The Change of Blood Lineage
The Lineage of Jesus
The Lineage of Jesus
Order The Master Plan $17.95 website special!!
Chapter Eight
The history of Adam, Noah, Abraham’s families, Moses, and the nation of Israel is the story of the building of the “external” foundation to receive the Messiah. This chapter, however, is the explanation of the “internal” foundation to receive the Messiah. It explains the age-old question of how a sinless living Adam could emerge from a lineage that has its origin in the death and sin of Adam’s fall.
The sinless birth of Christ from Mary’s womb stands at the very heart of what is probably the most intriguing mystery of faith. It summons extenuating questions pertaining to the relationship between human sexuality, sin, spirituality and the divine.
The spiritual descendants of Abraham (Jews, Christians, and Moslems) still grapple with an array of definitions and moral standards that have yet to rid our world of a wide assortment of dysfunctions and troubles.
In reaction to this, many began to challenge religion itself as presumptuous and illegitimate in its role to establish moral sanctions over human sexual desire. The alternative was to unfetter sexual desire entirely. However, such an environment only served to accelerate the demise of culture. The convincing record of history demonstrates that culture “liberated” from all moral constraint will soon decline in a maelstrom of social ills.
Although those religious sanctions were vitally needed, in a sad and tragic irony, it is their imperfect expression and implementation that contributed to secular reactions such as that witnessed in the “sexual revolution” of the modern era. Unclear moral classifications imposed in guilt and shame will always manifest the very monster it fears. This tragic antagonism between the sacred and the secular, with human sexuality hanging in the balance, serves as a significant hidden dimension in the conflict of peoples.
Since the beginning of time, one key goal of secular interest, albeit largely unspoken, has been to “liberate” human sexuality from the moral codes of religion. Actually, Satan himself is the father of that movement. Satan’s principal complaint was that God insisted on imposing a code over human sexual conduct. (God prohibiting human-angel coupling was, no doubt, a primary point of contention.)
In the Garden, God’s moral code was based upon the precept that Adam and Eve must first achieve a personal standard “to be fruitful” before they could “multiply.” Therefore, the moral sanction “Do not eat the fruit” served to bolster Adam and Eve toward this objective. The essential implication of this moral code was this: Adam and Eve must fulfill the qualifications and then elicit God’s permission before sexual relations may proceed. Satan, in contrast, wanted sexual experience irrespective of this requirement.
Sexual conduct in Eden proceeded without God’s permission. This is the root of sin. Henceforth, the stain on sex, resulting from the fall, pertains to the issue of God’s withheld permission. Mankind, in ignorance, has been unaware of the reasons God withholds his approval. It has been withheld because a fundamental purpose of human sexuality is not being accomplished as a result of the fall. This loss of permission has contributed to the confusion of values about human sexuality; for even in a monogamous union, children are “conceived in sin” and are born in urgent need of “rebirth.” Since the fall, there seems to be no standard that meets with God’s unconditional approval.
Thus, most Christian thought tends to promote an inherent sense of alienation between God and sexual function. There is no greater manifestation of this than the assumed link between Christ’s sexless conception and his sinless birth. This estrangement between God and human sexual conduct is also linked to the religious value of celibacy: the idea that renouncing sex promotes a deeper fellowship with God.
On the positive side of the ledger, the vital contribution of Christian thought, albeit imperfect, has been its efforts to establish provisional consent upon the sexual relation. This has been the historical key in the building of enduring, vigorous culture since it reflects the original paradigm in Eden. It has also been instrumental in the course to imbue love as the prime motive for sexual union. For example, it is not a coincidence that when a culture embraced the idea of premarital abstinence, it likewise embraced and developed around the experience of love in marriage.
This provisional consent within religious culture, though it reflects the original sanction in Eden, is not the full recovery of the original suspended permission resulting from the fall. Thus, the original sin maintains its heritage through the Christian era. Christian culture, though a higher culture, is, therefore, not the final culture for which we wait.
The course to achieve full human potential was set up in Eden. That pathway required that Adam and Eve be placed in a position to exert authority over desire. Of course, sexual desire is the strongest of desire. It is the core of life force, the force of nature. By displaying authority over this desire, man stands in the position of Lord over nature.In standing in this position, we share a common protocol with God. Like the main server in an I.T. network of computers, God begins to download all the “Creator 7.0” program drivers and files to man. Man completes this divining process with God through the “co-creatorship” function. On that foundation, Adam and Eve would elicit God’s permission to “multiply,” that is, begin their sexual life.
In our modern “values free” secular world it has become politically incorrect to assess cultures and assign categories of higher and lower. However, with the clear focus of understanding God’s purpose for creating, we can conclude that whenever humans of any culture displayed values that reflected this original archetype, they inadvertently stumbled into the key of cultural development. That is the cultural dividing line separating primitive from higher, vacillating from enduring.
Christ comes to restore God’s permission for human sexuality. Christ restores sexual relations to its original purpose and potential. Understanding “The Change of Blood Lineage” is instrumental for Christians to understand the truest nature of Christ’s mission.
Standing in the way are many theological and traditional beliefs that effectively block the Christian world from understanding the most fundamental of all Christ’s roles. The idea that Jesus would take a bride is hard for Christians to consider, given the view of traditional theology.
The sinless birth of Christ from Mary’s womb stands at the very heart of what is probably the most intriguing mystery of faith. It summons extenuating questions pertaining to the relationship between human sexuality, sin, spirituality and the divine.
The spiritual descendants of Abraham (Jews, Christians, and Moslems) still grapple with an array of definitions and moral standards that have yet to rid our world of a wide assortment of dysfunctions and troubles.
In reaction to this, many began to challenge religion itself as presumptuous and illegitimate in its role to establish moral sanctions over human sexual desire. The alternative was to unfetter sexual desire entirely. However, such an environment only served to accelerate the demise of culture. The convincing record of history demonstrates that culture “liberated” from all moral constraint will soon decline in a maelstrom of social ills.
Although those religious sanctions were vitally needed, in a sad and tragic irony, it is their imperfect expression and implementation that contributed to secular reactions such as that witnessed in the “sexual revolution” of the modern era. Unclear moral classifications imposed in guilt and shame will always manifest the very monster it fears. This tragic antagonism between the sacred and the secular, with human sexuality hanging in the balance, serves as a significant hidden dimension in the conflict of peoples.
Since the beginning of time, one key goal of secular interest, albeit largely unspoken, has been to “liberate” human sexuality from the moral codes of religion. Actually, Satan himself is the father of that movement. Satan’s principal complaint was that God insisted on imposing a code over human sexual conduct. (God prohibiting human-angel coupling was, no doubt, a primary point of contention.)
In the Garden, God’s moral code was based upon the precept that Adam and Eve must first achieve a personal standard “to be fruitful” before they could “multiply.” Therefore, the moral sanction “Do not eat the fruit” served to bolster Adam and Eve toward this objective. The essential implication of this moral code was this: Adam and Eve must fulfill the qualifications and then elicit God’s permission before sexual relations may proceed. Satan, in contrast, wanted sexual experience irrespective of this requirement.
Sexual conduct in Eden proceeded without God’s permission. This is the root of sin. Henceforth, the stain on sex, resulting from the fall, pertains to the issue of God’s withheld permission. Mankind, in ignorance, has been unaware of the reasons God withholds his approval. It has been withheld because a fundamental purpose of human sexuality is not being accomplished as a result of the fall. This loss of permission has contributed to the confusion of values about human sexuality; for even in a monogamous union, children are “conceived in sin” and are born in urgent need of “rebirth.” Since the fall, there seems to be no standard that meets with God’s unconditional approval.
Thus, most Christian thought tends to promote an inherent sense of alienation between God and sexual function. There is no greater manifestation of this than the assumed link between Christ’s sexless conception and his sinless birth. This estrangement between God and human sexual conduct is also linked to the religious value of celibacy: the idea that renouncing sex promotes a deeper fellowship with God.
On the positive side of the ledger, the vital contribution of Christian thought, albeit imperfect, has been its efforts to establish provisional consent upon the sexual relation. This has been the historical key in the building of enduring, vigorous culture since it reflects the original paradigm in Eden. It has also been instrumental in the course to imbue love as the prime motive for sexual union. For example, it is not a coincidence that when a culture embraced the idea of premarital abstinence, it likewise embraced and developed around the experience of love in marriage.
This provisional consent within religious culture, though it reflects the original sanction in Eden, is not the full recovery of the original suspended permission resulting from the fall. Thus, the original sin maintains its heritage through the Christian era. Christian culture, though a higher culture, is, therefore, not the final culture for which we wait.
The course to achieve full human potential was set up in Eden. That pathway required that Adam and Eve be placed in a position to exert authority over desire. Of course, sexual desire is the strongest of desire. It is the core of life force, the force of nature. By displaying authority over this desire, man stands in the position of Lord over nature.In standing in this position, we share a common protocol with God. Like the main server in an I.T. network of computers, God begins to download all the “Creator 7.0” program drivers and files to man. Man completes this divining process with God through the “co-creatorship” function. On that foundation, Adam and Eve would elicit God’s permission to “multiply,” that is, begin their sexual life.
In our modern “values free” secular world it has become politically incorrect to assess cultures and assign categories of higher and lower. However, with the clear focus of understanding God’s purpose for creating, we can conclude that whenever humans of any culture displayed values that reflected this original archetype, they inadvertently stumbled into the key of cultural development. That is the cultural dividing line separating primitive from higher, vacillating from enduring.
Christ comes to restore God’s permission for human sexuality. Christ restores sexual relations to its original purpose and potential. Understanding “The Change of Blood Lineage” is instrumental for Christians to understand the truest nature of Christ’s mission.
Standing in the way are many theological and traditional beliefs that effectively block the Christian world from understanding the most fundamental of all Christ’s roles. The idea that Jesus would take a bride is hard for Christians to consider, given the view of traditional theology.
