Black Christian communities are typically God-fearing and Gospel-driven areas that nourish its members into becoming the perfected versions of themselves. Unfortunately, there are still some that uphold misogyny, patriarchy, homophobia and the like all masked as "boldly professing and practicing Biblical principles." Of course, many groups of people have distorted scriptures to fit their agenda, and some churches are not the exception. Black churches have been and continue to be upholders of dangerous systems that marginalize women.

The bodies of Black women are policed since their youth. The Black Church has participated in this scrutiny, especially the developing features of adolescent girls and young adults. If their hips are too wide or their backsides too rounded, they’re lectured on “being careful”. Little Black girls are rarely allowed to simply be. There are always someone’s insecurities and sins being projected onto them. Of course, every event has appropriate attire. However, it becomes an issue when a woman is greeted with a lap cloth rather than a hug. While it is understandable that church service should be a distraction-free event, it is not the woman wearing the above-knee skirt that is the problem, but the attitudes of those that enforce such a dress code.

Contemporary Christian communities also make the mistake of solely placing the expectations of sexual purity on women. There are an immeasurable amount of conferences, sermons and devotionals geared towards young, adult women teaching on sexual purity. However, there is very little content that speaks the same to their counterparts. Little to no ministers stand in the pulpit and address the importance of boys and young men waiting until marriage before sharing themselves with the opposite sex. Statistics show that the average male loses his virginity slightly earlier and have more sexual partners than the average female. With this information, it would be more understandable that boys would receive just as much, if not more, messages targeting them.  

Women are shamed if they become a mother before becoming a wife; however, men do not share that condemnation. As the saying goes, “it takes two to tango.” Women do not have sex with and create babies by themselves. There is not the same level of effort placed into preparing boys for fatherhood and marriage as there is preparing girls for motherhood and matrimony. Women are preached to about how to please their husbands and how to sustain their marriage. No one recommends the man to be “husband material”. The woman is asked to stay and honor her vows even if honoring those vows dishonors herself -- even if honoring those vows result in dishonoring God. Even when on the receiving end of abuse, adultery and neglect, the woman may be faced with the counsel that advises her to stay.

Oftentimes, scriptures such as Ephesians 5:21-33 are used to further support the agenda of patriarchy. The Bible does not instruct a man to rule over a woman. Neither does it direct a wife to obey her husband. The New Testament urges wives to 'submit' to their husband. The Greek word for 'submit' is to defer to someone respectfully and does not imply superiority. Obey, on the other hand, has a different Greek meaning, which is to listen under. Ironically, only one verse addresses women while the other verses within the listed scriptures address men.

The Church profits off women while minimizing how vital they are to its continuation. When most Black people speak of their religious beliefs and communities, "praying grandmothers" are a staple. These are the women that petition God’s throne on the behalf of their descendants pleading that He protects and pours His blessings upon them. If you listen to some of your favorite music artists’ songs, many of them credit their success and “second chances” to their grandmothers that loved them enough to mention their names during their communication with God.

Women are granted the privilege to be ushers, treasurers and announcers. However, many are forbidden to to stand or take a seat in that same pulpit. Many with this belief reference 1 Timothy 2:11-12 to support their statement. Their belief is that women cannot be preachers or pastors. Upon reading, it is easy to believe that this scripture supports marginalizing women; however that is not within context. The writer of 1 Timothy, Apostle Paul was merely expressing his point of view, which was a preference shaped by his cultural circumstances. During his time, patriarchal culture was the norm. Some scholars even argue that the scripture was simply Paul addressing an issue that specifically affected the congregation that he wrote the letter to.

In Old Testament times, sexism was unfortunately a cultural norm in most civilizations. By the time the NT was occurring, women held a prominent presence in their communities. God chose a woman as a vehicle to bring Jesus into the world. It was a woman that was granted the honor of first seeing Christ risen. Black women are the backbone of black churches although they have historically been prohibited from operating in leadership roles of the very communities that they have tirelessly contributed to.

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

American Christianity has always prioritized men at the expense of women. It has a history of manipulating Bible scripture to fit their narrative of patriarchy. As a result, many young adults are leaving The Church. The unchurched and dechurched are no longer complicit or tolerating oppressive behaviors of places that they rely on in their times of need. It is the duty of men to put an end to patriarchy and misogyny since they are the persons that benefit from those systems.

Patriarchy in The Church is counterproductive and will eventually be the cancer that consumes itself. The Kingdom functions best when men and women are equally granted the same permissions and when they work together as equal partners to advance the community that they contribute to.

Conscious and Christian,

Simultaneously.

Couch critics and churchgoing believers alike can be hypercritical of all things when it comes to transitions within the black community. It is easy to get caught up in what seems like destructive criticism -- or the finger pointing that involves no problem solving. A brief surf on the web will result in multiple pages worth of 'think pieces' that pinpoint the many causes for delay of Black liberation. However, the black church seems to be the bullseye as of late.

The "black church" is a term used in reference to churches that have predominately Black congregations and clergy. It is common for people to speak of the Black church as one, single entity. However, it is the collection of churches that serve the Black community. Unfortunately, it has been and continues to be credited as one of the major wedges separating Black people from their true freedom. When one thinks of church, they imagine it as simply a place of worship. However, the black church has always been more than just that. It has been a rehabilitation center in more ways than just spiritual.

Although spiritual growth and development is a central focus of most places of worship, they are not the only priorities. The church has emphasized community organizing and anti-poverty efforts since its establishment. Black churches have done and continue to do a multitude of good deeds for their communities. Although they go unpublicized, they do not go unnoticed. It was Black churches that published newspapers, fundraised for schools and founded companies to counter poverty in their respective neighborhoods. It was also Black churches that provided safe spaces for orphanages and formed prison ministries. During times of confinement, the church provided financial support for bail. During a time of homelessness, the church was a refuge. Since the beginning of the fight, the Black church has not only been at the forefront but also a pillar of its community. In fact, Black preachers and Clergy women were the most identified with the Civil Rights Movement.

As who many consider the face of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the most prominent ministers that also wore the hat of an activist. Not only did he deliver profound speeches, he also led boycotts, staged sit-ins and organized marches to make a difference. King co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a nonprofit organization linked to the Civil Rights Movement, alongside Ralph Abernathy and others. Like King, Abernathy was an influential minister and activist that allowed his faith to be the fuel that ignited his fight for progression. They were also accompanied by Fred Shuttlesworth, who was also a minister that fought against racial bigotry and discrimination. Social issues were majorly a matter of segregation and other forms of racism, and the church stepped up to tackle those issues head first.

Today, churches are utilizing strategic methods to demolish each barrier that separates Black people from continuous progression. Those approaches include providing financial and spiritual support to members affected by an illness -- second only to biological family. They are hosting seminars focused on financial literacy. The church continues to bring awareness to health and wellness education. The church provides scholarships to college students in need. While Black mega churches receive much disapproval for their income, many of these churches build homes, recreation centers and numerous other community services. Many of these contributions have gone without a viral post and have been overshadowed by the less fortunate media coverage of Christians.

Perhaps the climate has changed drastically and the credibility of the church in the black community is becoming less significant. However, it is wrong to overlook the progress the church has contributed to. It is an inaccuracy to paint the Black Church to be a villain seeking to deceive and profit off of its community when history shows otherwise. Historically, the black church has been the most influential institution in the African American community and the two have mutually benefited from one another. The Black Church is certainly not without transgression; however, it is undeniably instrumental in the progression of the Black community.

Conscious and Christian,
Simultaneously.

• Dead Sea Scrolls - One of the greatest archaeological finds of the twentieth century is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are ancient manuscripts that make up the Hebrew Bible. They are significant because they are one of the longest-lasting surviving manuscripts of the Bible. The scrolls were discovered in 1947 as over 800 documents and fragments. Although there are some fragments, the complete book of Isaiah was found in tact. The differences between the Old Testament and Dead Sea Scrolls were minor punctuation and spelling errors. 

• Crucified Man at Givat Hamivtar - A crucified man may not seem to prove very much. However, it does when there have been many arguements that the crucifixion of Christ was untrue. The reasoning behind that claim is because crucifixion was not believed to be a form of capital punishment during Christ's time of execution. Just outside of Jerusalem, the remains of a man's full skeleton crucified in the first century were found. In the foot region, there contained a bent nail leading to the conclusion that crucifixion was indeed a method of judgement during that time.

• Tel Dan Inscription - Uncovered in 1993 and dating back to the 9th century, a stone tablet is found that makes reference to a military battle and victory. It mirrors the biblical account that is found in 2 Chronicles 22 of the Bible. The insciption on the tablet translates to "House of David" and gives us a precise dating to the Davidic dynasty therefore confirming its existence.

• Moabite Stone - In 1868,  a missionary in Jerusalem found a stone tablet that appeared to be from earlier times. It is now also known as Mesha Stele. It was broken with the intentions of selling more pieces and therefore making more money. The text written on the tablet is created by King Mesha dates back to the ninth century BC. The content of the tablet reads of military achievements. In the Old Testament, the same occurence is recorded in 2 Kings 3. A copy of the tablet was created before its breaking and is in currently in the Louvre.

• Hezekiah's Tunnel - The Bible narrates that before the Assyrian invasion of Judah, King Hezekiah built a tunnel. That tunnel was built to bring the waters of the Gihon Spring into the city of David. In 1867, Sir Charles Warren discovered said tunnel. 2 Chronicles 32 gives the account of the tunnel. About 20 ft from the exit of the tunnel, there is also the Siloam inscription that also mentions King Hezekiah. It has since been removed to Turkey.

Scriptures in its entirety is God's Word revealed to and written by chosen authors. Because it is inspired by God, the Bible is infallible and inerrant. It is completely true with or without any secular evidence. However, it is comforting to have external, supporting proof of the collection of sacred text that we refer to as the Bible.

Conscious and Christian,
Simultaneously.

Of course artistic styles change throughout each century; however, the images of Jesus have generally been the same. While there are notable differences, there are also distinct consistencies. Just as many Renaissance Era artists painted Christ in their image, so did many African artists. The same is true for artists within other cultures as well. Different cultures have different interpretations of who He is. For African artwork, you will generally see Jesus depicted with African features. Within Asian culture, you will notice that there are Asian features. And so on.

While it is not wise to inaccurately create art of actual people, it is equally important to accurately portray historical figures as they were. Representation is important, and it matters. So if our modern depictions of The Christ were influenced by anyone, it does not seem to be by Cesare Borgia.

With so many theories of Christianity being nothing more than plagiarism of Kemet and its practices, it is prominent to debunk what is currently spreading as wildfire. One of those misconceptions is the belief that the Ten Commandments were stolen from the 2,000 year predated, 42 Laws of Ma'at (which has no official list). Of course there are limited similarities between the two; however, there are also distinct differences.

For background information, Ma'at is an ancient Egyptian goddess of truth, justice and order that is found in inscriptions of tombs and on some papyrus records. According to Egyptian religion, a deceased person's soul was weighed against a feather and judged by these principles to determine whose souls were spared from judgement.

The 42 Laws are in fact not actual laws, but rather declarations that are stated after death - hence why they all begin with "I have not..." Although, you may notice that they are sometimes phrased differently beginning with "Thou shall not..." to display Biblical form and force bias. Whereas the 42 precepts are lists of negative things you should not do and confessed after death, the 10 commandments are negative and positive statements that are kept before death.

Often times, we view whichever happens first as what is most authentic. Unfortunately, that is a common fallacy. Simply because an event happens 'after this' does not equate to it happening 'because of this'.

It is stated that Moses' rearing in Egypt caused him to have plagiarized what he was taught. However, Moses purpose was to oppose much of what the Egyptian culture believed, not duplicate it. For example, the 10 Commandments states that:

"You shall have no other gods before Me."
It is impossible for this to have been stolen from Egypt simply because Egyptians worshiped multiple gods.

"You shall make no idols."
Egyptians did not have one belief system. They were believers of many gods. Therefore, this could not have possibly been of their Negative Confessions.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God in vain."
There was no specific name that was enforced by which their god(s) must be referred to.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
They did not have a day that was set apart to rest.

"Honor your mother and father."
This is not mentioned in the 42 Declarations.

It is also argued that "The Law" existed before the 10 Commandments. Taking that into account, that would in return predate the 42 Negative Confessions. In multiple earlier scriptures throughout the Old Testament, there are accounts of people keeping the commandments. Supporting examples of this argument would be Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:6-17), Cain (Genesis 4:9-12), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 13:13), etc. all being punished for sinning. These examples are all documented before the establishing of the 10 Commandments in the Bible. Therefore, there would have to had been a standard for living in motion for 'sin' to be considered such.

Predating the Papyrus of Ani (where the 42 Confessions were derived), the Ipuwer Papyrus is said to date back to years earlier. Found incomplete and in poor condition, the Ipuwer Payrus is argued to be a recollection of the Exodus and Biblical accounts. If this is true, that would deaden the complete argument of the 10 Commandments being taken from Egyptology.

There is much left to the imagination and perception. However, logic and history both defeat the theory that the 10 Commandments were stolen from the 42 Laws of Ma'at. With there being 42 declarations, there is bound to be parallels found with the 10 Commandments. It does not necessarily mean one was taken from the other. It simply means that there were similar codes of conduct that overlapped different times and cultures.

Conscious and Christian,
Simultaneously.

Money is a sensitive subject to speak on within Christian spaces. However, it is necessary. One of the matters in question by both, church-goers and nonbelievers regarding The Church is funds. That includes clergy pay, tithes and the distribution thereof. "Why does the church want all of my money?" and the sarcastic "If money is the root of all evil, why do churches ask for it?" are complaints and concerns that echo throughout most Christian communities.

It is imperative that we correct flawed doctrine. Money is not evil; the love of money is. Scripture was implying that greed is a destructive force that leads to selfish actions. Loving money leads to situations such as these, questioning if churches and ministers are worthy of receiving it.

The Church does not want all of its members' money. However, it does need some of it. Churches require funds to operate. Just like any other establishment or home, local churches have to pay their bills as well. Not only utilities, but churches also meet the practical needs of their members and those within the local community. Financial support is needed to successfully maintain a church. Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of churches requesting money is not to fund pastor's luxurious lives. Some churches are so small that they can't pay a pastor much, if anything at all. In return, the pastor(s) utilizes his own funds to continue its run. Of course there are many opinionated responses and witty clapbacks to the topic at hand, but the ultimate authority is the Bible. What guidelines does the Bible give concerning ministerial pay?


They who are sent by God and devote their lives to His work should be supported and maintained by their work. The minister is entitled to support and should be supplied with the proper necessities. Therefore, those who benefit from the minister's work are not at liberty to withhold what is rightfully due to him/her.
Those who labor in preaching and teaching is worthy of support and reverence. It is the congregation's duty to provide a decent and sufficient maintenance. Workers deserve what is rightfully owed to them.
Those who are not supportive of ministerial pay often feel that ministers should not sell The Gospel. The Gospel is free; however, ministry costs. There is a difference in The Gospel (the message) and ministry (the work). Of course, no moral Christian sells the message. However, ministers are worthy of being paid for their work.

Ministry is not limited to the pulpit. Christian authors sell books, host seminars, and offer coaching services. Artists of the Christian genre sell digital music, headline concerts, and are booked for events. There are a generous amount of Christians (or ministers) who are paid for their products and services without complaint. It would be an insult to suggest otherwise. Somehow, the only recipients of such protest are preachers and pastors. If we willingly pay secular workers for preparing and serving our physical food, why is it considered offensive for God's workers? Are they not worthy of the same honor? Furthermore, there are as valid reasons why ministers should be supported as there are why schoolteachers, farmers, and doctors are worthy of their salaries. Ministers toil just as hard as other workers do.

The mass majority's real issue may be with the abuse of money rather than ministerial pay itself. There are more pastors living beneath their means than there are millionaire ministers with luxury possessions. The televangelists and wealthy ministers that grace the television screens and radio airways are an extremely small minority. Furthermore, many of them do not receive their sole income from preaching the Gospel. The majority of well-known ministers have multiple streams of income that range from producing movies to selling merchandise.

There obviously is, and has been, racial tension throughout the nation for quite some time now. We have recently lost two innocent, Black lives to the hands of police brutality. Many people, Christians included, are typically silent during these times to avoid offending their NonBlack colleagues and coworkers. These are some of the same people that chant, "If you don't vote, don't complain. Let your voices be heard!" It's ironic that the silent majority also refuse to use their voices during these times of social injustice. That leaves us in thought with the popular phrase, "WWJD?" (What Would Jesus Do?)

One of the many attributes that earns Jesus some admiration is that He was bold and unapologetic. He did not coddle feelings or pacify offense. He simply told the truth, sometimes bluntly and sarcastically. Although His intentions were never to disregard feelings, He spoke in spite of them. Sometimes the truth looks like a finger in the face, not a pat on the back. It doesn't always sound like the whispers of angels or look like two scoops with a cherry on top. Sometimes, the truth offends.

It is understandable that not everyone is an activist. Some people simply steer clear of that lane. However, activism is not compassion. Everyone should possess and extend compassion. Speaking of, how can one not see the issue that is plaguing this very nation? How can one close their ears to the cries of the lifeless bodies that are left within the streets? How can anyone turn their faces from the reality that Black people are killed by police officers at an alarming rate? If anyone would like to be passive about an issue that is aggressively wiping out a people, so be it. However, they should not condemn those who are outraged and choose to take action.

Many times, people will not acknowledge the current genocide of Black people. It seems as if some are determined to refute the oppressed's anguish.

"Dress better. They'll treat you better. Get an education. They'll take you seriously."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. embodied and exemplified such 'prestige' and the only reward he received was a death certificate. No one should have to conform to the standards of the very people who are determined to prove themselves superior. How someone dresses or speaks does not warrant anyone to treat them any less of a human being. No one should have to meet guidelines to prove they should not be unjustly shot.

"Don't kill each other! They won't kill you!"
It's highly unlikely that racist cops kill Black people because Black people kill one another. African Americans have been being killed for ages - dating back to slavery (when they were not yet killing themselves). Racist people do not need any reason, other than racism, to kill who they hate. It is dangerous to put the blame of oppression on the oppressed.

"What about Black on Black crime?"
Black on Black crime is a myth. Black on Black crime is a myth. BLACK ON BLACK CRIME IS A MYTH. People of the same race are more likely to commit acts of violence against one another (intraracial crime). Black people do not kill each other at a disproportionate rate. Black on Black crime shouldn't be a concept because we don't qualify crime by any other race. Even if 'black on black crime' were actually a 'thing', it still would not permit policemen to racially profile and kill unarmed African Americans. It should not be such a struggle to understand the difference between civilians killing one another and murders committed by police officers.

Another misconception is that Black people neglect to hold themselves accountable for criminal acts against one another. The Black community actually does address this and has also implemented programs, groups, and organizations to prevent inner city violence. (Moms Against Gun Violence, Dream Defenders, etc.) However, Black people don't protest as much when they kill one another because the civilians are held responsible for their actions. Justice is served. Officers typically go home on paid administrative leave after he's killed an unarmed person. The difference between intraracial crime within the Black community and police brutality is that their acts are typically acts of retaliation and personal issues with one another. Cops killing unarmed Black men due to the color of their skin should not be compared. Black men are held responsible when they commit criminal acts against one another; so should police officials. Unfortunately, that is not the case, which is why Black Lives Matter is imperative.

BLM is a movement that seeks justice, positive reform and empowerment. It is not a hate group or an anti-white proposition. It is ludicrous to hear the collective grief of a group and respond to them, "All lives matter! Blue lives matter!" While it is true that police lives matter, as well as all other lives, it completely disregards the fact that Black lives are the ones being disregarded right now. If all lives truly mattered, there should not be an objection to "Black lives matter!" BLM never meant "Only Black lives matter." It's always meant that Black lives matter TOO because it seems as if many have forgotten (or never knew).

"All Lives Matter" is also purposeless because it is not a real movement, but rather a rebuttal. It does nothing for the community. There are no organizers or true protesters. It does not shed light on any of the lives that they claim matter. Their leaders and members do not exist. When NonBlack victims, such as Zachary Hammond and Dylan Noble, were killed due to police brutality, Black Lives Matter gave them coverage. There was not an 'All Lives Matter' outlet that brought awareness to their deaths.

Jesus did not dismiss anyone's issue by reminding them that everyone had issues. He did not tell the woman with the issue of blood "All issues matter." He did not tell the blind man "What about the men that can't hear?" However, Jesus did deal with each individual issue that the respective person presented to Him. Jesus knew what it was like to be brutalized. He, too, was a victim of police brutality.

During Jesus' persecution, He prayed but He also acted. He addressed His brutalizers. Asking, "Why do you strike me?" demands accountability from the police authorities. African Americans are deserving of an account from police officers on why they continuously kill unarmed Black boys, men, and women. When there is no justice, there is eventually no peace. Looting, rioting, and the killing of police officers are not condoned. However, if protests and marches aren't being 'heard', what is expected to follow? Emotions cannot be policed. The oppressor does not get to choose how the oppressed responds to oppression.

"Violence solves nothing" is often referenced to protesters but has rarely ever been said to irresponsible policemen. Leaders and activists within the movement are often filled with hurt and anger associated with the ongoing systematic murders of blameless, Black people. Compassion is needed, and it requires tact. People are allowed to heal at their own pace.



Conscious and Christian,
Simultaneously.

Nonbelievers and religious movements adamant about refuting Christianity has often misportrayed the Council of Nicea (Nicaea). Some myths that have stemmed from those allegations include: Jesus' deity was invented, The books of the Bible were voted upon, and those votes were close. Although the Council of Nicea is a notable part of history, it is not significant for any of those reasons.

The Council of Nicea was a meeting of about 300 bishops presided by Roman Emperor, Constantine in 325 AD. Constantine's objective was to cease confusion and to unite the Church by having the leaders define truth against error. The center concern was the relationship between the Father and the Son. Christianity was being challenged by the escalating controversy of Arianism, and The Emperor was determined to resolve those issues.

Was Jesus deity invented? Jesus' divinity was not invented, but rather affirmed at the Council of Nicea. Christians believed well before the Council that Jesus was both God and Man. Believers already agreed that he was divine and embraced the Gospels that support that claim. That was not questioned. The issue at hand was the nature of Christ -- He was viewed either of a different, same, or similar nature to the Father. Was Christ created? Was He co-equal and co-eternal with the Father? Is the Father alone God? Arius argued that Jesus was not an actual eternal being, but that he was created at a certain point by the Father. Alexander and Athanasius debated the complete contrary -- Christ was eternal. Clarity was given concerning Jesus in relations to the Father at Nicea. This disagreement was not the end, as Arianism became a challenge to Trinitarianism.

Were the books of the Bible voted upon? The council did not deal with any matters concerning scripture, but mostly with issues surrounding Christology. Long before Constantine or the Council, most of the New Testament was already accepted as Scripture by believers.

Was there a close vote? Being that the canon was not discussed, there could not have been a vote regarding it. In fact, there was not an actual vote at Nicea at all. However, there was an opportunity to sign the Nicean Creed, which all but two of the bishops signed. The Creed clarified the understanding of Biblical truth concerning Jesus' nature. That is not considered a 'close vote' but a landslide victory.

Newly popular sources have begun to resurface many theories against Christianity, which have already been invalidated. The fabrications surrounding the Council of Nicea are not exempt. However, the allegations are derived from unreliable and invalid sources. Jesus' divinity nor the Bible was ever based upon a vote. The Council of Nicea had virtually no influence on the formation of the canon. The Council was more about the affirmation and less about alteration.

Conscious and Christian,
Simultaneously.

There is an abundance of misleading teachings surrounding the name of our Savior. Some denominations argue that it is blasphemous to worship Him if we do not do so by His Hebrew name, Yeshua. Other religious movements even question His existence since the letter "J" did not exist in Greek or Hebrew.

It is correct that Yeshua is His Hebrew name. However, it is also important to take transliteration into account. Transliteration, by definition, is to change letters or words into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language. While Yeshua is the Hebrew name, the English spelling is Joshua. However, the Greek transliteration is Iesous and the English spelling is Jesus. Jesus and Joshua are the same -- English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek name.

For a person whose primary language is English, it is absolutely acceptable and understandable to refer to Him in the English tongue. An English-speaking person wouldn't refer to a room equipped for taking a bath as a 'baño' but rather as a bathroom. We could refer to a restroom in any language; however, it would still be a place reserved for bathing. Although the language changes, the object itself stays the same.


This did not mean that His name would literally be Immanuel. Throughout both, the Old and New Testaments, there were many names given by which the Messiah would be called. It was simply a general way of saying that He would be referred to by these descriptions. Jesus has been 'with us' (Immanuel) as much as He has been 'a wonderful counselor' and a 'prince of peace'. This shows that there is not only ONE name in which Jesus could be referred to.

Whether referred to as Yeshua or Joshua, Jesus is still our Lord and Savior who died for our sins to give us eternal life. The Bible does not command us to call upon the name of the Lord in Hebrew (or any other language). Our worship and prayers reach Him whether we do so in English, Greek, or Spanish. Regardless of which language is used, it does not change Him or His character. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Conscious and Christian,
Simultaneously.

After taking a dig into mythology, we can confirm that it records many dying and rising gods -- or so it seems. The more astounding fact is that these mythological figures predate the accounts of Jesus Christ leaving many people to assume that His story is rooted in paganism. The claim was initially proposed in the 1800's by School of Religion intellectuals. However, Christian scholars refuted this theory in the early 20th century. With releases such as Zeitgeist: The Movie and The Da Vinci Code, these claims have resurfaced that Jesus is merely a copycat savior of mythological gods.

Although there are quite a few, the two most popular comparisons are Jesus/Horus and Jesus/Mithras. After reviewing actual sources, we will notice that the beings are very different and distant.

Horus & Mithras Claim: Born of a virgin on December 25th.
Horus was not born of a virgin, but was the son of Osiris and Isis born between August 24th and August 28th. Mithras, on the other hand, emerged out of a rock with no date of birth noted. Also, the Bible nor Christianity dates December 25th as Jesus' birthday. Western tradition typically celebrates His birth on December 25th, while Eastern Orthodox and other churches opt for January 6th and 7th. None are claims to be His actual birthday.

Horus & Mithras Claim: Had 12 disciples.
Horus had 4 disciples and 16 human followers. There is not any evidence that Mithras had 12 disciples. Ironically, the 12 signs of the Zodiac are often linked to Mithrasism. However, zodiac signs are not disciples.

Horus & Mithras Claim: Performed miracles.
Generally speaking, this is true. However, the miracles were not of the same nature as Jesus. There are no mentions of walking on water or the raising of anyone from the dead.

Horus & Mithras Claim: Was crucified, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
There is no account of Horus' death. It is stated that he eventually merged with the sun god. Mithraic tradition doesn't indicate Mithras' death at all. Therefore, resurrection on his behalf is impossible. Also, crucifixion as we know it is a Roman (and surrounding cultures) method of execution that was put into practice thousands of years after these mythologies.

Horus Claim: Baptized by Anup the Baptizer.
Anup does not exist in ancient Egyptian mythology.

Mithras Claim: Called The Good Shepherd, Redeemer, The Messiah, The Way, The Truth, and The Light.
There is no evidence that he was ever called any title that is attributed to Jesus.

Perhaps these claims are semi-convincing because theorists adopted Christian concepts and used it as the language that compares the deities. "Ministry" and "Baptism" are Christian terms that are being used to describe pagan beliefs. It makes it easier for viewers and readers to draw biased conclusions based upon the terminology.

Let's entertain the idea that these pagan gods had been born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, been crucified, and resurrected. Would that nullify Jesus' existence? Would that diminish His credibility? Based upon this logic, President John F. Kennedy did not exist, and was only a copycat of President Abraham Lincoln. There are many accounts of their lives that eerily parallel one another.

President Lincoln became a part of Congress in 1846; President Kennedy in 1946. Lincoln became President in 1860; Kennedy in 1960. Both men were shot in the back of the head on a Friday. They were both succeeded by Vice President Johnson, respectively.

Accuracy of an event, person, or place is not based on convenience or coincidence, but evidence. Distinctiveness does not determine precision.

Christianity is influenced by Judaism, not mythological paganism. Not only is some of the information provided by the theorists inaccurate, some data actually postdates Christianity itself. Most of the claims lack solid foundation to form a fair argument. The account of Jesus is an actual historical document that is accepted by many scholars. Comparing reliable history to baseless mythology does not provide credible conclusions.

Conscious and Christian,
Simultaneously.

We have arrived at a place where everyone is self-proclaimed 'woke'. One of the facts that many millennials claim to be awakened to is that Christianity is the white man's religion. That belief comes from Christianity being forced upon African people during slavery. However, that too, is a half truth.

I AM F I V E . April marks 5 years that I have been a Christian in deed rather than just in talk. It makes 5 years since I decided that I really wanted to give Jesus a shot. Depression, rejection, and insecurity were no longer my portion. The overwhelming need to love someone was not only met, but reciprocated. If I had to describe what I was like before April 2011, it would be: LOST. I needed something that I couldn't give myself, so I sought The One who could. What started off as a passage here & a prayer there grew into a genuine encounter with God Himself. It grew into me staying up until 10 a.m. researching Biblical concepts & basking in peace. It grew into me literally gaining security and embracing my identity.

Progression and self-awareness are both positive things, so I have no understanding of why Christianity contributing to that is looked down upon. Some people practice yoga and become 'better'. Some people meditate and become 'better'. I happened to have read the Bible and became better. No 'white man' gave me this religion. Granddad nor daddy were preachers. Grandma nor mama forced me to go to church. I have not been programmed to the European portrayal of Christianity. I willingly made a choice to wholeheartedly follow God after He made Himself known to me. Knowing God helped me to truly know myself.

I am "woke" and a worshiper. I am Black and a believer. I am conscious . . . and Christian. All the things that the 'awakened' may have told me I couldn't be. 

I am not Christian in spite of my roots, but because of them.

Contrary to popular opinion, Christianity and consciousness can coexist. It is not an oxymoron. To be conscious is to be aware. However, if the information you've gained does not produce application, it has failed. Knowledge is confirmed by practice. One cannot claim consciousness if their natural reaction is to shun anyone that believes differently as they do.

Conscious and Christian's purpose is to bridge the gap that separates the two. Evangelism meets Apologetics and creates an atmosphere to break all barriers attached to Christianity. Because being Pro-Black and conscious is a trend for some, there is an abundance of misinformation that is spreading rapidly by those who claim to be aware but are yet asleep. Therefore, we choose to not only defend our faith, but to also provide the necessary tools and resources for others to do the same.



Conscious and Christian,
Simultaneously.