Christianity 101

[Webers_Home]

~
1) Christianity begins with a Supreme Being and intelligent design.

● Gen 1:1 . . In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

2) Christianity alleges that humans were created rather than evolved.

● Gen 1:27 . . God created Man

3) Christianity alleges that Man is superior in the grand scheme of things.

● Gen 1:26 . . Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

4) Christianity alleges that there are only two genders.

● Gen 1:27 . . male and female created he them.

5) Christianity alleges that women were constructed with material taken
from a man.

● Gen 2:21-22 . . And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam,
and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its
place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a
woman.

NOTE: The Hebrew word translated rib has no reference to a specific skeletal
bone. It simply means side, viz: both flesh and bone. (Gen 2:23)
_

 

[Papa Smurf]

Hello @Webers_Home, while I agree with what you wrote above (or at least with what I believe that you meant ... I don't, for instance, believe that "Christianity alleges that Man is supreme in the grand scheme of things", because we know that God is, but I'm also sure that that's not what you meant ).

That said, were you just making a statement in the OP of sorts, like a blog, or were you interested in discussing some of these things (and if so, what, specifically)?

Thanks!

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

 

[Webers_Home]

~

were you just making a statement in the OP of sorts, like a blog

I am not blogging; I am rambling in a public square-- so to speak --
wherein I fully expect to be opposed, corrected, mocked, and shouted down.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

~
6) Christianity alleges that men and women were intended to be together, as
unified couples.

● Gen 2:24 . . A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

7) Christianity alleges the husband was given a primary role, and the wife
was given a secondary role.

● Gen 2:18 . .The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I
will make a helper suitable for him.

8) Christianity alleges the first couple started out innocent, viz: their moral
perception was at first free of a guilt complex relative to sex and the human
body.

● Gen 2:25 . . And the man and his wife were both naked and were not
ashamed.

9) Christianity alleges there is a Devil-- an intelligent Devil.

● Gen 3:1 . . The Serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the
Lord God had made.

NOTE: "Serpent" is an alter ego of the creature also known as Satan. (Rev
12:9)
_

 

[ScottA]

~
1) Christianity begins with a Supreme Being and intelligent design.

● Gen 1:1 . . In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

2) Christianity alleges that humans were created rather than evolved.

● Gen 1:27 . . God created Man

3) Christianity alleges that Man is superior in the grand scheme of things.

● Gen 1:26 . . Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

4) Christianity alleges that there are only two genders.

● Gen 1:27 . . male and female created he them.

5) Christianity alleges that women were constructed with material taken
from a man.

● Gen 2:21-22 . . And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam,
and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its
place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a
woman.

NOTE: The Hebrew word translated rib has no reference to a specific skeletal
bone. It simply means side, viz: both flesh and bone. (Gen 2:23)
_

While much of that is true, it should be noted as only being a partial list, and yet [Christianity] could be defined even more simply, as follows:

Christianity by its simplest definition means: A follower of Christ (which does not assume that one is saved merely by following, but requires belief).​

​

As such, a follower of Christ assumes that one believes their is a God who created all things; that history is His story of His creation and plan for the salvation of the world after the original account of its falling into sin--which is to be understood as rebellion against God in whatever form; that the word of God is inspired by God and merely penned by men who were inspired by Him, then handed down through the ages under the providence and assurance of God alone; and that God's plan includes a Savior that has come and has taken upon Himself the penalty of death placed upon all mankind, namely His Son who came and died for those who believe, which comes with the promise that if one believes this to be true they shall be saved from death to live forever.​

 

[Webers_Home]

~
10) Christianity alleges that the entire human family-- regardless of race,
color, or gender --descends from that first man.

● Acts 17:26 . . From one man He made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth.

** The Greek word translated "nation" pertains to ethnic identity, e.g. Inuit,
Pacific Islander, Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic, Ethiopian, Semitic, Native
American, Aboriginal, Pigmy, et al.

11) Christianity alleges that mortality is universal due to the effects of the
first man's conduct.

He was forbidden to eat from a specific tree. Long story short, he did
anyway; which eventuated in his death. However, the man's mortality came
as no surprise seeing as how he was fully aware of the consequences for
stepping over the line.

Now the thing: the man wasn't alone eating from that tree. In accord with a
very strange aspect of justice-- that I have thus far found impossible to
understand --the man's entire posterity was included as joint principals with
him in the act, viz: not in their own time, but in his time, i.e. the very
moment that the incident occurred.

● Rom 5:12 . .When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race.
Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone
sinned.

"for everyone sinned" is grammatically past tense. So then Romans isn't
talking about the sins that Adam's posterity commit during their own lives,
no, it's talking about the first man's life, viz: Adam's forbidden-fruit sin.

FAQ: Was Adam's conduct Hell-worthy?

REPLY: No; the appropriate consequence for the forbidden-fruit incident is
mortality. So when people pass away, that particular matter is settled once
and for all.

FAQ: Was Jesus implicated too? After all: it is very easy to show the first
man was among Jesus' paternal ancestors.

REPLY: Yes, had Jesus not been executed he would've eventually died of
some other cause.

FAQ: How then can it be truthfully said he was a lamb without spot or
blemish?

REPLY: Jesus committed no personal sins of his own to answer for. (John
8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)
_

 

[Papa Smurf]

I am not blogging; I am rambling in a public square-- so to speak --
wherein I fully expect to be opposed, corrected, mocked, and shouted down.

Sounds like fun

I'll join in again if I feel like I have something to add, but if I do so, I think that I'll skip the mocking and the shouting, if that's ok with you

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

 

[Truthnightmare]

~
10) Christianity alleges that the entire human family-- regardless of race,
color, or gender --descends from that first man.

● Acts 17:26 . . From one man He made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth.

** The Greek word translated "nation" pertains to ethnic identity, e.g. Inuit,
Pacific Islander, Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic, Ethiopian, Semitic, Native
American, Aboriginal, Pigmy, et al.

11) Christianity alleges that mortality is universal due to the effects of the
first man's conduct.

He was forbidden to eat from a specific tree. Long story short, he did
anyway; which eventuated in his death. However, the man's mortality came
as no surprise seeing as how he was fully aware of the consequences for
stepping over the line.

Now the thing: the man wasn't alone eating from that tree. In accord with a
very strange aspect of justice-- that I have thus far found impossible to
understand --the man's entire posterity was included as joint principals with
him in the act, viz: not in their own time, but in his time, i.e. the very
moment that the incident occurred.

● Rom 5:12 . .When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race.
Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone
sinned.

"for everyone sinned" is grammatically past tense. So then Romans isn't
talking about the sins that Adam's posterity commit during their own lives,
no, it's talking about the first man's life, viz: Adam's forbidden-fruit sin.

FAQ: Was Adam's conduct Hell-worthy?

REPLY: No; the appropriate consequence for the forbidden-fruit incident is
mortality. So when people pass away, that particular matter is settled once
and for all.

FAQ: Was Jesus implicated too? After all: it is very easy to show the first
man was among Jesus' paternal ancestors.

REPLY: Yes, had Jesus not been executed he would've eventually died of
some other cause.

FAQ: How then can it be truthfully said he was a lamb without spot or
blemish?

REPLY: Jesus committed no personal sins of his own to answer for. (John
8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)
_

Not all manuscripts say mankind came from one blood. I see it a bit different. Peace

 

[Webers_Home]

~
12) Christianity alleges that walking with God involves more than rituals,
rites, and/or church attendance. (cf. John 4:21-24)

For example; Cain's offering was refused whereas his brother's was
accepted.

"The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his
offering He did not look with favor." (Gen 4:4-5)

The thing to note is that God looked upon the men + their offerings, rather
than looking only upon their offerings. So Cain himself is where we need to
focus our attention because that's where God put the emphasis when
speaking to him person to person.

● Gen 4:6-7 . .Then the Lord said to Cain . . . If you do what is right, will
you not be accepted?

The most obvious not-right conduct in Cain's life was animosity towards his
brother.

"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that
your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the
altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your
gift." (Matt 5:23-24)

In point of fact, Cain not only eventually slew Abel, but even resented his
brother's piety, viz: Cain hated Abel for the simple fact that he was a good
man.

● 1John 3:12 . . And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were
evil and his brother's were righteous.

** You know, God has as much right to pick His own companions as
anybody else; and people like Cain are just too incompatible.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

~
13) Christianity alleges that God-given diets are flexible.

● Gen 9:3 . . Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the
green grasses, I give you all these.

Bible students are often curious about the disparity between what was right
and wrong for Noah and what was right and wrong for Moses since the laws
of God are supposedly absolutes in any era.

Well; for one thing; God's codified laws are not retroactive. (Deut 5:2-4,
Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17)

And for another; God-given diets are typically in effect only during a specific
era, and sometimes only for a specific people. For example: Christ's
followers are permitted to eat whatever want because their association with
God is governed by a different covenant than that governing Moses' people.
(Matt 26:27-28)
_

 

[Webers_Home]

~
14) Christianity alleges that viable meat is unfit for human consumption.

● Gen 9:4 . .You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it.

Life-blood speaks of meat that hasn't begun to spoil; viz: it's still fresh
enough for a transfusion and contains enough active ingredients to carry
oxygen and heal wounds.

Ancient Jews understood it that way.

T. But flesh which is torn of the living beast, what time the life is in it, or
that torn from a slaughtered animal before all the breath has gone forth, you
shall not eat. (Targum Jonathan)

The way I see it: Man isn't forbidden to dine upon raw meat; only that it
absolutely has to be dead with no chance of recovery. Same with blood. This
law is the very first law God laid down in the new world after the Flood. It
has never been repealed, and remains among the list of primary rules
imposed upon Christians.

"You are to abstain from blood that's from the meat of strangled animals."
(Acts 15:28-29)

A strangled animal still has all of its blood in it. The animal might be brain
dead, and its heart may have stopped beating, but its flesh will remain alive
for some time by reason of the viable blood still in its veins.

Recent changes to CPR procedures include no longer giving victims mouth-to
mouth respiration for the first few minutes because the blood in a victim's
system still contains useful oxygen that can save their life merely by
pumping the chest as before.

Because of the danger of pathogens, it was quite possibly necessary to add
this limitation to the grant of liberty to eat meat, lest, instead of nourishing
his body by it, Man should inadvertently destroy himself; and in this day and
age of E.coli 0157:H7, E.coli 0104:H4, and salmonella; adequately cooking
meat can be considered a form of self defense.

The prohibition against eating living flesh and blood is neither Jewish, nor is
it Christian. It's universal; because God enacted that law long before there
were any Jews or Christians. All human beings are under its jurisdiction. Man
can eat all the raw meat he wants; and he can eat blood too; but he has
absolutely no permission to eat either blood or meat that's still alive.

The animal world isn't so fussy. They routinely devour their prey alive all the
time. Hopefully no one reading this will ever stoop that low. The very best
way to assure that meat and its blood are dead is to cook it-- thoroughly;
and double check it with a meat thermometer. That's my own personal
opinion as I am aware of the popularity of sushi. (cf. Rom 14:1-3)

At issue with the prohibition against eating blood are the feelings of some
that modern slaughter houses don't always kill animals properly. Many use a
device called a captured-bolt to stun the animals and then workers slit the
animals' throats while they're unconscious. Sometimes the bolt kills an
animal instead of knocking it out and then all that the slaughter house has
to work with is gravity because the animal's heart isn't pumping to assist. So
there are those who feel no one should eat common meat because you can't
guarantee the animal's blood was properly drained.

The precise characteristics of a "properly drained" animal are debatable
because it's impossible to drain every last drop of blood out of meat no
matter how you might go about it; so the prohibition against eating blood
has got to be interpreted from a practical perspective rather than from a
purist's.

There are cultures that poke holes in cows' necks in order to drink blood
straight out of the animal utilizing its own blood pressure like a tap to fill
their cups. Other cultures cut open the thorax of animals freshly taken in
hunting in order to take blood-soaked bites of the animal's heart. Those
examples are probably about as close to vampirism as one can get without
actually joining Edward Cullen's family and undergoing the conversion
process.
_

 

[Ronald Nolette]

~
1) Christianity begins with a Supreme Being and intelligent design.

● Gen 1:1 . . In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

2) Christianity alleges that humans were created rather than evolved.

● Gen 1:27 . . God created Man

3) Christianity alleges that Man is superior in the grand scheme of things.

● Gen 1:26 . . Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

4) Christianity alleges that there are only two genders.

● Gen 1:27 . . male and female created he them.

5) Christianity alleges that women were constructed with material taken
from a man.

● Gen 2:21-22 . . And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam,
and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its
place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a
woman.

NOTE: The Hebrew word translated rib has no reference to a specific skeletal
bone. It simply means side, viz: both flesh and bone. (Gen 2:23)
_

Christianity alleges none of those! they declare them to be absolute truths.

 

[laBonhomme]

Hey, I took that class. It's on www.UniversalClass.com, Chris McKenna teaches it. Did you get your certificate, or did you not want to spend the money, do the assignments, and take the quizzes?

 

[Truthnightmare]

~
14) Christianity alleges that viable meat is unfit for human consumption.

● Gen 9:4 . .You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it.

Life-blood speaks of meat that hasn't begun to spoil; viz: it's still fresh
enough for a transfusion and contains enough active ingredients to carry
oxygen and heal wounds.

Ancient Jews understood it that way.

T. But flesh which is torn of the living beast, what time the life is in it, or
that torn from a slaughtered animal before all the breath has gone forth, you
shall not eat. (Targum Jonathan)

The way I see it: Man isn't forbidden to dine upon raw meat; only that it
absolutely has to be dead with no chance of recovery. Same with blood. This
law is the very first law God laid down in the new world after the Flood. It
has never been repealed, and remains among the list of primary rules
imposed upon Christians.

"You are to abstain from blood that's from the meat of strangled animals."
(Acts 15:28-29)

A strangled animal still has all of its blood in it. The animal might be brain
dead, and its heart may have stopped beating, but its flesh will remain alive
for some time by reason of the viable blood still in its veins.

Recent changes to CPR procedures include no longer giving victims mouth-to
mouth respiration for the first few minutes because the blood in a victim's
system still contains useful oxygen that can save their life merely by
pumping the chest as before.

Because of the danger of pathogens, it was quite possibly necessary to add
this limitation to the grant of liberty to eat meat, lest, instead of nourishing
his body by it, Man should inadvertently destroy himself; and in this day and
age of E.coli 0157:H7, E.coli 0104:H4, and salmonella; adequately cooking
meat can be considered a form of self defense.

The prohibition against eating living flesh and blood is neither Jewish, nor is
it Christian. It's universal; because God enacted that law long before there
were any Jews or Christians. All human beings are under its jurisdiction. Man
can eat all the raw meat he wants; and he can eat blood too; but he has
absolutely no permission to eat either blood or meat that's still alive.

The animal world isn't so fussy. They routinely devour their prey alive all the
time. Hopefully no one reading this will ever stoop that low. The very best
way to assure that meat and its blood are dead is to cook it-- thoroughly;
and double check it with a meat thermometer. That's my own personal
opinion as I am aware of the popularity of sushi. (cf. Rom 14:1-3)

At issue with the prohibition against eating blood are the feelings of some
that modern slaughter houses don't always kill animals properly. Many use a
device called a captured-bolt to stun the animals and then workers slit the
animals' throats while they're unconscious. Sometimes the bolt kills an
animal instead of knocking it out and then all that the slaughter house has
to work with is gravity because the animal's heart isn't pumping to assist. So
there are those who feel no one should eat common meat because you can't
guarantee the animal's blood was properly drained.

The precise characteristics of a "properly drained" animal are debatable
because it's impossible to drain every last drop of blood out of meat no
matter how you might go about it; so the prohibition against eating blood
has got to be interpreted from a practical perspective rather than from a
purist's.

There are cultures that poke holes in cows' necks in order to drink blood
straight out of the animal utilizing its own blood pressure like a tap to fill
their cups. Other cultures cut open the thorax of animals freshly taken in
hunting in order to take blood-soaked bites of the animal's heart. Those
examples are probably about as close to vampirism as one can get without
actually joining Edward Cullen's family and undergoing the conversion
process.
_

Man
can eat all the raw meat he wants; and he can eat blood too; but he has
absolutely no permission to eat either blood or meat that's still alive.

Greetings…
What scriptures are you basing this on?

Leviticus 17
10 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.

 

[Webers_Home]

~
15) Christianity alleges that capital punishment for murder is mandatory.

● Gen 9:5 . . But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I will
require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning for human
life, of every man for that of his fellow man!

This law is universal regardless of one's age, race, gender and/or religious
preference. It applies to every family of Man and Beast that descends from
the ark; no exceptions: and we can't lay this responsibility off on God
because He requires it to be enforced by Man rather than Himself.

● Gen 9:6a . .Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be
shed;

God requires an investigation into the death of a human being whenever it is
caused by another human being or by a member of the animal kingdom. If
the killing cannot be justified, the perpetrator has to be executed at the
hands of human beings: no exceptions.

The death penalty here in Gen 9:6 is mandatory only for murder; which
Webster's defines as: the crime of unlawfully killing a person; especially with
malice aforethought. The key word in that definition is "unlawfully"

Capital punishment for murder isn't optional. The word "shall" indicates an
edict: it is mistaken for someone to think they're in step with God while
actively opposing the death penalty.

● Gen 9:6b . . For in His image did God make man.

So then; indiscriminate killing wasn't banned because it's immoral, but
rather, because it demeans the honor and dignity of God. Apparently, were
humanity lacking His image, people could go on safari and stalk each other
like game animals and mount human heads as trophies of the hunt.

The image of God lends humanity a measure of respect that it wouldn't have
otherwise.

"You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory
and honor and put everything under his feet." (Heb 2:7-8)

Without that measure of respect, humanity would just be another in the long
list of expendable species.

Refusal to pursue the death penalty for murder denigrates the sanctity of
Almighty God. So we should never condone insistence that capital
punishment for murder is wrong. No; capital punishment for murder isn't
wrong; au contraire, capital punishment for murder is divine.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

~
FAQ: Don't you think it's better to lock all murderers away for life rather
than risk taking the lives of those who are innocent?

REPLY: It is never better to disobey God. The first couple did, and you see
what that got them.

Resistance is on a scale with dark arts and the worship of Shiva and Vishnu.

"Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying
the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed
than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and
insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. (1Sam 15:22-23)

In war, commanders expect a percentage of casualties by human error
and/or friendly fire; and those kinds of casualties are usually factored in as
acceptable losses. But it isn't wise to turn off a war off just because
somebody might get hurt by friendly fire. Accidents happen; even under
ideal conditions.

It's the same with the war on crime. Just because a percentage of innocent
people get executed for something they didn't do, is no excuse to get in bed
with the Devil and oppose God's edicts.

America's justice system, although far from perfect, has a pretty good
batting average. The overwhelming majority of people dead from executions
fully deserved what they got. Only a tiny percentage are victims of error;
and those percentages should always be considered acceptable losses in any
legitimate endeavor to protect domestic tranquility.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

~
16) Christianity alleges that all human beings today are Noah's paternal
descendants

"Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and
Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth
was populated." (Gen 9:18-19)

FAQ: From whence did Noah's sons find wives?[/size]

REPLY: Incest wasn't codified until many centuries after the Flood via the
covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The codified laws of God are not retroactive. (Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom
5:13, and Gal 3:17) That being the situation, then Noah's sons were at
liberty to take their nieces for wives which really wasn't much different than
Cain taking one of his sisters, or Adam taking a woman constructed with
material removed from his own body because there just weren't any other
women available in their circumstances.

People were a lots more healthy in that day than now. For example: Noah
lived to be 950 (Gen 9:2) and his son Shem, thru whom Christ came, lived
600 (Gen 11:10-11) By the time of Abraham longevity had decreased quite
a bit as he survived only 175, which the Bible describes as a ripe old age.
(Gen 25:7-8) And by David's time, it had decreased to an average of 70 (Ps
90:10)

In comparison; the average longevity of an America man was around 47 in
1900. And I'd imagine the average American man would still be dying at that
age were it not for the marvels of modern medicine.

The ancient peoples had some advantages. There was no such thing as
processed food. All their fruits, grains, and vegetables were 100% organic
and usually always fresh because they had no refrigeration. All their cattle
grazed on pasture and none were inoculated. All their water was 100%
potable with no need for treatment whether it be from rain, aquifers, creeks,
rivers, or lakes. Their air and their soil was not yet contaminated by man
made toxic materials. They had no electric lighting so folks got to bed at a
reasonable hour and awoke via circadian rhythm rather than disturbed by an
alarm clock. And without powered conveyances, a lot of their travel was
either on foot or by means of beasts. All in all; their speed of life was quite a
bit slower than a modern man's pace.

I let my past go too fast,
No time to pause.
If I could slow it all down,
Like some captain whose ship runs aground,
I could wait until the tide comes around.
Time Stand Still, RUSH, 1987
_

 

[Webers_Home]

~
17) Christianity alleges that by the time of Abraham's father Terah, Shem's
line had slipped away and no longer acknowledged Noah's deity.

● Josh 24:2 . .Then Joshua said to all the people: Thus said the Lord, the
God of Israel: In olden times, your forefathers-- Terah, father of Abraham
and father of Nahor --lived beyond the Euphrates and worshiped other gods.

Because of their dad's association with other gods, the two brothers grew up
as pagans until Noah's deity stepped in and broke the chain by appearing to
Abram, and instructing him to get away from his relatives' influence and
leave the region of Ur of the Chaldees. (southern Iraq)

NOTE: Up to this point, there were plenty of Hebrews at large-- a line of
people fathered by a man named Eber (Gen 10:21) --but no Jews yet; and
wouldn't be until Abraham's grandson Jacob produced them by means of
Rachel's sister wife Leah. (This is sort of a hot-button that would be wise to
avoid with modern Jews as some are sincerely convinced their all their
ancient patriarchs were Jews.)

So then, what exactly defined primitive Jews. Well, the term basically
pertains to folks who recognize and/or accept the tribe of Jacob's fourth son
Judah as the source of their supreme sovereigns per Gen 49:8-10 which
says:

"Judah, your brothers will praise you; your hand will be on the neck of your
enemies; your father's sons will bow down to you. You are a lion's cub, O
Judah; you return from the prey, my son. Like a lion he crouches and lies
down, like a lioness-- who dares to rouse him? The scepter will not depart
from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until He comes to
whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is His."

** An Hebrew word for "Jew" doesn't show up in the Bible till 2Kgs 16:6
where its associated with a Syrian political figure named Rezin who lived
sometime around the eighth century BC. Apparently no one yet has
managed to ascertain a reliable date for Abraham.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

~
18) Christianity alleges that Abraham was the rootstock of a people who
became Christ's biological ancestors. In other words; Jesus wasn't a nobody
from out of nowhere; he was generated just as naturally as everyone else.

● Gen 12:1 . . The Lord had said to Abram: Leave your country, your people,
and your father's household, and go to the land I will show you.

NOTE: Abram's spelling was later changed to Abraham. (Gen 17:5)

● Gen 12:2-3 . . I will make you into a great nation . . . and all peoples on
earth will be blessed through you.

Long story short: Abraham eventually produced Isaac, and he in turn
produced Jacob, who in turn produced the twelve original tribes of Israel. Of
those twelve, Judah is the guy because his became the source tribe of
Israel's royalty.

● Gen 49:10 . .The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff
from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience
of the nations is his.

Of the tribe of Judah, David's men were designated to be Israel's monarchs.

● 2Sam 7:8-14 . . . Now then, tell my servant David this is what The Lord
Almighty says: "When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I
will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own
body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house
for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever."

"the one" was Solomon.

● 1Chron 22:7-10 . . David said to Solomon: My son, this word of The Lord
came to me: "You will have a son. His name will be Solomon . . . he will be
My son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his
kingdom over Israel forever."

So then, before we go about establishing Christ as Abraham's descendant in
whom all peoples on earth would be blessed per Gen 12:3, we must first
establish Jesus as one of David's paternal descendants, and we must also
place Jesus in Solomon's line to the throne; because Matthew's gospel places
far more emphasis upon Jesus as the Jews' ultimate political figure rather
than upon him as their ultimate national atonement.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

~
19) Jesus' genealogy per the gospel of Luke is sometimes appropriated to
establish his mother's connection to David, but I don't recommend that
route because the language, the grammar, and the punctuation of Luke 3:23
are much too controversial.

Along with that: there's a serious question about the listings of Shieltiel and
Zerubbabel. In Matthew's genealogy the two men are linked to David via
Solomon. In Luke's genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother
Nathan.

Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as
Abihud in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.

It's been suggested that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are common names so we
shouldn't be surprised to find them listed in both genealogies. However, they
are listed as father and son in both genealogies, which we cannot expect
reasonable people to accept as mere coincidence.

Unfortunately, to date there exists no consensus among the experts how
best to resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shieltiel and
Zerubbabel in both genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd
have to consider the data compromised; which is unfortunate because if we
disregard Luke's genealogy, then we pretty much have to disregard
Matthew's too.

So the situation with Jesus' genealogies is such that I think it best to go
about establishing his family history from a different angle.
_