The biblical curse of Ham, Harikrish explains.

Author: Harikrish ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 85
  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish

    Noah had 3 sons Shem, Japheth and Ham. Noah only cursed Ham and his children and Ham's children were destined to be slaves to Shem and Japheth and their descendants. (Genesis 9)

    Genesis 10 gives us the start of Nations.
    Only Ham's children were the first Africans.
    1. 4. Four Sons of Ham
    1. Mizraim (Egypt)
    2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
    3. Put (Lybia)
    4. Canaan (Land of Canaanites)

    As you can see those are African countries. Both the curse and hot sun changed the genetics of Hams descendant. This gave rise to the African race and phenotypes.

    Noah's sons Shem and Japheth started the other nations.

    2. Five Sons of Shem (see map below):
    1. Elam (Arabia)
    2. Asshur (Assyria)
    3. Lud (Lydians)
    4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
    5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)
    Note, This debunks the Out of Africa Theory. Shem or his descendants were never in Africa.

    3. Seven Sons of Japheth:
    1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
    2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
    3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
    4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
    5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
    6. Meshech (Russia)
    7. Gomer (Celtic)
    Note, This debunks the Out of Africa Theory. Japheth or his descendants were never in Africa.

    Now you know why the curse of Ham only condemned Africans who were the descendants of Hams children who built the African nations.
    Noah's curse and its fulfillment.

    Canaanites

    Canaan, As well as his descendants, Followed in the sinful way of their father. The punishment was placed upon the descendants of Canaan-the Canaanites. These are the people who were driven out of the Promised Land by the children of Israel. Consequently, They would be in servitude to the descendants of Shem and Japeth. Because the descendants of Canaan lived corrupt lives, Their judgment was righteous. When the children of Israel entered the land of Promise they saw the detestable things that the descendants of Canaan were doing. God blessed Israel and cursed the Canaanites because their practices were similar to their father Ham.

    Historical Fulfillment

    History records God's promises were fulfilled. The Canaanites were defeated and placed into slavery by the eastern kings Genesis 14. Later in the history of Israel, Other descendants of Canaan, Known as the Gibeonites, Were made wood choppers and water carriers under Joshua. Thus the predictions of Noah that Canaan's descendants would serve Shem's descendants were literally fulfilled and recorded in the Old Testament.
    Indians are Indo European/Aryans the descendants of Japheth. Noah only cursed the Canaanites the descendants of Canaan the son of Ham. Read your bible you low IQ nigger.

    Where are the Canaanites today? Not in India. Lol?
    Canaan was the name of a large and prosperous ancient country (at times independent, At others a tributary to Egypt) located in the Levant region of present-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, And Israel. It was also known as Phoenicia.

    Why did Ham's son Canaan leave Africa when Ham and his other sons settled in African countries?
    4. Four Sons of Ham
    1. Mizraim (Egypt)
    2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
    3. Put (Lybia)
    4. Canaan (Land of Canaanites)

    And Ham divided amongst his sons, And the first portion came forth for Cush towards the east(Sudan, Ethiopia), And to the west of him for Mizraim(Egypt), And to the west of him for Put(Lybia), And to the west of him [and to the west thereof] on the sea for Canaan.
    Jubilees 9:1
    And Canaan saw the land of Lebanon to the river of Egypt, That it was very good, And he went not into the land of his inheritance to the west (that is to) the sea, And he dwelt in the land of Lebanon, Eastward and westward from the border of Jordan and from the border of the sea. And Ham, His father, And Cush and Mizraim his brothers said unto him: 'Thou hast settled in a land which is not thine, And which did not fall to us by lot: do not do so; for if thou dost do so, Thou and thy sons will fall in the land and (be) accursed through sedition; for by sedition ye have settled, And by sedition will thy children fall, And thou shalt be rooted out for ever. Dwell not in the dwelling of Shem; for to Shem and to his sons did it come by their lot. Cursed art thou, And cursed shalt thou be beyond all the sons of Noah, By the curse by which we bound ourselves by an oath in the presence of the holy judge, And in the presence of Noah our father. ' But he did not hearken unto them, And dwelt in the land of Lebanon from Hamath to the entering of Egypt, He and his sons until this day. And for this reason that land is named Canaan. R32;"Jubilees 10:29-34.




  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    Ham wasn't cursed, his son Canaan and his descendants were.


    Also, calling someone "low IQ nigger" is not very nice. 


  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac

    Ham wasn't cursed, his son Canaan and his descendants were.


    Also, calling someone "low IQ nigger" is not very nice.

    There are 2 problems with your position.
    1. Canaan was not yet born when Noah cursed Ham. Noah and his 3 sons Shem, Japheth and Ham had just gotten off the Ark.

    Genesis 9:The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.

    2. Noah was drunk when he cursed his youngest son who was Ham. But being drunk he got the name wrong. Canaan was not even in the room when the incident happened.
    Genesis 9:20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.
    24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,25 he said,
    “Cursed be Canaan!
    The lowest of slaves
    will he be to his brothers.”
    26 He also said,
    “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
    May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
    27 
    May God extend Japheth’s[b] territory;
    may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
    and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

    3. But it was a common practice to curse the person through his children. So Noah cursed Ham through his children (Canaan)

    Numbers 14:18 The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.'

    4. It was even worse condemning  generations after generations of Africans to slavery. So low IQ was a precursor to what was to follow.

    Harikrish is a biblical scholar and spiritual leader at DDO.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    You claim to be a biblical scholar and spiritual leader, but as you are not with the church, I can't respect your credentials.


    The curse went on Canaan, not Ham or Canaan's brothers. In fact, Ham himself was blessed in verse 1 of this chapter.

    So no, the curse of Ham's son Canaan does not justify your racism.



  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac
    You claim to be a biblical scholar and spiritual leader, but as you are not with the church, I can't respect your credentials.


    The curse went on Canaan, not Ham or Canaan's brothers. In fact, Ham himself was blessed in verse 1 of this chapter.

    So no, the curse of Ham's son Canaan does not justify your racism.

    But that is how curses work. Noah cursed Ham through his children. 
    God cursed Adam and Eve through their children.
    God punishes children for the sins of the parents to the third and forth generation. Numbers 14:18.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    Yes, it is no strange thing that parents pass on their idolatries and bad habits to their children. And even these curses can be lifted!

    As far as Ham being cursed, as well as all of his children, that is simply not what the church teaches. The curse fell on Canaan, not his brothers. 


  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac

    --> @Harikrish
    Reply
    Yes, it is no strange thing that parents pass on their idolatries and bad habits to their children. And even these curses can be lifted!

    As far as Ham being cursed, as well as all of his children, that is simply not what the church teaches. The curse fell on Canaan, not his brothers.



    The bible tells us the curse followed what Noah's youngest son Ham had done to him. Canaan was not in the room or even born when the incident happened.

    genesis 9:24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

    Noah's  curse was intended for Ham. Noah cursed Ham through his children.

    The bible confirms the Canasnites were punished by God. Thus fulfilling Noah's curse.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    The church has greater authority than your interpretation of scriptures 
  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac
    The church has greater authority than your interpretation of scriptures

    Which one? There are 30,000 denominations of Churches. They cannot even agree among themselves.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    The Orthodox Catholic Church.


    It is the very church that was founded by Jesus and the apostles. All these other churches can trace themselves back in some way to deviation from this church.

    All other churches are either a step away or several steps away from Orthodoxy. 

    Most evangelical or protestant churches trace themselves from breaking away from Roman Catholicism.

    Roman Catholicism broke away from Orthodoxy a thousand years or so ago because they had this crazy idea that the pope of Rome was somehow the supreme bishop of the church and could just do whatever he wants. They have altered the faith a great deal, and protestantism is largely a reaction against that.

    Most evangelical churchs are reactions against the protestant churches.


    And so the multiplication of heresies never ends.


    But the actual definitive Christian Church is Orthodox Christianity. Everyone else kind of has a piece... a napkin of peter or something.






  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac
    The Catholic Church Played Major Role in Slavery  
    By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Contributor
    Published February 7, 2019     

    The universal church taught that slavery enjoyed the sanction of Scripture and natural law. 

    “When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.” — Jomo Kenyatta, First President of Kenya, Africa

    The Catholic Church played a vital role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, according to historians and several published theses on the topic.

    The trans-Atlantic slave trade was introduced by the coming of the Europeans who came with the Bible in the same manner that Arab raiders and traders from the Middle East and North Africa introduced Islam through the Trans-Saharan slave trade, according to AfricaW.com, a premiere informational website available throughout the continent.

    “In fact, the Church was the backbone of the slave trade,” the authors wrote. “In other words, most of the slave traders and slave ship captains were very ‘good’ Christians.”

    For example, Sir John Hawkins, the first slave-ship captain to bring African slaves to the Americas, was a religious man who insisted that his crew “serve God daily” and “love one another.”  His ship, ironically called “The Good Ship Jesus,” left the shores of his native England for Africa in October 1562. Some historians argue that if churches had used their power, the Atlantic slave trade might have never occurred.

    By the same logic, others argue that the Catholic church and Catholic missionaries could have also helped to prevent the colonization and brutality of colonialism in Africa.  However, according to a 2015 Global Black History report, the Catholic church did not oppose the institution of slavery until the practice had already become infamous in most parts of the world.

    In most cases, the churches and church leaders did not condemn slavery until the 17th century.



  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    That is the Roman Catholic Church.

    They broke away from The Orthodox Catholic Church.



    They are schismatics, and I am of the opinion that no other organization has done more damage to the name of Christ.



  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    Actually, it would probably be wrong for me to identify this to Roman Catholicism as well, since you seem to equate European Imperialist powers to Christianity.

    Wasn't Enland Anglican by this time anyway?



  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac
    wrong for me to identify this to Roman Catholicism as well, since you seem to equate European Imperialist powers to Christianity.

    Wasn't Enland Anglican by this time anyway?



    CATHOLIC CHURCH TIMELINE OF CRITICAL POINTS IN HISTORY
    YEAR.                  CHURCH’S POSITION
    362 AD.              The local Council at Gangra in Asia Minor excommunicates anyone       encouraging a slave to despise his master or withdraw from his service. (Became part of Church Law from the 13th to 20th centuries).
    354- 430 AD.   St. Augustine teaches that the institution of slavery derives from God and is beneficial to slaves and masters.
    650 AD.            Pope Martin I condemns people who teach slaves about freedom or who encourage them to escape.
    1179 AD.           The Third Lateran Council imposes slavery on those helping the Saracens.
    1226 AD.           The legitimacy of slavery is incorporated in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained official law of the Church until 1913.                  Canon lawyers worked out four “just titles” for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.
    1224- 1274 AD.     St.Thomas Aquinas defends slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the ‘right of nations’ and natural law. Children of a slave mother are rightly slaves even though they have not committed personal sin!
    1452 AD.              Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorizes (King) Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers to perpetual slavery.
     
    The same pope wrote the bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to the same Alfonso. As a follow-up to the Dum diversas, it extended to the Catholic nations of Europe dominion over discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Along with sanctifying the seizure of non-Christian lands, it encouraged the enslavement of native, non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World.
    1493 AD.               Pope Alexander VI authorizes the King of Spain to enslave non-Christians of the Americas who are at war with Christian powers.
    1494 AD.              Pope Alexander VI, in the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, divides the known New World between the two countries. As there was a need to locate a group to work in areas where the supply of indigenous labor was insufficient, to sustain their colonies, Spain and Portugal imported Africans.
    1500- 1850 AD.     Twelve million Africans arrived in the Americas to toil as slaves. The vast majority of these slaves worked in the Catholic colonies of Spain and Portugal
    1548 AD.               Pope Paul III confirms the right of clergy and laity to own slaves
    1866 AD.               Pope Pius IX declares:
    Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.
    1888 AD               Pope Leo XIII condemns slavery in more general terms, and supports the anti-slavery movement.
    1918 AD.               The new Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedictus XV condemns ‘selling any person as a slave’. (There is no condemnation of ‘owning’ slaves, however, and that was viewed as an entirely distinct issue at the time!).
    1965 AD.              The Second Vatican Council defends basic human rights and denounces all violations of human integrity, including slavery (Gaudium et Spes, no 27,29,67).
    Table prepared by John Wijngaards, with data from: J.F.Maxwell,
    The Development of Catholic Doctrine concerning Slavery
    World Jurist 11 (1969-70)  pp. 147-192 and 291-324.


  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    You are making a non point.


    Without closely examing even these examples for veracity, nothing after 650 AD is Orthodox. 

    Also, yes, just as the church doesn't teach to overthrow government, we do not encourage slaves to rebel against their masters.


    Also, none of this has anything to with racism.
  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac
    You are making a non point.


    Without closely examing even these examples for veracity, nothing after 650 AD is Orthodox.

    Also, yes, just as the church doesn't teach to overthrow government, we do not encourage slaves to rebel against their masters.


    Also, none of this has anything to with racism.

    The reason for putting some Church dates in the post was to show the involvement of the Catholic Church in slavery. I basically see Catholic and Methodist as the two pillars of Christianity around which the others  grew. But we have 30,000 denominations. So you might have your own area of expertise.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    The Roman Cathllic church broke away from Orthodoxy over a thousand years ago because they had this crazy idea that the bishop of Rome was the king of all Christendom and could arbitrarily alter fundamentals of the faith that the entire church agreed would lead to anathema and being cut off from the church.

    The Anglican Church broke away from Roman Catholicism because the King didn't like being told how to conduct his married life. Methodism was inspired by the teachings of John Wesley, an Anglican priest.


    So Methodism is a schism of a schism of a schism.

    Roman Catholicism is a schismatic church.

    The Orthodox Catholic Church is THE Christian Church.

    We don't recognize denominationalism as a thing. You are either Orthodox or you are heterodox. Either with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, or with something else.


  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac
    Roman Cathllic church broke away from Orthodoxy over a thousand years ago because they had this crazy idea that the bishop of Rome was the king of all Christendom and could arbitrarily alter fundamentals of the faith that the entire church agreed would lead to anathema and being cut off from the church.

    The Anglican Church broke away from Roman Catholicism because the King didn't like being told how to conduct his married life. Methodism was inspired by the teachings of John Wesley, an Anglican priest.


    So Methodism is a schism of a schism of a schism.

    Roman Catholicism is a schismatic church.

    The Orthodox Catholic Church is THE Christian Church.

    We don't recognize denominationalism as a thing. You are either Orthodox or you are heterodox. Either with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, or with something else.

    The Roman Catholic Church has over a billion Catholics. It grabbed Peter and Paul. Not much of an argument left.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    Peter and Paul are Orthodox saints. They certainly did not "grab Peter and Paul". 

    The Orthodox Church has been in a never ending position of being persecuted, and has even been the object of genocide. Yet despite this, it is the second largest congregation of those that go by the name Christian in the world.  

  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac
    Peter and Paul are Orthodox saints. They certainly did not "grab Peter and Paul".

    The Orthodox Church has been in a never ending position of being persecuted, and has even been the object of genocide. Yet despite this, it is the second largest congregation of those that go by the name Christian in the world. 


    If your church split with the Roman Catholic Church then there is a division in your beliefs. How is that any different from other man made institutions?
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    Actually, Rome without consent of the rest of the church altered the creed of faith, tried to depose bishops, and was working outside of its ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Every other Patriarch sided against them.

    The Roman Catholic church broke communion with us, they are the ones in error. The proof is really in examining the history of the church. The pope of Rome is not, nor ever had papal supremacy over the church, neither have they ever had the authority to alter the creed agreed on by the entire church. Altering the creed is something that in every ecumenical council that the matter was brought up, would lead to anathema.

    So no, there is no division. You are either Orthodox or you aren't with the church.

    Heterodox means other than orthodox.




  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,001
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    --> @Mopac
    Is there a book with your churches scriptural meanings Instead of the actual scripture.
    A TELL IT LIKE IT IS BIBLE if you will.   Actually , think of all the implications. Wow hey mopac?  


  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    We would not see that sort of thing as necessary or desirable.


    That said, tbere are thousands of years worth of commentary on the scriptures.


    The important thing to get is that our religion is Truth worship,  and all of our discipline follows from that.


  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac
    Actually, Rome without consent of the rest of the church altered the creed of faith, tried to depose bishops, and was working outside of its ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Every other Patriarch sided against them.

    The Roman Catholic church broke communion with us, they are the ones in error. The proof is really in examining the history of the church. The pope of Rome is not, nor ever had papal supremacy over the church, neither have they ever had the authority to alter the creed agreed on by the entire church. Altering the creed is something that in every ecumenical council that the matter was brought up, would lead to anathema.

    So no, there is no division. You are either Orthodox or you aren't with the church.

    Heterodox means other than orthodox.

    What is the Orthodox  position on the Curse of Ham?
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    Ham was blessed, he wasn't cursed. Canaan is the one who was cursed, and sure enough, his descendants are an extinct people. 


    The Ethiopian church is one of the oldest Christian churches, and they are a people descended from the Cushites. 

    According to what is written in Numbers chapter 12, Moses had a wife who was a Cushite, or an Ethiopian.