Jesus (the third)

Elder Edwards:

It is impossible for any single man to differentiate
himself from his history and culture, unless, of course,
he is that one who adds something significant and new
to that culture. In being the "fulfillment of the law"
Jesus was a singular individual who updated, for all
practical purposes, the Hebrew philosophical understanding
of balance. So, the Bible is very much singularly about
the historical Jesus, a portrait sketched to give material
relevance to what, about Jesus, is materially relevant.
Immersed in the river of his culture, Jesus emerges triumphant
over his erring fathers and is thus pronounced the Only
begotten Son of our Ancient and enduring God. This occurred
some six hundred or so years, in your own studies, after the king
Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon. So the context for understanding the
Bible is the evolution and understanding of the Hebrew Philosophy
of balance, Eden, as representing our oldest literate religious
empire of the mind. The way of generations, cause and effect,
when and when not the sins of the father are visited upon
the sons. In reading the Revelation of the Christ there is
no doubt that whatever the debate, Jesus had a mastery over
the Hebrew way that was not to be challenged, and so we assume
a level of debilitation in the synoptic gospels, but not to the
extent that we do not know that the Elders of Jesus had him
killed, the story goes, because his philosophy was said to challenge
theirs. The book of the Revelation is his resurrection in triumphant
glory, putting to shame forever all the Jewish elders of his time
who denied what was true.

The things that are relevant to us are:

1. The world lies in the power of the wicked one. They are captives, as such to speak.

2. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

3. Since we are concerned about a new system of things, should we not
as well be concerned singularly about what THE truth is? That we might
learn to always be comfortable with it ... in the resurrection?