Elaine

Hi Cheryl…. thank you for your reply I do see your point about John the baptist and his being pivitol in pointing to Jesus… and take on board scriptures you have cited with which Itotally agree,I feel though im getting bogged down (my problem) with the word “pivitol” and my/the placing of that term John said to the priests and levites that he was not a prophet or Elijah when questioned, then they said unto him…who art thou that we may give an answer to them that sent us…John replied..I am the voice OF ONE CRYING in the wilderness make straight the way of the Lord .Again I must say that John, as I see it, announced Jesus to the world and pointed to Him as the Saviour… in THAT he was pivitol, no doubt about it. Jesus though was the pivitol point in history (maybe this is where the confusion is of my placing of that word, or my misunderstanding of your first comments ), the fork in the road so to speak, for the jewish nation. Change was now here (as announced by John) .. the Messiah was now on view to the world, things were about to become very differant… the vineyard was about to be vacated…. the sheep were about to be brought out of the pen…. there was not going to be new wine poured into old wineskins…change was here, change was upon them…and later for the whole world. Jesus BEING that pivitol moment of change (maybe “change” is another word, clouding the issue). Also another point… I used the term “under law” to show He (Jesus) was talking to jews (being specific for the readers of the comment). And as regards to those coming to Him as being drawn/dragged by the Father… these jews would have been the very ones honouring and following the God of Israel, the Father… because they WERE coming to Jesus, this in my mind was never in doubt…I took that as read. I am grateful for your response Cheryl but do not want to get caught up in words that you and I have differences on, im sure somewhere along the line we are both seeing the same thing.. .maybe its my English way of explanation thats slightly different to yours, forgive me. As regards the answering of the point re; the English girl 500bc I wasn’t wanting your answer to that, but rather using it as a “for instance” to a point I was making about a before and after time period. Sorry not to have responded to all your points. Nonetheless Cheryl… thank you for your response…In Christ .P.S.I hope what I said also makes sense!