Christianity 101

[Odë:hgöd]

~
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 primary 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: in this case both flesh and bone. (Gen 2:23)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
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)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
10) Christianity alleges that the entire human family-- all races, colors, and genders
--descend 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)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
The numbered comments herein aren't meant to spark debate. They're just
something to think about; and based upon the premise that God is all powerful
and that nothing escapes His notice.

1) God placed a forbidden tree in a place easy to find, and easy to access.

2) God posted no guards, nor erected an impregnable fence.

3) God made no attempt to prevent the Serpent from speaking with Eve.

4) God made no attempt to prevent Eve from tasting the forbidden fruit.

5) God made no attempt to prevent Adam from tasting the forbidden fruit.

6) God is able to preview future events. (Isa 41:22-23, 46:9-10) That being so,
then He must've foreseen the entire forbidden-fruit incident before it took place and
knew in advance how it would turn out if He didn't intervene.
_

 

[A branch]

alleges;; claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
This is the wrong word Christianity does not allege God did something wrong

 

[CrowCross]

3) God made no attempt to prevent the Serpent from speaking with Eve.

Do you think the Serpent via Satan spoke in the language of serpents and Eve understood...or did the serpent speak in Eves language?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
12) 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?

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
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
13) 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)

FYI: 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 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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
14) 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.
_

 

[CrowCross]

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

Was it His name or spelling?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
15) 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.

It's also been suggested that both genealogies are Joseph's. However, in Matthew's
genealogy, Joseph descends from Solomon, whereas Luke's has him descending
from Solomon's brother Nathan.

Solomon and Nathan weren't distant kin. According to 1Chron 3:5 they were
siblings; both born of David & Bathsheba (a.k.a. Bathshua).

I have no clue how it's possible for two siblings to both be somebody's grandfather
when it's more likely that one of them would've been an uncle.

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.
_

 

[CrowCross]

~
15) 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.

It's also been suggested that both genealogies are Joseph's. However, in Matthew's
genealogy, Joseph descends from Solomon, whereas Luke's has him descending
from Solomon's brother Nathan.

Solomon and Nathan weren't distant kin. According to 1Chron 3:5 they were
siblings; both born of David & Bathsheba (a.k.a. Bathshua).

I have no clue how it's possible for two siblings to both be somebody's grandfather
when it's more likely that one of them would've been an uncle.

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.
_

Why would one genealogy not be of Mary's and the other Josephs?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Why would one genealogy not be of Mary's and the other Josephs?

I'm told there was no punctuation in the original Greek texts of the New Testament
and that whatever punctuation we see in English translations has been inserted
arbitrarily, i.e. at the translators' discretion.

Here's what Luke 3:23 looks like from the NAS with all punctuation removed.

And when He began His ministry Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age being
supposedly the son of Joseph the son of Eli

Now watch as I insert some arbitrary punctuation of my own.

And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age being
(supposedly the son of Joseph) the son of Eli

In that version, Joseph is given passing mention while Jesus' genealogy jumps over
him to Eli who I honestly believe was Mary's dad, but of course can't prove it
conclusively beyond a shadow sensible doubt.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
16) Jesus' genealogy is relatively unimportant to the average Gentile, whereas very
important to Jews because only David's biological posterity qualify to ascend his
throne and govern the people of Israel.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The New Testament asserts Jesus' biological connection to David.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:3 . . . His son; descended from David according to the flesh

FAQ: Jesus is alleged to have been miraculously conceived (Luke 1:27-35) How
then did he in any way at all descend from David's loins, i.e. his flesh?

REPLY: Mary wasn't Jesus' surrogate mother, viz: he wasn't implanted in her womb,
rather, he was conceived in her womb. Seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus' father,
then conception by means of his mom's flesh became the default path to David's
flesh.

Although women are rare in Bible genealogies, they still matter. For example
Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. (Matt 1:5-6)
_

 

[Frank Robert]

Jesus gave us two commandments. All we need to do is follow His commandments. If we do so nothing else matters. Why complicate things?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
17) A curse back in the Old Testament, leveled at a really bad king in Solomon's
royal line to David's throne, reads like this:

● Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of The Lord! Thus said The
Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be found
acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the throne of
David and to rule again in Judah.

The bad king's name was Jeconiah (a.k.a. Jehoiakim, a.k.a. Coniah). Jesus' dad
Joseph was one of his descendants. (Matt 1:11)

It's commonly believed that the curse extended to Joseph, so that had he been
Jesus' biological father, it would have prevented Mary's boy from ascending David's
throne.

However, Joseph adopted Jesus and seeing as how adopted children inherit from
their fathers the same as biological children; then had the curse extended to
Joseph, it would have extended to Jesus too whether he was virgin-conceived or
not. In other words: seeing as how Jesus got into Solomon's royal line by adoption,
then of course he would've got into the curse too because the throne and the curse
were a package deal.

However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse on
Jeconiah's royal progeny was limited to the era of the divided kingdom with
Samaria in the north and Judah in the south. That situation came to an end when
Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then later
Judah, off to Babylonian slavery.

When David's ultimate successor reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His
jurisdiction won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate
the entire land of Israel. So the curse doesn't apply to him.

● Ezek 37:21-22 . .You shall declare to them: Thus said the Lord God: I am going
to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone to, and gather
them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them a
single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one king shall be king of them
all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided
into two kingdoms.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Jesus gave us two commandments. All we need to do is follow His commandments.
If we do so nothing else matters. Why complicate things?

Jesus' commandments add up to a whole lot more than two when those of his in
the epistles are factored in.

● 1Cor 14:37 . . If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of The
Lord.

● 1Thess 4:1-2 . .We beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by The Lord Jesus,
that as you have received of us how you ought to walk and to please God, so you
would abound more and more. For you know what commandments we gave you by
The Lord Jesus.

Come and see.

Christ's Law
_

 

[Frank Robert]

Jesus' commandments add up to a whole lot more than two when those of his in
the epistles are factored in.

● 1Cor 14:37 . . If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of The
Lord.

● 1Thess 4:1-2 . .We beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by The Lord Jesus,
that as you have received of us how you ought to walk and to please God, so you
would abound more and more. For you know what commandments we gave you by
The Lord Jesus.

Come and see.

Christ's Law
_

Don't get me wrong, I am all for reading the Bible to know Christian history and tradition but all we need to do for salvation is to follow Jesus's two commandments. Why? Because He died for our sins.

 

[CrowCross]

Don't get me wrong, I am all for reading the Bible to know Christian history and tradition but all we need to do for salvation is to follow Jesus's two commandments. Why? Because He died for our sins.

I hate to side track Odë:hgöd thread....but what are those two commandments?

 

[Frank Robert]

I hate to side track Odë:hgöd thread....but what are those two commandments?

Really????????