While we consider the right answer, it is important to make clear that I am not an
overseer of any kind and consequently, not tethered behind. I stand alone - I do not
answer-to or consult any man. What I am is an individual just like you. This affords me
no title while it does reveal a relationship. As your brother, I am called to warn you of
the weekly dose and its deadly consequences. Ezekiel 3:11
Although my objective is not to offend you, the warning must be loud enough to shake
you back to your senses. Then it will be up to you to get ready or suffer the
consequences. Ezekiel 3:16-19 Given the premises, is it possible to find out which religion is
right?
Consider the Jews
The Jews claim the Nazarene is not The Messiah to come even less, The Son of God.
They simply see the Gentiles choosing a new god with a Hebrew name. Thus, by
rejecting what seems obvious to them, the Jews claim a covenant unchanged. As their
hope continues, they wait for The Messiah to be the vanguard of the promise given to
them by God. In all, they seek The Messiah to be the ruler for the people of Israel and to
rule the nations around them with an iron scepter. Psalms 2:6-12
If the Jews are right, how do we harmonize the passages that allude to The Messiah as
arriving with an awe-inspiring power? Hosea 1:7, Isaiah 53:2-12, Zechariah 9:9, Psalms 16:10, 22:16-18,
Micah 5:2 Does The Messiah’s return have anything to do with the striking of the rock at
Horeb twice? Exodus 17:6, Numbers 20:10-12 Reason the severity of this action: Moses, the most
important figure of the Torah, is not being permitted to enter the Promised Land for a
seemingly insignificant disobedience. 1Corinthians 10:3-4
However, if we insist the Covenant has not changed, then we must be true to ourselves by
accepting that nothing else has also changed. Then if nothing else has changed, why is
the absence of the temple surprisingly past two thousand years? A good Jew knows that,
without the temple, nothing can be cleansed and consequently, nothing can be forgiven.
Hebrews 9:18
So then, if the Covenant remains unchanged or unfulfilled, and the temple is amiss, all
sins remain even as they accumulate. Now, if for some reason we claim the temple is no
longer required then we agree that something has changed; and if we agree that
something has changed, why are we trying to rebuild the temple all over again?
Perhaps the absence of the temple is a sign that something is terribly wrong or that
something has changed. Either God is more than disillusioned with the House of Judah
or the inefficiencies of the First Covenant have been superseded by the efficiencies of the
New.
Notwithstanding, if the First Covenant remains unchanged or unfulfilled, why should we
care? After all, is it not true that under this premise, the God of the Hebrews remains
exclusively for the Hebrews?
