Post by Admin on Sept 7, 2015 11:14:28 GMT -5
Hello W, just a few comments on your post, and just to let you know, I am not sure how much time I will be able to devote to the Forum right now, as work is crazy right now. But, I hope that the comments might allow you to see a perspective you have not previously given consideration.
Bro. EW&F---
In response to your questions you asked me in your post #36, as a mortal human, there is no possible way that I can determine what another person's spiritual condition is.
This would be the first thing I would disagree with:
Galatians 6:1
King James Version (KJV)
6 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Not only should we have the ability to discern the condition of our brothers and sisters, we should, as commanded here...do so.
I could possibly make an educated guess, but that still would only be a guess. More than likely the 11 apostles probably assumed that, prior to his betraying Christ, Judas Iscariot had about as good a spiritual relationship with Christ as they themselves did.
The truth is that not one of the disciples had a "spiritual relationship" with Christ. At this time they were not yet indwelt by the Comforter and were unaware of Christ's Ministry towards Eternal Salvation. Evidence that this is true is, with just a few verses (I will try not to overload this response, lol), can be seen here:
Matthew 16:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, 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.
Peter was in direct opposition to the Gospel of Christ, which Christ presents to the disciples here. Further evidence would be seen in Peter taking up the sword in the Garden to prevent Christ from fulfilling His Father's will, and denying He knew Christ at all when He was taken. We see in Acts 1 that not one of the disciples had been Baptized with the Spirit, and it was not until that takes place that Peter begins to fulfill the Great Commission.
Going back to their spiritual condition, all of them, including Judas...were still lacking the Reconciliation of the Cross. In other words, they were still spiritually dead.
I don't know of any Bible verse that states that another moral human can without a doubt know what another person's real spiritual relationship with Jesus is.
1 John is a good place to start.
All I said is that I'm not 100% positive that what was written in Hebrews 10:25 should not in context be carried on through the subsequent verses of that chapter.
This goes without saying. And it is the context of the Book as a whole that most miss, primarily because they become distracted by certain passages that are highlighted by most.
In context, this...
Hebrews 10:25
King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
...is not the Writer calling Jews to faithful Church Attendance, but a call to embrace Christ in truth and to forsake the First Covenant.
Consider:
Hebrews 10:25-29
King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
The willful sin in view is defined by the Writer, and we must notice that the contrast is not between faithful church-goers and unfaithful, but between those whose loyalties are divided between the First and the New Covenant:
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Here those that rejected God's will under the First Covenant (the Covenant of Law, called "Moses' Law here) are contrasted with those who reject the New Covenant:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
What is rejected here is Christ, Whose sacrifice is rejected and considered unholy...and the Ministry of the Comforter (this is what doing despite unto the Spirit of Grace refers to).
Those who reject the New Covenant will suffer greater punishment than those who rejected the First Covenant.
And just to point out that this contrast is in view, consider also...
Hebrews 10:16-20
King James Version (KJV)
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
All throughout the Book of Hebrews we see the Two Covenants contrasted.
Most conservative Evangelical Bible scholars have had difficulty in explaining why some of the chapter--and even some of the verse numbering were placed where they were.
There are a few places where Chapter Division is inconvenient and it throws the Student off. None worse than the division between Chapters 5 and 6. Another would be 9 and 10. But the verses themselves are divinely arranged, and we should be able to recognize the insertion of chapter and verse does not change that.
Keeping in mind that the original author of the writing we call the "Book" of Hebrews had neither chapter or verse designations (both of which were added approximately 10 centuries after the canon of God's written Word ceased).
It really does not affect the discerning Student, and it is convenient for a number of reasons, such as memorization and looking up verses, as well as it's role in being keyed to concordances.
My use of the expression "Lone Ranger Christian" wasn't intended to be an indictment against any particular Christian. It's simply an expression I've heard many times in conversations with other fellow Christians.
Through circumstances and life experiences there are just going to be some Christians who do not do well in social settings. While I myself see fellowship in a local ministry important, I can also say that I have done quite a bit of church-hopping myself, for a number of reasons, so I can understand someone having a problem with corporate worship.
However, I do not feel that those who do should speak evil of corporate worship nor actively engage in discouraging others from it. In other words, if one has an issue with fellowshipping in that type of setting...they should keep that between themselves and God.
I'm guessing that this expression probably got its start when somebody used it to describe how some Christians view the necessity of personally and physically fellowshipping with other Christians within the context of a local church with a certain degree of disdain.
When it comes to using he word "necessity," the truth is that it is not necessary to be saved or have a relationship with a local Body, though it is useful to most. If we deem it "necessary" then we have to write off those who are not able to attend a local fellowship for any number of reasons, such as physical impairment due to age or sickness.
And in accordance to the command to "restore" those whose spiritual conditions are felt in peril, this would require the Church leaving the corporate fellowship hall and...
...going to them.
Right?
"Church Attendance" is, in my own view, especially important to new believers. Unfortunately, because many view their attendance as the only means of growth, many stay "new" for many years. Many will have as a spiritual diet only that which is fed to them by their Pastors and Sunday School teachers. It is what one does outside of corporate worship/fellowship that makes a difference in regards to growth.
But we trust God will train up His children in the way they should go. The rate of growth will vary among believers just as maturity varies among children.
While they may possibly have some reasons for not wishing to have face-to-face personal fellowship with other Christians in the context of a local church, God still commands that this kind of fellowship take place on a regular basis.
It is a Biblical pattern, there is no question, but it is just my opinion that using Hebrews 10:25 to make that point is in error.
Let me ask you this: when is the last time you fellowshipped with believers that really wanted to get into a Theological Discussion? It is a little discouraging to me that seldom, at church functions...does anyone talk about the Lord and the Bible.
The general pattern one sees in the NT was that most all Christian fellowship in those days was done in the context of a local church.
Agreed. However, the Church was certainly not secluded to fellowship in the Church. If that were true...there would not have been the converts there were.
Most all of Paul's NT epistles were written to either a particular local church, or, in some cases, a group of local churches in a given region.
The same concept is noted in Revelation 1-3 where the Apostle John wrote to seven local churches in western "Asia Minor" [modern-day Turkey].
And in general there is rebuke for most of the Churches.
There is a danger with complacency when our Christianity becomes secluded to fellowship with our local Body.
In the US (& it's probably true elsewhere), some people have the tendency to live out their Christian lives with an almost total disregard to the institute that God not only established, but also the very same institution for whom Christ died--the local, visible NT church.
This is very true. There has been a movement which has sought to discourage fellowship, and I am against this entirely. However, when it comes to Hebrews, several passages are used out of context to teach something that is not found in the text. To teach that not going to Church is the willful sin in view is just one of them, and it is an abuse that most preachers engage in.
The reason(s) why some people do this can vary widely, but nonetheless, IMHO, that's still a clear violation of Hebrews 10:25.
It is only in the sense of the unregenerate who have rejected Christ in favor of the First Covenant, that is the truth in the historical context, and can be practically applied to any rejection of Christ today, and not see the substitute as exclusively the Covenant of Law being the preferred method of worship.
Anything that replaces God's will as found in the Word of God applies.
A modern parallel would be the Legalist who still thinks God is accepting obedience to the Law as a means of relationship.
I've heard some folks say that they can live out their Christian lives and testimonies just as well as those who want to fellowship within the context of a visible local church. My response to them is that they must be much closer to the Lord than I usually find myself to be because if I were to miss a couple weeks of fellowshipping with my brothers and sisters in Christ within the context of the local church to which I belong, there's no telling how little I'd progress in my standing with God,
While I understand that fully I would suggest that you are on the right track for enlarging your borders in regards to spiritual growth, namely...Doctrinal Discussion.
When we test our beliefs with our brothers and sisters we are challenged in the views we have, those views sometimes being confirmed, sometimes being denied...by the very Word of God. We can accelerate our understanding simply by being in the Word of God, and that is one thing that is going to happen if you spend any amount of time debating Theology.
The flip side is a simple diet received only while in Church. This is common in the Body of Christ, and it shows.
knowing full well that I would be in open violation of what God in His Word--namely Hebrews 10:25--has commanded me to do.
Sorry, but there is no way you can possibly violate Hebrews 10:25, for the simple fact that you were never in Covenant with God through the First Covenant as those Hebrews which the Writer addressed were.
And that is something we have to consider: these were people who were legitimately in relationship with God coming to grips with the Religion they had been born in bred into being made obsolete.
That was a tough pill to swallow for many of them.
But consider this rebuke from the Writer:
Hebrews 5:8-12
King James Version (KJV)
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
The First Principles of the Oracles (Word) of God in view here are those truths found in the Old Testament/Covenant. Those truths were foundational, and the exhortation is to progress from them:
Hebrews 6
King James Version (KJV)
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
There were Hebrews who were still clinging to what they knew of the coming Christ (which in large part was erroneous on the part of Israel) instead of embracing what had been revealed in Christ Himself.
Those foundational principles are not to be laid again as commanded by the Writer (and ultimately the Holy Ghost) which is exactly what we see our legalistic brothers and sisters doing today.
IOW, I'd be fearful of falling into the hands of the Living God.
Not a possibility for you if you are a born again believer. This applies only to those who have rejected the Ministry of the Comforter (who convicts unbelievers of sin, righteousness, and judgment) which ultimately is a rejection of Christ.
For the believer, we know...
John 10:27-29
King James Version (KJV)
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
The writer is not warning believers...but unbelievers.
Any of you who've experienced the chastisement of God for blatantly violating one of His direct NT commands would most likely tell you the very same thing as well.
Agreed, but we should not discount the Promises of God concerning Eternal Salvation. And this is why we have to understand the "spiritual condition" of the disciples before this...
Hebrews 9:14-16
King James Version (KJV)
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
It was not until Christ died, rose again, returned to Heaven, and sent the Spirit of Promise (the Comforter)...that Eternal Redemption became available for man.
Only the Blood (Death, Sacrifice) of Christ can restore relationship with God on an Eternal basis.
God bless.
Bro. EW&F---
In response to your questions you asked me in your post #36, as a mortal human, there is no possible way that I can determine what another person's spiritual condition is.
This would be the first thing I would disagree with:
Galatians 6:1
King James Version (KJV)
6 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Not only should we have the ability to discern the condition of our brothers and sisters, we should, as commanded here...do so.
I could possibly make an educated guess, but that still would only be a guess. More than likely the 11 apostles probably assumed that, prior to his betraying Christ, Judas Iscariot had about as good a spiritual relationship with Christ as they themselves did.
The truth is that not one of the disciples had a "spiritual relationship" with Christ. At this time they were not yet indwelt by the Comforter and were unaware of Christ's Ministry towards Eternal Salvation. Evidence that this is true is, with just a few verses (I will try not to overload this response, lol), can be seen here:
Matthew 16:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, 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.
Peter was in direct opposition to the Gospel of Christ, which Christ presents to the disciples here. Further evidence would be seen in Peter taking up the sword in the Garden to prevent Christ from fulfilling His Father's will, and denying He knew Christ at all when He was taken. We see in Acts 1 that not one of the disciples had been Baptized with the Spirit, and it was not until that takes place that Peter begins to fulfill the Great Commission.
Going back to their spiritual condition, all of them, including Judas...were still lacking the Reconciliation of the Cross. In other words, they were still spiritually dead.
I don't know of any Bible verse that states that another moral human can without a doubt know what another person's real spiritual relationship with Jesus is.
1 John is a good place to start.
All I said is that I'm not 100% positive that what was written in Hebrews 10:25 should not in context be carried on through the subsequent verses of that chapter.
This goes without saying. And it is the context of the Book as a whole that most miss, primarily because they become distracted by certain passages that are highlighted by most.
In context, this...
Hebrews 10:25
King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
...is not the Writer calling Jews to faithful Church Attendance, but a call to embrace Christ in truth and to forsake the First Covenant.
Consider:
Hebrews 10:25-29
King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
The willful sin in view is defined by the Writer, and we must notice that the contrast is not between faithful church-goers and unfaithful, but between those whose loyalties are divided between the First and the New Covenant:
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Here those that rejected God's will under the First Covenant (the Covenant of Law, called "Moses' Law here) are contrasted with those who reject the New Covenant:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
What is rejected here is Christ, Whose sacrifice is rejected and considered unholy...and the Ministry of the Comforter (this is what doing despite unto the Spirit of Grace refers to).
Those who reject the New Covenant will suffer greater punishment than those who rejected the First Covenant.
And just to point out that this contrast is in view, consider also...
Hebrews 10:16-20
King James Version (KJV)
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
All throughout the Book of Hebrews we see the Two Covenants contrasted.
Most conservative Evangelical Bible scholars have had difficulty in explaining why some of the chapter--and even some of the verse numbering were placed where they were.
There are a few places where Chapter Division is inconvenient and it throws the Student off. None worse than the division between Chapters 5 and 6. Another would be 9 and 10. But the verses themselves are divinely arranged, and we should be able to recognize the insertion of chapter and verse does not change that.
Keeping in mind that the original author of the writing we call the "Book" of Hebrews had neither chapter or verse designations (both of which were added approximately 10 centuries after the canon of God's written Word ceased).
It really does not affect the discerning Student, and it is convenient for a number of reasons, such as memorization and looking up verses, as well as it's role in being keyed to concordances.
My use of the expression "Lone Ranger Christian" wasn't intended to be an indictment against any particular Christian. It's simply an expression I've heard many times in conversations with other fellow Christians.
Through circumstances and life experiences there are just going to be some Christians who do not do well in social settings. While I myself see fellowship in a local ministry important, I can also say that I have done quite a bit of church-hopping myself, for a number of reasons, so I can understand someone having a problem with corporate worship.
However, I do not feel that those who do should speak evil of corporate worship nor actively engage in discouraging others from it. In other words, if one has an issue with fellowshipping in that type of setting...they should keep that between themselves and God.
I'm guessing that this expression probably got its start when somebody used it to describe how some Christians view the necessity of personally and physically fellowshipping with other Christians within the context of a local church with a certain degree of disdain.
When it comes to using he word "necessity," the truth is that it is not necessary to be saved or have a relationship with a local Body, though it is useful to most. If we deem it "necessary" then we have to write off those who are not able to attend a local fellowship for any number of reasons, such as physical impairment due to age or sickness.
And in accordance to the command to "restore" those whose spiritual conditions are felt in peril, this would require the Church leaving the corporate fellowship hall and...
...going to them.
Right?
"Church Attendance" is, in my own view, especially important to new believers. Unfortunately, because many view their attendance as the only means of growth, many stay "new" for many years. Many will have as a spiritual diet only that which is fed to them by their Pastors and Sunday School teachers. It is what one does outside of corporate worship/fellowship that makes a difference in regards to growth.
But we trust God will train up His children in the way they should go. The rate of growth will vary among believers just as maturity varies among children.
While they may possibly have some reasons for not wishing to have face-to-face personal fellowship with other Christians in the context of a local church, God still commands that this kind of fellowship take place on a regular basis.
It is a Biblical pattern, there is no question, but it is just my opinion that using Hebrews 10:25 to make that point is in error.
Let me ask you this: when is the last time you fellowshipped with believers that really wanted to get into a Theological Discussion? It is a little discouraging to me that seldom, at church functions...does anyone talk about the Lord and the Bible.
The general pattern one sees in the NT was that most all Christian fellowship in those days was done in the context of a local church.
Agreed. However, the Church was certainly not secluded to fellowship in the Church. If that were true...there would not have been the converts there were.
Most all of Paul's NT epistles were written to either a particular local church, or, in some cases, a group of local churches in a given region.
The same concept is noted in Revelation 1-3 where the Apostle John wrote to seven local churches in western "Asia Minor" [modern-day Turkey].
And in general there is rebuke for most of the Churches.
There is a danger with complacency when our Christianity becomes secluded to fellowship with our local Body.
In the US (& it's probably true elsewhere), some people have the tendency to live out their Christian lives with an almost total disregard to the institute that God not only established, but also the very same institution for whom Christ died--the local, visible NT church.
This is very true. There has been a movement which has sought to discourage fellowship, and I am against this entirely. However, when it comes to Hebrews, several passages are used out of context to teach something that is not found in the text. To teach that not going to Church is the willful sin in view is just one of them, and it is an abuse that most preachers engage in.
The reason(s) why some people do this can vary widely, but nonetheless, IMHO, that's still a clear violation of Hebrews 10:25.
It is only in the sense of the unregenerate who have rejected Christ in favor of the First Covenant, that is the truth in the historical context, and can be practically applied to any rejection of Christ today, and not see the substitute as exclusively the Covenant of Law being the preferred method of worship.
Anything that replaces God's will as found in the Word of God applies.
A modern parallel would be the Legalist who still thinks God is accepting obedience to the Law as a means of relationship.
I've heard some folks say that they can live out their Christian lives and testimonies just as well as those who want to fellowship within the context of a visible local church. My response to them is that they must be much closer to the Lord than I usually find myself to be because if I were to miss a couple weeks of fellowshipping with my brothers and sisters in Christ within the context of the local church to which I belong, there's no telling how little I'd progress in my standing with God,
While I understand that fully I would suggest that you are on the right track for enlarging your borders in regards to spiritual growth, namely...Doctrinal Discussion.
When we test our beliefs with our brothers and sisters we are challenged in the views we have, those views sometimes being confirmed, sometimes being denied...by the very Word of God. We can accelerate our understanding simply by being in the Word of God, and that is one thing that is going to happen if you spend any amount of time debating Theology.
The flip side is a simple diet received only while in Church. This is common in the Body of Christ, and it shows.
knowing full well that I would be in open violation of what God in His Word--namely Hebrews 10:25--has commanded me to do.
Sorry, but there is no way you can possibly violate Hebrews 10:25, for the simple fact that you were never in Covenant with God through the First Covenant as those Hebrews which the Writer addressed were.
And that is something we have to consider: these were people who were legitimately in relationship with God coming to grips with the Religion they had been born in bred into being made obsolete.
That was a tough pill to swallow for many of them.
But consider this rebuke from the Writer:
Hebrews 5:8-12
King James Version (KJV)
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
The First Principles of the Oracles (Word) of God in view here are those truths found in the Old Testament/Covenant. Those truths were foundational, and the exhortation is to progress from them:
Hebrews 6
King James Version (KJV)
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
There were Hebrews who were still clinging to what they knew of the coming Christ (which in large part was erroneous on the part of Israel) instead of embracing what had been revealed in Christ Himself.
Those foundational principles are not to be laid again as commanded by the Writer (and ultimately the Holy Ghost) which is exactly what we see our legalistic brothers and sisters doing today.
IOW, I'd be fearful of falling into the hands of the Living God.
Not a possibility for you if you are a born again believer. This applies only to those who have rejected the Ministry of the Comforter (who convicts unbelievers of sin, righteousness, and judgment) which ultimately is a rejection of Christ.
For the believer, we know...
John 10:27-29
King James Version (KJV)
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
The writer is not warning believers...but unbelievers.
Any of you who've experienced the chastisement of God for blatantly violating one of His direct NT commands would most likely tell you the very same thing as well.
Agreed, but we should not discount the Promises of God concerning Eternal Salvation. And this is why we have to understand the "spiritual condition" of the disciples before this...
Hebrews 9:14-16
King James Version (KJV)
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
It was not until Christ died, rose again, returned to Heaven, and sent the Spirit of Promise (the Comforter)...that Eternal Redemption became available for man.
Only the Blood (Death, Sacrifice) of Christ can restore relationship with God on an Eternal basis.
God bless.