Y'shua 101

Webers.Home · Dec 9, 2023

~
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)
_

Webers.Home · Dec 10, 2023

~
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)
_

Webers.Home · Dec 11, 2023

~
10) Christianity alleges that the entire human family-- all races, colors, and
genders --descendsfrom that first man.

● Gen 2:2 . . By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been
doing

● 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)
_

Cameron143 · Dec 11, 2023

Webers.Home said:

~
10) Christianity alleges that the entire human family-- all races, colors, and
genders --descendsfrom that first man.

● Gen 2:2 . . By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been
doing

● 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)
_

If sin causes death, then Jesus would not have ever died. He was human but didn't come from Adam. That's the reason for the Spiritual conception.

Webers.Home · Dec 12, 2023

~
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
_

Webers.Home · Dec 13, 2023

~
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)

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 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.
_

Webers.Home · Dec 14, 2023

~
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.
_

Webers.Home · Dec 15, 2023

~
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.

NOTE: 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 our 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 hint of sensible doubt.
_

Webers.Home · Dec 16, 2023

~
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)
_

Webers.Home · Dec 17, 2023

~
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.
_

Webers.Home · Dec 18, 2023

~
18) 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. (John 7:45-49)

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?
_

Search

Y'shua 101

Webers.Home

Well-known member

Webers.Home

Well-known member

Webers.Home

Well-known member

Cameron143

Well-known member

Webers.Home

Well-known member

Webers.Home

Well-known member

Webers.Home

Well-known member

Webers.Home

Well-known member

Webers.Home

Well-known member

Webers.Home

Well-known member

Webers.Home

Well-known member