?

Another thing to consider is that over half of the Koran is about Kafirs and politics. Do you really think that a political message about a Kafir cannot be understood by the Kafir? If so, what is that message that cannot be understood?

It must be made clear which Arabic is being spoken about. The Arabic of the Koran is classical Arabic which is about as similar to modern Arabic as the English of Chaucer and Beowulf is similar to modern English. Said in another way, not even a modern Arab can read classical Arabic. It is estimated that fewer than a thousand scholars who read classical Arabic can compose a paragraph on a random topic.

And what about the nearly billion Muslims who don’t even understand modern Arabic? If it is necessary to understand classical Arabic to understand what the Koran is about, then how can those billion non-Arabic-speaking Muslims understand the Koran? And if they cannot understand the Koran how can they be Muslims?

Ask the person who presents the argument if they have any opinions about the doctrine of Christianity. Then ask them if they read Hebrew, Aramaic or Biblical Greek? If they do not read those languages how can they form an opinion about something they have to read in translation? Of course they can read it and form an opinion, the same way we can read and understand the Koran.

A secondary question is why would anyone want to believe that the Koran couldn’t be understood? What is the purpose of believing that out of all the books in the world, why would there be one that cannot be translated?

The Koran is only 18% of the total doctrine. Would the questioner believe that the other 82% of the doctrine not be understood as well?

WELL, THE CHRISTIANS DID...
This response usually comes after some grim facts are given about Islam. This is probably the most common response from non-Christians. The best response is to ask if they have a reason that they don’t want to talk about Islam, since they want to change the subject. The average person knows next to nothing about Islam and sometimes this gambit is merely a way to steer the conversation into a familiar ground.

They are just trying to prove that Islam is not any worse than Christianity. At this point, welcome the chance to compare the two. Choose the ground of comparison. The best place to start is the founders. Compare Mohammed to Christ. The other good comparison is in ethics. Compare Islam’s dualistic ethics to unitary Golden Rule ethics.

Another version of this is that the person will compare some failed Christian to a “good” Muslim they know at work. It is fairly useless to do personal comparisons. How do you choose which Muslim out of 1.5 billion Muslims and which Christian do you choose out of a couple billion Christians?

A variation on the “Well, the Christians did …” is “What about the Crusades”? This is the time to say you welcome a comparison of the Crusades to jihad. Start with the question of why the Crusades were needed. Islāmic jihad caused the invasion of the Middle East. The Crusades were a response to a cry for help by the tortured and oppressed Christians in their native land. Did the Christians do some very wrong things? Yes, but notice that the Crusades have been over nearly a thousand years. Jihad is active today. And while we are at it, why do academic libraries have many books on the Crusades, which lasted only 200 years, and so few on jihad, which has lasted 1400 years? The West has analyzed the Crusades forever and has never analyzed jihad.

I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE SAYS…
Why is the Muslim your friend knows the only Muslim out of 1.5 billion that makes him the expert on Islam? Remember, the average Muslim knows very little about the doctrine of Islam. Why? Because, historically the imams have acted as the high priests of Islam and they have never made the doctrine simple to understand. That is one way they keep their prestige and power.

But once you know something about the doctrine, you can say that you know also know a Muslim, and his name is Mohammed, and what you say comes from the Sunna. In short, your Muslim, Mohammed, can beat your friend’s Muslim on any issue of doctrine. If the Muslim your friend knows says something about Islam that agrees with Mohammed, then it is right. If what he says contradicts Mohammed, then he is wrong. So this Muslim your friend knows is either wrong or redundant, but never more right than Mohammed.

I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE IS A NICE MAN
Probably so. What does that prove about Islam? He may follow the Golden Rule and not Islam. That is, he may be a poor Muslim and a good person.

Now is the time to explain about the Islam of Mecca and the Islam of Medina and which one is the more powerful. It is also time to explain about dualism and how Islam always has two faces.

Stay with doctrine and history of Islam, never get personal and talk about an individual Muslim. Actually, there is one way to talk about any Muslim, show how what they do and say follows the doctrine.

Besides, you know this Muslim and his name is Mohammed. Don’t talk about “Muslims,” talk about Mohammed.

THAT IS NOT THE REAL ISLAM
If you are quoting the Koran or the Sunna, then it is the real Islam, by definition. The Koran and the Sunna are Islam, the real Islam. All other Islam, such as is found in the media, is the false Islam. There is only one real Islam, the doctrine of Islam.

THEY DON’T REALLY BELIEVE THAT
This comes after you have revealed some horrific part of the doctrine. What do Muslims call themselves? The believers. What do they believe? The Koran and the Sunna. They say that is what they believe. Really believe.

I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE IS NOT VIOLENT
This is a restating of, “I know this Muslim and he is good man.” He may be a poor Muslim and a good man who follows the Golden Rule.

But, the statement shows that there is no understanding of the duality of Islam. The Koran has both violence and tolerance against the Kafirs. Today in America the power of Islam is just getting started, so Islam is still weak. When Mohammed was weak in Mecca, he did not kill anybody. Islam is still in the first phase of jihad here.

But the Koran says that one Muslim can beat two Kafirs. It also says that Islam must be the dominant political system. So when Muslims reach a third of the population (that makes it 2 to 1), they will be in the full stage of Medina and violence becomes a standard operation. But even then, we know from the Sira, that many Muslims just don’t have the stomach for the violence. The Sira shows that Muslims can support jihad many ways, besides personal violence. The “peaceful” Muslim you know is commanded to give money to Islāmic charities and the charities give the money to the actual fighters.

WHAT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?
Look at the violence in the Old Testament. It has two qualities—local and temporary. None of the violence is commanded to be global and eternal. In each case the violence is directed in a political struggle and when it was over it was over.

The violence in the Trilogy is for all Muslims, in all places and for all time. Jihad is to stop only when every kaffir submits. Look at Mohammed, the perfect example. He was involved with violence until the day he died. And on his deathbed he directed eternal violence against the Kafirs when he said in his last breath: “Let there be neither Christian or Jew left in Arabia.”

IF ISLAM IS SO VIOLENT, HOW CAN IT BE SO SUCCESSFUL?
The Sira records that when Islam committed violence, it attracted new followers. As Osama bin Laden says: “People like a winning horse.” After 9/11 in the US, new followers joined Islam. Communism was a political system that preached, promised and delivered violence and it attracted many people. Many people love violence. Have you never paid any attention to Hollywood? Violence is piled upon violence and people line up to see it.

Islam is growing rapidly. but most of the growth can be attributed to high birth rates, not conversion. Islam’s growth in Kafir countries is due to immigration, not conversion.

This Is A Great Article By A Muslim American College Girl About Mr. Trump

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWS PAPER)

When she outed herself to me as a Trump supporter, I realized I had finally found the “silent majority.” I looked at her, this suddenly strange girl who sleeps a few feet away from me, my college roommate. The silent majority has seen me put on my head scarf in the morning and take it off at night. The silent majority has touched my face, done my makeup, watches “Gilmore Girls” religiously. The silent majority occasionally enjoys sliced mango before bed.

We fought; I packed. This was Tuesday evening, so I headed to my friend’s dorm, where a small group of us, mainly black women, tried to find solace in one another as the country slowly fell to red. I tried and failed to speak, to write. I ignored my roommate’s lengthy texts.

Did she really expect me to respect her choice when her choice undermined my presence in this country, in this university, in my very own dorm room? Did she really expect me to shake her hand for supporting a candidate who would love to bar my relatives from this country, who has considered making people of my faith register in a specific database and carry special ID, Holocaust-style?

What with the standstill of loyalties in this election, it is no surprise that our argument proved hopeless. There was no reasoning with her, but my goal today is not to reason with her. I know perfectly well — by the nature of this very platform, by the type of person who would click on this article — that I am preaching to the choir.

My roommate’s reasoning reflected an “us versus them” mind-set that has defined this nation for as long as it has existed, that explains the very core of Donald J. Trump’s appeal. Mr. Trump’s canned last-minute appeals to “one united people” does not change the fact that the world feels very different to me today.

I’ve always found refuge and clarity in the streets of New York City. After the vote was all but called at 3 in the morning, I wandered around Times Square with two equally bewildered friends. Drifting through the empty blue streets, witnessing the ugly truth illuminated by billboards, was more surreal than I could have imagined. The emboldened silent majority speckled the streets, sporting their red “Make America Great Again” caps. I was struck by a feeling that their caps were a military uniform, that our country was at civil war, and that I was a target. The way we eyed one another warily seemed to confirm this sentiment. And in fact, this exact dynamic seems to be playing out on college campuses around the country.

During a job interview recently, I was asked about the audience that I write for. I responded instantly: people who do not look like me. People I can shock with my multifaceted existence — the fact that I am Muslim and an ardent feminist, a child of immigrants and a writer in English. People — mainly white people — whom I can persuade to see reason by sharing parts of myself through stories that make me as real to them as they are to themselves.

On the subway back from Times Square, I realized that I was seeing the election results as proof of my personal failure as a writer. A black friend who was with me saw the election results as proof of her personal failure as a Black Lives Matter activist. A white friend seemed to blame his choice to vote in New York rather than back home in Michigan. Everyone I was with seemed crippled by a collective lack of agency that was more difficult to watch than CNN’s election coverage.

But this is not our fault. We are not the silent majority.

My roommate’s main defense of Mr. Trump during our argument was that he didn’t mean the “stupid things” he said. She had the privilege to dismiss his words, just as he has the privilege to dismiss mine. But today, I have woken up with a craving to write. Today, for the first time in a long time, my audience has changed.

Now that an us-versus-them system has been voted into office, I want to write for those who feel like the latter, the “them.” National unity in this moment may be nonexistent, but the unity among us is real and crucial. To the first trans kid I ever met; to my Muslim and Hispanic and female friends; to my sister and my mother, both hijabis; to all of the individuals who helped me feel love on Tuesday night, who offered me water as I cried on their bathroom floors, who marched from Union Square to Trump Tower on Wednesday — I believe in us, in our ability to regroup and find a course of action.

Mobilization depends on all of us — everyone who has been or could be a target of Mr. Trump, everyone who has been appalled by this election, at the parody of American democracy that has unfolded. We do not need to be silent. We do need to find resilience, inspiration and hope in one another.

History Of The New World Of The Dutch, Swedish, English And Dutch West India Co.

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF NINA ASTIKA AT GOOGLE +)

 New Netherland
New Netherland
New Netherland

This Dutch colonial outpost existed along the Hudson River from 1609 to 1664. A relatively small and ineffectual colony, it was known for its trade and diversity. It was eventually captured by the English and became the colony of New York.

Following its independence from Spain in the 1570’s, the Netherlands began constructing a worldwide empire due in large part to its powerful navy and savvy traders. In one of the country’s first colonial ventures, Dutch merchants in 1609 financed Henry Hudson to explore North America and Hudson discovered the river that bears his name.

In 1614, the Dutch established their first permanent settlement at Fort Nassau, later relocated and renamed Fort Orange (present-day Albany). This northerly settlement never grew very large and existed primarily to trade with Iroquois Indians for furs.

In 1625, the Dutch West India Company established New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island to control access to the Hudson River. This southerly settlement soon attracted a variety of settlers to farm.

New Netherlands was beset by a series of problems for most of its history. Relations with Native Americans were generally poor. Fort Orange was largely dependent on the Iroquois for its survival, while colonists in the south drove Algonquins from their lands and fought four wars in 20 years with them.

Of more pressing concern, however, were the colony’s mismanagement and ineffective leadership. The colony never produced a profit for its investors, while its most effective governor was the autocratic Peter Stuyvesant (1647–64), who barred the colonists from participating in their own governance.

Because of these problems, New Netherlands had trouble attracting colonists. The Dutch West India Company did offer patronship, large land grants with manorial rights, to anyone who took 50 settlers to the colony. However, Kiliaen Van Rensselaer was the only person to take up the company’s offer seriously.

Lacking Dutch settlers, New Netherlands opened its borders to dissenters from New England including Anne Hutchinson as well as emigrants from Belgium, France, Scandinavia, and Germany and African slaves. As one visitor noted of New Amsterdam: “There were men of eighteen different languages.” Very quickly the Dutch became a minority in their own colony.

Ethnic diversity invited religious differences and although Stuyvesant attempted to privilege the Dutch Reformed Church, the company insisted upon a policy of religious toleration. Puritans, Quakers, and Lutherans were common in New Netherland, and Jews received greater religious freedom than anywhere else in America.

Ultimately, New Netherland suffered the most from foreign competition. A Swedish colony on the Delaware River proved a distraction to the Dutch and, in 1655, Stuyvesant engineered a military takeover of New Sweden. However, Dutch hegemony proved short-lived as in 1664 an English fleet under the command of Richard Nicolls arrived off New Amsterdam.

Although Stuyvesant attempted to mount a defense of his colony, “a general discontent and unwillingness to assist in defending the place became manifest among the people.” On August 27, Stuyvesant surrendered New Netherlands to Nicolls, who granted the colonists generous terms, including the preservation of their property rights, inheritance laws, and religious liberty.

Why It Is Okay To Own Slaves: (Not Really)

 

Professional writers say that on a blog post people need to use a title that gets people’s attention so that they will stop browsing mail titles and stop and read yours. Hopefully you are not a person that believes it is okay to own another person. But, there in lies a point that in some people’s minds makes it okay to buy, sale, and trade in human flesh. I have learned in my years of travels that some people don’t really believe that other people are really actually human beings. Sounds rather ignorant doesn’t it? But I have learned in my time that God has given me that some people do believe that any other “Being” that is not of their own skin color, or religion, or even nationality, do not have Souls, that others are not really human beings with a Soul like unto their own race, religion, ….

 

Here in America most people would probably say that actual slaves do not exist in our country because it is illegal. Some people are naive, some people choose not to see, many choose to bury their own heads inside their own  so that they do not have to bear witness to the evil of the real world around us. I am very glad that in our country legal slavery has been abolished way before my lifetime but that plague still simmer here among us. Like in most cases in our world if you wish to see truth, follow the money, follow the ego’s, follow the hate.

 

When I was much younger I used to wonder how it was possible for human beings to do the horrible things they do to each other. How could a race of people justify to their God their own actions of bull whipping, raping, torturing, enslaving, and killing of other people. How could the English justify their actions toward the Irish people or the Indian, African, or even the Jewish? How could the European people come to another country like the Colonies and justify removing the Native populations? How did Americans justify removing the Mexican populations of the west and southwest? How did parts of a nation believe in the African slave trade to be exceptionable? Evil, Demonic hearts, hater filled, egotistical, greed filled souls? Yes is my belief to those questions.

 

Slavery has existed since man crawled out of their caves with the intent to take by any means necessary that which others possessed. To the most powerful goes the gains which others labored for, including their bodies. Why should the land owner, the governor, or the King pay for what they can get for free? When Europeans came to the Americas the wealthy purchased the law and the land just as they had in Europe. Still, someone had to do the work for them and why pay for that which you can take for free? First they tried to enslave the Native Indians but they knew the lay of the lands and they simply ran away. Then, came the indentured poor white folks who for the price of their ticket to the New World worked as a slave for usually about seven years for the Land Lords to earn their freedom. This wasn’t working all that well either so then came the enslavement of captured Africans who were to never be freed, ever. Most all enslavement’s of humans have always been about the rich owning the poor, this disgrace of enslaving the Africans is the only time in recorded history that I have ever come across that was totally color based.

 

I learned the answer to my question of how people could justify to themselves their actions against others, people who were different in some way than they themselves. I learned this answer in 1978 when I started going to a church in a small southern town in which I was told by the preacher that the people there (in that congregation) did not believe that non-whites had Souls. You read that correctly, this to his credit was the fact that made him turn in his notice to them that he was quitting as their Pastor. That moment in time was when the light, the answer to how came to light for me. How sickening that mind-set, how evil.

 

The U.N. recently stated that they believe that about 9 million people world-wide are living in slavery. They say that most of these slaves are in North Africa, the Middle East, and in Asia, most, but not all. Where there is not the heart, belief, and faith of ever human being’s being equals, there will be slavery. Where there is the heart of pure greed, there will be slavery, thievery, and unjust imprisonment. When a poor person is willing and able to work for their food and shelter they should be able to afford more than slop and a cardboard box. One simple example I will use is the case of the employees of a large/huge company cannot obtain full-time positions and a livable wage and company provided insurances for their families while the owners of the company increases their wealth by billions every year. Livable wage is a subjective term, to some a livable wage is defined as “if they are still breathing” then I am “giving” “these people” enough of “my” money. “Why should one pay for what they can get for free, or at least as little as possible”? Simple math, the smaller amount I have to give to “these people” the more I get to keep for myself. Ego, greed, evil, yes they are all bred into the Devils servants. Here in America we hear about the evil of the top 1%, the worst evil lies in the top 1/1000 of this 1% club. Is there slavery in our world today? You decide for yourself, what do you “see”?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why It Is Okay To Own Slaves; (Not Really)

 

Professional writers say that on a blog post people need to use a title that gets people’s attention so that they will stop browsing mail titles and stop and read yours. Hopefully you are not a person that believes it is okay to own another person. But, there in lies a point that in some people’s minds makes it okay to buy, sale, and trade in human flesh. I have learned in my years of travels that some people don’t really believe that other people are really actually human beings. Sounds rather ignorant doesn’t it? But I have learned in my time that God has given me that some people do believe that any other “Being” that is not of their own skin color, or religion, or even nationality, do not have Souls, that others are not really human beings with a Soul like unto their own race, religion, ….

 

Here in America most people would probably say that actual slaves do not exist in our country because it is illegal. Some people are naive, some people choose not to see, many choose to bury their own heads inside their own  so that they do not have to bear witness to the evil of the real world around us. I am very glad that in our country legal slavery has been abolished way before my lifetime but that plague still simmer here among us. Like in most cases in our world if you wish to see truth, follow the money, follow the ego’s, follow the hate.

 

When I was much younger I used to wonder how it was possible for human beings to do the horrible things they do to each other. How could a race of people justify to their God their own actions of bull whipping, raping, torturing, enslaving, and killing of other people. How could the English justify their actions toward the Irish people or the Indian, African, or even the Jewish? How could the European people come to another country like the Colonies and justify removing the Native populations? How did Americans justify removing the Mexican populations of the west and southwest? How did parts of a nation believe in the African slave trade to be exceptionable? Evil, Demonic hearts, hater filled, egotistical, greed filled souls? Yes is my belief to those questions.

 

Slavery has existed since man crawled out of their caves with the intent to take by any means necessary that which others possessed. To the most powerful goes the gains which others labored for, including their bodies. Why should the land owner, the governor, or the King pay for what they can get for free? When Europeans came to the Americas the wealthy purchased the law and the land just as they had in Europe. Still, someone had to do the work for them and why pay for that which you can take for free? First they tried to enslave the Native Indians but they knew the lay of the lands and they simply ran away. Then, came the indentured poor white folks who for the price of their ticket to the New World worked as a slave for usually about seven years for the Land Lords to earn their freedom. This wasn’t working all that well either so then came the enslavement of captured Africans who were to never be freed, ever. Most all enslavement’s of humans have always been about the rich owning the poor, this disgrace of enslaving the Africans is the only time in recorded history that I have ever come across that was totally color based.

 

I learned the answer to my question of how people could justify to themselves their actions against others, people who were different in some way than they themselves. I learned this answer in 1978 when I started going to a church in a small southern town in which I was told by the preacher that the people there (in that congregation) did not believe that non-whites had Souls. You read that correctly, this to his credit was the fact that made him turn in his notice to them that he was quitting as their Pastor. That moment in time was when the light, the answer to how came to light for me. How sickening that mind-set, how evil.

 

The U.N. recently stated that they believe that about 9 million people world-wide are living in slavery. They say that most of these slaves are in North Africa, the Middle East, and in Asia, most, but not all. Where there is not the heart, belief, and faith of ever human being’s being equals, there will be slavery. Where there is the heart of pure greed, there will be slavery, thievery, and unjust imprisonment. When a poor person is willing and able to work for their food and shelter they should be able to afford more than slop and a cardboard box. One simple example I will use is the case of the employees of a large/huge company cannot obtain full-time positions and a livable wage and company provided insurances for their families while the owners of the company increases their wealth by billions every year. Livable wage is a subjective term, to some a livable wage is defined as “if they are still breathing” then I am “giving” “these people” enough of “my” money. “Why should one pay for what they can get for free, or at least as little as possible”? Simple math, the smaller amount I have to give to “these people” the more I get to keep for myself. Ego, greed, evil, yes they are all bred into the Devils servants. Here in America we hear about the evil of the top 1%, the worst evil lies in the top 1/1000 of this 1% club. Is there slavery in our world today? You decide for yourself, what do you “see”?

 

 

 

 

 

 

sellmark

sellmark.WordPress.com

sorryless

mellowing the harshness

World News from Different Views with Different Agendas

U.S. and World News - Take Heed that No Man Deceive You

TheCagedBirdSings

The song of a heart can never be caged...

CuriousHumans

We have no idea what we are doing

Vasa and Ypres

They're British. They're Fabulous. They're Almost Humorous.

%d bloggers like this: