~
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 supreme 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 101
Moderator: Moderators
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #11~
18) 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.
_
18) 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.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #12~
Before proceeding to show how David is Jesus' paternal ancestor, I think it reasonable to emphasize that much of Christianity cannot be proven true by means of empirical evidence. In other words; many elements of Christianity would never hold up in an unbiased court of law wherein facts are afforded far more value than the words of any one particular holy book; whether the Tanach, the Koran, the Sutras, the Book Of Mormon, or the Veda, et al.
Using the Bible's statements to prove the Bible's statements are true is sort of like what would be a jury acquitting defendants based solely upon the accused saying they didn't do it, viz: the Bible is true to a Christian, but we cannot sensibly expect it to be true to critical thinkers, i.e. the Bible is our truth, but not necessarily everybody's truth. So let's not be going about in a manner similar to political activists waving placards, shouting, baring our teeth, and spraying spittle; demanding that people defer to our way of thinking.
_
Before proceeding to show how David is Jesus' paternal ancestor, I think it reasonable to emphasize that much of Christianity cannot be proven true by means of empirical evidence. In other words; many elements of Christianity would never hold up in an unbiased court of law wherein facts are afforded far more value than the words of any one particular holy book; whether the Tanach, the Koran, the Sutras, the Book Of Mormon, or the Veda, et al.
Using the Bible's statements to prove the Bible's statements are true is sort of like what would be a jury acquitting defendants based solely upon the accused saying they didn't do it, viz: the Bible is true to a Christian, but we cannot sensibly expect it to be true to critical thinkers, i.e. the Bible is our truth, but not necessarily everybody's truth. So let's not be going about in a manner similar to political activists waving placards, shouting, baring our teeth, and spraying spittle; demanding that people defer to our way of thinking.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #13~
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 alleges 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)
_
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 alleges 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)
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #14~
In the centuries leading up to Jesus' time, the land of Israel was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar whereby Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, and many of the people were taken into slavery for a period of seventy years.
During his years in slavery, the prophet Daniel predicted the people would return and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple; but not for keeps. The day would come when the city and the Temple would once again be destroyed; which they were in 70 AD by Titus. (This is all too much to explain in detail so I'm just painting the broad strokes.)
Daniel also predicted that David's ultimate successor would show up and then be taken away before Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple; which means that Israel's long-awaited king has been here once before already.
Some of the Jews in Jesus' day were under the impression that their king was supposed to be immortal (John 12:34) but Daniel predicted their king would not be immortal. (Dan 9:26) That error in their thinking has led quite a few Jews even in our time to dismiss Jesus as David's ultimate successor.
● John 7:31 . .When the Christ comes, will he do more miraculous signs than this man?
Torah-trained Jews circumvent that question by citing Deut 13:1-5 which says, in so many words, that miracles are no guarantee that a prophet is working together with God. In point of fact, some of Israel's top spiritual counselors were convinced Jesus was trying to mislead the people with his miracles.
I kind of sympathize with their doubts because some of the things Jesus claimed about himself were very much on a level of madness the likes of Jim Jones, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon, Charles Manson, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Muhammad, Ellen G White, and Charles Taze Russel, et al.
But still; the fact remains that according to Daniel, the Jews' king has been here once before already. So if it wasn't Jesus, then who else from that era might be a likely candidate for us to consider?
_
In the centuries leading up to Jesus' time, the land of Israel was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar whereby Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, and many of the people were taken into slavery for a period of seventy years.
During his years in slavery, the prophet Daniel predicted the people would return and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple; but not for keeps. The day would come when the city and the Temple would once again be destroyed; which they were in 70 AD by Titus. (This is all too much to explain in detail so I'm just painting the broad strokes.)
Daniel also predicted that David's ultimate successor would show up and then be taken away before Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple; which means that Israel's long-awaited king has been here once before already.
Some of the Jews in Jesus' day were under the impression that their king was supposed to be immortal (John 12:34) but Daniel predicted their king would not be immortal. (Dan 9:26) That error in their thinking has led quite a few Jews even in our time to dismiss Jesus as David's ultimate successor.
● John 7:31 . .When the Christ comes, will he do more miraculous signs than this man?
Torah-trained Jews circumvent that question by citing Deut 13:1-5 which says, in so many words, that miracles are no guarantee that a prophet is working together with God. In point of fact, some of Israel's top spiritual counselors were convinced Jesus was trying to mislead the people with his miracles.
I kind of sympathize with their doubts because some of the things Jesus claimed about himself were very much on a level of madness the likes of Jim Jones, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon, Charles Manson, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Muhammad, Ellen G White, and Charles Taze Russel, et al.
But still; the fact remains that according to Daniel, the Jews' king has been here once before already. So if it wasn't Jesus, then who else from that era might be a likely candidate for us to consider?
_
-
TheRootOfDavid
- Banned
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2023 11:04 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Christianity 101
Post #15Christianity begin in the book of acts.WebersHome wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 2:18 pm ~
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 supreme 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)
_
The word or term " Christian " was not even a word till it was used as slang in the town of Antioch.
It is only used n the bible 3 times and is not even in the book of Revelation.
And who used it?
Peter who denied Jesus 3 times and Paul who murdered the disciples of Jesus.
I am possessed by The 7 Spirits of God
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #16~
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.
_
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.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #17~
According to John 1:1-3, Christianity began with the first chapter of Genesis.
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
Plus Heb 1:1-2 wherein is said:
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.
Technically; Christianity began even before Genesis.
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . for He chose us in him before the creation of the world" (Eph 1:3-4)
_
According to John 1:1-3, Christianity began with the first chapter of Genesis.
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
Plus Heb 1:1-2 wherein is said:
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.
Technically; Christianity began even before Genesis.
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . for He chose us in him before the creation of the world" (Eph 1:3-4)
_
