Luke 18

[dolfan]

Russell, I understand that, really. And, I don't think your understanding about what Jesus did and the significance of it is a problem ---- except as I read you, you say that Jesus' message was basically "Be the light of the world by following me, and if you don't Rome's gonna crush you. My way is not the way of rebelling against Rome. My way is to be peaceful." It seems to me that you're distilling Jesus' message to that essence, and if that is so, I disagree.

Now, do I think Jesus came to lay out a formula for personal, individual salvation of "praying the sinner's prayer" and "getting saved"? No, I don't. I think it was way more than that. He came to be and is the King of His creation, and He came to include us in that reign. He showed us and taught us how we can be part of His kingdom, right here and ultimately forever.

The historical fact is that Rome did crush Jerusalem, just as you say it did. The message of Jesus did not limit itself to the contingency of what would happen to Jerusalem. It isn't as if God was unaware of the future. Repentance actually dethroned Rome in a much more far-reaching way. By the time of Luther and Calvin, the near height of Roman Catholic territorial power, they seized on the notion of repentance as answering to God and changing one's mind and heart about Him as opposed to answering to the Pope/Holy Roman Emperor about Him. But, to what end is all this repentance? A kinder, gentler civil government? A "redeemed" politic? No.

John 17:20-23

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

[Russell Roberts]

Russell, I understand that, really. And, I don't think your understanding about what Jesus did and the significance of it is a problem ---- except as I read you, you say that Jesus' message was basically "Be the light of the world by following me, and if you don't Rome's gonna crush you. My way is not the way of rebelling against Rome. My way is to be peaceful." It seems to me that you're distilling Jesus' message to that essence, and if that is so, I disagree.

Now, do I think Jesus came to lay out a formula for personal, individual salvation of "praying the sinner's prayer" and "getting saved"? No, I don't. I think it was way more than that. He came to be and is the King of His creation, and He came to include us in that reign. He showed us and taught us how we can be part of His kingdom, right here and ultimately forever.

The historical fact is that Rome did crush Jerusalem, just as you say it did. The message of Jesus did not limit itself to the contingency of what would happen to Jerusalem. It isn't as if God was unaware of the future. Repentance actually dethroned Rome in a much more far-reaching way. By the time of Luther and Calvin, the near height of Roman Catholic territorial power, they seized on the notion of repentance as answering to God and changing one's mind and heart about Him as opposed to answering to the Pope/Holy Roman Emperor about Him. But, to what end is all this repentance? A kinder, gentler civil government? A "redeemed" politic? No.

John 17:20-23

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Dolfan, what I wanted to do is to look at Jesus' call to repentance in its historic setting rather than the anachronistic reading where we project back onto the text what we moderns mean by the use of the word 'repentance'. There are, of course, implications for us.

What Jesus was doing during his ministry is quite fascinating. He was defining what it truly meant to be Israel and what it meant was this - Israel was now defined by allegience to Jesus and not to the temple cult which had become corrupt to the point that they were now playing the role that Babylon had played in the Old Testament. As Jesus saw it, Jerusalem stood under condemnation.

In fact, Jesus appropriated language from Isaiah 13, origninally used to describe the destruction of Babylon and applied it to the pending destruction of Jerusalem in Matt. 24 and parallel chapters i.e. the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give her light, etc. He was predicting the destruction of the temple and was reconstituting the Nation of Israel around himself.

His offer of forgiveness, for example, was a privilage reserved for the temple - this is where one obtained forgiveness. This offer would be the modern day equivalent of an individual offering U.S. Passports for sale. Again, Jesus was re-defining what it meant to be Israel. But the historic task facing Jesus was to inaugerate God's kingdom by first defeating the powers of sin and death.

The cross is a paradox. Though it seemed that Jesus was losing, the exact opposite was really occurring. In his confrontation with Rome and the Jewish leadership, Jesus was, on the cross, defeating sin and death (what poses a threat to an everlasting empire like death?). As a result of his obedience to the covenant, Jesus was raised and enthrone as the King of all creation. This is the victory upon which we are to build.

So what are the implications for us? I suggest that to pledge our allegience to Jesus - to have faith in him - is to become part of reconstituted Israel. We become truly human in Christ and follow the example he set in terms of what victory really looks like - an illusion to the world.

From an earthly perspective, Jesus and those conformed to his image appear to be losing. From a heavenly perspective, they are achieving victory. If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him.

I would say that 'repentence' in its modern sense, is a decision to follow Jesus rather than continue in ones idolatry i.e. the worship of power, sex, money, etc. It is to become part of the Israel of God (Gal. 6, Rom. 2, Rom. 9, etc.)

[Pastorbps]

Russel:
I've got no problem with the idea of Jesus the King and the message being the Gospel of the kingdom and the concept of the New Israel. What I don't believe is the idea God was concerned about Roman domination and the Jews' attempt to rebel. God was concerned about man and their sins which separated them from being a part of His everlasting kingdom but which also spelled the doom of man at the final judgment. I also don't believe the use of Gehenna was to warn them of the fiery dump on the edge of town. I believe the Lake of Fire to be the eternal destination of the lost. Ours is not just an offer to become a part of His kingdom but it is a search and rescue mission to save all of mankind from the eternal consequences of their sins. You speak of modern interpretations of repentance but I believe the idea that salvation is being saved to the kingdom without mentioning a salvation from the eternal consequences of sin is a modern interpretation that does not fit the NT message.
I believe repentance is the decision to turn from a life of rebellion against God (His commandments implied) and to turn to a life of allegiance (Receiving and Confessing Jesus as LORD).
If you want to be a part of His kingdom you have to accept His rule.

[dolfan]

And, with that, I am clearer on what you were saying.

I am interested in a couple of favorite phrases of yours, though. One is "truly human". It seems so, I dunno, psychobabblish, new-age-y. I don't think you mean it in any such sense. In fact, when you say that Christ was "truly human" and shows us what it means to be that, I take from that that Jesus was everything God wants us to be and enables us to become, humanly (that is, we can't become what He is divinely since there is only one God). And, I can get my head around that enough and say, "Well, yeah." (I guess that makes me a yaysayer?)

You said, though,

I suggest that to pledge our allegience to Jesus - to have faith in him - is to become part of reconstituted Israel. We become truly human in Christ and follow the example he set in terms of what victory really looks like - an illusion to the world

Again, it is a risk of sending a message I don't think you intend to send by using that phrase that concerns me a little bit. Here's my "concern": Your admiration for N.T. Wright in forming these conclusions. I like Wright just fine, thanks. You, (or NT Wright Fan?) shared a link of a lecture Wright gave some time ago on the authority of the Bible. And, in that, Wright says this ---

God’s authority vested in scripture is designed, as all God’s authority is designed, to liberate human beings, to judge and condemn evil and sin in the world in order to set people free to be fully human. That’s what God is in the business of doing. That is what his authority is there for.

[Emphasis mine, there.]

I think, if Wright is to be appreciated more fully on this, it bears some support in what he means by "fully human" or "truly human" or like description. He also wrote,

"The whole world is thus the sphere of God’s redeeming action in Christ, and men and women without distinction are summoned by the gospel to submit to Jesus’ lordship and so to enjoy the blessings of life in the covenant community, both in the present world and in that to come. God’s people form, in Christ, that true humanity which Israel was called to be but by herself could not be. Paul expresses this appropriately by referring to the church, the people of the Messiah, as ‘the body of Christ’ (Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12). This membership in Christ must be lived out by individual Christians allowing the Spirit to direct their actions, enabling them to live in the present as appropriate for the heirs of God’s future kingdom (Rom. 8:12-25; Gal. 5:16-26; Col. 3:1-11). Since they are already thus participating in the new age, the final return of Christ may be soon or late, but should find them ‘awake’, not asleep in sin (1 Thes. 5:1-11; cf. Phil. 3:17-21). And when that day comes, not only human beings, but the whole creation, will share in the renewal which the one God has planned for his world (Rom. 8:18-25).

[Again, emphasis mine.]

It is precisely that plan of God for those He has chosen that motivates me to be so adamantly against the civil government's actions. Our government, and all of them, demands obedience, demands loyalty, demands property, demands any and all submission --- but does not offer itself accountable, does not limit itself, does not become anything less or lower for the sake of the people, but instead grows and and enlarges and regulates for its own growth and enlargement. It rhetorically offers that all of this is "for the people", but it only benefits those who run it and whose favors are stock in trade for its advancement. It is not subject to "God's redeeming action in Christ". It is not and cannot be, as Wright would put it, "fully human." It is hopelessly irredeemable; our hope in redemption lies only in its replacement.

Until that day comes for the "final return of Christ", the church is yielding valuable time and energy to the hopelessly irredeemable civil government by recognizing the government's voice on issues that are uniquely and particularly God-matters, and by directing the voice of the church on matters that are particularly not pertinent to the mission, scope and ambit of the church. I offer as what probably appears as my favorite example the issue of marriage. Christians ought to be concerned only with what the Church teaches about marriage, and ought to arrange its marriages accordingly and solely, and we ought to ignore everything the government might say about it in any respect since marriage has nothing to do with civil government. It is a creation of God, and it is specially governed by the body of Christ. Anything, whether it tends to comport with Christian marriage or not, that civil government might add to the discussion is inherently corrupt and irredeemable. Christian marriage is solely a matter of church jurisdiction. To the extent that civil government offers to regulate anything concerning "marriage" it is a usurpation and a misnomer; gay marriage is anything but and the same may be said of any number of marriages among heterosexuals. But, the civil government has largely set the tone on that for the church. Even if they were to arrive at the same point in practice, the agreement between them on the substance of what is/is not marriage is irrelevant. The church is the sole body vested with jurisdiction over what Christian marriage is.

Likewise, we've been told, as believers, that we ought to "speak truth to power" about government torture or health care finance policy. It simply is not the business of the church to speak to the civil government about those matters. The church has nothing to say about it worth hearing. The governments and their agencies and agents (military, civil, etc.) do the work of their "bosses" and march to their tunes. The church does not and is not intended to surrogate for the state. If government decides to provide health care finance subsidies or outright single-payer, etc., to the extent that anyone can find a correlation between that and a Christian duty to love thy neighbor and help those who are in the household of faith, it is a pipe tune designed to fool people into a false sense of morality. If the government decides to cease torturing terrorism suspects for information out of some notion of fairness or due process, to the extent anyone can find a correlation between that and a Christian duty to love thy neighbor and to do justice, it is a pipe tune designed to fool people into a false sense of morality. If the government decides to raise taxes to finance some welfare program and uses Jesus' words about feeding the hungry and his example in doing so as any sort of equivalency, it is a pipe tune designed to fool people into a false sense of morality. The church perhaps should and could provide any or all of some kind of aid to believers and then to unbelievers, but that it does not do so is no reason for believers to look to government for solutions. The one thing the government does well, here, and for which we pay is wielding the sword. Fine -- that's what it is supposed to do biblically.

[darylscook]

22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Yes, if he would have sold all and come and followed Jesus; He would have had treasure in heaven.

Pastor Daryl

[Russell Roberts]

Pastorbps said:

I've got no problem with the idea of Jesus the King and the message being the Gospel of the kingdom and the concept of the New Israel. What I don't believe is the idea God was concerned about Roman domination and the Jews' attempt to rebel.

Pastorbps, at the time the Gospels were written, Rome had established a worldwide empire based on military conquest. Their empire was one of oppression and was designed to funnel the riches of the world into Rome. I understand this empire to be the fourth beast of Daniel 7 (also the beast of Revelation). When the New Testament was being written, the Caesars were laying claims to divinity - demanding worship and claiming to be kurios and soter. They were also quite ardent persecutors of the early church. As I see it, the Roman Empire was a parody of the Kingdom of God.

Modern day Christianity buys into the notion that the Kingdom of God is spiritual vs. material. This is to buy into a platonic view of reality in which material things are evil and spiritual things are good. This was not the Jewish view of creation. As they saw it, God loved creation and was determined to redeem it. When the Kingdom of God came, they didn't expect for an apocalyptic scenario in which time would cease to be or in which the world burnt up but one in which God would truly establish his kingdom here on earth.

What throws many people off, I think, is Matthew's use of the term 'kingdom of heaven'. This simply reflects the typical Jewish sensitivity about uttering the divine name. Hence, Kingdom of Heaven is merely another way to refer to the Kingdom of God. But it is utterly a this-worldly kingdom. Paul and John the Revelator both envision a final redemption of all of creation in Rom. 8, I Cor. 15, and Revelation 20-22.

The power behind the fourth beast, as John understood it, was the power of evil - the satan. But if we study the language and the message of Jesus, we find that the Jews did not so easily seperate 'political' from 'religous'. The claims Jesus made and those made by Paul and others were a direct affront to the Roman Empire.

God was concerned about man and their sins which separated them from being a part of His everlasting kingdom but which also spelled the doom of man at the final judgment.

I don't disagree here but I think this is the (egocentric) conclusion we can draw from what is taught in the New Testament. The Jews didn't have an egocentric mindset. Much of what Paul taught was ecclesiocentric. The Jews thought of themselves in terms of the group to which they belonged. For example, many people read Romans as a treatise by Paul about individual salvation. It isn't really what Paul is talking about. Paul is explaining how God was faithful to fulfill the covenant he had with the Jews through the actions of Christ to form a worldwide family for Abraham. But that's a long story.

I also don't believe the use of Gehenna was to warn them of the fiery dump on the edge of town. I believe the Lake of Fire to be the eternal destination of the lost.

I don't doubt that Gehenna came to serve as an appropriate metaphor for eternal loss. But if we consider most of the passages in the N.T. that refer to Gehenna, I think we find that they are in line with Jesus prediction of Jerusalem's near term destruction should they continue to reject his message.

Ours is not just an offer to become a part of His kingdom but it is a search and rescue mission to save all of mankind from the eternal consequences of their sins.

I don't think of these as being mutually exclusive. I think they go hand in hand.

You speak of modern interpretations of repentance but I believe the idea that salvation is being saved to the kingdom without mentioning a salvation from the eternal consequences of sin is a modern interpretation that does not fit the NT message.

I agree that 'salvation' looks to the final judgment. It also looks backwards to the accomplishment of Jesus on the cross. It is also a present reality. We were saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. But ultimately, we agree. It looks to the final judgment.

I believe repentance is the decision to turn from a life of rebellion against God (His commandments implied) and to turn to a life of allegiance (Receiving and Confessing Jesus as LORD). If you want to be a part of His kingdom you have to accept His rule.

I agree. Again, I wanted to look at the historical meaning of repentence as announced by Jesus. What it means in the modern sense though is a bit different than what it meant in its historic sense.

[Russell Roberts]

Dolfan,

With respect to the idea that we become fully human in Christ, here is how I think with respect to Wright's phrase. At the fall, Adam lost something of what it means to be truly human. Under the influence of sin, we see a degeneration of humanity after the fall. In Romans 1 Paul sees this dehumanization process evidenced by various sorts of sin to the point that men and women would abandon the natural order of creation to do what is contrary to nature itself.

This process of dehumanization is the result of idolatry. Pure and simple. We become like what we worship. This theme is pretty strong in Isaiah where he predicts that the message of Jesus will be met largely with indifference. Having ears to hear they will not hear...having eyes to see they will not see. They have become like what they worship.

We humans were created to worship the one true God. In so doing, we become fully human. A failure to do so, as in Romans 1, results in a 'giving over' by God to a mind that is no longer qualified to understand truth. This is, as Wright sees it, a process of dehumanization. We were born to bear the image of God - to reflect God's image in a world of darkness. This, I think, is what it means to be human.

I like much of what you have to say about civil government. I just look at it a bit differently. As I stated earlier, politics and religion were not so easily seperable in Jewish thought. Jesus was confronting Rome even if it was quite subversive. I think we should do the same with our own government. Having said that, I don't think that the solution to our problems lies within the framework of either political party. Our solution, I think, lies in announcing Jesus as Lord to the powers that be and reminding them who really runs this place and to whom they will be held accountable. Bless you brother.

[dolfan]

Well, it is an affront to the government to suggest that it has no power to govern!! Imagine standing in front of Congress or your governor or mine, the President or your mayor and saying, "Your only authority is to wield the sword to punish wrong doing and to praise good works. You have no authority over those matters of my life and of the lives of Christians that do not also violate the basic laws of God concerning doing active harm to one another. We are immune from your rule, and have only God and His kingdom as our government, as that is expressed in the church of Jesus Christ. Your government is doomed, is irredeemably corrupt, and is destined for the dustpan of history. God's reign and His rule, through His people who believe on His Son, is established and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it except to do injustice to us or leave us alone to live in His kingdom as we will absent your input."

Try living that way for real and see who is affronted!!!

[Russell Roberts]

Dolfan, I'm not sure we are communicating clearly. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I don't think Paul's statement about the government was exhaustive. Yes, the government wields power on all sorts of matters...but not ultimate power. When they fail to act judiciously, it is our job to confront them with the fact that they will answer to a higher authority...to the one true king. That is all I am saying. Whether they adjust their behavior on various issues or not, we should confront them.

[dolfan]

If it wasn't exhaustive, we're in a meck of a hess.

[Russell Roberts]

If it wasn't exhaustive, we're in a meck of a hess.

Well, we can rest in knowing that the truly human one sits on the throne.

[Pastorbps]

Modern day Christianity buys into the notion that the Kingdom of God is spiritual vs. material. This is to buy into a platonic view of reality in which material things are evil and spiritual things are good. This was not the Jewish view of creation. As they saw it, God loved creation and was determined to redeem it. When the Kingdom of God came, they didn't expect for an apocalyptic scenario in which time would cease to be or in which the world burnt up but one in which God would truly establish his kingdom here on earth.

I think the Kingdom of God on earth at this present time is spiritual to the extent we are physical beings who are part of an invisible kingdom identified by the presence of His Spirit within us. My personal belief is that one day Christ’s Kingdom will become visible as every kingdom of this world ceases to exist and every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus is Christ and Lord to the glory of God the Father. We will then enjoy the rule of God for 1000 years upon this earth and then for eternity in the new heaven and new earth.

I believe the 1000 year reign is literally coming at some future date. I believe we will rule with Christ on this earth in glorified bodies. I also believe there will be people here who are ruled over and who, when Satan is loosed, will be subject to temptation.

I believe the heavens and earth that now exist will be burnt with a fervent heat and a new heaven and a new earth will take their place. In this new heaven and new earth we will reign with God forever and the righteous will shine forth as the Sun in the Kingdom of their God. No more sickness, pain, death, will exist for they will be passed away.
To sum it up, I believe the Kingdom of God is here now because I am an ambassador in that kingdom but the world is still influenced and sinners are controlled by the kingdom of darkness. I believe the Kingdom of God will literally, visibly exist in this world at Christ’s return when Christ rules from Jerusalem. I believe at the end of 1000 years, Satan will be loosed, a conflict (If you want to call it that) will erupt and God will destroy the heavens and earth that now exist with a fervent heat and there will be a new heaven and new earth where only God, the angels, and the righteous will exist in perfect peace for eternity.
This is what I currently believe. I believe it because that’s what I see in scripture and not because of some church, school, parent, or professor said it was that way. I will say I am open to instruction from the Word of God but it has to be shown to me scripturally.

What throws many people off, I think, is Matthew's use of the term 'kingdom of heaven'. This simply reflects the typical Jewish sensitivity about uttering the divine name. Hence, Kingdom of Heaven is merely another way to refer to the Kingdom of God. But it is utterly a this-worldly kingdom. Paul and John the Revelator both envision a final redemption of all of creation in Rom. 8, I Cor. 15, and Revelation 20-22.

I don’t disagree with you. I would add that Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are synonymous just as the Kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar and the Kingdom of Babylon were synonymous. One emphasizes the ruler and one emphasizes the seat or throne from which the kingdom sprang.
I don’t disagree with you on the essence of the Kingdom but I think I disagree with you stating the message of Repentance had to do with the change of one’s view concerning the overthrow of the Roman empire by violence. I believe He did re-educate the disciples regarding the Kingdom of God but I believe repentance had to do with the fact they were living in rebellion to God and contrary to His commandments. From this evil rebellion and life of sin God is calling us to repent. Only by accepting God's provision for forgiveness and acceptance of His rule can we hope to be a part of His eternal kingdom. He is inviting us to do just that.

[Russell Roberts]

I don’t disagree with you on the essence of the Kingdom but I think I disagree with you stating the message of Repentance had to do with the change of one’s view concerning the overthrow of the Roman empire by violence. I believe He did re-educate the disciples regarding the Kingdom of God but I believe repentance had to do with the fact they were living in rebellion to God and contrary to His commandments. From this evil rebellion and life of sin God is calling us to repent. Only by accepting God's provision for forgiveness and acceptance of His rule can we hope to be a part of His eternal kingdom. He is inviting us to do just that.

I agree that they were living in rebellion against God. But our presumptions about what this rebellion consisted of are quite different. In Isaiah, God had called the Israelites to be a light to the nations. Now, instead of living up to their calling to be a light to the nations, the Jews viewed Torah as underwriting their national ambitions to rule the world. As they saw it, the Jews would take up Adam's vocation to rule over the pagan nations. As far as they were concerned, the pagans were no better than beasts (this is what Daniel 7 is all about).

With messianic expectations at a fever pitch (based on Gabriel's prophecy of a 490 year period until exile was over), the Jews were waiting on a Messiah who would lead the military revolt against Rome. But Jesus didn't fit these ideas of what a messiah would be. Later, of course, just as Jesus predicted, some false messiahs would arise (like Simeon bar Kochba) whose idea was to lead a military revolt against Rome. We both know what became of his attempts. As Jesus predicted, the temple was torn down and the dead bodies of those involved were literally thrown into Gehenna.

But I can live with disagreement. In either case, I have immensely enjoyed the conversation with you Pastorbps. You are quite an excellent discussion partner. Bless you brother.

[oletimer]

I find it hard to buy into all that your are saying like ;

Russell Roberts
Well, we can rest in knowing that the truly human one sits on the throne.

Mt 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
When Jesus walked on earth He referred to Himself as the Son of Man, as He had been born of a woman. Jesus came as the Son of Man for a reason.


Mt 8:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

As the Son of Man, He was able to know how we felt, how we hurt, how we hungered, and all the other things that man know and feel. And He did this with out sin.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

You keep referring to him as “truly human”

While here on earth, He was total “man” in so much that He knew all of the feeling of man and without sin, but He was still total “God” in so much as He forgave sin and heal the sick and did other miracles. But now He is “TOTAL GOD” AS He sits with the Father in Heaven.

Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jesus came to provide the sacrifice and atonement needed to eradicate sin in our lives. There is no way that one can answer all the questions that you have brought up with you statements. There is no way that I can go along with them because even with the parts that have truth is them, the over lying subject of your thought does more damage to the truth of the gospel then it does good.

The fact is that Jesus is no longer Man, but now sits as the Son of God, the third part of the Trinity.

The fact the it takes repentances (being God full sorry for the offence to the Living God and not just turning over a new leaf )

2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

The fact that His coming to earth had more then just to do with the Jewish people. How many times have we read John 3:16 “For who so ever”, or

Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Sure the Jewish people will have their part of the “End Time”. Right now they are required to repent just like anybody else.

The fact sin was first done by Adam and thru and because of him all man is born in sin, were by man received the sentence of death. It now takes the atoning Blood of Christ to cleans us, all of us. Paul wrote to the Galatians third chapter:

Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Ga 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The curse that He tool to the cross was for all man, both Jew and Gentile. And because of the cross experience, we can be reconciled back to God.


Ro 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Ro 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

From the time of Adam up to even now all are born in sin, and the only was out is thru the blood of Christ and is worked thru repentance, yes I know “saved by faith through grace”, it all works together.

Ro 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Ro 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Ro 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Ro 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
I know that this doesn’t cover all the things that you brought up but maybe it’s a start. When I read your writings I get same feeling that I get with the teachings of the JW, they think of Christ as another prophet. I never was one for water down effects.

I don’t believe in reincarnation, but has anyone seen “Karen”.

Here is my dollor's worth and you can keep the change.

[Russell Roberts]

Oletimer,

I have always affirmed that Jesus is both human and divine and continues to be so as part of the Trinity. He continues to be fully human and fully divine. Bless you.