"DNA Messages . . . Are . . . Pure Digital Code"; So, Who Wrote the Code?

In River Out of Eden, evolutionist Richard Dawkins describes the intricate functioning of genetic coding in the living cell:

"After Watson and Crick we know that genes themselves . . . are living strings of pure digital information. What is more they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact discs, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers . . . but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal. Our genetic system, which is the universal system, for all life on the planet is digital to the core . . . DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do . . . DNA messages . . . are . . . pure digital code."

Distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel, who describes himself as being “just as much an outsider to religion as Richard Dawkins,” stated:

"The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties . . . Since the existence of this material or something like it is a precondition of the possibility of evolution, [then] evolutionary theory [itself] cannot explain its existence. We are therefore faced with a problem . . . we have explained the complexity of organic life in terms of something that is itself just as functionally complex as what we originally set out to explain. So the problem is just pushed back a step: how did such a thing come into existence?"

Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at New York University, Dr. Robert Shapiro, said:

“The difference between a simple mixture of chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.”

Dr. Paul Davies:

"The living cell is the most complex system of its size known to mankind . . . ingenious marvels of construction and control, with a fine-tuning and complexity as yet unmatched by any human engineering . . . The problem of the origin of life reduces to one of understanding how encoded software emerged spontaneously from hardware. How did it happen? How did nature “go digital?. . . How did something so immensely complicated, so finessed, so exquisitely clever, come into being all on its own? How can mindless molecules, capable of only pushing and pulling their immediate neighbors, cooperate to form something as ingenious as a living organism?"(Dr. Paul Davies)

How did life begin? Darwinian evolution does not make even a pretense of offering natural selection as a credible explanation for addressing how it could have ever driven forward the unfathomable complexity of the life processes inside a bacterium, let alone the complexity of specialized cells interacting with other, different cells (bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi) in a multicellular life form (e.g., our white blood cells' role as warriors against invading pathogens). Science cannot speak logically and coherently about the subject 'origin of life' from within the parameters of a strictly scientific methodology because such a stricture by definition disallows appeal to a personal Creator. But it is not science itself that teaches us to believe only in what the scientific method can explain. Science does not explain how logical thought, emotion, and love of the arts can arise from brain tissues. These are mysteries we live with. For anyone to assume that all valid belief requires scientific explanation is scientism, a religion built on absence of logical reasoning. It is the very absence of logical reasoning whenever atheists put forth their blind-faith assertion that all physical life forms are the product of bimolecular structures that required no purpose-driven engineering feats. The atheist asserts that bacteria just serendipitously 'chanced themselves into existence' as result of molecules randomly bumping against each other for 7 eventualities that are in the life cycle of a bacterium: (1) reproduction (binary fission) absent male and female gametes; (2) assimilation of nutrients needed to sustain life; (3) respiration; (4) sensitivity; (5) growth, as seen in the interphase part of the life cycle for replication of its genetic material and an increase in the cell's cytoplasm immediately before binary fission (mitosis) for the existence of 2 identical cells from the one parent cell); (6) excretion; and (7) movement. For all this, microbes have so incredibly complex a digital software at work in them that there can be no reasonable explanation for their existence except that they have descended from microbes of their own kind, each kind being the product of special creation by an all-wise and all-powerful Creator.

Faith in God is not a blind leap into the unknown, but is a heartfelt conviction based on the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen (Hebrews 11:1). We have an invisible God, yet his existence is unmistakably evidenced by our observation of realities that attest the existence of the God of the Bible. Really, only spirit sons of God saw Him at work in creating the physical universe with mankind as its capstone creation. Although such is a reality impossible for any man ever to have seen with his eyes-- in fact, no man as a man has ever seen or can see the invisible God --, yet we can see with eyes of faith the reality of a God who is love. We do so by our witnessing the things he has created. Here is how the Bible puts the matter at Romans 1:19, 20: ". . . because what may be known about God is clearly evident [even] among them [who act wickedly]. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [i.e., the willfully blind, faithless ones] are inexcusable."

If you are not afraid to honestly consider argument for the existence of the God of the Bible, then consider yourself invited to visit JW.ORG and type into the search bar anyone of the following publication titles: "Was Life Created?," or "Origin of Life," or "Was It Designed?" You can access all publications found on JW.ORG free of charge, and also without solicitation of any of your personal information. If, however, you wish to have one of Jehovah's Witnesses to visit you in the very near future, then submit a request to that effect. If you would like for me to facilitate such a visit by JWs who live in reasonable proximity to you -- as is most likely to be the case --, then email me at endenux@sapo.pt and state your name and address. I will be happy to contact JWs who can assist you to better understand the teachings of the Bible and thereby build your faith in God's holy word, the Bible you may currently have in your possession.

Did Paul in His Epistle to the Romans Advocate for Homosexuals?

In a 2007 Reuters dispatch, the cleric who was at the time the head of the Anglican Church in the United Kingdom, Rowan Williams, is quoted by a Reuters journalist who says that Rowan Williams holds that anti-gays misread the Bible. You may read below some of the excerpted quotes from the article that you may read in its entirety here by following the link that immediately follows:
https://www.reuters.com/.../anglican-head-williams-says...

“The worldwide Anglican Communion is near breaking point over homosexuality, with conservative clerics insisting the Bible forbids gay bishops or blessings for same-sex unions. Its U.S. branch, the Episcopal Church, named a gay bishop in 2003.” ….

“In the passage of Romans that Williams referred to in Monday’s speech, [Rowan Williams admitted that the apostle] Paul said people who forgot God’s words fell into [a homosexual lifestyle, a] sin. “Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion,” Paul wrote.

“Williams said these lines were “for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality.” But right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn those who ignore God’s words.”

Well, Rowan Williams' quote of the apostle Paul in Paul's epistle to the Romans needs to be put into its real context. In this paragraph and in the next paragraph to follow this one, we will give the context. So, first of all, whom was Paul warning? He was warning Jewish religionists who were nationalistic; that warning also logically targeted Judaizers who were masquerading as Christians in order to subvert the faith of true Christians. The Judaizers’ argument was that all who wanted good relationship with God had to obey Moses as the chief spokesman for God’s will. These false Christians' (Judaizers') arguments actually amounted to a repudiation of the good news about the Christ, Jesus. Their argument amounted to no more than argument that Jesus’ primary mission served adjunctively God's purpose to have natural Israel as his special possession to rule over all other nations, and that Jesus' Law-abiding disciples would lead the way to an establishment of a globe-girdling Jewish nationalism through a legalistic and an all-too-convenient, attention-getting adherence to the Law, the Law of Moses. Those legalistically minded Jewish nationalists were not truly God-fearing; they were not of a repentant heart towards God. They made only a hypocritical pretense of loyalty to God’s eternal principles that were later incorporated into the Law of Moses, and which we Christians know were subsequently incorporated into the law of the Christ that replaced the old, Mosaic Law covenant.

Nationalistically minded Jews who preached and taught the Law of Moses were hypocrites, their hypocrisy being notably evident, as Paul handily exposed it in Romans chapters 1 and 2, in their own ungodly conduct that (1) amounted to idolatry, (2) involved theft, (3) caused Gentiles to blaspheme God, (4) included their acts of sexual immorality, and (5) was hateful to, and self-servingly judgmental of, uncircumcised Gentiles (those whom self-righteous Jews smugly declared to be a really “ungodly” people when compared to nationalistically minded devotees of Mosaic Law). Paul reminded all Christians in Rome that many uncircumcised Gentiles—they being the ones who were looked down on by Jews as ‘the ungodly Gentiles’—had learned that they were not bound to do work in accordance with the decrees of the Law of Moses. These had learned from Paul that every man—Jew and Gentile—should repentantly “put faith in the One who declares the ungodly one righteous” (Romans 4:5). (Note well this, too: Paul did not say that some actually ungodly ones (those practicing unrepentantly their ungodly conduct and who were without faith in God) nevertheless could, during all that time, still have God’s blessing, this as though God had supposedly already predestined certain individuals whom he would count/declare as righteous—such declaration supposedly occurring even while they were yet in the midst of their unrepented ungodliness because God, as goes this stripe of Calvinism, had begun to draw them ineluctably to himself. That is not the way that Jehovah dealt with the devout, God-fearing Cornelius when he helped that first Gentile convert to become a Christian, which also was when Peter learned that he must not smugly account all Gentiles to be unclean (defiled, ungodly) simply on the basis of his knowing that they were uncircumcised Gentiles. (See Acts 10:1, 2, 22, 28, 31, 34, 35.) So, keeping in mind that context, we return to quoting the Reuters journalist concerning that cleric, who was at the time the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

“Williams said reinterpreting Paul’s epistle as a warning against smug self-righteousness rather than homosexuality would favour neither side over the other in the bitter struggle that threatens to plunge the Anglican Communion into schism. It would not help pro-gay liberals, he said, because [the apostle] Paul and his readers [—Jewish Christian readers in Rome—] clearly agreed that homosexuality was “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.”

"This reading would also upset anti-gay conservatives, who have been “up to this point happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else,” and challenge them to ask whether they were right to judge others, he added.
….

“Williams warned of the danger of schism. “The [Anglican] Communion has to face the fact that there is a division in our Church and it’s getting deeper and more bitter,” he said. “If the Anglican Church divides, everyone will lose.” (This ends my quoting excerpts from the journalist's article concerning Rowan Williams' position as respects homosexuality.)

Ah! But the Anglican Church cannot lose communion with the God of the Bible because it cannot lose what it never had.

As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we know that Christendom, which includes the Anglican Church, has fulfilled Bible prophecy that marks it as pseudo-Christianity. Since the 20th century’s World War I, it has become ever more evident that all Christendom is a poisonous tree; its fruitage is harming all who keep “eating” it. For example, any who let themselves be mislead by a Church’s “pro-gay” stance into approving homosexuality as a morally acceptable life-style obviously do not have at that time God’s approval. Yet, on the other hand, all who smugly persecute homosexuals—rather than that they would try to make loving appeal to homosexuals on the basis that Jehovah forgives in a large way all who repentantly turn away from and desist ungodly conduct—do not have the mind of Jesus Christ, either. True Christians do not not involve themselves in political government; they can never participate in sitting in judgment against unbelievers who are outside the Christian faith (see 1 Corinthians 5:11-13), and accordingly we do not seek (agitate for) a man-coerced (politically sanctioned) correction of society’s evils, whatever they are or are imagined to be. We only want to be left to practice our faith in peace without disruptive intrusion by those who do not share our Christ-taught values; still, we want to adhere to Christ’s command that we advertise peacefully the merits of our brotherhood’s way of life as the best way of life. We earnestly desire to welcome whole-heartedly into our fellowship anyone who has learned from God’s holy word how to repent of, and turn away from, ungodly practices, and who will then dedicate himself to doing God’s holy will and symbolize it by Christian baptism.

In Vitro Gametogenesis (IVG) -- Can It Replace the Ministrations of Our Savior Jesus Christ?

Scientists are making effort to perfect "In Vitro Gametogenesis" (IVG) for various and immoral scenarios as respects human reproduction. For example, if IVG for human reproduction is ever perfected, it could mean that 2 gay men could become the donors of the necessary gametes between them for result of an "in vitro fertilization," here the sexual union of an engineered ovum with an engineered spermatazoon. The result would, of course, be a conception (embryo), a human being, that could then be transplanted into the womb of a female (surrogate mother): the child born would be the biological offspring of a sexual union of the 2 males' DNA. The child would have a male for its biological mother. The abominable sin would belong to the child's parents; it would not be charged to the child. 

Another scenario is that a lone man could become biologically both the father and mother of his child, which, of course, would require the participation of a capable female as the surrogate mother for birth of the child. And in the case of a female, she could alone become both the father and mother of her child, which need not involve the surrogacy of another female in cases where the biological mother has the maturity of a reproductively capable female. Men's capabilities with their various genetic engineering feats (e.g., CRISPR gene editing) can never result in a sinless (perfect, physically fit for everlasting life) human as the progenitor of a perfect strand of men that might in time supplant weaker, diseased, death-prone families of men. It was not God's purpose that Jesus become the father of perfect humans so that they might then eventually supplant sinful families of men. No, but God so loved the world of sin-inheriting offspring of Adam that he transferred the life of his Son into the womb of a virgin Jewess for him to become the one whose death could substitute for the deaths of as many imperfect/sinful men as would accept Jesus' death in their behalf. 

Scientists working with In Vitro Gametogenesis (IVG) aspire to combine that discipline with CRISPR genetic engineering for the production of a perfect (physically fit for everlasting life) genome so that then the result would soon enough be a perfected race of men all members of which might live forever. Can such a thing occur? Not according to Job 14:4 where we read: “Who can produce someone clean from someone unclean? No one can!” 

It is reasonable, then, to believe that Adam’s and Eve’s guilty consciences following their rebellion against Jehovah God had a profound epigenetic effect on their genomes for the introduction of a “clock” that soon enough began counting down to biological death of their steadily debilitating bodies, and is a biology passed on to all of us because we have inherited that Adamic sin and its consequence, death (see Romans 5:12, 14). Our genomes have Adamic sin too intractably programmed into them for mere human ingenuity to extirpate it. Science will never become the savior of mankind so that science had shoved aside Jehovah’s legally acquired right—a right based upon the sacrifice of his Son’s perfect human life—for engineering an end to inherited human sinfulness. This will be accomplishment by power of holy spirit at work through the ministrations of his Son whom Jehovah has made to be the Chief Agent of life (Acts 3:15; 5:31; Hebrews 2:10). 

How did Jesus qualify for the role of his becoming a perfect human like Adam was before Adam chose to sin against God? It was necessary that God cause his Son to become the miraculous conception of a perfect embryo (Jesus the Nazarene) in the womb of a virgin female (Mary), for Mary was made pregnant apart from the agency of a man's spermatozoon. Yes, as astonishing as men's tinkering with genes has proved to be already, yet men have not done nor will they ever be able to do anything as wonderful as what the Creator did when he created Adam's and Eve's perfect (sinless) genomes; nor can men do any genetic engineering in a human genome that should result in the presence of a perfect man on earth. Even were they to place in a virgin woman's womb her own child and that conception occur apart from the agency of any man's spermatozoon, it would not be sinless as was the case for what God did for the virgin Jewess Mary. No, there is nothing that men can do for eradicating imperfection from any person's genome so that he might never suffer diseases in his body nor suffer the debilitating effects of old age. No man will ever be able to say, "I have become my own savior unto everlasting life." No man will ever produce someone clean out of someone unclean!

NPR.ORG

Scientists near a breakthrough that could revolutionize human reproduction

Researchers are inching

Does God Intend There to Be a Third Earthly, Literal Temple of Stones in Jerusalem?

Hebrews 9:21-23—“[The tabernacle was made as] an illustration . . . [having] an arrangement [whereby] both gifts and sacrifices are offered . . . They have only to do with foods and drinks and various ceremonial washings. They were legal requirements concerning the body and were imposed until the appointed times to set things straight . . . [Moses] inaugurated that arrangement when [he] sprinkled the tent and ALL the vessels of the holy service with blood . . . [because] it was necessary for the typical representations of the things in the heavens to be cleansed by these means.”

So, what did the Scripture quoted above say about the matter under review here? “ALL the vessels of the holy service [were sprinkled] with the blood . . . because according to the Law nearly all things are cleansed with blood.”  Such “were legal requirements . . . imposed until the appointed time to set things straight.” When did that time come? That time came “when Christ came as a high priest of the good things THAT HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE” (Hebrews 9:11). Thus there will be no literal third temple in the future that would yet again have, by physical replication, some things in it and made ready for the Messiah for when he supposedly enters into that third earthly temple. In fact, Ezekiel’s temple vision nowhere showed to him the Messiah entering into that visionary temple. (The response I am making here to this doctrine made by adherents of Messianic Judaism, which has it that the Messiah makes a fleshly body entrance into a third earthly temple, is response that does not approach refutation of the doctrine by one’s invoking the nature of Jesus’ post-resurrection glory. That, of course, is a possible approach, because Jesus’ glorification to life as an immortal spirit makes him to be like his Father in a certain way pertinent to the subject matter here. How so? Jesus, too, now “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16). Therefore, Jesus could never again become a man here on earth.)

As goes this doctrine made by adherents of Messianic Judaism, the Messiah is supposed to enter the third earthly temple and make use of things in it for worship of the Father. But why? Why, after Jesus’ glorification, would the Father ever again want another earthly, geographically delimited area as the locale for a literal, earthly temple built of stones for sake of pure worship to be given him, the Spirit par excellence, by his earthly servants? That idea contradicts the spirit of Jesus’ words he gave the Samaritan woman for her assurance that the hour was upon men when neither on Mount Gerizim in Samaria nor on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem would the true worshipers of the Father think themselves in need of those places in order to worship the Father with spirit and truth (see John 4:21, 23, 24). But adherents of Messianic Judaism believe that there will be a third earthly, literal temple of stones—that the Father supposedly wants certain things once again to be in such a temple, namely, the replications of certain of the things that had existed first in the tabernacle and then afterward in the temples, and that were supposedly not typical representations of heavenly arrangements. 

But No! The Bible in the book of Hebrews does not distinguish between heaven-pointing (typical) things in the tabernacle/temples that needed cleansing by animal blood, on the one hand, but that, on the other hand, there were some other things in the tabernacle/temples that supposedly were not typical. See also Hebrews 8:5 for absence of any such distinction because Moses, as the last cited scripture tells us, did “make all things after their pattern,” first for their placement in the tabernacle; then other craftsmen made replications of them for placement centuries later in the earthly temples in Jerusalem, first in Solmon’s temple, and then, after the exile, in a second temple we know as Zerubbabel’s temple, which was rebuilt by Herod; but, all those things crafted by human hand for placement in the tabernacle and temples were all of them typical representations. Yes, they were all of them heaven-pointing types/patterns, or they were some of the types that were destined to have fulfillment for sake of spirit-anointed disciples while they had yet to become absent in the flesh, but who were nevertheless sealed by holy spirit for a future resurrection into life in heaven as immortal spirits serving alongside the Messiah as his under priests and as his co-rulers in his heavenly Kingdom, a Kingdom government installed on a heavenly Mount Zion. Of all things that were in an earthly center of pure worship for the nation of Israel, all of those things have already had their prophetic significance fulfilled in their antitype—the antitypes “have already taken place” (Hebrews 9:11). 

What follows in the next 2 paragraphs is bit of an excursus yet one relatable to the main point of this post. I will resume more directly the main topic in this post in the paragraph that begins with the sentence “The doctrine that has been chiefly under examination here . . .”

Jesus was anointed with holy spirit and then, 3 and a half years later (in 33 C.E.), his blood was shed on the stake on which he died the day he was nailed to it outside the city of Jerusalem, and then on the third day after that, he was resurrected a mighty spirit person for subsequent entrance into the real Most Holy (heaven itself) where he was able to officiate as the High Priest for presenting to his Father the value of his shed blood; he was a High Priest after the manner of Melchizedek, which manner for both Melchizedek and Jesus was one not according to genealogical descent as required by the now, since Pentecost of 33 C.E., obsolete Law of Moses. On that Day of Pentecost, 33 C.E., the Law of Moses became obsolete, it having been set aside together with, as its feature, the Levitical priesthood. The Law no longer codifies any conduct in which we as God’s servants must perform it out of belief that our obedience to the Law’s commands—simply because they are the Law’s commands—are crucial/necessary to us for a righteous standing unto justification to life made by Jehovah God. Our obedience to the law of our Lord Jesus Christ, however, is crucial/necessary for our salvation (Hebrews 5:9, 10). No, there is no obedience on our part that would be sufficient in and of itself for earning us our salvation, but our obedience is nonetheless necessary in order that we appropriate—accept unto ourselves—God’s undeserved kindness, his gift of salvation for as many as will accept it on his terms.  

Really, then, there were no things in the literal tabernacle/temples that supposedly were not typical, that supposedly did not point to the existence of an arrangement of things for their timely appearances in a spiritual temple that God had created in 29 C.E. on the day of Jesus’ baptism. But the Law of Moses cannot legitimate Jesus’ high priestly services because it could recognize as high priests for sake of natural Israel only certain men descended from Aaron. When, however, John the Baptizer dipped Jesus beneath the water of the Jordan River, then God anointed Jesus of the tribe of Judah with holy spirit immediately after John lifted Jesus back up from beneath the water. Jesus then began to fulfill his Father’s will as it specially applied to him, a sinless descendant of King David, so that Jesus finished his earthly life in sacrificial death upon an altar greater than the one in Jerusalem, which greater altar for him was the will of God for him who was ministering as God’s chief spokesman on earth in Israel. He was then as though he were like a certain bull and goat, those animals being carefully inspected for absence of blemish and thus fit for sacrifice so that they could be placed in turn upon the altar of burnt offering for sacrifice on the annual Day of Atonement, and the blood of them then brought one after the other in specified order into the Most Holy for sake of the forgiveness of sins. 

The doctrine that has been chiefly under examination here—one belonging to adherents of Messianic Judaism—, is that there were some things in the tabernacle/temples such that, supposedly, they might yet be replicated for use in a third literal (earthly) temple, this so that occasionally they would even need cleansing by the blood of sacrificed animals! If all this discussion about a third temple to be built in Jerusalem for animal sacrifices sounds strange to you, then know that such is the strange doctrine taught in Messianic Judaism, taught by its adherents for a literal interpretation of the closing chapters in the book of Ezekiel so that, as goes the mistaken interpretation of them, there will be a third literal temple. No, Ezekiel’s prophetic temple vision was never given for sake of ever teaching God’s servants anywhere at any time that there should be built a third literal temple situated in the middle of a designated territory in the Middle East, within the borders of the modern day state of Israel, in Jerusalem. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses have available to them on  JW.ORG (https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=Pure+Worship) a beautiful explanation of much of Ezekiel’s prophetic visions, including timely explanation of Ezekiel’s visionary temple. You, too, can read it in its entirety. Everything offered on JW.ORG  is offered free of charge—never is there solicitation for any of your personal information, nor for any of your money—never ever! Please! We are in the last of the last days of Satan’s control of the world. So, if you love sound, Biblical teachings that build hope for the unhindered obtainment, so very near at hand now, of pure worship of Jehovah God in all the earth when there will be no more wickedness, famines, diseases of any kind, death, sorrowful tears, and absence of loved ones now temporarily parted from us in death (see Revelation 21:1-5; Acts 17:30, 31), then enjoy your study of the Bible by browsing the contents of JW.ORG, and welcome the visit of the next couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses who will come to your door, offering to assist you in your study of God’s Word for building strong, fine relationship with—godly devotion exclusively for—our heavenly Father, Jehovah God. We make declaration of the good news, that declaration being our preachments and teachings in all the world about Jesus Christ’s heavenly Kingdom government as revealed in the prophetic Scriptures. This work we do is according to the command of the everlasting God for us to promote among all the nations “obedience by faith.” (See Romans 16:25-27.)

Protein Folding Thwarts Any Theory of Abiogenesis

 Which came first—protein folding or cellular life? Clearly, protein folding never occurred outside the cell, because any protein folded outside the cell, even under laboratory-assisted mechanisms, would never have a “natural-selection” fit for a cell’s useful life. So, protein folding first occurred in a cell. How was the nucleosome’s genetic code able to code for all the processes before natural selection could blindly work it all out for determination of when and how a cell's needed proteins are  made and folded? Let us focus, though, on folding of an amino acid sequence, a polypeptide chain, into a 3-dimensional structure that proteins possess. The folding of a polypeptide chain must occur in fractions of a second if the cell is to have any use in its relatively short life span for the resultant protein. How serious is the problem?

“Some researchers noted that [, in a search made by a computer program for a correct folding of a specific protein,] the accuracy is not high enough for a third of its predictions, and that it does not reveal the mechanism or rules of protein folding for the  [protein folding problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding_problem)  to be considered solved.

“When studied  [outside the cell](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro), the slowest folding proteins require many minutes or hours to fold.

“In 1969, Cyrus Levinthal noted that, because of the very large number of degrees of freedom in an unfolded polypeptide chain, the molecule has an astronomical number of possible conformations. An estimate of 3^300 or 10^143 was made in one of his papers.[70]  [Levinthal's paradox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levinthal%27s_paradox)  is a thought experiment based on the observation that if a protein were folded by sequential sampling of all possible conformations, it would take an astronomical amount of time to do so, even if the conformations were sampled at a rapid rate (on the  [nanosecond](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosecond)  or  [picosecond](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picosecond)  scale).[71] Based upon the observation that proteins fold much faster than this, Levinthal then proposed that a random conformational search does not occur, and the protein must, therefore, fold through a series of metastable  [intermediate states](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_intermediate) .”

That polypeptide chain (PC) undergoes folding by the ribosome for production of a stable protein. The fascinating thing here is how a PC  interacts with a ribosome for determination of the correct folding to be imposed on the PC.  A PC is capable of being folded into any one of an astronomically large number of different ways by the ribosome. How is the correct folding given the PC by the ribosome? Only one of a myriad possible foldings that a PC can assume, were it not for regulatory mechanisms (e.g., chaperone proteins) assisting the ribosome, will be imposed for the production of a complex protein crucial to a certain function/process/manufacture in a certain cell, and not be for production of a protein that would be not merely unnecessary for the cell, but could easily be for production of a protein that would ultimately be lethal to that cell’s reason for existence. There are, moreover, different types of ribosomes, each type having been specially coded for that type ribosome's existence with its type-specific capability to assist in normative imposition on the PC of the correct folding that the PC should assume (for it, in turn, to become the correct and stable protein needed), for “each type of ribosome manufactures characteristically distinct types of proteins.” These proteins might be any of a number of different designs/shapes. Some are exported from the cell, and others are for exclusive use within the cell for making all the cell’s structures in the cytoplasm, and some proteins are for the different types of ribosomes that are manufactured in the nucleosome. These ribosome-building proteins exit the cytoplasm and are then found in the nucleus through mediation of a number of different transport receptors  (karyopherins or importins); all this is for construction of more and various types of ribosomes in the nucleosome, they being readied for export into the cytoplasm, or they become part of a duplicate population of ribosomes needed before cell replication can proceed. 

Now, the aforementioned fact about ribosomal proteins being delivered from the cytoplasm to the nucleus squares the miracle.  How so? Consider the following quote (see source at [Ribosomes: Manufactured by Design, Part 1 - Reasons to Believe](https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/ribosomes-manufactured-by-design-part-1))

“Because ribosomes are needed to make the proteins needed to make ribosomes, it becomes difficult to envision how this type of chicken-and-egg system could emerge via evolutionary processes. Protein synthesis would have to function optimally at the onset. If it did not, it would lead to a cycle of auto-destruction for the cell.

"Ribosomes couldn’t begin as crudely operating protein-manufacturing machines that gradually increased in efficiency—evolving step-by-step—toward the optimal systems, characteristic of contemporary biochemistry. If error-prone, ribosomes will produce defective proteins—including ribosomal proteins. In turn, defective ribosomal proteins will form ribosomes even more prone to error, setting up the auto-destruct cycle. And in any evolutionary scheme, the first ribosomes would have been error-prone.”

[Mark Roseman](https://www.quora.com/profile/Mark-Roseman-5) Biochemistry Professor (Emeritus in 2020) at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (1979–present) says:  “To make proteins you need L-amino acids, which require complex metabolic pathways, which requires dozens of enzymes—[themselves] proteins—which require DNA for coding. A membrane does no good without transport proteins and an unbelievably complex apparatus for correctly inserting them into bilayers.

“You need an energy source to drive protein synthesis, something like an ATP cycle.

“Researchers in abiogenesis all agree that several elements are required to make a cell, and for a long time they pursued various ways that things can happen sequentially. But most of these hypothetical schemes find themselves stalled at some stage with chicken-and-egg dilemmas…. 

“[It is] hard to explain abiogenesis via a sequence of steps.” [end of quote]

Yes, it's difficult for anyone even to conceive any plausible scenario other than that in one fell swoop a creative act had to have occurred for the life of the first living cells of their kind, this in order that they should also have ability to replicate themselves before dying, and so on and so on.

 Do you think that ribosomes having ability to assist in imposing just the correct folding on a PC,  for result of a stable and needed protein, are the product of random mutations in the genetic code resident in a cell’s nucleosome? That is not a reasonable speculation, is it? No, certainly not! Far more reasonable is our recognition of the existence of a purposeful Creator who has wisdom and power for designing life forms suitable for existence and replication here on earth. The Bible identifies him by the name “Jehovah,” and the Bible says this about him: “With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light” (Psalm 36:9). 

For more information on the origin of life, follow this link: 

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&prefer=lang&pub=lf

Some of the Errors in Messianic Judaism

On the Errors of Messianic Judaism

Much of what the reader sees below is what I incorporated in a letter I sent to some adherents of Messianic Judaism. For that reason of the letter's composition, the main points in it that I numbered will seem thematically disconnected, because I was responding to several different lines of argument advanced by those adherents of Messianic Judaism. Not all of what you read below is all that I sent in the letter. Also, in the letter I sent the adherents of Messianic Judaism, whom I had met, I directly addressed them with “you,” and did not refer to them in the third person. 

Adherents of Messianic Judaism lay great store on the building of a third literal temple, which they say is according to a prophecy recorded in the book of Ezekiel. However, the prophecy does not have literal fulfillment by the construction of a temple to replace the one that was destroyed by Roman armies in 70 C.E. How do we know that? We know it because we do not read in the Bible that Jehovah has purposed the existence of two priesthoods serving with Jesus the High Priest. His only priesthood is the one authorized by the new covenant (see Hebrews 7:12, 13). (And neither should we imagine heaven to be a place where a literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple vision might occur!) We should find a teaching that Ezekiel’s temple is to have literal fulfillment in the construction of a third literal temple in Jerusalem to be an absurd teaching that extols things both inglorious and contrary to God’s will for the inhabited earth to come. How so? Because in the coming paradise, there will be no stone-walled temple; no slaughtering of animals for burnt sacrifices; no Levitical priests descended from Zadok offering the fat and blood of sacrificed animals; no death of a priest; no woman becoming a widow there; no polity composed of the 12 tribes of Israel with Gentiles living among them, and that polity being geographically located in the Middle East with a temple complex centrally located in its borders; and no personal presence either of Jehovah (cf. 2 Chronicles 6:18) or of his Son (1 Timothy 6:16). To reiterate, there are features mentioned in Ezekiel’s temple vision that can have no literal fulfillment for arrangements Jehovah and Jesus have made as respects the worship that God’s earthly servants give him now, and which they will continue to give him after the destruction of all wicked persons. 

 

Ezekiel’s temple vision has a fulfillment for one of its intended purposes, that purpose being for impressing on God's servants the requirement that they must render Jehovah pure worship. The first ones in considerable number who appreciated the importance of Ezekiel's temple vision were repatriated Jews; they learned from the vision that Jehovah lays emphasis on pure sacred service. The vision, however, was not intended to teach repatriated Jews that they and/or their descendants should expect, per the law of the temple given in Ezekiel’s vision, fulfillment of certain literal constructs appertaining some earthly temple in Jerusalem. God never intended by the vision that any Jews at any time should conclude that there would be a literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple vision—as though such would occur in order that pure sacred service might become an even more splendid reality here on earth than had ever been so before such a literal fulfillment. Indeed, even as respects the second temple where pure worship there by God's faithful servants did take place, that temple never did—and never could have—become more glorious than was so for it on the occasions when the spirit-anointed Son of God taught there; Jesus had great respect and zeal for what were the Law’s arrangements for sacred service in that literal temple. But Jesus also foretold the end in Jerusalem of that literal, earthly center of pure worship of the Father (John 4:23). And because the Father is a spirit, then he has no need for an earthly center of pure worship, as a replacement for the second temple, into which his earthly servants should gather themselves.

 

Ezekiel’s temple vision, however, cannot literally apply for the sense that Jehovah’s great spiritual temple might have constructs built of literal stone wherein members of spiritual Israel might function as under priests for Jesus their High Priest. One of several things about Ezekiel’s temple vision helps establish that conclusion. For example, the record of Ezekiel’s temple vision presents the requirement that no foreigner living in Israel who is uncircumcised in heart and in flesh may enter Jehovah’s sanctuary. But, in spiritual Israel, there is no distinction to be made as respects Jews and Gentiles (see Galatians 3:26-29), nor as to whether a Gentile believer is uncircumcised in his flesh (see Galatians 6:15, 16); however, in Ezekiel’s temple vision, importance is attached to whether or not one is circumcised not in his heart only, but also in his flesh (see Ezekiel 44:7, 9). So, do those verses identify those who serve in heaven with Jesus? They cannot possibly do so. Consider that it is a heavenly Mount Zion (see Hebrews 12:22) where Jesus and his fellow king-priests are stationed. Jesus was foretold to have with him there in heaven those he had "bought . . .  out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation and . . . [he had] made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings [from heaven] over the earth" (Revelation 5:9, 10). And so how does their location in heaven bear upon our understanding about the demand recorded in Ezekiel 44:7, 9 that those gaining entrance into Ezekiel's visionary sanctuary must be circumcised not in heart only but in their flesh, too?  Because such requirement for fleshly circumcision cannot have application to "those who were sealed, 144, 000, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel" (Revelation 7:4).  That 144, 000 are on that heavenly Mount Zion (Revelation 14:1), about which also Paul wrote to Jewish Christians in Judea. They are spiritual Israelites who have been purchased by the Lamb's blood and are stationed on heavenly Mount Zion for their service to mankind.  And heaven is no place for either circumcised or uncircumcised flesh (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:50). 

 

Also, in the apostle John’s spiritual temple vision recorded in Revelation, people from all the nations are seen in the temple, and we know they are Christians with no vested interest in a literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple vision for blessing Christians, seeing as how John saw in vision that those Christians in Jehovah’s great spiritual temple are there to render sacred service day and night, and not just in the daylight hours on certain days (Revelation 7:13-17). It is that very fact among other facts that establishes a contrast with things mentioned in the laws of the temple that Ezekiel recorded (see Ezekiel 46:1-3) as seen against things mentioned concerning Jehovah’s great spiritual temple in the writings of the apostles John and Paul. 

No, we ought not to wrongfully expect appearance of a literal third temple just as we ought not to wrongfully expect appearance of new, literal Jerusalem descending from heaven and having literal, fantastical measurements that would make it to cover a territory 14 times as large as modern Israel, and having fantastical measurements that would make it to tower 350 miles into outer space. 

 

Also is the fact that in the recording of Ezekiel’s temple vision, we find references to sacrifices of animals for atonement of sin (see Ezekiel 45:16-17, 22, 23, 25). But as respects Jehovah’s great spiritual temple, Jesus the High Priest entered its Most Holy after he was raised back to life in heaven, bringing with him the value of his sacrificially shed blood once for all time in order “to do away with sin” (Hebrews 12:26). Even those who will survive the great tribulation mentioned in Revelation chapter 7 will not benefit from animal sacrifices for forgiveness of sin unto salvation/everlasting life. These ones will benefit from the blood of the Lamb, not from the blood of a goat or of a lamb (Revelation 7:14-17; John 1:29).

 

I. "In [God's] Saying "a New Covenant," He Has Made the Former One Obsolete. Now What Is Obsolete and Growing Old Is Near to Vanishing Away" (Hebrews 8:13]) ..... "for We Do Not Have Here a City That Continues, but We Are Earnestly Seeking the One to Come" (Hebrews 13:14). 

 

That city to come is heavenly Jerusalem, a heavenly Mount Zion (Hebrews 12:22), a new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2). The Law of Moses does not charter the existence of a spiritual Israel. The new covenant does. The Law of Moses does not recognize uncircumcised Gentile disciples of Jesus for their becoming co-rulers with Jesus Christ in the Messianic Kingdom of God, a blessing which was taken from natural Israel as natural Israel, and given to a different nation, spiritual Israel (Matthew 21:43).  

 

The old, Mosaic Law covenant became obsolete when it was replaced upon inauguration of “a new covenant”; it was after the Law’s obsolescence that the Law later vanished away. (The legal basis for such an obsolescence occurred when Christ was nailed to the torture stake on Golgotha, a place located outside the walls of first-century Jerusalem.) But before the Law would completely vanish away, there had first to occur the Law's obsolescence. It did occur, and that even while there was still a Levitical priesthood that was serving in earthly Jerusalem at its temple, yes, even so after the Law’s obsolescence.

 

Just when did that obsolescence occur? It occurred when Christ brought forth, under a new covenant, a spirit-anointed Israel, the real Israel of God, on the day of Pentecost, 33 C.E. Then is when God formally ended the Law of Moses--and forensically demonstrated as much (see Acts 2:1-11)--for its serving as an instrument informed with terms by which natural Israel might at least have been safeguarded for arrival of the Messiah, this so that enough faithful natural Israelites might have filled up the foreordained number of those who would be with the Messiah as kings and priests in the Kingdom of God. In that way they might have become a people as God’s special possession who had descended from Abraham, and by which all the families of the ground might have, in time, become blessed. Natural Israel, however, failed to get that status as a reward from God by their becoming the sole people for God’s special possession; they failed to become a God-approved Israel. But God will have his Israel, an Israel that results from Jews and Gentiles who by faith become the Israel that God is pleased to own. Any natural Jews, however, gaining entrance into this real Israel of God had first to acknowledge all that Jesus' death on the torture stake could thereby mean for them; they had to exercise faith in Jesus, giving Jesus the obedience that shows real faith in the fact that Jesus' death on the stake served as a ransom sacrifice for releasing them from the curse of the Law. Such was a real forgiveness of their sinful nature inherited from Adam (see Romans 5:19). Only a remnant from out of natural Israel became, along with uncircumcised Gentile believers, the real offspring of Abraham through their faith in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:26-29). 

 

But when did the Law of Moses completely vanish away as respects natural Israel's making pretense of fulfilling the Law? Well, remember that real fulfillment of all the Law was the requirement if the nation were ever to become blessed by coming into possession of a divinely ordained existence as a people ruling over all the other nations on earth. With the nation’s murder of Jesus Christ, however, the nation thereby showed itself to be a nation that, as a nation, deserved not just loss of that potential blessing for becoming the Kingdom of God. No, it deserved far more than that: it deserved destruction (Matthew 21:37-44; 22:2-8). Natural Israel, then, was a nation that could not truthfully lay claim to a destiny that it should solely become the Messianic Kingdom of God. Such pretense per force ended in 70 C.E. With the temple’s destruction in 70 C.E., there came completion to the vanishing away forever of men (priests) on earth offering gifts according to the Law of Moses, the old covenant (Hebrews 8:4; 9:1, 10; 13:12-15). 

II. "All Those Who Depend on Works of Law Are Under a Curse" (Galatians 3:10).

 

All those who were “out of” — all those who were identified by their advocacy for — works of the Law of Moses as basis for a fine relationship with God were Judaizers; they wrongfully taught new Gentile converts that they, too, like themselves, should trust in their doing/making/fulfilling the works of the Law for salvation. But the Law begets a knowledge of sin because it was made by God for, among other things, teaching all men God’s estimation of sinful human nature (1 Timothy 1:8-10), and that all men are born under curse of deserved death; we are all naturally powerless to escape it.

 

God’s undeserved kindness for all those who trust in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus’ death on a torture stake (Ephesians 2:16) was first made available to natural Israelites, both appropriately and as result of a matter of irony for Israel. How was it appropriate? It was appropriate in that God should make available undeserved kindness first to natural Israelites out of his love for his faithful friend Abraham and love for his descendants through Isaac and Jacob, this so that Israelites might fill up to completion the foreordained number comprising spiritual Israel. Natural Israel failed to do so.

 

But how did that undeserved kindness, being made available first to Israelites, come about as a matter of irony? It turned out to be an irony for natural Israelites because even though they hoped for the Messiah’s coming, yet the nation became responsible for putting the Messiah to death on a torture stake (Acts 2:22, 23). Yes, the hard truth was that even though they were ones who trusted in the Law for salvation—they trusting in a Law that does not require that citizens of natural Israel be only those Israelites who adhere to faith—, yet they were nevertheless the very ones who stumbled ruinously over the Messiah by putting the Messiah to death on a torture stake (see Romans 9:30-33). But all this worked out according to God’s will that Jesus the Messiah and Son of God should become the very person murdered by Israel, so that God could grant (to as many Israelites as would choose it) repentance of their generation’s nation-ending crime (see Acts 2:36-39), by their trusting in Jesus’ teachings and ransom sacrifice. Those doing so were appropriating to themselves God’s undeserved kindness so that they became a remnant in natural Israel saved for becoming part of spiritual Israel, saved for becoming part of the promised Messianic Kingdom of God. That remnant would be the first ones released from what the Law had proved against men, namely, condemnation to death because human creation is not intrinsically worthy of eternal life, death being the wages of sin. Mankind has proved itself worthy of extinction because of its inherent sinfulness. Presently the human race’s sinful existence stands as an effrontery against God’s original, holy purpose for mankind’s existence. In “the inhabited earth to come” (Hebrews 2:5) — after Jehovah has destroyed willfully wicked men from off the surface of the earth —, then is when Jehovah’s Son Jesus Christ will shepherd men to “springs of waters of life”; the human creation will become liberated from sin and death (Revelation 7:13-27; 21:1-5; Romans 8:19-21).

III. Has God Proscribed Our Taking the Meat of Certain Animals for Food?

 

"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you" (Genesis 9:3). 

 

Was there any moral proscription that God had ever imposed against our eating certain kinds of green vegetation? No, but the only kind of impediment against our eating certain kinds of green vegetation is a natural impediment, not one born as a matter of revelation from God for us to obey. And even then, such kind of natural impediment might be overcome by knowledgeable persons able to render edible what previously had been naturally inedible. Therefore, some kinds of green vegetation we do well to continue considering as inedible and dangerous until such time as men might learn how to render them edible, which has, however, occurred as respects certain kinds of naturally inedible vegetation. For examples, we should not eat raw lima beans until first they have been boiled for 15 minutes; we should not eat unprocessed bitter cassava, which can kill; we should not eat raw kidney beans until they have been boiled--not slowly cooked--for 10 minutes; we should not eat poke sallet (polk salad) until it has been boiled in water 3 times in order that the toxins be cooked out.

 

Now, did God announce to Noah a moral proscription that should attach to certain kinds of animals for thereby causing his obedient servants to reject them for consumption? No, but he said expressly that every moving animal might serve as food, and in saying so, he did not attach any moral proscription against eating just certain kinds of animals, which is also how he had given men all kinds of green vegetation. Yes, all green vegetation was given apart from any moral proscription that must categorically apply just to certain kinds of green vegetation. 

 

The only proscription that God told Noah must attach to an animal taken for food is such that must attach to any kind of animal taken for food, namely, no animal may be taken for food and its meat then eaten together with its blood. Other than that proscription, Noah and all mankind descended from him were free to eat all kinds of animal flesh, until the time came when Jehovah God did see fit to make certain dietary restrictions for Jacob's descendants whom he had redeemed from Egyptian slavery; those dietary restrictions helped to sanctify Israel; they set the nation apart from Gentiles (cf. Psalm 147:19, 20). The Law worked to preserve Israel's national identity until the Messiah appeared in Israel and became shown by Law to be a sinless Israelite. In being so revealed by Law, he showed that he qualified as the mediator of a new covenant; his shed blood inaugurated a new covenant for replacing the Law of Moses. The law of the Christ does not have proscription against our taking for food the meat from certain kinds of animals. We reject the commandment of those men who "command [us] to abstain from foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth. For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified through God's word and prayer over it" (1 Timothy 4:3-5). 

IV. “God Sent His Son Who Was Born of a Woman and Who Was Under Law” (Galatians 4:4)

Jesus could not do anything in disobedience to the Law of Moses. He could not speak against the Law’s requirement for circumcision. Although Jesus ever remained the same in his godly devotion, that did not mean that after the Law had ended, he had still to require circumcision for Gentile converts who were turning to God after Peter preached to Cornelius. Before Cornelius’ baptism, the only way a Gentile male might become a Christian is if he, before his conversion to Christianity, had been a circumcised proselyte, as was the case for the Ethiopian eunuch. Also, Jesus could not teach against the Law’s tithing requirements; however, that does not mean that in the Christian economy Jesus requires his disciples to give tithes. We have no record of such a requirement. Also, the Law required that a man healed of his leprosy should obey the arrangements whereby he would become ceremonially purified (Leviticus 14:1-32). Accordingly, Jesus instructed that the ten lepers whom he cleansed should obey the Law for their purification. It involved the leper’s offering of certain clean animals the healed leper would bring to a priest for him to sacrifice the animal. Were Christians living in first-century Judea ever expected by the glorified Jesus that they should go up to the temple should they have been lepers who had become healed? The spirit that came to prevail in the Christian system of things could not have required it. Moreover, Jesus kept the festivals, the sabbaths, etc. That does not mean that Jesus ever remained of a mind such that he required that his disciples keep observing such days. That is why a Christian could esteem “one day as all others” (Romans 14:4-6). 

But in the Christian system, the Law of Moses has an educative function for alerting us to what must always stand as testimonial to God’s love, mercy, and holiness. 

Jewish Christians were already acquainted with the writings of Moses (Acts 15:21); therefore, their Scripturally trained conscience should already have given them basis for them to appreciate that certain of the laws in the Law of Moses had necessarily to be repeated for all Christians. Why? Because such laws as must needs be repeated in the law of the Christ would be laws based on the eternal principles of God’s holiness and love. But Gentiles newly converted and who had no history as “God-fearers”—no history of acquaintance with the Law of Moses and therefore having no conscience made sensitive as to how God viewed fornication, idolatry, or eating blood—should not conclude that they were not under law towards God through Jesus Christ. There were certain laws being necessarily imposed on them: law against idolatry, law against sexual immorality, law against eating blood either present in meat not properly bled, or as blood itself sought after as an item of food. 

All true Christians have the responsibility to initiate conversation for purpose of bearing witness to the good news of the Kingdom, and to do so in the manner commanded by Christ. Also, true Christians have the responsibility to make a response to everyone who demands of them a reason for the hope within them. I know of no international brotherhood besides Jehovah’s Witnesses who fulfill Christ’s commands for giving a preached, verbally declared witness to the Kingdom that men should hear (Matthew 24:14; Romans 10:14, 15). Indeed, they are the ones who have responded to the urgent invitation “let anyone hearing say “Come!” (Revelation 22:17). 

 

The Law of Moses Superseded by God's Undeserved Kindness Expressed Through Jesus Christ Our Lord

The following presentation is difficult for ethnic Jews and for adherents to Messianic Judaism to accept. But it is in accordance with what Jesus said, and in accordance with what God-inspired writers of the Scriptures in the first century recorded. 

What Jesus accomplished through his death and resurrection is the guarantee that all sorts of men ever born into the world of Adam's sin-inheriting descendants (see Acts 17:31) may eventually obtain that “everlasting salvation” that is salvation for “all those obeying [Jesus]” (Hebrews 5:9), for salvation is only through faith in and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 4:12). Thus eventually there will also occur fulfillment of God's original purpose to give mankind everlasting life here on earth, for that is what Adam lost so that he could not pass it on to us his sin-inheriting descendants. No, Adam never had a hope  for everlasting life in Heaven. In accordance with God's original purpose, however, there will be an earthly society of perfected (sinless) children of God, a society that will become reality in fulfillment of Jesus' mission to which he referred when he stated "The Son of man came to seek and to save what was lost" (Luke 19:10). What Adam lost for himself and for us his sinful descendants was everlasting life here on earth. Restoration of it would require God's undeserved kindness expressed through an arrangement authored by him, this for mankind’s redemption through Jesus Christ. Speaking proleptically, then, we can say that Jesus as the Son of Man has become the foretold “eternal Father” (see Isaiah 9:6) that Adam never became for mankind; Jesus has become our sinless next of kin, as it were, for redeeming us. Jesus qualified to become the ransoming sacrifice, the one “who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), this, then, with eternal benefit for mankind. We are here really echoing what our beloved brother Paul was inspired to record about the subject when he wrote this: “the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Romans 8:21). 

Such blessings could never become reality by means of the Law of Moses for any of Adam’s sinful offspring; however, that Law was ended so that a remnant of Jews descended from Abraham might be the first (see Acts 3:26; 13:46) to obtain a prized possession—and really that remnant began to so obtain it from 33 C.E. onward. And what did they obtain?  They obtained justification (declaration to righteousness) by God for eternal life in the heavens before arrival of “the last day” (John 11:24).  Such justification is one of the blessings made possible by a replacement covenant that features a better priesthood than what Jews had in the Levitical priesthood (see Hebrews 8:6-13). After the beginning of the appearance in the first century of a remnant of fleshly Jews having prospect of eternal life in the heavens, there next came addition of more of the circumcised into the new covenant, namely, the believing Samaritans for their obtainment of the same hope, and who were then followed by uncircumcised believers beginning in 36 C.E. for their obtainment of the same status as that owned by circumcised believers, so that they, too, are “fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God" (Ephesians 1:11-20.)

As stated earlier, this subject is difficult matter both for ethnic Jews and for adherents to Messianic Judaism to accept. It is supersessionism, rightly understood in the light of the Scriptures, and it is subject matter hidden in all its glory (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:3-6) from the eyes of all those who unrepentantly continue to show that they are not “rightly disposed for everlasting life” (Acts 13:48), and thus are not helped “through God’s undeserved kindness . . . [to] become believers” (Acts18:27).