Are we prisoners of sin

that depends on what you understand the purpose of the Mosaic Law to be. The early christians understood it this way...

quote:

---

Gal 3:19 "It was added [to the Abrahamic covenant] to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made" ... Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith."

---

no one can be declared righteous by the Mosaic Law because no man can live by Law perfectly. Therefore, people were declared righteous by their 'faith' as opposed to their attempted obedience to the mosaic lawOf Abraham, it is stated that he exercised faith in God and was "declared righteous"; also, it is written that Rahab of Jericho manifested her faith by her works and so was "declared righteous,"
Abel offered God a sacrifice of greater worth than Cain, "through which [faith] he had witness borne to him that he was righteous"I must ask you, what has the legal system of the government got to do with Gods salvation? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Do you really not understand what I've been saying?The early "Christians" were the disciples of Jesus who according to Christian History were called Nazarenes. They were Jewish and still followed the Mosaic and Oral Laws of Judaism at the time. Remember they supposedly required Paul to make an offering to show that he was not teaching against the LaW and Paul made the offering.Also according to Christian history Paul's followers were gentiles and were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:25)
(A History of Christianity, 1953, by Harper & Brothers)Again, Paul is not God. Show me that God presented the Mosaic Laws as a way to salvation.Since you have difficulty defining your catch phrases, I will assume that by salvation you mean a place in the world to come or the afterlife. If I'm incorrect, please clearly define it. I don't feel that a local or ancient legal system has anything to do with the afterlife. Religion is the source of requirements for the afterlife. Did the OT give requirements needed to obtain a place in the afterlife?As I've said several times, the Mosaic Law was the legal system for the Hebrew nation. Since it was a theocratic nation, the laws supposedly came from their God. So government and religion were interrelated. Eventually government and religion split. Remember Saul, the first King of Israel?Did God, not Paul, present the Laws as a way to achieve a place in the world to come?Was Paul really against the Mosaic Law or the Oral Law? Resurrection and reincarnation is a later development in Judaism. After the Laws of Moses were supposedly presented to the people of Israel. It something that seems to have developed more with the second temple. My contention is that the Mosaic and Oral law was the legal system for an ancient theocratic nation and wasn't a system that gentiles of the first century were required to follow since Israel was no longer a reigning nation. Even for the Jewish people the system was limited by Roman rule. The Jews supposedly did not have the authority to put people to death.I will agree that Paul was probably going against the rabbinic teachings of the time concerning the requirements for a place in the World to Come. Halakha, Talmud
(See above quotes from Judaism 101).Through Ezekiel, God does tell us what he considers righteous. (I've shown this several times, so please read and understand.) So God tells us that we can be deemed righteous by following his decrees and faithfully keeping his laws. God does not say we are to live by law perfectly. You have yet to show me that he does. Again, Paul is not God.So here we have a contradiction between God and Paul if Paul is truly railing against the Mosaic Law in the OT. If Paul is arguing against the Jewish doctrine of the time, which isn't written in the OT, then what has that got to do with the Gentiles? Even Noah was considered righteous in his time. Blameless does not mean without sin or "perfect". Even Paul in Philippians 3:6 claimed to be blameless Does God (not Paul) make it clear in the OT that he will reward believers in the afterlife for following the laws presented through Moses?Show me that Paul's arguments holds water.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Those who try to separate the teachings of Paul regarding salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ from the teachings of the other apostles are dealt with by Peter in this passage:2 Pet 3:
14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.OT salvation was always in the "blood covenant" which God established with man which led to the coming of our Redeemer whose blood covered their sin. NT salvation is always in the "blood covenant" which God established with man which looks back to our Redeemer whose blood covers our sin.It's as simple and as diffult as that.Blessings

quote:

---

Those who try to separate the teachings of Paul regarding salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ from the teachings of the other apostles are dealt with by Peter in this passage:

---

2 Peter 3 written about 100-160 AD according to Edgar Goodspeed. Not written by the apostle Peter. The author was addressing (if you read chapter 2) disreputable people, greedy swindlers, etc. Nothing in my words has shown me to be such a person. I haven't provided fictional stories. I've simply looked at what the Bible says. Combating seemingly false doctrine is not forbidden by God. If you read what I wrote earlier, that's exactly what Paul was supposedly doing. So now I question what people of today present as Biblical, required by God, spoken by God, etc. The author said be on your guard and I am. If what you say is true, you should be able to clearly show that it comes from what we have of God and not mankind.

quote:

---

OT salvation was always in the "blood covenant" which God established with man which led to the coming of our Redeemer whose blood covered their sin. NT salvation is always in the "blood covenant" which God established with man which looks back to our Redeemer whose blood covers our sin.

---

Don't just say it, show me that the Mosaic Law was clearly given by God to the Hebrews for the purpose of the afterlife and not as laws of the nation and day to day living.Explain what you mean by salvation as it relates to this topic dealing with Paul's comment that we are all "prisoners of sin". Please don't just give the same old sales pitch and catch phrases. Actually explain.When was a blood covenant made between God and mankind?I agree that blood was an ancient tradition to sealing contracts, which is what a covenant is. A contract is very specific and both parties know what is involved.I see where God made covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David; but I don't see where God made a blood covenant with mankind concerning sin.It is simple if you don't want to deal with what the Hebrew Bible says that God said and did.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

How is this Biblical crap at all relevant to the topic? Whether or not the Bible says we are sinners is immaterial until the Bible is proved to have any bearing on reality. I can only assume that we are talking about reality here and not the fantasies of individuals, so first on the agenda is proving that "sin" actually exists apart from societal opinion. If it does not, then we are certainly not prisoners of sin if simply changing our minds can free us. Only after you have proved that it is a universal constant can you then determine if everyone is violating it.If you want to prattle on about the ways in which your fictional ancient storybook is different from someone else's fictional ancient storybook then go make a thread of your own to write Jesus fan-fics.

I respectfully disagree. This topic was opened as a purely religious discussion, even though Cedre might have believed it otherwise.Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He was raised in a fundamentalist family in which practically every day his mother would sing in tongues while doing the housework. He went into the ministry and served as a fundamentalist minister for 19 years until he became an atheist in 1984 (Dan Barker - Wikipedia). He is also a musician and composer and still receives roylaties for Christian songs he had published, though my favorite is still his You Just Can't Win with Original Sin that I only heard once decades ago ("Any god who would damn me would damn you too"). The irony of his experience was that he had grown up, was educated, was ordained and served as a minister, made his journey to atheism, and his church forced his wife to divorce him, all in Southern California. And then he only found people like him by going to Wisconsin. The irony is that I had heard him on the late-80's 15-minute radio show of Atheists United in Los Angeles, where he had gone through his deconversion all on his lonesome. One of the first things he said in his speech at one of their monthly meetings was "Where were you guys when I needed you?". Let's face it, the general religous culture in America leaves non-believers feeling that they are alone.The point is an observation he made in that first speech of his that I heard (quoted from decades-old memory): "fundamentalism is where your theology becomes your psychology." I personally experienced that a few years ago during my divorce. Christians have this DivorceCare program that a friend had convinced me to go through. Complete and utter Christian bullshit! There were some kernels in there, but most of it was buried under mountains of Christian chaff. The recurring theme was that only Jesus can get you through this. That friend had also recommended weekly presentations by a pair of Christian counselors (which fortunately conflicted with my West Coast Swing classes, which were much more beneficial and constructive), which piled on far less Christian chaff than DivorceCare had, but there was still a lot of chaff -- eg, the only reason for trying to improve your condition is because that's what Jesus wants for you. Means a lot for a Christian, but for a non-Christian? WTF? Complete and utter nonsense! And their out-reach and counselling programs. Again, makes sense to a psychology based on Christian theology, but nonsense to any normal. On a singles cruise that included a large Christian singles group (the divorce rate among Christians is higher than in the general population; why do you think that e-Harmony had gotten started?), I met two counselors whose work was to get men away from pornography and back to real relationships with real women, but their entire approach (as discussed one night onboard over dinner) was to get the Holy Spirit engaged in the men's lifes. Fine for those who actually believe in such Christian BS, but what about the rest of us?Here's my point. Sin is a purely religious concept. I think that was firmly established early on in this topic, though I'm sure that Cedric never could realize it and I've not had the patience to wade through all that religious BS. It's a religious concept that has undoubtedly existed in different religions, though the main one we're left with is Christianity. The entire question of "sin" is meaningless to non-Christians, but vitally important to Christians. Their theology is their psychology, even though it's not ours. It's like evolution: there's really no conflict between evolution and a Creator, but when if your theology tells you that there is an insurmountable conflict, then you cannot possibly accept the truth about the world.Yes, this biblical stuff is crap, for us normals. But for Christians whose theology has become their psychology, it is vitally important.Yes, different religious traditions (most of which are no longer extant) have had their own ramblings about sin. So what? Sin is against a god, so if that god is not believed in, then so what?At the same time, morality does exist. In every single society that has ever existed, regardless of theology. In spite of any professed lack of theology. And in the vast majority of cases where morality exists along with a theology, it is never ever the right theology -- for Christians. In the vast majority of those cases, YHWH's "absolute moral laws" are not the ones chosen.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

i'd like to comment on this but could you please provide scriptural references so I know where you are coming from. I already said several times that the mosaic laws did not give anyone salvation...they gave them a righteous standing before God. Salvation cannot be earned by any of us, it is a free gift. Salvation does not mean obtaining an afterlife. An afterlife was not a biblical teaching. The resurrection was the teaching in the OT

quote:

---

Eccle 9:10 "All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She'ol, the place to which you are going."

---

She'ol is the grave of mankind, the place that we all go to when we die. And God was the one who could save people from the grave...or resurrect them from it. So the salvation was to await for God to bring them back from the dead as is seen from Jobs plea to be put into she'ol and await a resurrection as the next 2 scriptures show...

quote:

---

Hosea 13:14"From the hand of She′ol I shall redeem them; from death I shall recover them. Where are your stings, O Death? Where is your destructiveness, O She'ol?"

​

Job14:13"O that in She'ol you would conceal me, That you would keep me secret until your anger turns back, That you would set a time limit for me and remember me! 14If an able-bodied man dies can he live again? All the days of my compulsory service I shall wait,
Until my relief comes. 15You will call, and I myself shall answer you"

---

you are misunderstanding me. I have said, more then once, that the mosaic law was a law that demanded perfection because anyone who failed to abide by it could be put to death for certain things. So if you committed an act that violated the law (eg fornication/adultery/idolatry) you could be put to death.So the law demanded perfection, but God did not because as i've also said, being declared righteous was due to 'faith' and not 'works of law' as in the case of Rahab the prostitute from Jerico. Her faith was counted to her as righteous, not her obedience to the mosaic law.the law simply highlighted sin and imperfection...it showed why the Messiah was needed and made the hebrews eager for the Messiah to come and remove the burden of the law. It was prophesied in the OT that the Mosaic law covenant would come to an end.

quote:

---

Jerimiah 31:31 "...I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, ‘which covenant of mine they themselves broke..."

---

In Hebrews, Paul quotes from Jeremiahs prophecy and shows how this applies to Jesus, for Jesus was the promised Messiah

quote:

---

6But now [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established upon better promises.
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second; 8for he does find fault with the people when he says: "‘Look! There are days coming,' says Jehovah, 'and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 9not according to the covenant that I made with their forefathers 10"‘For this is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days,' says Jehovah. 'I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people

---

there is nothing un-scriptural in Pauls teaching that the Mosaic Law had come to an end...it was supposed to come to an end. God himself said it would. As the OT shows, it was only to be a temporary arrangement until the Messiah arrived. But those who died whilst following the mosaic law such as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Able...all those who had been declared righteous by their 'faith', will be rewarded with a resurrection to life on this earth. Paul explains this in Acts 24

quote:

---

Acts 24:14-15 "...I believe all the things set forth in the Law and written in the Prophets; 15and I have hope toward God, which hope these [men] themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous..."

---

John & Paul both say that heaven is not where 'all' humans go after they die. None of the righteous faithful people of the past had gone there according to them

quote:

---

John 3:13 "No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man."

​

Acts 2:29 "Brothers, it is allowable to speak with freeness of speech to you concerning the family head David, that he both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day. Actually David did not ascend to the heavens."

---

So when the Resurrection takes place it will be in the place that Jesus said...'the meek shall inherit the earth'Matt 5:5.
He was quoting from the Psalm 37:11 where it reads "The meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

quote:
When was a blood covenant made between God and mankind?
______________________________________________________________________In Luke 22:20 Jesus declared this:"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.All of time and history from Adam onward pointed to this event. Miss it, and you miss the eternal life relationship God gives to those who are willing to repent of their sins.quote:
I see where God made covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David; but I don't see where God made a blood covenant with mankind concerning sin.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________Ex 30:10 "Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD."1 John 1:5-10 "This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."

This is exactly my point. How likely is it that people who are already basing their philosophical viewpoint on arbitrary fiction rather than reality will suddenly become convinced by another arbitrary fiction? I will admit that it has happened before, but if the real world cannot convince someone I don't understand how make-believe becomes any more attractive.There isn't really anything to be gained here either; other than reality, one viewpoint is no more valid than the other. Even if one poster kicked theological butt and converted all religious believers to his/her way of thinking (which I highly doubt) then we still would not have actually produced anything meaningful or useful from the thread. We may as well be playing Pokmon: "I choose you, Yahweh! Use your Original Sin beam on opponent's Yahweh!"

I put this first so it doesn't get lost in the babbling. Try to address the overall point of a post and not so much each line.This is the point I'd like you to address, not half prophecies:
As I've said before, salvation (resurrection) is not the topic. The topic is about whether we are a prisoner of sin and that the wages of sin is death.

​

I've shown that today only in extreme murder cases is death the consequence of breaking a law.
I've shown that even in the time of Jesus and Paul the Jews did not have the authority for capital punishment and even when they did supposedly it was rarely used.
I've shown that God does not expect "perfection" and with repentance God will forget our wrongs.

​

So why worry so much about whether a person has sinned or not, when 1. it doesn't impact one's spot in the resurrection and 2. Gentiles (NonJews) have their own legal system to keep them in line and death is not the primary punishment?

​

If following the law doesn't gain us a spot in the resurrection, then not following the law doesn't lose us a spot in the resurrection.

​

Why the obsession with sin and the need to be "perfect"?

​

Neither you no cedre have shown that humans are prisoners of sin, which by definition means breaking God's law.

quote:

---

Salvation does not mean obtaining an afterlife. An afterlife was not a biblical teaching. The resurrection was the teaching in the OT

---

Getting past the catch phrases and meaningless words, sure takes a lot of time. So when you say salvation you mean the resurrection or rising from physical death. Why not just say resurrection?I agree with you that God did not stipulate that obeying the Hebrew legal system was a means to get on the list for resurrection.
I also agree with you that God considers people righteous who follow his laws and commands.

quote:

---

you are misunderstanding me. I have said, more then once, that the mosaic law was a law that demanded perfection because anyone who failed to abide by it could be put to death for certain things. So if you committed an act that violated the law (eg fornication/adultery/idolatry) you could be put to death.

​

So the law demanded perfection, but God did not because as i've also said, being declared righteous was due to 'faith' and not 'works of law' as in the case of Rahab the prostitute from Jerico. Her faith was counted to her as righteous, not her obedience to the mosaic law.

---

I do understand you and I'm disagreeing with you. The Mosaic law can't demand anything, it isn't alive. I've also shown you scripturally that "perfection" was not required from God. (Message 246) I also showed you that according to extra Biblical history the death sentence wasn't necessarily enforced and at the time of Jesus the Jews didn't have that authority. Here it is again. So why the obsession with the Mosaic Law when it has nothing to do with get a slot in the resurrection? Why try to prove God meant for it to end when it has nothing to do with the resurrection?

quote:

---

there is nothing un-scriptural in Pauls teaching that the Mosaic Law had come to an end...it was supposed to come to an end. God himself said it would. ...
As the OT shows, it was only to be a temporary arrangement until the Messiah arrived. But those who died whilst following the mosaic law such as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Able...all those who had been declared righteous by their 'faith', will be rewarded with a resurrection to life on this earth. Paul explains this in Acts 24

---

When the Mosaic Covenant was "signed", it was forever. God felt that the Hebrews had broken the covenant and said in Jeremiah that he would establish a new covenant with them. Nothing in the OT shows me that God knew the Hebrews would break the covenant. The new covenant would be with Israel and Judah (not gentiles) once they returned from exile. Remember the whole prophesy needs to come about not just one sentence. Man is still teaching, so this covenant has not come about or God is not holding up his end of the deal this time.

quote:

---

i'd like to comment on this but could you please provide scriptural references so I know where you are coming from.

---

As far as what the followers were called, I told you where I "was coming from". (A History of Christianity, 1953, by Harper & Brothers) Not all books are online. You won't find the term in the NT mainly because it was a term used by others just like the word Christian. The people didn't call themselves Christians. It was a derogatory term when used in Antioch. When you see links in my posts, those lead you to where I pulled information. Here is a Jewish online source for Nazarene.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

That wasn't a blood covenant.
If you want to discuss covenants then start a new thread.
There's nothing I can add to this to tie in with the topic of sin.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I find it fascinating that even when presented with information from their own religious source, they cling to a confused doctrine.
Christianity is stuck in Paul mode: Create a need and then fill it.They don't even see the contradiction in what they are presenting. They've painted themselves into a moral corner and don't know how to get out. Even though they say believing in Jesus gets them off the hook for any wrongs done, they don't want people to think they can go ahead and do wrong.Even before Jesus there were Jews trying to reform the legal system and get rid of the sacrificial system that was very expensive. Of course it didn't go away until the destruction of the temple. Those trying to reform felt that the writings of Moses weren't necessarily by Moses.Just looking at the United States shows how much a culture can change in less than 400 years let alone over 2,000 years. Slang, euphemisms, humor, etc. We miss the point when we are so far removed from the event. A colonial Christian woman (or any woman for that matter) would have been arrested for walking around on a sunny summer's day showing as much skin as one would today in a bikini. But today a Christian woman can wear a bikini with no fear of being arrested or called immoral.Christianity seems to try to cover all bases. IOW, they really don't know what their God expects from them. They're guessing based on an ancient text written in dead languages and translated into a foreign language to boot.We have no idea what was said in humor or a reference to fiction. I believe that Matthew is a work of satire.Christianity today is wishy washy. When Mohammed wanted to do away with polytheism he looked to Judaism as a model. Christianity in his eyes wasn't strictly monotheistic. He went with the fixed law and an oral law.I feel that Christianity tries to keep its members confused. Just looking at the responses I've gotten here enforces that feeling.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

In order for Christianity or for that matter any religion to survive, it (religion) must change symbiotically along with the constantly changing moral framework of human society. If a religion can't keep up with what modern humans determine to be an accurate portrayal of reality and if humans lose faith in it's message of "truth" that religion will eventually die out or be relinquished to the dustbin of religious crackpots and lunatics.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Im going to try and keep this as simple as possible (not because i think your're simple, but because there are many facets that could be addressed)Simply put, all creation are prisoners of sin because we are born from Adam & Eve. We've inherited it. The proof of sin is that we all die. Gentiles, jews, christians, muslims etc ALL die. That means we have all inherited that trait from Adam.The only means of salvation from the condition of death, is for sin to be done away with. God has made this possible thru the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.Anyone who wants to benefit from that salvation MUST put their faith in Jesus Christ and must follow him. This goes for Gentiles too...they must submit to Christian law and the teaching of Christs Apostles. Gods laws and mans are quite different and just because a gentile follows the laws of their land does not mean that they have a righteous standing with God. They must follow Gods laws in order to obtain that. Remember that it is 'Faith' in God that counts a person as righteous, not works of any law.To show faith in God, one must adopt HIS laws....or better put, live as he directs. Yes, i do mean the resurrection. Most church's teach that the 'afterlife' & 'salvation' has primarily to do with going to heaven as a spirit which is why i did not just say 'resurrection'. Most people are not familiar with that concept. If you read the bible you will see plenty of expamples where the death penalty was enforced. Jesus stopped a group of Jews from stoning a woman in his day, so the practice was alive and well in 33CE. Does your source state what era he is talking about? You're right, its not just one sentence that needs to come about, its not even just 1 prophecy, You need to look at all the prophecies.
I showed you in Jerimiah's prophecy that the law covenant was to come to an end and a new one was to begin.Daniel also spoke of the end of the Mosaic Law...

quote:

---

Daniel 9:26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messi′ah will be cut off, with nothing for himself. And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. And until [the] end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations.
27And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease.

---

Moses also testified that in the future another prophet would arise and the Hebrews would have to follow him...

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 18:18 "A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you (Moses); and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him. 19And it must occur that the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name, I shall myself require an account from him."

​

"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your own people, like myself (Moses); him you shall heed."

---

The prophet mentioned here is clearly a specific and special individual. He was also said to be a blessing for ALL the nations, not only the jews, but all of mankind would follow this prophet...

quote:

---

Genesis 22:18"And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice."

---

the Apostles of Christ clearly explained how Jesus was this one. This also explains why the Mosaic law MUST come to an end. Once the Prophet arrived the people would have to listen to him... Moses was not longer the means to reconciliation with God. Reconciliation was now to be thru the Seed that was promised by God. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

its not wishy washy at all. Its exactly the same as it always was.People just dont understand it and thats not because its confusing, because its not. Those who dont understand either are clouded by non biblical dogma, or they have an agenda.