The Many Unforgivable Sins of Jesus of Nazareth

By Emmanuel Oghenebrorhie

What is your perspective in this regard?....
I did not ask for this life, or to live. Yet my life is being orchestrated. I had no say in my existence. Yet I'm being told what I must do. Why does my conscience trouble me so when I do wrong, and why does life keep making these demands on me, asking of me so many confounded questions?
trying to beat me into a shape of a kind I know not; and do not want; punishing me when I refuse to be molded. Yet when I cry out there is only empty space, no one comes to my rescue.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris UK
• Release date: Jun 7, 2011
• ISBN: 9781462883325

Emmanuel Oghenebrorhie

Rev Emmanuel Oghenebrorhie can be described as a Paper-pulpit Pastor and Bible Preacher by publication. He is divinely ordained to teach, preach and publish the Gospel of Christ Jesus and has been teaching and preaching since 1994. He began to publish in 2004 and presides over Emmanuel Oghenebrorhie Ministries, that encompasses several arms. He operates Christ Redemption Publications, based in Ibadan, Nigeria. He has been published by other publishers overseas. He makes the working word of God relevant to daily living, to prepare the saints for heaven. He hosts a monthly Bible Seminar every second Sunday at his Nigerian base, Ibadan. His audiences often comment that he gives a realistic interpretation to the word of God in a way they never heard or read previously and that he directs the word of God to where it matters in a man’s life when it matters most. He can be reached on [e-mail] or [e-mail] or 234-7037825522 or 234-8182022262 or 07055989850

Book preview

Copyright © 2011 by Emmanuel Oghenebrorhie.

ISBN:          Softcover                                 978-1-4628-8331-8

                   Ebook                                      978-1-4628-8332-5

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Unless otherwise indicated, scriptures are from the Good News Bible (GNB) also known as Today’s English Version (TEV), New King James Version (NKJV), New Century Version (NCV) (THE MESSAGE), The New English Translation Bible (The NET Bible), The Living Bible (TLB), Amplified Bible (AMP), Contemporary English Version (CEV), New International Version (NIV), New Living Translation (NLT), New American Standard Updated (NASU), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New American Standard (NAS), King James Version (KJV), and American Standard Version (ASV).

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

0-800-644-6988

www.XlibrisPublishing.co.uk

[e-mail]

301305

Contents

Appreciation

Introduction

1 Precarious parents

2 The Saints’ self-trampling tolerance

3 Abhorrable Background

4 Setting Outrageous Standards

5 Nothing is enough Reason

6 Fellow Man’s Control Politics

7 Winning at Losers’ Expense and Regrets

8 Denigrating Designated and Delighted Dignitaries

9 Disgusting Darers Deserve Destruction

10 Turn by turn youngsters, otherwise

11 Championing the cause of the subdued

12 Terminateable Tortuous Truths Tellers

13 Highlights

Epilogue

Other Published Titles by the Author

Dedication

Late Mr German Etaduovie

He impressed upon my young heart that all humans resent whatever they consider tortuous truth.

Appreciation

All glory to God that this is available for others to read. Lord, a thousand tongues is not enough for me to express my gratitude for this unique opportunity to be a blessing to my generation and future generations. Surely, everything in this call and commission is your doing and it is marvellous in my eyes.

Mrs Yvonne Olatunbosun edited substantial part just as I bothered Cletus Okuguni on this job considerably and he obliged me. Many thanks to my Joshua Fagbemi and his wife for being there for me always. It is highly appreciated. May God swell your heavenly account richly, in Jesus’ mighty name, Amen.

Introduction

I was told a story some years back. The most illustrious member of a family brought one of his father’s younger sons to the city where he lived to learn a trade. The young boy did well and his trainer retained him after the four years craftsmanship training. He guided this young man to get his own accommodation and plan how to marry and, of course, raise his own family. He was prospering as they continued as partners because his trainer was getting old and wanted such a trusted young man to be his partner and to sustain his workshop. The young man’s elder brother got very angry with the trainer. The young man was shocked because he had not known the politics of this wearisome world and laughable life we live. The trainer turned partner understood his offence from when the young man’s elder brother began to make trouble. He made a profound statement in his bitterness. He told the trainer, When I brought him to you to train, I did not say that you should empower him to become equal to me in our family. He wanted to help this young man but he did not want the young man to become rich and therefore, respected in their family circle. With the way the boy was going, operating from an established workshop, he would soon buy land to build his own house and even have tenants and become a force to be reckoned with in their family. This older sibling had been the only power-broker in the family and did not want any other member to rival him. He brought that boy to be trained so that he would not be accused of not helping any other member of the family to become useful and respected in life, but not to the extent that such beneficiary would have the capacity to checkmate him within the family circle if need be. There are different types of reactions to this story.

This is part of what can be called Curious Kindness and Condemnable Kindness. Have you heard of Calculative Kindness, Calculated Kindness when limits have been set for the extent of benefits derivable from the disbursed kindness and targeted for a purpose not holistically beneficial to the recipient. Also, it is hypocrisy, and nearly everyone is involved in it one way or the other. Genesis 37 says that though Jacob loved Joseph, when he learnt that God seemed to have chosen him to be the most illustrious member of his household, his first reaction was to shout down Joseph, as if he never loved Joseph to be the point that he should become greater than him as the traditional household head. His older sons had reasons to abhor Joseph and they never pretended about it. Those involved in such activity would say the elder brother was right to protect his valued position in the family. Only a fool would watch his prestige be rubbished by another, worse still, his beneficiary; because it is an abomination, and an unforgivable one for that matter, to use a gift against the giver. Most masters abhor their servants becoming their equal. We have to settle for the term most masters, because this young man’s trainer did not abhor his trainee becoming his professional and career partner though he had his personal reasons. At least, he gave this young man the chance that many masters would never give. This is an example of what I call Yes and No" answer on the same issue at the same time. The elders wanted to help but not to an enviable level. Help yes, to an enviable level? Not at all. But how? Just enough to live and remain subjective!

A sedentarily saucy sister jolted me once when she said I cannot insist that she did things mostly for selfish reasons because even God helps man for what He could benefit, therefore, she was only taking after God. I do not readily know if that line of thought is too dangerous to tread. Jeremiah 27:1-7 affirms that God meant Nebuchadnezzar and his son and grandson great but when Nebuchadnezzar become too proud for God’s liking, the Lord disgraced him. And when his son did the same under the influence of alcohol, God deposed him outrightly from the world and Darius became Emperor. Can we say that benefactors who punish their beneficiaries who disrespect them are following in God’s footsteps in this matter? We need to answer such questions so that as they say, things would add up—life would make sense a bit. Should a man unmake the man he made great because of disrespect? Was that what Samuel did to Saul and Prophet Ahijah did to King Jeroboam? Jesus made Peter relevant and Peter remained loyal till the end of his life. If he failed to remain loyal, would Jesus have punished his disloyalty by unmaking him? Should we consider what can be called Motive behind the Making in detail? I Samuel 18 says that King Saul wanted to make David a married man for a monstrous motive or diabolical reason. Genesis 29-31 confirms that Laban made Jacob a double son-in-law for his personal reasons and that it was so bad that his daughters Leah and Rachel abhorred him for it. This reminds me of what I call Parental Precarious Patterns and Practices which we shall not have the space to consider in detail here. Jacob caused division among his sons and could not forgive those that offended him, whereas his elder brother Esau forgave him freely. David knew that the misfortune of his children, Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom were God’s punishment for his own sin of killing Uriah to marry his wife Bathsheba. There is no record that he made the children know about his role in their misfortune.

That is what I call Too Deep to Discuss, Too Disgusting to Divulge, Too Damaging to Disclose and Too Ridiculous to reveal. All humans have things (sickening issues which must be kept secret, shameful stories or angles to their pasts) which they cannot talk about boastfully, with a sense of pride and fulfilment. They are shame-inducing and cause people to shun discovery and provide veritable, wicked and weakening weapons in the hands of detractors to ridicule and embarrass. I call them Individuals’ Shame Shadowing Stories. Some go to the extent of taking their own lives rather than live to endure the shame of such tortuous things. Just like all humans have flesh, blood and water in their bodies, so also, we all live with one form of shameful shadow or the other. It is an inevitable shadow we carry and it is shallow-mindedness to think yours is the worst. The triumphant truth about shadows is that they are not the real thing or substance, you cannot grab the shadow of anything, it would still escape. If the sun casts the shadow of a skyscraper on your premises, the skyscraper does not transfer to your premises as a result. The process would be repeated every morning or evening for two hundred years, but it would never translocate the building to you. In like manner, the shadowy shame should not tie down anyone’s greatness. It must not be allowed to hinder any one’s determination to become better and greater in life. It should fire the determination to improve and erase the consciousness of the shameful aspect from people’s mindset. If the worst becomes the best, people are constrained to forget the worse past. Despite the shame of adultery, killing Uriah to marry Bathsheba and the punishment of the death of their resultant child of adultery, David and Bathsheba still went ahead to have four sons, including Solomon, whom God sent to live solely as David’s successor. Also, I Kings 3:10-14 says that God went further to make Solomon the wisest man who ever lived, and the wealthiest and most honoured ruler in his generation. There are issues which cast the ever sickening shadow of shame on our lives inevitably. As a result, we strive to keep them secret as much as possible for as long as we live. Have you heard of Shelve the Shame, Achieve the Admiration, which implies defying your shameful past to achieve and become admired and accepted even where you had been resented and rejected because of shameful aspects previously. You can shed the shadow of shame with what you do with your life beyond the shameful incident. It is quite possible. Beneficiaries of Jesus’ teachings and miracle working powers did not remember that He was conceived before His mother married her husband. They did not consider that past when they determined to make Him their king after He had fed them with God’s word and physical food in John 6:1-15. Only His detractors reiterated the circumstances surrounding His conception because of frustration as He diverted the attention of the people from them.

David did not mourn for the misfortune of Amnon and Tamar as he did for Absalom who did him more harm. It suggests that he prized Absalom more than the others. If the other children had realized it, would they have vented their anger on either Absalom or their father or both, for preferring Absalom to them like Jacob’s preference for Joseph made his other children abhor Joseph? Is it good for a parent to reveal his preference for any child? Are such parents right or taking after God who preferred Jacob to Esau the elder even before they were born? Are these parts of the ways man shows his being made in God’s image and likeness? What is the solution to the pains of parental preference for a child amongst others in the same household? Noah did not forgive his eldest son Ham (whom he referred to as Canaan while cursing) for dishonouring him. Would he have done so if Ham was his only son? Was it because he had other sons that he cared less about cursing Ham and his descendants? Is a parent who fails to forgive his or her child worse than someone who takes it out on his or her sibling who is preferred by their parent? Conversely, was Jacob guiltier for exhibiting his preference for Joseph than the other children who persecuted Joseph for it? Does this reveal the sickening selfish nature of all humans, in your estimation? Do you think fundamental human rights covers a parent exhibiting preference for a particular child? Also, should the same fundamental human rights cover the unloved child or children persecuting their preferred sibling or colleagues? It is either those partial parents are right or frustrated children venting their anger are right. Isaac and Rebecca were not the best of parents. They polarized their family of just two twin-sons. Each found reason(s) to prefer a particular son. There are common cases of mothers preferring their eldest sons or only sons, and fathers preferring their eldest daughters or only daughters. What is right or wrong about it? What should other children do in the circumstance? What is your personal experience and how did you handle it? Share your experience with any interested neighbour or contact me with the mailing address at the back cover.

Please allow me to be strangely ridiculous this once, though I cannot promise that it might not happen again. We said somewhere in the middle of the above paragraph that most of us are hypocrites but that however, Genesis 37 says that Joseph’s brothers were not because they courageously indicated their abhorrence for the arrangement which placed Joseph their younger brother above them. What do you think in relation to being men of integrity? They did not put anyone in doubt about their abhorring their younger brother becoming greater than them. They expressed their feelings and cared less about what others felt. Do you think God gives such persons credit for their honesty about their feelings and opposing opinion to God’s will and purpose for their generation as Abraham’s covenant descendants? Did Jesus actually praise Nathanael’s hurting honesty when he said that nothing good could come out of Nazareth? John 1:43-47 concludes with the fact that Jesus said that there was no guile in Nathanael for being so frank. Do you think that God knows that as humans, we would not like some of the ways He deals with us? Do you think it would be better for God to send whoever He wants to be greater as the elder so that it would be easier for the others to accept his leadership because of his or her age? Do you think as long as the elder is greater, there would be no acrimony about status and fortune amongst siblings, friends and colleagues? Would it put an end to fortune and prosperity related strife among the sons of men? We cannot deny or trivialize the fact that Joseph’s siblings did not behave like the Pharisees and High Priests who used some seemingly tenable reasons to vent their frustrations stirred by envy and jealousy on Jesus and His disciples. They hid under the Mosaic Laws to condemn Jesus, when in fact, envy was their propelling force. What do you think about an honest hater and a pretentious one? Are any of them better than the other? At least the victims of honest haters and unpretentious persecutors would recognize their preposterous position, sickening and shameful stand, injurious insistence and should wisely ensure that they did not hinder God’s planned purpose for his life. Once David knew that Saul was out to destroy him, he was able to plan his escape. Once Jeroboam knew that Solomon was determined to kill him for the same reason Saul wanted David dead, he escaped to Egypt for safety until Solomon died, and returned to rule according to God’s will and purpose for him. On the contrary, Uriah died because he did not know that David was out to kill him through the letter he took back to Joab at the battlefield against the Ammonites. However, do you consider such frankness faulty and honestly hurtful, integrity injurious, practicality pitiable, open-mindedness obnoxious, etc? Should such persons be applauded or abhorred, venerated or vilified, castigated or celebrated? Should their courage be condemned or commended, encouraged or discouraged? This is important because David’s allies deceived Absalom, while honest Ahithophel’s counsel was disregarded. Is there anything like Horribly Honest or Hurtingly Honest and Heartily Honest? What impression do you get from any of these terms?

We must admit that to some extent, Joseph’s abhorrable siblings were godly in their own way and the religious rulers who attacked Jesus took after them in this respect. At least, there is no record that they plotted to attack God for making them subject to someone younger, which arrangement they considered ridiculous. Surely, they did not conduct any special thanksgiving service to bless the name of the Lord their God for allotting such fortune to them, but at least, they hallowed God enough to attack only their fellow human being whom they considered the chief and best beneficiary of what they considered an abhorrable divine arrangement. Do you adjudge them admirably godly or abominably godly according to this claim? Do you think they left God out while venting their anger against the unacceptable arrangement because they knew they could not get to Him or because they reverenced Him? If it was because they reverenced Him, could they have done worse if they didn’t? Do you consider their persecution of their beneficiary-neighbour a form of opposition to God’s will and purpose? How would you react if you were to find yourself in their shoes?

1

Precarious parents

A couple still believing God for the fruit of the womb brought one of the wife’s younger relatives to live with them and learn a trade. Before the end of her first year of learning fashion designing she got pregnant and was delivered of a baby boy. Beloved, do you think that the couple would celebrate the naming of the innocent child heartily or hurtingly? Since Genesis 33:5 and 48:4, Deuteronomy 28:4 and Psalms 127:3 say that children are a gift from God, should He have given a child to fornicators while those legitimately married were still waiting on Him to give them the joy of parenthood? Legitimacy matters to man, particularly when they need it to attack those they abhor. If Jephthah’s father, Gilead was alive when Jephthah, his only child out of wedlock became the most illustrious son, would he have wished he had more of them, so they could multiply greatness in his household? He was resented and rejected for being an illegitimate child by his siblings, but returned to rule their nation on behalf of their family. When he died, the same siblings who once resented him gave him a befitting burial aided by their fellow citizens in the same Gilead’s family house he once left for them in frustration.

Jesus’ paternity became a real issue and a tool in the hands of His detractors. What do you do when you adjudge that someone has offended you and you are determined to get at him or her? How do you use the inglorious information you have about such a person? Everyone has injurious information about his or her life. Humans have the curious capacity to twist even the most profitable knowledge or information into the most heinous when determined to do evil. Part of the implications of Jephthah’s maltreatment was that, on the behalf of this world’s legitimacy bigots who are mostly hypocrites, an illegitimate child has no right to become important in his father’s household and by extension the society. Self-styled societies’ ‘saner siblings’ and ‘saner souls’ were hell-bent on reducing the number of those to share their father’s heritage and decided to insist that only legitimate children should partake. Natives practise this same national fortune sharing formula against immigrants decoratively or disguisingly. Populous tribes practise it against acclaimed minority tribes in the supposed same nation disguisingly. We shall not digress into the subject of discrete disheartening dealings which spring the roots of the break-up of nations, societies and partnerships. Driving Jephthah away converted his portion into an extra for them. Fortunately for them, Jephthah was the only illegitimate child and therefore, lacked necessary supporters to confront and claim his share in the inheritance. Also, he was not as dastardly as Gideon’s only illegitimate son, Abimelech whom Judges 9 say had set the example of murdering all his legitimate siblings, and as a result, he was left alone to inherit their father. If Jephthah had followed in Abimelech’s faulty fatal footsteps, Jephthah’s sickening siblings would have known the regret of insulting an illegitimate son who never applied to his parents to be born as an illegitimate member of his father’s household.

Gilead’s legitimate sons did not consider the fact that it was their father who went to bring Jephthah into the world as such. The person you are denigrating over his or her monstrous moral birth background did not determine that his or her birth should be tainted by such a blemish. God used the case of Jephthah to prove that legitimacy is not synonymous with relevance, importance and greatness in life. If it was the most important thing, a harlot like Rahab would not have been mentioned amongst the matriarchs of Jesus, mankind’s Messiah. Tamar who lured her father-in-law, Judah into incestuous parenthood would also not have qualified for mention. Even Ruth, who marketed herself to Boaz for marriage should not have been listed in Matthew 1:1-17. Legitimacy bigots and protagonists, as well as holier than thous of this world, continue to wish the names of such characters were edited out from the background of the Messiah, so that there would be no blemish about Him. They do not understand that God has determined that no one born of a woman would be without blemish. God meant that such a blemish is part of the bargain of being human and living on earth so that no one can boast. This is partly because Adam and Eve had incurred blemish into all humans when they disobeyed God before they had any child at all. This is why even Jesus the Messiah had no answer for the attack on His questionable paternity by His detractors. Unfortunately for those who wish that anything be edited out for their convenience, God has threatened that whoever removes from or adds to the Sacred Scriptures is doomed and damned. But God noted the role of these women who were fundamentally of acclaimed heathen nations, so we would understand that He cannot be boxed into doing things the way we humans made by Him think, expect, insist and are determined to force Him to do, if possible.

When John 11:45-54 and 12:9-11 say—

45 Many of the people who had come to visit Mary saw what Jesus did, and they believed in him. 46 But some of them returned to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 So the Pharisees and the chief priests met with the Council and said, What shall we do? Look at all the miracles this man is performing! 48 If we let him go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Roman authorities will take action and destroy our Temple and our nation! 49 One of them, named Caiaphas, who was High Priest that year, said, What fools you are! 50 Don’t you realize that it is better for you to have one man die for the people, instead of having the whole nation destroyed? 51 Actually, he did not say this of his own accord; rather, as he was High Priest that year, he was prophesying that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish people, 52 and not only for them, but also to bring together into one body all the scattered people of God. 53 From that day on the Jewish authorities made plans to kill Jesus. 54 So Jesus did not travel openly in Judea, but left and went to a place near the desert, to a town named Ephraim, where he stayed with the disciples.

9 A large number of people heard that Jesus was in Bethany, so they went there, not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from death. 10 So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus too, 11 because on his account many Jews were rejecting them and believing in Jesus. (TEV)

This is not just about Jesus of Nazareth but a reflection of what I call the many offences of the righteous and kind-hearted and benevolent of this wearisome world we live in. I have seen too many honest and pious persons wasted by the wicked. A chief accountant of a government house was murdered by hired assassins because he had full knowledge of how the previous governor of his state swindled the state of its wealth by virtue of his position. The new regime was hell-bent on probing the former regime and the leaders of the previous regime knew that the government chief accountant was going to be a veritable prosecuting witness. They made overtures to him to get part of their stolen wealth so he could testify in their favour and he claimed that his Christian conscience would not allow him to do such a thing. He claimed that it was an abomination for him to be part of ungodliness. Those threatened by the probe opted to get him out of the way, like II Samuel 11 says that David got rid of Uriah in order to protect his fame and reputation which was jeopardised by the continued existence of Uriah. This chief accountant made some efforts to save his life but lacked the steadfastness to keep it up until he survived. He lived outside his official residence for some weeks but returned and his assailants caught up with him finally.

For space’s sake, please read the preceding verses of John 11 for the detailed account of the restoration of Lazarus back to life by Blessed Jesus of Nazareth and mankind’s Messiah, the greatest descendant of Abraham and David, the Root of David, the First and the Last, whom I like to describe as the First and Final making Him the Only in that category. You know, if the first is the final, then, none other is desirable. Now, consider the catalogue of Jesus’ offences in the above passage. He had what we used to call audacity and temerity in our secondary school days when the government had not stupidly destroyed what they derogatorily called corporal punishment, rather than instilling the discipline that would shape the lives of future leaders for the betterment of our national lives. We know why they did so because the latter policy makers never had time to train their children at home, so they never knew that if you spared the rod of correction, you spoilt the child, to your greatest regret in your old age. Now in those old good days when the elders were not barred from instilling sanity into the future leaders of society, they used to say to junior students in secondary school Can you just imagine, this common form one or form two or whatever class such junior student was, can you imagine that this common form two boy or girl had the audacity and temerity to do so and so to me or whatever. And it seemed that it was the kind of thing that Jesus did to these religious rulers. Now, He came around when he was just in His early thirties to steal the attention of the populace from the men who had lived all their lives waiting to occupy the religious positions that would make them the centre of attraction in any religious gathering and wherever the people met them. Some of them had waited for more than 30 years to get to that position, but Jesus who was born when they had been queuing to get to the position suddenly came around to steal the show from them.

It is what can be called carnal reaction to human experiences, like I Samuel 24 and 26 and II Samuel 12:13-23 and 16:5-14 say of David and his lieutenants. His lieutenants thought that he should react carnally but David thought and did otherwise. Therefore, carnally, it would be stupid for these religious rulers to fold their hands and see what they treasured most taken away from them. They cared less about the ridicule of being seen as attacking someone doing good deeds only because of envy and jealousy despite their religious status. What do you think? They would have been bloody bastards and unforgivable fools if they failed to fight back. Don’t you think so? They must have thought to themselves, for goodness sake, where did this Jesus come from in the first place?! And they learnt that it was no other place than Nazareth, of all places. Is it not insulting? In fact, both Jesus and His sponsor did not regard these important men of society. Do you have such personalities around you? Even if someone would come around to challenge their authority, it should not be someone from one obscure locality called Naza-where? You mean Naza-what? Jees—such an insult must not stand for some idiots to take seriously until it becomes the acceptable norm. How many of such irritated oldies have you encountered? Even His assumed biological or step-father was unknown, that is even if they were to accept His visible step-father as His father. Do you know persons from what I call Battered Backgrounds or Naturally Bemoanable Backgrounds or Naturally Abhorrable Backgrounds who seem too great for that kind of origin? How do you view them and what is your take on their larger than life image compared with their background status? Do you admire or abhor them? Do you go to the extent of making others join you to admire or abhor them?

For goodness sake, how can the son of a peasant carpenter get the attention that human mindsets had thought was the exclusive preserve of the men of timbre and calibre in the society and religious circles? If God really wanted to send a readily acceptable Messiah, He should have used one of the High Priests to be His father. After all, God knows the nature of humans that He sent to live on the earth He created. He knows how far Satan has infiltrated the world and the man He made to live in it. He should not have feigned ignorance of the grave implications of this reality. He should consider the satanic factor and the human ego factor in His dealings with us the sons of men no matter how sickening we have become and still continue to degenerate in successive generations until whenever Jesus returns. He gave us the authority to take charge on earth, so He must make allowance for our opinion on earth. Does that make some sense to you? Does it appeal to you or have you ever met some who think like that? Does this sound like God specializes in setting man up in this life? He knows what the human nature abhors and yet would take that particular path to test man’s humility? He had been dealing with this subject of testing man’s submission and obedience to Him for ages and He is not tired of doing it all over again in every generation. He should be tired of doing the same thing over and over again. That is monotonous. He is so insistent on this dealership pattern that Solomon wrote about it in Ecclesiastes 3:15 that He repeats the same experiences through the generations. He already knows that man would not pass that test most of the time but under the guise of giving everyone his own chance to determine where to spend eternity, He keeps testing man. He should have sent the Messiah through some respectable family so that His background would readily encourage many to regard Him. Do you belong to this school of thought? Does it sound like a scandalous school of thought or sensible school of thought to