Orthodox Chrisian Russia Defended America (1863)

[allodial]

Creating Persons is adding too Gods commandments only if he respected them since he nevertheless stated what a respecter gets. Our Hellenistic Heathen or a nation founded under God. Where acting accordingly.

The universalist view misses that even though with the Ezekiel Temple the divide or bar between Judeans/Israelite and Gentiles were broken down, the Gentile wasn't and isn't necessarily forced to cross the barrier and enter into the temple to join the assembly of the saints. So how do those who refuse to partake or fail to partake magically become members of the Christ's assembly?). Furthermore in the OT it is found that someone who takes on obligations even to the ungodly would be expected to follow them. It is clear however that someone pretending to a non-Gentile is still a Gentile. It is also clear that the orthodox Christians aren't Gentiles according to the NT and OT.

respecter of persons

someone who treats people according to their rank, status or importance

The lack of respect for persons could hardly be taken as promoting an utter disregard for kingships or dignities because the very same NT promotes a regard for dignities and kings are in fact referred to as kings. The saints themselves are regarded to be a royal priesthood. Also, what is universal among the saints isn't necessarily universally universal. There was a separate law for the stranger: this is an important facet of lawful government.

The image of Paul (and Roman protective custody/welfare state) sets a contradiction, conundrum and convolution.

Paul likely realized that even Rome was yet another subordinate power--subordinate to the one named at Exodus 3:14-15. Principalities of darkness are referred to at Ephesians 1 and 2. The testimony is that even under Roman rule: The children are free. That is, to properly 'characterize' Paul one must properly characterize the station of the saints, the Christ's assembly and the divine impetus for the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem come 70AD which heralded the end of an entire system.



Now begs the question: What system met its end from 65AD to 70AD? Why would Paul or any of the saints cling to a system that was brought to its end? The resounding view is that the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem come 70AD was a divinely appointed event it was not the result of a merely secular conflict. The scepter departed from Judah approximately 70 years prior to the temple destruction.

The ecclesia, the temple made without hands survived. There might be something to this idea of "Embassy of Heaven": the ecclesia of Jesus/Yehoshua the Anointed of the Most High is altogether like the ark...the manifest arm of his Christ's administration of salvation and such. That is why the Ecclesia is being attacked and assaulted. The Edom-Canaanite-Ishmaelite alliance actually believes it stands a chance (ala Enoch 6).

It must be known that the merger of the Babylonian/Nebuchadnezzar and the Roman prerogative occurred with Attalus's bequeathing of his kingdom to the Romans, that Julius Casear would be the first to combine the mantels, that the mantel now is with the Bishop of Rome.

But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. Daniel 7:18

Likely, Paul knew this. The kingdom is in session and has been widely in session at least since Pentecost Day 30 A.D.