Christianity 101

[Olde Tymer]

~
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 humanity was 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)
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

~
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)
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

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)
_

 

[Dizerner]

FAQ: Was Adam's conduct Hell-worthy?

Oh, it definitely was, that was straight up treason.

There is no death without sin, death is the wages, the judgment of sin.

The ground there, bringing thorns?

You've got to see the symbolism—who had a parable about the ground being a symbol of the heart?

That's why it's not a literal serpent.

And we all know he eats dust.

 

[Olde Tymer]

~
12) Christianity alleges that walking with God involves more than rituals, rites,
and/or church attendance. (Bear with me as I flesh this out.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Olde Tymer]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Olde Tymer]

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

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

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

Ancient Jews understood it that way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Olde Tymer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refusal to pursue the death penalty for murder denigrates the sanctity of Almighty
God. So don't ever 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.

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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

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

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

FAQ: From whence did Noah's sons find wives?

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.
RUSH, Time Stand Still, 1987
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Olde Tymer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"the one" was Solomon.

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

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

 

[Olde Tymer]

~
(19) Jesus' genealogy given in 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.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

~
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 inflamed
fanatics waving placards, shouting, baring our teeth, and spraying spittle;
demanding that people defer to our way of thinking.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

~
20) 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 corroborates 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)
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

~
21) 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?
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

~
22) 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.
_