[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Christianity has its bounds and doesn't spill into other religions. Some people are universalists and I recognize that, but one cannot be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddihist or a Shinto all at the same time and call himself a Christian.

I disagree on the Jewish part. Christ Himself was incarnated a Jew. The apostles did not abandon the law and the prophets - or indeed many of the Jewish traditions though they chose not to burden the Gentiles with much of it – what we might call those things which are not central to the spirit of the law..

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matt 5:17-18

The leaning I have in the spirit is that Christ did not come to establish a new religion but to fulfill the law and prophets in establishing God’s family. It was always Christianity, but most of the Jews didn’t understand that then – nor do they understand it even now.

it's an altogether different thing to form a personal religion out of cherry-picking those doctrines of men that you do like and eschewing those you don't.

If I were to fabricate a religion or doctrine of my liking, it would not resemble that to which I have testified. In my “religion” Christ would have arrived the conquering lion, healed everyone, revealed Himself to all, brought this heaven and earth to an end – all without suffering the Cross. Peter didn't want Christ to suffer either, but that was not God's will and is why Christ said to him "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Now I, like Peter, pray for God's will to be done no matter what. His Name, His will, His kingdom - that is what is truly important. Nothing else compares.

In other words, God's knowledge (idea) of Adam is not equivalent to Adam's creation. The (fore)knowledge does not impart the "breath of life" into a lifeless form.

Not that you are wrong, but the indwelling Spirit has leaned me to the understanding that God is beyond “time” and therefore our concept of “cause/effect.”

Again, I am not asserting “re-incarnation.” The only Scriptural evidence known to me which approximates the concept is a) the resurrection body and b) the two witnesses in Revelation 11. However, there is nothing to indicate that any of these become a new identity when they appear “in” the physical realm. Indeed, our “new life” begins when we are indwelled by the Spirit Himself (John 3) – but our identity continues.

me: I AM is a Name of God

You: I AM means Life. "I am" is also our reality. It means we are alive. Adam could not say "I am" until God created him and gave him life.

The phrase is used in ordinary language to mean that we exist. Cogito ergo sum and all that.

But ”I AM” is not a name for anyone but God. Period.

And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:13-14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58

IMHO, His Name I AM is a very difficult meditation for time-bound observers such as we are - and yet the Name itself answers most every question with overwhelming peace: why, when, what.

[kosta50]

Thank you on your thoughts.

The leaning I have in the spirit is that Christ did not come to establish a new religion but to fulfill the law and prophets in establishing God’s family. It was always Christianity, but most of the Jews didn’t understand that then – nor do they understand it even now

Whether the Gentiles were to be included or not is a story unto itself. Jesus never taught it and Acts 13:46 suggests it was an aftertought. The Great Commission is perhaps also, or perhaps it was a later-day revelation, especially given that it was written when it was becoming increasingly obvious that the Church will survive only among the Gentiles.

Be it as it is, Judaism is not Christianity either way. We can read the OT only through the lens of the NT, and see in it the foreshadowing of Christ, an overture of the full revelation.

Thus, when the Apostles believe that Christ is Elijah, or Jeremiah, or John the Baptist, they are expressing a Judaic pagan-ifluenced belief (common in those days) in reincarnation, for which Christ, curiously, does not rebuke them. Yet Christianity rejects reincarnation.

If I were to fabricate a religion or doctrine of my liking, it would not resemble that to which I have testified. In my “religion” Christ would have arrived the conquering lion, healed everyone, revealed Himself to all

So, then your beliefs are based on what if not on doctrines of men (yourself included)? They certainly cannot be based on Scriputre alone because kabbalah – which you often quote as a source – is not Scripture.

If Judaism "missed the mark" as you seme to suggest earlier, why then use Judaic concepts? If their beliefs fall short, then how can their understanding be our measure?

Not that you are wrong, but the indwelling Spirit has leaned me to the understanding that God is beyond “time” and therefore our concept of “cause/effect.”

Regardless, the Bible tells us that God actually made Adam, bodysoul, one nature, our concept of "cause/effect' notwithstanding.

"the body and the soul were formed at the same time—not one before and the other afterwards, as the ravings of Origen would have it" (+John of Damascus, "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," II.12, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XCIV, col. 921A)