~
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 #2~
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)
_
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)
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #3~
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)
_
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)
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #4~
12) 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)
_
12) 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)
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #5~
13) 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.
_
13) 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.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #6~
14) 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.
_
14) 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.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #7~
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.
_
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.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #8~
15) 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
_
15) 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
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #9~
16) 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.
_
16) 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.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Christianity 101
Post #10~
17) 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.
_
17) 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.
_
