A Nail in the Coffin of the Hebrew Roots Movement

I came across a very curious passage in 1 Corinthians that I thought shed a lot of light on Paul’s relationship to the ceremonial law. Here it is in the ESV (1 Corinthians 9:19-23):

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that be all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

The first curious point to notice is this language “I became as a Jew.” The word “ginomai” can mean “be” or “become” depending on the context, but “be” seems unlikely in this context, since Paul’s point is that when he was with Jews he looked like a Jew, and when he was with Gentiles, he looked like a Gentile. He therefore “became” one of them in order to win them to Christ (N.B., he wanted to win them to Christ, not to the OT ceremonial laws).

The second point to notice is the phrase in verse 20 “though not being myself under the law.” There is a textual variant at this point. The Byzantine manuscript tradition does not have this phrase, while the rest of the manuscript tradition has the phrase. It is almost certainly original, when one considers the age, weight, and geographical distribution of the manuscripts that have the phrase. We will proceed on the textual conclusion that it is original. The question is this: what does Paul mean by that, especially when one considers verse 21′s description of not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ?

The answer is that there must be a distinction between various parts of the law operating here (verse 21 is quite clear about this: there was some way that Paul could be as someone outside the “law” without being outside the law of God. If law means the same thing in that sentence all the way through, then Paul is declaring nonsense, for he would be saying that he was both outside and inside the law at the same time). There are aspects of the law that are non-negotiable (this is what verse 21′s “the law of God” is talking about, the moral law, the Ten Commandments). Then there are parts of the law that are definitely negotiable depending on the group of people he is with (this is what verse 20 is talking about, the ceremonial aspects of the law). It is just here that the verb “became” is important. Paul does not regard the status of being like a Jew as something that he normally is! This is what is so odd about the verse. Paul was a Jew by ethnicity! The answer to this conundrum is Philippians 3: all those things such as his ethnicity are skubalon (dung) compared with the glories of Jesus Christ. Being united to the Messiah is Paul’s new way of being human that is far more important than ethnicity or anything else (Galatians 3:28). What things are skubalon in Philippians 3? Being a Hebrew of Hebrews, being a Pharisee, being zealous for the law, having confidence in the flesh, and even being blamelessly righteous under the law! See Philippians 3:2-6. For our purposes, the things that Paul counts as skubalon are the things that the Hebrew Roots Movement prizes above Jesus Christ.

This is the particular hideousness of the HRM: the Old Testament is more important than Jesus Christ and does not point to Jesus Christ despite John 5:45-47 and Luke 24:13-49. Jesus (they will always call Him Yeshua regardless of what the entire GREEK New Testament calls Him, because somehow Hebrew is more sacred than Greek. It was really rather stupid of the New Testament authors to call Him “Iesous” of which “Jesus” is simply a transcription into English. It’s a good thing that the HRM folk are smarter than God at this point) always recedes into the background in the HRM. Just ask a HRM person why there are no sacrifices anymore. They will invariably answer that there is no temple. That’s their reason. Not that Jesus Christ was the once-for-all sacrifice that ends all other sacrifices (as the book of Hebrews makes abundantly clear all the way through the book). No, it’s because there is no temple. So why don’t they go build one and finish their denial of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice for sins by starting up the sacrifices again, which Hebrews tells us never took away the guilt of sin anyway? The fact of the matter is that God had the Temple destroyed precisely because Jesus had ended the sacrificial system of the law by being the one perfect sacrifice to which all the OT sacrifices always pointed.

The juxtaposition of verse 20 with verse 21 indicates that there are things in the law that are regarded as negotiable for Paul, depending on the people he is with, and the possibilities for evangelism. Those aspects of the law are not what Paul usually does. When he does do them, it is for evangelistic purposes only, and even then it is only when he is seeking to reach Jews, and needs to avoid offense. These things that are included are things that distinguish Jews from Gentiles, such as dietary laws and feast-days.

Paul only did those things around Jews as a concession so that no one would be distracted from the gospel of Jesus Christ. But when people started insisting on these things, as in the book of Galatians, Paul fought back tooth and nail. He berated Peter for forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews (Galatians 2:14), something the HRM is most definitely advocating. In chapter 3, Paul says that the works of the law do not justify anyone. For anyone who relies on the works of the law (and the HRM definitely relies on the works of the law) they are under a curse, for perfection is required (Galatians 3:10). The law was a guardian until Christ came (3:24), which is no longer required as a guardian (3:25) because Christ has come. In chapter 5, Paul says that if they accept circumcision as a requirement, then Christ is useless to them.

It is important to notice here that when Paul is saying these things about the law, he is not abrogating the Ten Commandments. After all, Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, quite clearly states their continual application. Paul himself in chapter 5 will go on to list a bunch of sins on the one hand, and a bunch of virtues on the other, that are required to be walking in the Spirit. They all have to do with the moral law, and none of them have to do with the ceremonial law.

In Galatians 6, Paul says that the real motivation for these ceremonial law-keepers is that they want to boast in the flesh (6:13). Paul says that he wants to boast in something different: the cross of Jesus Christ. He explicitly says that circumcision counts for nothing (6:15). If there is never any change whatsoever in the OT law (which is what the HRM claims), then why is circumcision declared by Paul to be counting for nothing? Is circumcision the only thing that counts for nothing? Or is circumcision the symbolic issue that stands for the ceremonial law of the OT? Surely it is the latter.

About these ads

330 Comments

  1. greenbaggins said,

    December 17, 2013 at 10:55 am

    I never feel more sympathetic to the NPP as when I am discussing the HRM.

  2. proregno said,

    December 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    See also 1 Corinthians 7:17-20 in this regard,

    17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.
    18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.
    19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.
    20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

    If you are called (i.e. came to faith) as a Jew, be a Christian Jew.
    If you are called as an American, be a Christian American.
    If you are called as a Zulu, be a Christian Zulu.
    If you are called as an Afrikaner, be a Christian Afrikaner,
    etc.

  3. Pete Rambo said,

    December 17, 2013 at 11:34 pm

    Lane,

    Your false presupposition and the resultant mis-characterization of Paul as a lying, schizophrenic, hypocrite are appalling.

    Before addressing the passage in question, we should be reminded of Paul’s testimony of himself,

    I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets… (Acts 24:14)… I have committed NO offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple… (25:8)… If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die… (25:11)… I had done NOTHING against our people or the customs of our fathers…there was NO ground for putting me to death.” (28:17-18)

    We should be reminded of Paul’s actions,

    We sailed from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread… (Acts 20:6)…for he (Paul) was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost. (20:16) Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.. (Acts 21:26)

    We should be reminded of the Apostle James’ testimony of Paul,

    “[Thousands of Jews in Jerusalem who believed and were 'zealous for the law'] have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs….Therefore, do this…so that all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.” (Acts 21:20-24)

    Those verses alone put to rest any idea that Paul considered parts of the Torah of Moses to be ‘negotiable.’ James, Luke and Paul have to be liars for any other option.

    What you fail to consider is that there was an oral tradition that is NOT written into the Law of Moses. That is the very type of tradition that Yeshua spoke against in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 (hand washing), Matthew 12 (picking a few heads of grain), dining with sinners, speaking to the Samaritan woman, etc.. It is the very tradition that Paul set aside when spending time among the Gentiles, but was sensitive to when among the Jews.

    J.K.McKee, in his excellent work, The New Testament Validates Torah states on page 313,

    1 Corinthians commentators across the board, whose position on the validity of the Torah in the post-resurrection era tends to be more negative than positive, rightly recognize that the main thrust of 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 is Paul’s self-identification with a variety of audiences who will encounter his selfless ministry service for the Lord Yeshua. In the view of Hays, “Paul represents himself as the conciliator, seeking to overcome some cultural and ethnic divisions in order to bring people of all sorts into the community of faith.” (Hays, 1 Corinthians, 153.) J. Paul Sampley further concludes, “As Paul depicts his evangelistic efforts, his voluntary slavery to all involves a fundamental and exemplary accommodation to people as and where he finds them. (Sampley, in NIB, 10:907)

    He continues on pg. 316,

    Trying to understand the worldview and perspectives of those who are completely ignorant of God’s Torah, does not mean that a minister of the gospel like Paul all of a sudden becomes lawless and unrighteous… thinking that Apostle Paul significantly altered his behavior around different groups could see him not only legitimately accused of being a disloyal Jew, but also having dishonorable motives to others in proclaiming the Messiah.

    No, Lane, your presupposition is false and it leads to a gross mis-characterization of Paul.

    I would recommend the Pauline Paradox series to have a more balanced view of the Apostle who said, ‘Imitate me as I imitate Messiah.’

    When I have a chance, I’ll reply to the several false accusations you make against the “HRM.”

    Whoever then annuls one of the least of the commandments, and teaches others the same, shall be least in the kingdom of heaven…

    A warning worth heeding.

    Shalom.

  4. greenbaggins said,

    December 17, 2013 at 11:52 pm

    Peter, I was not aware that I was characterizing Paul as a lying, schizophrenic hypocrite. Kindly do not put words in my mouth that I did not say, for that is breaking the ninth commandment. You like the Old Testament law, but apparently not that commandment. If you believe that my interpretation of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians conflicts with other words in Paul, you are free to say and believe that. But I believe that Paul is a truth-telling, non-schizophrenic, non-hypocrite, the exact opposite of what you say I believe.

    Secondly, as I have mentioned on more than one occasion, I believe in every single word of the OT, and that every single word in the OT applies to us today. I just do not believe that those laws apply in the same way now as they did then, while I still believe that every word of the OT law applies today. Your presupposition is that if someone believes that any law changes in its application, then they are abrogating it. This is not true, or else it would be true of Paul’s view of circumcision, which he says counts for nothing now. Or would you force Gentiles to become circumcised, as well? What do you believe about circumcision, by the way, and how would you relate it to Paul’s teaching in Galatians? The law of circumcision is still invaluable in teaching us about Jesus being cut off from His people. It is an invaluable teaching tool in the OT, but if you force Gentiles to become circumcised, then you fall under Paul’s condemnation as a heretic. Would you force Gentiles to be circumcised? And would you admit that Paul is saying that there is any change whatsoever in the law of circumcision?

    As to 1 Corinthians 9, your interpretation seems to be that he behaved like a Jew at all times, whereas Paul specifically says that he did not do so around Gentiles. You haven’t addressed the specific points of exegesis I raised. Instead you bring in other passages that may or may not be related without arguing as to the specific sense of them, or how they prove your point. We have this trouble in communicating all the time.

    Your anger and hostility in your comment seems a fair indication that you have no answer for the specific points that I raised. Hitting close to home, am I? Signing your post “shalom” seems a bit forced to me.

  5. Connie E said,

    December 18, 2013 at 12:44 am

    I have a few questions. You seem to be very hard on the HRM. Can you tell me what you have against God’s Torah (instruction/teaching) or find false in the Prophets? Or Y’shua/Jesus statements? For if what you say is right about Paul and Jesus is wrong in Matt 5:17-19 shouldn’t you be called a Paulian instead of a Christian since Paul would supersede Him? Can you tell me what Jesus called Himself when He spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus when He spoke in Hebrew? Can you tell me what day is the proper Sabbath? Or what feast days we are suppose to keep? Can you tell me what days we are going to keep in the Millennium? Can you tell me what Torah/Law is going to go forth from Mt. Zion? Please, I would like some honest answers. So please let it be verified by the Word of God. Maybe we could start by going through Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Micah. Let’s not forget James and Revelations. And let’s please pick up all of Psalms 119. That should be a good start. For we know by Deut. don’t we, that Jesus has to support the Written Word or He couldn’t have been verified as The Messiah they were to look for. Isn’t that the way you understand it? I sure hope you do and He is! For He is The Hope I have put my Faith and Trust in to be The True Messiah Of Israel. I Iove Him and have given Him by life and will serve all the days of my life and for eternity. I am so thankful to be forgiven and be washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb. Aren’t you? And if we love one another we show we are His disciplined ones.

  6. Jason Loh said,

    December 18, 2013 at 6:38 am

    “Whoever then annuls one of the least of the commandments, and teaches others the same, shall be least in the kingdom of heaven.”

    Indeed, as Lane has said, the Law is not abrogated or annulled. For to abrogate or annul the Law is to set the Law aside completely. The Law then is precisely annulled when the *inward* faith and the *outward* obedience do not match (i.e. “FAITH working through love”). Hence the subsequent verses of Matthew 5.

    Where faith (alone) does not honour God, the Law is abrogated or annulled.

    “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

  7. greenbaggins said,

    December 18, 2013 at 9:07 am

    Connie, I am hard on the HRM because it is the Judaizing heresy that Paul condemned. My view is not opposed in any way to Matthew 5, because Jesus is not saying there what the HRM thinks He is saying. Again, you need to understand that a change in the law does not equal abrogation of that law. I gave an example in my previous comment about circumcision. Jesus can change the law, since He is the lawgiver.

  8. Pete Rambo said,

    December 18, 2013 at 9:27 am

    @ Lane,

    You haven’t addressed the specific points of exegesis I raised. Instead you bring in other passages that may or may not be related without arguing as to the specific sense of them, or how they prove your point.

    I don’t need to address it. I’ve already demonstrated that your eisegetical approach regarding Paul’s attitude toward ‘ceremonial law’ (reading into the verses something that is not there, even though you desperately want to see it there) is demonstrably false when informed by multiple witnesses and passages. Paul said, “I have committed NO offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple… (25:8)… If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die… (25:11)… I had done NOTHING against our people or the customs of our fathers…” What part of ‘NO offense’ do you not understand?

    James said, “you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.” Simple math.

    As to your comments on circumcision. You may want to re-read Romans 4. Paul clearly teaches in a midrash that Abraham was justified BEFORE circumcision. Next, see Acts 15:1-21 for the stage to be set for this very discussion pertaining to new Gentile believers,

    Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” … But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

    They were making circumcision a salvation issue.

    James’ final decision was,

    they abstain from [a]things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since [b]he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

    In order to enter fellowship the Gentile believers had to fulfill four basic requirements, all dealing with abstention from cult worship/harlotry, and then they were to Learn Moses (Torah) IN the synagogue
    ON the Sabbath.

    On the singular issue of circumcision, Paul sees this as a dividing point between Jew and Gentile. In fact, as previously quoted, Acts 21:21 clearly tells us that the report that Paul was teaching against circumcising Jewish children was patently false!

    The law of circumcision is still invaluable in teaching us about Jesus being cut off from His people.

    This is a false use of the image of circumcision, unless you can demonstrate a verse showing that the foreskin gets re-attached at a later date.

    Scripture clearly teaches that Messiah will be king over the House of Israel and the House of Judah, he will reign from Jerusalem, and they will walk in Torah. Ezekiel 37:15-18; 36:10-12, 26-36; Isaiah 2:1-5; Jeremiah 31:31-37; and a hundred other verses. Messiah will be King over physical Israel (and those grafted in) or the Word of the Lord means nothing.

    Hopefully, someone else has the time to address your 9th Commandment accusation, because your OP has a paragraph about the “HRM” that is chock full of falsehood and misrepresentation… Almost made my head explode.

    And no, it is not forced. I have great peace.

    Shalom!

  9. Pete Rambo said,

    December 18, 2013 at 9:39 am

    @ Jason,

    Indeed, as Lane has said, the Law is not abrogated or annulled. For to abrogate or annul the Law is to set the Law aside completely.

    Lane agrees with and upholds a tradition known as the Westminster Confession of Faith. Paragraph 19.3 says,

    All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.

    Equivocate on ‘abrogate,’ but that’s what it says.

    Speaking of ‘equivocating,’ that seems to be a common thing in Christendom. It is the only way to make sense of Paul if you believe parts of the Law are ‘abrogated.’

    Shalom!

  10. John McNeely said,

    December 18, 2013 at 10:30 am

    The biggest issue the HRM faces is their paradigm cannot account for Paul’s teaching against circumcision. If you will remember circumcision according to the Law of Moses was to be perpetual. It was important enough to God in the Old Covenant that He intended to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. Exodus 4. The implications of the HRM are far reaching. The most heretical is that it minimizes the creation changing effect of Christ’s death burial and resurrection. The whole movement is found to be ridiculous when one considers the fact that their stated goal of honoring the Torah is impossible. All of the ceremonial law was tied to the temple. They do no better in honoring the Torah than any evangelical christian because the temple has been destroyed. Their feeble attempts to observe the feasts, dietary laws, and Jewish customs pale in comparison to what we see commanded in the Torah.

    Based on my experience with people in the HRM it appears to me to be a distraction from preaching the gospel and loving the body of Christ. These people try to convince themselves and others of their superior holiness because they observe the Torah more faithfully than other christians. They focus on these distractions rather than preaching the Gospel and loving the Body. I know of a few men in the movement who seem to do what Paul was doing in becoming a Jew to win Jews. However most of the men I have encountered tend to either end up denying the Gospel, claiming that Paul was a perverter of Christ’s teachings, or distracted by feast observance to the exclusion of the Gospel and love for the body.

    Lane, good job on your critique of this horrible doctrine.

  11. Timothy said,

    December 18, 2013 at 11:10 am

    Very well done. I’m glad to see that this movement is being exposed for what it is. As I wrote one friend, it has all the trappings of a new cult, with its gnostic teaching, in the sense that they, the HRM, are the only ones who have real truth. Plus, the resistances by the rest of the church gives them the feeling they are being persecuted, instead of what they really are being: rebuked. Keep up the good work.

  12. michael said,

    December 18, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Maybe I’m missing something here? Last time and many other times before when I read Matthew 5-7 the conviction level went off the charts! Under Moses Law I had to actually kill the guy or sleep with his wife! Now just thinking about doing either is troubling!

    I suppose that’s why Paul wrote this to Timothy?:

    1 Tim. 1:5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
    6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion,
    7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
    8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
    9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
    10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[fn] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[fn] doctrine,
    11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

    Maybe the one thing that seems some of you are missing when thinking about Lane’s article is the portion of this verse found in Galatians 5?

    Gal. 5: 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

    What I’m taking from Lane’s article, well done in my opinion, is how we enhance the Torah with the fruit of the Spirit, seeing His fruit has no prohibition attached to it?

    “AGAINST SUCH THINGS THERE IS NO LAW.”

    I believe this explains reasonably why we see this being written about in the book of the Revelation to John:

    Rev. 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, “Great and amazing are your deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your ways, O King of the nations!
    4 Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”

  13. Mark B said,

    December 18, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    ” I am hard on the HRM because it is the Judaizing heresy that Paul condemned.”
    This is the essential point here. The cwaga types ask “what’s the harm?”, but this error must be opposed by ministers of the gospel because God in his Word, through the apostle Paul, condemns it.

  14. Mark B said,

    December 18, 2013 at 8:37 pm

    Thank you for the quote from 1 Timothy, Michael.

  15. Jason Loh said,

    December 19, 2013 at 1:19 am

    Dear Pete (re#9),

    It is clear from Matthew 5 that natural law, i.e. the law is common to humanity (and republished and recapitulated *contextually* in the form of the 10 Commandments in Exodus) takes priority over ceremonial law. I mean Jesus wasn’t alluding to ceremonial law at all in Matthew 5.

    The Sermon on the Mount says nothing about ceremonial law which is the excusive preserve of the Jews but an ethics which is applicable to *all.*

    As an aside and digression, as a Lutheran who follows Luther rather than the Book of Concord, I would go further than the WCF and hold that the Law per se is abrogated coram Deo (Romans 10:4) and simultaneously turned upside down and upheld coram hominibus (“the law of Christ”).

    As Luther wrote in his Heidelberg Disputation, the “… law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.” The 10 Commandments, then, were not *originally* given for us in our pursuit or quest of our righteousness but for the sake of the neighbour.

    In the sight of God, the Law can only be fulfilled by faith alone. For the distinction between Law and Gospel shows that the Law not only claims our works but our *whole person*. Our obedience, therefore, adds nothing to (neither complementing nor supplementing) our faith – which is purely a gift of God, i.e. the Creator’s re-creation of the New Adam/ New Eve. IOW, just as the old creation was created out of nothing, out of sheer goodness, likewise the new creation is created out of nothing, out of sheer goodness.

  16. Pete Rambo said,

    December 19, 2013 at 8:03 pm

    Jason,

    Several items of consideration:

    Matthew 5:17 and 18 refer to ALL the Law and the Prophets. And, that which He gave at Mt. Sinai is not the “exclusive preserve” of the Jews. I believe ALL Israel, composed of Hebrews and the ‘mixed multitude’ that came out of Egypt (the alien and the stranger sojourning with them?), stood at the mountain.

    Nowhere have I ever said that salvation comes from keeping the Law. Keeping the Law should be a result of salvation. A heart for the King will do what the King wants. A disciple is disciplined. Torah is the standard. It measured and validated our Messiah and if we ‘walk as He walked,’ then we should, by the power of the Spirit seek to walk it out as well as possible.

    Your last paragraph smacks of antinomian excuses for not even trying to be obedient. When was the last time you read Psalm 1:2-3; 19:7-14; or Psalm 119 that begins with glorious words, “How blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the Torah of Yahweh…”

    Ezekiel 36:26-27: “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances….” vs. 36: “I, Yahweh, have spoken and will do it!”

    Sounds like more than the Ten Commandments. (Of course, Yeshua highlighted two Torah commandments and said, “On these two hang ALL the Law AND the Prophets.”

  17. Pete Rambo said,

    December 19, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    John, (#10)

    If Paul really taught about circumcision what you think, then why in Acts 21:21-24 does James the Just make it clear that Paul was NOT teaching the Jews to forsake circumcising their children. If the Law was done away with, shouldn’t Jewish believers in Yeshua have been ‘delivered’ from this practice? In fact, in vs. 20, it says the Jewish converts were ‘zealous for the Torah!’

    Now, for an even more interesting passage… The latter half of Ezekiel is unfulfilled prophecy about the Millennial Temple. 44:9 says, “Thus says Adonai Yahweh, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary.” By deduction, any foreigner who is among the sons of Israel who will enter the future sanctuary will be circumcised in heart AND flesh….

    I don’t claim to fully understand the implications, but if the King is obedient to the Father (Ez. 37:24-28), then I expect Deuteronomy 17:18-20 to tell us exactly how He will handle the circumcision question…

    You might also be challenged by J.K. McKee’s ‘The New Testament Validated Torah.’ He answers your questions.

    BTW, do we know each other? (I know a pilot from Africa by the same name.)

    Shalom.

  18. Ron said,

    December 19, 2013 at 11:06 pm

    Lane,

    Good post.

    Amen, Timothy re:11, but IMHO it doesn’t just have the makings of a cult. It is a cult. Maybe you were just being gracious. :)

    There are some babes in Christ (mostly women) being swept away by this other gospel in an area we vacate to each year. Very sad, but let’s be of good cheer. The Lord’s sheep hear his voice and follow Him.

  19. Connie E said,

    December 19, 2013 at 11:32 pm

    When the Torah/law was given, wasn’t it a Covenant? In fact wasn’t it a Marriage Covenant? Weren’t they ask if they accepted it? They all said, Yes, didn’t they. My understanding of covenant is that Yhwh’s Covenants were never done away with/abrogated but were just added to/enhanced. Is that right? Isn’t that like the vows we make when we get married and say ‘I do’? Or am I wrong and it would be permissible/agreeable for your wives to have other lovers and you would still support them??? As I recall in the Word it is said in the OT and the NT something like I AM THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY, AND FOREVER and I CHANGE NOT. We sure seem to be trying to change God’s mind a lot. What is the bad thing about obeying our Father because we are so grateful He gave us His Son!!!! Maybe it is time to reevaluate some of these thoughts and teachings. I know it takes some humbling.to admit we are/could be wrong. BUT, maybe/just maybe there is some Truth to this? You wouldn’t want to lead others astray would you? Or maybe down the road you find as the wise man said of the disciples ‘better leave these men alone or you might find you are fighting GOD’ ‘that if is false it will die out’. Remember that part? Wise thought wasn’t it?

  20. Ron said,

    December 19, 2013 at 11:44 pm

    Connie,

    Are you in leadership at your “church”? If not, then maybe you might ask your spiritual leaders these questions. If these aren’t really questions you have but just your way of arguing, then please say so. I don’t argue with women.

  21. Connie E said,

    December 19, 2013 at 11:49 pm

    I have some age on me. I’m not a ‘babe in christ’. I do not argue the Word. It should be thought provoking. Not anger/argue provoking. Isn’t that what the Word is to be used for. Correct, rebuke, provoke, encourage, and all righteousness?

  22. Ron said,

    December 19, 2013 at 11:58 pm

    When I say argue, I don’t mean fight. I mean argue. It’s a technical term.

  23. Ron said,

    December 20, 2013 at 12:04 am

    BTW, do you believe in the catholic doctrine of Trinity. Simply answer yes or no. Just curious.

  24. John McNeely said,

    December 20, 2013 at 12:22 am

    Pete, we have the clear teaching of Paul that forbids the Galatians from getting circumcised. The clear context of Acts is one of the points Lane makes in this post. That context is Paul being like a Jew to win or “keep” Jews. In the case of Acts 21 it was weaker brothers who were zealous for the Law. Neither James or Paul wanted to be a stumbling block for the believers. Notice all of this in Acts required the temple. Not too long after this event the temple was destroyed. With the temple being destroyed in accordance with God’s decree these believers would have to mature in the faith. Your reference to various prophecies of the Old Covenant does not help your case. There are many prophecies from the Old Covenant that do not fit into the clear teaching of the New Covenant. Many are not even possible because the temple has been destroyed. This is why we use the New to interpret the Old. It appears there are times when God is giving revelation that He frames it in language the immediate audience would understand. In the case of Ezekiel He is speaking to them in a way they would understand

    I looked at your blog and noticed an observation you had where you tried to show what you believed to be a contradiction in christian theology. You mention Israel was sent into bondage when they didn’t obey the Torah and when they did obey they were free. Then you characterize christians as believing the Law is bondage and we are free when we do not obey. When you read the prophets they continually indict Israel for not obeying the moral aspects of the law. They also condemn Israel for their treatment of the poor. I cannot think of a place where He condemns them for not observing the feasts. As a matter of fact, I remember God specifically telling them He was tired of their assemblies and feasts because they were neglecting the weightier portions of the Law. When Jesus tells us in the sermon on the mount that not one jot will fall from the Law until all is accomplished He then says whoever relaxes the least of THESE commandments shall be called least in the Kingdom. He then spends the rest of the sermon illustrating and explaining the commandments He was referring to. Those commandments were the moral parts of the 10 commandments. Incidentally these were the very Laws Israel was continually breaking causing them to be judged and thrown into exile.

    Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection fulfilled all the ceremonial parts of the Law. They were not abrogated. They pointed to Christ and since He has come they have been fulfilled in Him for eternity. When you go back to practicing this part of the Law you communicate that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient. The fact is you are as disobedient to the ceremonial laws of the Torah as every other evangelical christian. All the ceremonial laws were wrapped up with the temple. It is impossible to obey them without the temple. I do not believe we were “delivered” from the Law. I believe every jot is still binding not just for the christian but the world. The ceremonial parts of the law specifically pointed to Christ and now that He has come have been fulfilled. Since we are recommending books I would recommend Greg Bahnsen’s “Theonomy in Christian Ethics”.

    BTW no we do not know each other. I have never been to Africa.

    Peace

  25. Jason Loh said,

    December 20, 2013 at 1:33 am

    Dear Pete,

    Speaking as a Bondage of the Will Lutheran, I’d submit that God doesn’t need our observance of the Law, especially the ceremonial law. We observe the Law for the sake of our neighbour (not for our personal quest to please God). We can only please God by faith and faith alone.

    Doesn’t Hebrews 11:6 say “[For] without faith it is impossible to please him …”?

    >> When was the last time you read Psalm 1:2-3; 19:7-14; or Psalm 119 that begins with glorious words, “How blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the Torah of Yahweh…”<>Ezekiel 36:26-27: “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances….” vs. 36: “I, Yahweh, have spoken and will do it!” Sounds like more than the Ten Commandments. <<

    Yes, we observe Yahweh's statutes for the sake of the neighbour (Matthew 5).

    St Paul says of the Law that is good, holy, and just …

    Romans 7:

    "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

    For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

    So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

    *Wherefore*, my brethren, ye *also* are become *dead* to the *law* by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

    For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

    But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in NEWNESS of spirit, and not in the OLDNESS of the letter (i.e. the distinction between Law and Gospel in, with and under the distinction between the OT and NT).

    What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence (the lust for self-righteousness). For without the law sin was dead.

    For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

    And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

    For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me."

    To repeat Luther in his Heidelberg Disputation: The “… law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.”

    Gal 2:19
    "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God."

    Gal 5:6
    "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."

  26. Jason Loh said,

    December 20, 2013 at 1:50 am

    Gal 5:6
    “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

    That is, love for the neighbour.

  27. Jason Loh said,

    December 20, 2013 at 1:56 am

    Dear Connie,

    “As I recall in the Word it is said in the OT and the NT something like I AM THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY, AND FOREVER and I CHANGE NOT.”

    The sameness of God refers to His *promise* (and never the Law).

    Hebrews 6:

    13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

    14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

    15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

    16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

    17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

    18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

    19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

    20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even JESUS, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

    Our relationship to God is only on through Christ alone, not the Law.

    Mal 3:6
    “For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”

    Romans 9:

    “1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

    2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

    3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

    4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

    5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

    6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

    7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

    8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

    9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

    10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

    11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

    12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

    13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

    14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

    15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

    16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

    17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

    18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”

  28. Jason Loh said,

    December 20, 2013 at 2:01 am

    Hebrews 13:

    8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

    9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with *grace*; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

    10 We have an altar, whereof they (i.e. for those who) have *no* right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

    11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

    12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered *without* the gate.

    13 Let us go forth therefore unto him *without* the camp, bearing his reproach.”

    According to the Jewish writer of the Hebrews, Yeshua died as ceremonially impure/ outcast in a most ceremonially impure fashion — the Cross negates everything about ceremonial law — for Christ was numbered amongst the transgressors and was made sin for us.

  29. jjarjw said,

    December 20, 2013 at 3:24 am

    Jason,
    “The sameness of God” as you put it, refers to EVERYTHING in regards to God. God is a balanced, consistent and fair God…our ONLY judge. If God’s sameness is only in regards to his promise then it’s ok for everyone to go out and covet, commit adultery, murder, break the sabbath, etc etc. I will stick with God being the same in all respects.

    A side note: Since you follow the teachings of Luther (and not the Scriptures??) well…pretty sure Luther’s teachings do not and never will trump the WHOLE of the Scriptures. Ever read Luther’s 95 Theses??

  30. Pete Rambo said,

    December 20, 2013 at 10:46 am

    John (#24),

    There are many prophecies from the Old Covenant that do not fit into the clear teaching of the New Covenant. Many are not even possible because the temple has been destroyed. This is why we use the New to interpret the Old. It appears there are times when God is giving revelation that He frames it in language the immediate audience would understand. In the case of Ezekiel He is speaking to them in a way they would understand

    This sounds like a perfect justification for the false doctrine called Replacement Theology. Sorry, but those Old Testament prophecies you can’t account for WILL be fulfilled. Count on it! Let God be true and every man a liar.

    The way Thomas Jefferson dealt with the passages he couldn’t explain in the Gospels was to use a pen knife on his Bible… Surely that is not what you imply by declaring some Old Testament prophecies don’t make sense to you.

    I remember God specifically telling them He was tired of their assemblies and feasts because they were neglecting the weightier portions of the Law.

    No, He was tired of them doing the feasts while acting wickedly and thinking it was okay. The feasts and sacrifices weren’t evil, nor were they the problem. The problem was unrepentant hearts worshipping in the manner they desired… Read the rest of the prophets and you will see pagan syncretism is what ticked off Yahweh. Not unlike the traditions employed by Roman Catholic Protestantism.

    Prophecy, over and over, declares that the Torah will go forth from Zion. Torah will be written on our hearts. (Read the ‘new’ [actually, 'renewed'] Covenant very carefully. Who is it with? What will it do? What is the sign of its fulfillment? Ahhh… Not with the Gentiles. Not fulfilled. Yet.)

    Malachi 4!

  31. Pete Rambo said,

    December 20, 2013 at 11:04 am

    Jason Loh (#25),

    Doesn’t Hebrews 11:6 say “[For] without faith it is impossible to please him …”?

    And your point is?

    Abel offered.
    Enoch walked.
    Noah built.
    Abraham obeyed.
    etc.

    James, “Faith without works is dead.”

    You are under the false impression that I do what I do because I think I will be saved by it.

    No, I do what I do BECAUSE I have been saved BY HIM! “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” Lane already pointed out that HE is the Lawgiver, though he wrongly assumes that the Lawgiver would start changing the terms of the covenant… a capital offense in ancient near east covenants (if I remember correctly).

    Paul, “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Absolutely NOT! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”

    As I have said before, we fail to realize that in Galatians, Paul is addressing the attempted use of oral tradition, which Pharisaical Jews thought carried More weight than the Torah, as a means of salvation.

    Peter, in 2 Peter 3:14-17 says the misuse/twisting of Paul leads to lawLESSness, not lawFULLness.

    Hmmm… Does your approach to Paul lead to a fulfilling of the Torah, or of abolishing the Torah?

  32. John McNeely said,

    December 20, 2013 at 11:17 am

    Pete, you said, “Sorry, but those Old Testament prophecies you can’t account for WILL be fulfilled” Your paradigm cannot account for them. You are as disobedient to the Torah as the roman catholics and protestants. It is impossible for you to obey the ceremonial laws. I do not have a problem dealing with the prophecies of the Old Covenant because I look at how Christ and the apostles interpreted them.The prophecies were fulfilled in a way your paradigm cannot give an account. The Jews expected Christ to restore the kingdom of Israel. When you try to interpret the prophecies that literally you fall into the same false doctrines that enabled the pharisees to instigate the crucifixion of Christ and kill the apostles.

  33. John McNeely said,

    December 20, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    Pete, you also said, “No, He was tired of them doing the feasts while acting wickedly and thinking it was okay. The feasts and sacrifices weren’t evil, nor were they the problem.”

    I never said the feast were evil. I was merely pointing to the fact that God’s reason for exiling Israel had nothing to do with ceremonial laws. God does distinguish between the Laws of the Old Covenant. This is clear in Christ’s rebuke of the pharisees and Hebrews.If you want a good biblical perspective on the Law and its application in the New Covenant you should read Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomy. We must interpret the Old Testament Laws and prophecies through the lens of the New Covenant. If you do not you fall into the same errors of the Jews in Christ’s day who believed the kingdom Christ came to inaugurate is the nation state of Israel. Hebrews 7-9 makes it clear the sacrifices of the Old Covenant law are done forever. if these fell away, which was a significant portion of the ceremonial law, it follows that the ceremonies that were ordered around the sacrifices were also done forever. We must then use this lens to interpret the prophecies that speak of sacrifice and feast observance. These have been fulfilled perpetually in Christ. The ceremonial laws were good. they were instituted by God for a purpose. That purpose was fulfilled in Christ. Indeed Lane is correct, this is the nail in the coffin to the HRM. All your posturing about obeying the Torah through feast observance, all your claims that christian do not honor the Torah through feast observance, and all your intentional conflation of the distinctions in the Torah between the ceremonial laws and the rest is false doctrine and misrepresenting the clear teaching of the New Covenant. Your feast observance is not in accordance with the clear teaching of the Old Covenant. You are more disobedient to the ceremonial portions of the Torah than Christians, Hebrews is clear in how those laws are to be obeyed. They are obeyed in trusting in Christ’s once and for all sacrifice.

  34. Pete Rambo said,

    December 20, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    John (#31, 32),

    You are as disobedient to the Torah as the roman catholics and protestants. It is impossible for you to obey the ceremonial laws.

    I addressed this in part on my blog yesterday and much earlier today.

    Previously you said (and I assume it is a major presupposition for your argument against any feast observance in our day),

    All the ceremonial laws were wrapped up with the temple. It is impossible to obey them without the temple.

    There are plenty of parts of ‘ceremonial law’ (your distinction, not mine) evident in Genesis being ‘fulfilled’ without a temple.

    Gen. 4:4 ‘Abel brought of the firstlings and the fat portions…’
    Gen. 7:2 Noah knew the distinction between clean and unclean animals (for food and sacrifice)
    Gen. 9:4 Noah instructed not to eat the blood
    Gen. 19:3 Lot, on the evening before he is rescued in a Passover-type scenario, he fed the angels a ‘feast’ that included ‘unleavened bread.’ (Tradition teaches it was the 15th of Nissan and a foreshadow of Israel in Egypt.)

    Simple fact, many parts of the ceremonial law can be fulfilled without a temple. Those that can’t were addressed indirectly in yesterday’s post, previously linked.

    Plenty more examples of other aspects of the Torah later codified at Sinai and recorded by Moshe.

    Your summary of Hebrews 7-9 fails at 8:4. “Now, if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;” Yep, thirty years after the resurrection, the author of Hebrews declares that ‘lawful sacrifice’ was being made. (Kinda fits with Paul offering sacrifice in the temple in Acts 21:26, dontcha think?)

    In fact, Hebrews is not about sacrifice. It is about a better Cohen Hagadol (High Priest). Yeshua is a better sacrifice, and a better High Priest, but He did not make any covenant obsolete. He strengthened and renewed it in His own blood. Notice the direct quote of Jeremiah 31:31-34 which in vss 35-36 Yahweh goes on to seal with the promise that for it to fail, heaven and earth have to fail! Sounds like Matthew 5:18!!

    As to prophecy, none are contingent with different optional endings… They were and are promises of God. If your God can make promises, then change His mind, you have a problem, because any promise you stand on is subject to change.

    Messiah ben Joseph, the Suffering Servant has come, Messiah ben David, will come. All those prophecies will be fulfilled. Make no mistake. Denying that is a false doctrine.

    Time for Shabbat. I’ll see you on the other side.

    Blessings.

  35. John McNeely said,

    December 20, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    Pete said,”There are plenty of parts of ‘ceremonial law’ (your distinction, not mine) evident in Genesis being ‘fulfilled’ without a temple.”

    We have a lot more revelation since Genesis explaining how the ceremonial laws were to be observed. If after the giving of the more specific revelation someone tried to observe the feast differently than was specifically prescribed they would have been cast out from the people. This more specific revelation has been given and you are more disobedient than the rest of christianity with respect to the torah because you ignore Galatians and Hebrews.

    you also said, “Your summary of Hebrews 7-9 fails at 8:4. “Now, if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;” Yep, thirty years after the resurrection, the author of Hebrews declares that ‘lawful sacrifice’ was being made. (Kinda fits with Paul offering sacrifice in the temple in Acts 21:26, dontcha think?)”

    If you take one verse as your proof text you can twist scripture to fit nearly anything. The fact is the clear teaching of that portion of Hebrews is that the whole ceremonial system is fading away. Which happened in AD70 with the destruction of the temple. The “according to the law” was not an endorsement of its continuity. The author of hebrews doesn’t use the term lawful sacrifice. He goes to great lengths to demonstrate the uselessness of that whole system now that the messiah has come.

  36. Connie E said,

    December 20, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    Ron, I never heard of ‘catholic doctrine of trinity’. Maybe you could explain. By the way, no one has answered any of my questions. Is there a problem? Will have to see what this doctrine is.

  37. Don said,

    December 21, 2013 at 12:15 am

    Connie E #19,

    When the Torah/law was given, wasn’t it a Covenant? In fact wasn’t it a Marriage Covenant? … Or am I wrong and it would be permissible/agreeable for your wives to have other lovers … ???

    Yes, yes it would be permissible if I were dead and she were a widow (not that I could be agreeable or supportive). I can’t tell if you’re arguing for, against, or in ignorance of the first few verses of Romans 7. Verse 6 concludes: “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.”

    Peter Rambo #30 and elsewhere, please note the “of the written code” in the verse, or translated elsewhere “of the letter.” Paul is not referring to the oral tradition here.

  38. Mark B said,

    December 21, 2013 at 11:29 am

    @34 “If you take one verse as your proof text you can twist scripture to fit nearly anything.”
    Yes, we need to be reminded of this. When we see Satan speaking directly in Scripture (to Eve in the Garden and to Christ in the wilderness), both times he quotes the word of God, but not in context, and what he adds to it makes it a lie. I would hope that no one would assume that those advocating the Hebraic Roots heresy are being informed by Scripture just because they quote it extensively. Read (the whole book) Hebrews, or especially Galatians, and it becomes clear that this teaching is contrary to God’s word. I recall a seminary professor who likes to say “if you have to put too big a wrench on God’s Word to make it fit your theology, your theology needs to be rethought”. Read a Hebraic Roots commentary on Galatians, or the Hebraic Roots bible “”translation”” of Galatians for an example of this.
    Reminds me of an old joke. A man prayed, “God show me your will”, closed his eyes, opened his Bible, and put his finger down. He read “Judas went and hanged himself”. He thought, “that can’t be what God wants me to do, I’d better try again”, so he did. This time he read “go ye and do likewise”. Now, getting really worried, he quickly did it a third time. This time he read “hurry, and make haste”.

  39. Ron said,

    December 21, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    Connie,

    On God in three distinct persons, a sine qua non for Christian belief. So, do you believe that Jesus is God?

  40. Pete Rambo said,

    December 21, 2013 at 9:45 pm

    Don (#37) and Ron (#39),

    Romans 7…. Nice passage. Paul begins by saying that he is writing to those who know the Torah…. and he is speaking about a specific law. I wrote a bit about that passage a while back that explains a little bit more.

    Another Reason Jesus HAD to Die…

    We also drifted into this passage in my Shabbat message today. Certainly, it will give you a deeper look into exactly what me and my fellowship think of Yeshua as well as His role in connection with Romans 7. May even provide fodder for some of the pastors on here.

    Ron, that message today encapsulates what I believe most mainstream Messianics believe of Yeshua. I can’t speak for all, and certainly not fringe, but it is what I believe and stand by. I can guarantee you will find it interesting.

  41. Pete Rambo said,

    December 21, 2013 at 9:58 pm

    John,

    You’ve used the term ‘paradigm’ a few times. In your paradigm, you admit that some old testament prophecies are unfulfilled and unfulfillable. By definition you have to admit that some of God’s promises to Israel have failed.

    Well, my ‘paradigm’ accounts for every one of those passages. God has no ‘plan B.’ He never had a ‘plan B.’ He will accomplish exactly what He said He would do, exactly as He said He would do it.

    A good overview of ‘my paradigm’ that demonstrates how all Scripture and the prophecies fit, from beginning to end, without replacing Israel, denying the Messiah, or His Torah, can be found in a 119 video.

    The Lost Sheep

    I agree with this video and believe that is how it all fits together… That is the ‘big picture.’ (It also explains why the “HRM” or Messianic movement is growing like crazy. Simply, it is not a ‘man’ thing, but a ‘God’ thing. Why kick against the goads?)

    Shalom!

  42. John McNeely said,

    December 21, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    Pete, you said, “In your paradigm, you admit that some old testament prophecies are unfulfilled and unfulfillable.”

    No I never said that. I was in a hurry when I typed those out so it may have not been clear that I was referring to your view of those prophecies. The point I was making is when you interpret those prophecies in a way contrary to the clear teaching of the New Testament , as you do, they cannot be fulfilled. You cannot even obey the Torah as you try to claim because the temple is destroyed. This is not the first time you have read into what I said or completely missed the point. You also have failed to deal with the exegetical, logical, and practical objections I have raised to your interpretation of scripture. The messianic movement will likely be similar to many other evangelical fads that come and go. The teachings of the HRM lead many to deny Christ. Most of the people I have met or know that have embraced its teaching could easily be characterized as those who get blown around by every wind of doctrine. It will not be long until they are blown by the next new wind of doctrine that tickles their ears.

  43. December 22, 2013 at 12:02 am

    […] myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) […]

  44. Don said,

    December 22, 2013 at 1:12 am

    Pete Rambo 40,

    Romans 7…. Nice passage. Paul begins by saying that he is writing to those who know the Torah…. and he is speaking about a specific law.

    Nice try but no. Apparently you’re claiming that the first instance of “the law” in Romans 7:1 refers to the Torah as a whole, but when “the law” occurs again in verse 1 as well as verses 4, 5, and 6, it means one specific law? I would hope you are not interpreting Scripture that inconsistently. The specific law referenced in verses 2-3, of marriage/widowhood, is used to demonstrate the general principle that the law–the Torah, if you will–only applies to the living.

    I’m not deeply familiar with the HRM but it appears that it depends on “you also have died to the law” in 7:4 and “we are released from the law” in 7:6 meaning something other than “you also have died to the Torah” and “we are released from the Torah;” I’d be interested in hearing how you arrive at that explanation. Note that the version you quote on your blog post has “Law” capitalized in verse 4, meaning the NASB translators clearly think this verse refers to the Torah (or possibly the entire First Testament). On the other hand, if the HRM agrees that believers are dead to the Torah, then I’m not sure why the HRM exists.

  45. Connie E said,

    December 22, 2013 at 1:55 am

    I believe you missed the point about the Marriage Covenant all together. In reading Romans, reading more than a few verses, such as whole chapters you get a better understanding. Rom 6-8. There is a law of sin and death. That was the bondage/slavery issue. How can something that is Holy, Righteous, and Good be bad? Or bondage etc.? If His Torah/Instruction was to be written on our heart would it then have to be ripped out? I do not understand why keeping Yhwh’s Word is so distasteful to you. Y’shua/Jesus did not come to destroy The Word. He Is The Word!!!! John chapter 1. ALL THINGS came through Him. by Him, for Him. He shows us how in an accurate way. He broke down the fences around the fences. Blessed be His Name!!! Guess that gives you an idea where I stand on Who He is. Now, do I get some of my questions answered? I am not here to argue. I would like to hear some honest yearning to seek Truth and not just defending what denominational doctrine or creed says. I am use to talking with others who are hungry to know what the Word says, who Love Him and His Word, and await His coming with longing for Him to reign and to be King, to proclaim His Torah from Mt Zion. My experience has been that when He showed me something in His Word and I wanted to know how it applied to my life and sought Him and was willing no matter what the cost He would show me. That has proven to be very wise. I would suggest to anyone wanting to know God’s Will and Ways to do likewise. I will no longer be a puppet and parrot what man gives me. I will seek the Truth through His Word. Read the Proverbs for the day each morning. Much wisdom there. Be willing to listen to wise men! Be willing to admit you are wrong! No matter what the cost. Amein. Goodnight! Love in Messiah, Connie E

  46. Don said,

    December 22, 2013 at 3:03 am

    Connie E 45,

    reading more than a few verses, such as whole chapters you get a better understanding.

    Now, do I get some of my questions answered?

    With respect, I have read all of Romans more than once. You asked a specific question in comment #19 to which I responded in #37, with a specific Scripture reference (six verses, one quoted). You have replied with generalizations and a broad reference to three of the most theology-heavy chapters in the Bible. There is no way to respond to this. If you care to make a specific response to what I wrote, then perhaps this conversation can progress.

    In the meantime, could you identify for me any specific Scriptures that indicate that the Torah is a marriage contract? I’m asking about the Torah specifically, not a general, poetic description of the relationship between God and Israel and/or Judah (Jeremiah 3:1-10 would work for that). I’m more familiar with the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants being described as suzerainty treaties.

  47. Ron said,

    December 22, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    Connie,

    One God in three distinct persons, a sine qua non for Christian belief. So, do you believe that Jesus is God?

    All,

    If this cannot be affirmed, along with the gospel, then isn’t the rest of this discussion rather incidental? At the very least, it might help to place the larger discussion in a relevant context of “how far outside the historic Christian church are these beliefs?”

  48. Mark B said,

    December 22, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    @ Connie E, 45

    You bring up so many points that it would require a series of posts to answer them, but on the assumption that you are really seeking truth, here’s a perspective on just one. You say:
    ” I do not understand why keeping Yhwh’s Word is so distasteful to you. Y’shua/Jesus did not come to destroy The Word. He Is The Word!!!! ”
    Firstly, assuming that a Christian who disagrees with you finds keeping Gods Word distasteful is not the best way to foster dialogue. Of course, we are all sinners and in our flesh we all desire things which are ungodly, but then that isn’t what you are referring to, is it? Perhaps we just disagree on how to keep God’s word? Yes, Jesus is the Word made flesh (and is also God, as it says in the passage you quoted from John), and yes, he did not come to destroy the Word, but to fulfill it The OT sacrifices and ceremonial parts of the Law were given to point forward to the work of Christ. Christ did not abolish them at all, He fulfilled them. Why do you think that God destroyed the Temple in 70AD? For first century Jewish Christians who realized that Jesus was the Word made flesh, God incarnate, the sacrificial system and the ceremonial law became a shadow that was passing away. However, for the gentiles, and everyone today, observing things that were types and shadows that were to point forward to Christ is an abomination. Observing these things that were made perfect in Christ now is a denial of the finished work of Christ (when Christ said “it is finished” on the cross, why did the veil in the Temple tear in two?) The reason that the HR movement is an utterly detestable heresy is because by trying to observe things that were fulfilled in Christ, they deny the sufficiency of the finished work of Christ, who is the only mediator between God and sinful man. HR must be utterly opposed by all Christians everywhere because it is a rejection of what our Heavenly Father did for us in sacrificing his only Son on our behalf. I realize that there may be some involved in this movement that don’t realize the significance of their error, and who think (erroneously) that they are just trying to do what God wants them to do. To them I would say that even if your thinking on the New Testament has been so clouded by false teachers, please at least consider the Old Testament. Read through the Prophets and count how many times God rebukes the people for observing the ceremonial Law while neglecting to observe the moral Law. And yes, these things were written to those who were to observe the ceremonial law, I make this point so you can see how God views the observation of the law. One more question as food for thought. Why did God strike dead men like the one who tried to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling in the mud when it was returned from the Philistines, or Adab and Nabihu, Aaron’s sons who had dined with the Lord on the mountain, when they offered incense to Him, but considered David, who broke into the Temple with his men and ate the consecrated bread, a man after his own heart?

  49. jjarjw said,

    December 22, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Mark,
    You said, “The reason that the HR movement is an utterly detestable heresy is because by trying to observe things that were fulfilled in Christ, they deny the sufficiency of the finished work of Christ, who is the only mediator between God and sinful man.”

    This statement is ABSOLUTELY FALSE!!! Where you get this idea from is beyond me! Nothing could be further from the truth! You do not worship with or live in the homes of Messianic or Hebrew Roots Believers so you cannot say what we do and do not believe. Again, just like saying all christians adhere to the beliefs and practices of Westboro Baptist Church in KS. You do not speak for our beliefs and practices. We live in a free country where we are free to live, practice, teach, worship as we see fit in our homes, communities, etc.

  50. jjarjw said,

    December 22, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    Torah is a marriage contract/covenant…..http://yahweh.org/publications/articles/torah/the_torah.pdf

  51. Jason Loh said,

    December 23, 2013 at 1:04 am

    Yes, Mark B (et al)! I’m afraid HRM adherents just don’t understand Romans 12 …

    The fruit of faith is NON-ceremonial/ritual/ cultic sacrifice.

  52. Jason Loh said,

    December 23, 2013 at 1:16 am

    Dear jjarjw (re #29)

    >>“The sameness of God” as you put it, refers to EVERYTHING in regards to God. God is a balanced, consistent and fair God…our ONLY judge. If God’s sameness is only in regards to his promise then it’s ok for everyone to go out and covet, commit adultery, murder, break the sabbath, etc etc. I will stick with God being the same in all respects.<<

    Of course not, jjarjw. Otherwise why did God die on the Cross? The death of God presupposes and implies two kinds of relationships. One under the Law; the other under the Gospel. These two Words of God are utterly opposed to each other. "Distinction is opposition." The Gospel is not Law. If it is, it cannot be the Good News. This is why the distinction between Law and Gospel that flows from the Cross negates HRM practices.

    Law demands the whole person. One cannot begin to even hope to conform to the Law imperfectly. "Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect." The Gospel destroys, uproots, demolishes, etc. the Law – its claims – by re-creating the New Adam/ New Eve so that he/she does NOT need the Law. "Justification is APART from the Law" (Gal 2). The Holy Spirit as Lord and Giver of Life (as per the Nicene Creed) and the Law do not mix.

    A side note: Since you follow the teachings of Luther (and not the Scriptures??) well…pretty sure Luther’s teachings do not and never will trump the WHOLE of the Scriptures. Ever read Luther’s 95 Theses??

    Luther's teachings reflect Scripture's way of "thinking" and "doing" – hence the Reformation. Or are you denying that the Reformation was the work of God?

  53. Jason Loh said,

    December 23, 2013 at 1:20 am

    Dear Pete (#31)

    “No, I do what I do BECAUSE I have been saved BY HIM! “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” Lane already pointed out that HE is the Lawgiver, though he wrongly assumes that the Lawgiver would start changing the terms of the covenant… a capital offense in ancient near east covenants (if I remember correctly).”

    But you should not keep the ceremonial law (or parts of it) because Jesus came to save, deliver, etc. you from the ceremonial law. The ceremonial/ ritual law is bondage and represents the bondage of the Old Adam to the Law.

    Galatians 5 (Paul’s “charter of freedom) …

    5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

    2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

    3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

    4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

    5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

    6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

    7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

    8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.

    9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

    10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

    11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

    12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

    13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

    16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

    17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

    18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

  54. Connie E said,

    December 23, 2013 at 1:20 am

    Would it not be difficult to accuse ‘adultery’ or have a need ‘to put away’ if there had not been ‘a Marriage’? Does not Yahweh say He is a ‘husband’? Please tell me how you understand Jer.31:30-33. What is the Torah?(8451Hebrew)or new/renewed(2319,2318,2320H)? Have you ever quoted or heard about the time when ‘they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war any more’ ? Isaiah 2 Micah 4. I heard that for years, but I never heard the rest of it quoted. It says ‘In the last days the mountain of Yahweh’s House will be established in the top of the mountain and will be exalted above the hills and ALL the nations will flow to it. And many people will go and say ‘Come and let us go up to the Mountain of Yahweh to the House of the God of Jacob and HE will teach us HIS WAYS, and WE WILL walk in HIS PATHWAYS: FOR THE TORAH WILL GO OUT from ZION and the WORD of YAHWEH from JERUSALEM. And HE will judge among the nations and will decide among many peoples. AND they will beat their swords into plowshares and their swords into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war any more’. We quote ‘Y’shua is the Way, the Truth, the Life, and that He is the Light, He is the Word’, but divorce Him from the Hebrew definition of what those Words mean. Let’s take off the Greek glasses and go back to Yahweh’s own Word and find the true meaning. They are all right there. I have recommended Ps 119 before. Did you go back and read the whole thing? Let’s go back to Matt. 5:17-19. What does ALL and fulfilled(pleroo) (4137Greek) and do away with mean? Do you ever consider that we ‘see and repeat’ what we hear so many times without reading and thinking for ourselves? Read all His Word and allow yourselves to consider that just maybe you/we learned some things that were not quite correct. Be willing to study from THE SCRIPTURES as the Bereans. You won’t be disappointed. I promise you. This was the reason for my questions!!! Are you willing to prayerfully ‘think for yourself’ and search out the Scriptural Truths? Jesus/Y’shua did not come to start a ‘new religion’.

  55. Jason Loh said,

    December 23, 2013 at 1:28 am

    Dear Pete (#31),

    >>As I have said before, we fail to realize that in Galatians, Paul is addressing the attempted use of oral tradition, which Pharisaical Jews thought carried More weight than the Torah, as a means of salvation.<> Peter, in 2 Peter 3:14-17 says the misuse/twisting of Paul leads to lawLESSness, not lawFULLness. Hmmm… Does your approach to Paul lead to a fulfilling of the Torah, or of abolishing the Torah?<<

    The KJV based on the Textus Receptus based on the Byzantine-text type (*Majority* text) says:

    "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own *destruction.*"

  56. Jason Loh said,

    December 23, 2013 at 1:52 am

    Dear Connie,

    The Torah was never a marriage between Yahweh and His people. But even if it did, it proves too much. For within the OT, Yahweh divorces Israel and at the same time declared that He hates divorce. In the NT, the marriage between the Bridegroom and the Bride is for forever. So, this in itself would negate the HRM’s argument that the Law is for ever (forever) and never changes.

    Romans 7 is not so much about the law concerning divorce and remarriage (although I may be sympathetic to western catholic consensus rather than the Reformation and the WCF traditions on this issue) but an allegory employed by Paul much in the same way as he did in Galatians 4 about one’s relationship to the Law.

    Romans 7 was one of the critical bases from which Luther experienced his Reformation breakthrough in the form of the distinction between the Old and New Adams – the simul iustus et peccator.

    Romans 7: 4 …
    “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”

    Here St Paul clearly and unambiguously says that being united to the Body Christ (which takes place in Baptism: please refer to Romans 6 – we participate in the death and resurrection of Christ) makes us dead unto the Law.

    Romans 7: 6 …
    “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”

    To be delivered from the Law here is equated to being delivered from the *Old* Testament. The OT (if set in distinction from the NT) can only demand and condemn. Such a law can only – ultimately – kill …

    Romans 7: 10-11 …
    “And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.”

    We cannot serve two *Masters* – either Christ is Lord alone or not – all or nothing. The Law is to be used – but not in the sight of God but in the sight of the world.

    Either Jesus alone is the Mediator or the Law is.

    John 1:
    “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”

    John 8:
    “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

  57. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 23, 2013 at 2:58 am

    Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

  58. Jason Loh said,

    December 23, 2013 at 4:30 am

    The purpose of the Law in the OT as given by Moses to Israel was as St Paul clearly says in Galatians 4:

    “1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

    2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

    3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world …”

    To repeat St Paul, the Law in the OT was a schoolmaster (since the Spirit was not yet poured out. The Law then was a pale temporary substitute for the Spirit).

    The Spirit (and faith) and Law (and obedience) do not mix for the New Adam in the sight of God.

    But the purpose of the Law (in its theological use by the Spirit) is to convict of sin and to expose sin for what it is (and thus kill the divine ambitions of the Old Adam) …

    Romans 7:13 …
    “Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”

  59. Jason Loh said,

    December 23, 2013 at 4:44 am

    Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law in order to END the Law.

    Romans 10 …

    “4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

    5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

    6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)

    7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

    8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach …”

    The Cross is not the culmination or climax or apex or paragon of all the ceremonial law and rituals and cultic sacrifices but the very ANTITHESIS thereof. Jesus Christ did not die as a “ritual offering” to God: He died as a pariah, outcast, unclean person numbered amongst the *transgressors.* He died “outside the camp” (Hebrews 13). The author of Hebrews is so bold as to say that Jesus was a high priest after an *outsider* – Melchizedek.

    And thus, by His death on the Cross, the Lord ended the ceremonial the Law for ever.

    Hebrews 7 …

    “12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

    13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

    14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

    15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

    16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

    17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

    18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

    19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

    20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

    21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

    22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”

  60. Jason Loh said,

    December 23, 2013 at 5:16 am

    For the Cross – in violation and opposition to the ceremonial law and the Law as a whole – involved the Sacrificed assuming sin (and hence uncleanness/ impurity). The goal of the Incarnation was not to fulfil the Law end of story but precisely to sin.

    Hebrews 10:
    “5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest NOT, but a body hast thou prepared me:

    6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had NO pleasure.

    7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

    8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest NOT, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the LAW;

    9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He *taketh* away the first, that he may establish the second.

    (So, again, Lane’s absolutely right – in line with Scripture and tradition).

    10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the BODY (i.e. the very, literal, corporeal, incarnate body) of Jesus Christ once for all.”

    The Messiah who is the Subject of Psalm 119 (the whole of Psalms according to Luther is about Christ, not David or the Church – the whole of Psalms are messianic/ christological) also cried “My God, my God, why hast thou *forsaken* me? why art thou *so far* from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?” (Psalm 22).

    The Law attacked the Saviour in all ferocity. All this so that we can be delivered *from* the Law (Romans 7, Romans, 8, Galatians 4, etc.).

    Galatians 3:12 …
    “And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.”

    Romans 6:14
    “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”

    Faith and law do not mix in the sight of God … except the Law kills and the Gospel makes alive and with that faith (= New Adam) is (re)created.

  61. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 23, 2013 at 8:56 am

    Jason, the word end in Romans 10:4 is telos in the Greek and it does not mean end. It means “goal”. Messiah is truly the goal of the Law for every chapter in the Torah speaks of him.

    Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

    The Torah led us to Yeshua much like a tutor or nanny that guides you into adulthood. When you are grown you have no need for the nanny to tell you to brush your teeth, wash your face, etc. because they have become a part of your lifestyle. But you do not discard the things she taught you. So it is with Torah. Now that we have Messiah we do not need the tablets of stone , we have His Word living in us, which was the very purpose of the New Covenant.

    Jer 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
    Jer 31:32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
    Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will WRITE IT ON THEIR HEARTS. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    He says He was their husband. Torah was a marriage covenant. We know this because he even divorced the House of Israel and gave them a bill of divorce.

    I know this is difficult for you to understand. If you seek Him with your whole heart He will show you the truth.

  62. Don said,

    December 23, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    Connie 54,

    Does not Yahweh say He is a ‘husband’? Please tell me how you understand Jer.31:30-33.

    I understand it as an illustration of the relationship between the Lord and his people, not as a definition of the Torah.

    Otherwise, in Jeremiah 3:6-10 you have God divorcing Israel and getting ready to divorce her (Israel’s) sister Judah for her (similar) unfaithfulness so if you treat that as the definition of God’s relationship to his people via the Torah then I’m not sure how you avoid making God a bigamist and that’s just icky.

    Note also, that earlier in Jeremiah 31, that Ephriam is referred to as the Lord’s son. So marriage is clearly not the only illustration that describes the Lord and his people. There is certainly nothing in the Torah itself that describes it as a marriage contract.

  63. Connie E said,

    December 23, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    Sir, That is like willful blindness. You want to pick out things you like to argue about and ignore the simplicity of the Word and the Scriptures I’ve given you. Even Yahweh said it was so easy the SIMPLE could understand. Guess I’d rather believe Him. You quoted ‘it’s in your mouth and in your heart’. Did that particular phrase get an opposite meaning from the OT to the NT? Are you completely ignoring Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 ie:The Torah, the plowshares, pruning hooks, and make no more war? Or can’t you find a way around that. The Truth does not go away no matter how hard you ignore it or bury your head in the sand/quicksand!!!

  64. Mark B said,

    December 23, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    @ 49 jjarjw

    You say:
    “Where you get this idea from is beyond me! Nothing could be further from the truth! You do not worship with or live in the homes of Messianic or Hebrew Roots Believers so you cannot say what we do and do not believe…………You do not speak for our beliefs and practices. We live in a free country where we are free to live, practice, teach, worship as we see fit in our homes, communities, etc.”

    Starting from the end:
    This is not the website of the Departmen* of Homelan* Securit*, nor do I have any affiliation with them, so I’m not sure what your last remark is referring to?
    I do realize that what is referred to as Hebrew Roots is a rather broad movement, so I in no way intend to speak for you, nor could I as I don’t know who you are.
    I have come across this movement twice in the past (through members of my church that had friends or family get involved in it), or three times, depending on how one figures it, so my view of it has been shaped by those with whom I have interacted with. Of course you may have differing views than they did, or I may not completely understand what they were trying to communicate, so I’ll state it differently and give you an opportunity to point out where you disagree with me or where you think I am misrepresenting what you would consider the predominant beliefs of this movement. My understanding is that the HR movement believes that we should observe all the OT law, as far as we are able. The reason that they add the qualifier to that is because America? or wherever they live is not a theocracy as was ancient Israel, and because the Temple has been destroyed. Because the temple was destroyed, they cannot observe the feasts, ect as God commanded because they all revolve around the sacrificial system. So, in their observance of the law they tend to take their cues from writings from the Jewish diaspora. So, for example, if someone believes that if the Temple was restored that we should offer sacrifice as commanded in the law, and Christ is the sacrifice offered for our sin once for all, do you see how one might consider that an abomination and a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice? I do think that some in the HR movement would disagree with reestablishing the sacrificial system, but doesn’t the issue remain the same with what they do want to observe, only to a lesser degree? Another issue is I have yet to hear a definitive answer as to who they believe Jesus is. They say he’s the messiah, but I’m not sure what exactly they mean by that. Define him by his attributes. Is He the Son of God? When He says “I and the Father are one”, what does that mean? A third point. Do we have the Scriptures? Can we trust that a good translation of the Bible contains what God wants us to know, or do we speculate each time that we find a passage that doesn’t match our theology that it must have been mistranslated from a hypothetical original Hebrew? (because that’s a conversation ender for me right there) I could go on, but that’s a starter.

  65. Connie E said,

    December 23, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    Rereading some of the blog I ran across the phrase ‘cultic sacrifice’ two times. Are you calling YHWH’s commands to His people cultic? Do you not have any Reverence/fear of Him at all?! That sounds blasphemous to me. Whether you understand the what/why of the sacrifices you at least should have respect enough for Him not to be so blatantly outspoken. Still no comment on Isaiah 2/Micah 4!!!!!

  66. Jason Loh said,

    December 23, 2013 at 11:11 pm

    Dear Connie,

    “Cultic” simply refers religious worship and was not meant to refer to cult in the normal sense of the usage. I understand though that some people who left the HRM say it is a cult.

    Romans 12 says that the fruit of faith is a non-religious sacrifice.

    Galatians 2:
    ” I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the *faith* of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”

    Galatians 6:
    “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.”

    We do not express our righteousness as the Hebrews did. On the contrary, our righteousness/ right standing before God is always *hidden* before the world and ever only received by faith alone. Our righteousness is only revealed when the Gospel is proclaimed in Word and Sacraments – when sinners gather to hear the preaching of the Word of God and partake of the Lord’s Supper, are baptised.

    As Romans 4 says, faith is “reckoned” as righteousness and Romans 10 says that faith comes by hearing.

    On Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, the prophets prophesised concerning the “last days.” The last days are the days when the Spirit is poured out in full.

    Joel 2 and Acts 1:
    “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams …”

  67. Don said,

    December 23, 2013 at 11:17 pm

    Connie E 62:
    1) Regarding “cultic:” look it up. Dictionary.com should be easy enough.
    2) Your protestations that no one is responding to you ring sort of hollow when you haven’t responded to my or Jason Loh’s specific comments on Romans 7.

  68. Jason Loh said,

    December 23, 2013 at 11:32 pm

    The OT is not about the life of Law … on the contrary, the “just shall walk by faith (alone)” – Habakkuk 2:

    “And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the *just shall live by his faith* (saith the Lord).”

    Romans 4:
    12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also *walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham*, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

    13 For the PROMISE, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, *but* through the righteousness of faith.

    14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

    15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

    16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

    17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.”

  69. Ron said,

    December 24, 2013 at 12:25 am

    Connie,

    Do you believe in the Trinity?

  70. Jason Loh said,

    December 24, 2013 at 12:25 am

    Although the OT contains the Law, it at the same time also contains the promise (Gospel). The distinction between Law and Gospel is also found in the OT. We are to “rightly divid[e] the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). *Ultimately* the OT points to and reveals Christ, *apart* from the Law.

    Hosea 6:6
    “For *I* desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”

    Matthew 9:
    “But go ye and learn what that meaneth, *I* will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.”

  71. Connie E said,

    December 24, 2013 at 1:58 am

    I’m sorry you thought I was ignoring Rom 7. I thought I covered that when I recommended Rom 6-8 with an add in of the law of sin and death. Isa 2 and Mic 4 are speaking of the last days, but what about the where and what and who? #54 and #60. How do we get our definition of sin? Does everyone just do or not do what is right in his own eyes? This may be wherein is the problem. We fully believe in Y’shua and His finished work. He is the Word. We define sin, transgression according to The Word. James tells us this. I recommend reading all of James and go back to Rom. 2-3.(hearers and doers) Are we not told ‘not to be hearers only but doers of The Word ‘ or we deceive ourselves? James 3. We know Y’shua is our righteousness. We are to walk as He walked. By His Holy Spirit He gives us the power to live for Him. Not walking after the desires of the flesh. When we put the two testaments together they define for us what is sin. The letters of John tell us much. We don’t walk Torah for self-righteousness. Nor is it against Y’shua nor as you suppose bondage. Yahweh said it is a wise people who keep His Word. Rev. talks of ‘those who have the testimony of Y’shua and keep the commandments of Yhwh. It is Love and Thankfulness that we try to live according to His Word. Not making anyone perfect. Example: If parents love their children and train them to live uprightly according to the Word (morally, honestly, etc.) and they become of age and leave home, are they then to abandon all they have been taught with the blessing of the parents???? Does not common sense tell us the same about our Father. He gave us good moral ways to live. Why would He send us His Son and tell us to abandon His good instructions? Rest my case. I will defend the Word. I will not strive with it. I will strive for it. Be blessed. And may The Peace that passed understanding guide you into all Truth. Amein!

  72. Connie E said,

    December 24, 2013 at 2:06 am

    I am not a theologian. I don’t use all the theological words. I use simple, straight forward ways. He teaches me in simple life lessons and thru the simplicity of His Word. I love and accept His Word, His Will, and His Ways. I truly had a miraculous New Birth when I accepted Jesus/Y’shua as my Saviour. It has been a wonderful 40+ yrs. It’s not been all easy, but He has been faithful to see me thru and I fully plan to be Faithful to Him to the End.

  73. Connie E said,

    December 24, 2013 at 2:35 am

    Did I not already address this question? #45. Father , Son, and Holy Spirit are Echad. Who is Creator, Redeemer, Saviour, King, Ruler, Judge, the First and the Last.. Aleph and Tav. Who Was, Who Is, and Who Is To Come, The Great I Am, His Right Arm? (and more) Who is the Messenger of YHWH? Who was it who was seen Face to Face? (is this enough?)

  74. Jason Loh said,

    December 24, 2013 at 4:03 am

    Dear Connie,

    Romans 6-8 speaks of two absolute contrasts – that of the Old and New Man, letter versus Spirit, the “I” of inward man versus the “I” of the outer man (“flesh), law versus Spirit. St Paul had preached the distinction between Law and Gospel earlier on.

    For we learn that the Law claims not only our works, but our whole person – so that no one can be justified by the Law, even by enabled by grace to be justified by the Law. The distinction between Law and Gospel makes this clear.

    St Pauls says in Romans 3:

    “19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become *guilty* before God (i.e. the use of the Law in the sight or before God).

    20 Therefore by the *deeds* of the law there shall NO flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin (again underscoring the nature of the theological use of the law), i.e. the purpose of the law in the sight of God).

    21 But now the righteousness of God WITHOUT (apart from) the law is manifested, being witnessed *by the law and the prophets* (i.e. the Old Testament);

    22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference …”

    Verse 22 even go so far as to declare that the righteousness of God and faith are synonymous (i.e. the same). Both are OF Jesus Christ, that is to say, *identical,* and not just from the same “source.” So that faith is not a work or something that we do or perform but entirely done to us (“unto all and upon all”). Faith means that we are entirely passive and God is entirely active. Jesus Christ comes to sinners in the proclamation of the Gospel in Word and Sacraments. The preaching of the Gospel is the living voice of Christ. And thus so, He comes to deliver sinners from their bondage. This is why the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1). The Gospel *never demands* but *gives* that which it promises. The Gospel does what it says and says what it does. Churches which depart from the Reformation – and the world is plenty of them – preach the Gospel in such a way that it is Law. And then too in such way that it is up to the hearer to decide. That is not Word of God.

    The preaching of the Word unleashes Jesus – Christ unbound. He comes therefore to *free* bound sinners.

    Luke 4:18:
    “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised …”

  75. Jason Loh said,

    December 24, 2013 at 5:41 am

    We are not saved to keep the Law – not in the sense that the HRM teaches. We are saved unto good works … for the neighbour.

    Ephesians 2:
    10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

    11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

    12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

    13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

    14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

    15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the *law* of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace …”

    a) Good works are done spontaneously (“we are His *workmanship*”) – without due regard for the Law because of election and predestination (Ephesians 1) – election and predestination by its very nature is apart, beyond and before the Law.

    b) Observing the ceremonial law particularly and the Law in general for the sake of the Law itself is to deny the Cross. The Cross negates and ends the Law. The Law points to the Gospel by doing the *opposite* (according to human reason or logic), that is, by magnifying sin and exposing sin for what is until there is no exit or escape. We can only be left to die in our sins – only to be raised up again in newness of life by the Gospel.

    c) This means that the Law has its *limits.* The other limit of the Law is that which is written in “stones and tablet” – the Law that *regulates* the *externals* (i.e. the outward in the form of the flesh) whether civil or ceremonial is temporary (thus the Law changes). This is why we find in Jeremiah 31 the following …

    ” 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    34 And they shall *teach no* more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all *know* me (spontaneously – APART from the Law as schoolmaster or teacher, tutor), from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will *forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more* (forgiveness of sins renders the guardianship of the law *unnecessary*).”

    d) Thus NT believers do not observe the Law the same way as the OT believers. Christians are not UNDER the Law (i.e. the Law of Moses localised to Israel). Instead they are under the “law of Christ.” The phrase “the law of Christ” occurs in Galatians 6:2 and is only to be found at most three times only in the entire NT. It is the “law” whereby there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28) and is based on faith working through love (Galatians 5:6).

    And since Ezekiel 36: 27 is part of Ezekiel 36 which opening verses clearly indicates is prophecy, therefore “And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them” refers to outpouring of the Spirit in the last days. In turn the last days when the Spirit is given is the context for the law of Christ.

    The specific meaning of the “law” of Christ alludes to the teaching of Jesus concerning the “law within the Law” (or commandments amongst the commandments) as in Matthew 22 …

    “36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

    37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

    38 This is the first and great commandment.

    39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

    Only these two commandments abide forever. The rest are context-specific or “external expressions” of local situations that change over time and space.

    Mark 2 …
    24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the *Sabbath* day that which is *not lawful*?

    25 And he (i.e. Jesus) said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

    26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

    27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and NOT man for the sabbath:

    28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”

    This shows the priority of natural law (i.e. the general non-specific law that is common for humanity and which needs local translation/ adaptation) over ceremonial law (which is simply a form of local translation).

  76. Reed Here said,

    December 24, 2013 at 9:32 am

    Connie: please calm down a bit in your commenting. You start off shouting at others, and then increase your tone. Not helpful off discussion.

    Thx,

    Reed DePace
    moderator

  77. Reed Here said,

    December 24, 2013 at 9:39 am

    Connie: thank you for your [initial] answer to Ron’s question. It still lacks a bit of clarity. Not that you are a heretic, but a heretic could give your answer and not be a Christ-bought child of God.

    Specifically, do you believe the Bible teaches there is one God eternally existing in three distinct persons?

    Do you believe the Son existed as God, along with the Father, before He took on flesh?

    Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God, a separate being who exists alongside of the Father and the Son?

    Do you believe these three have existed in perfect harmony since time immemorial?

    Thanks.

  78. Ron said,

    December 24, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Reed,

    Thank you for the clarifying question. Of course I agree with the line of questioning and that not enough was said to disclose her creed.

    I don’t venture to guess what any individual person from the HRM movement believes about God existing eternally in three persons etc. It might be interesting to know whether the Trinity must be affirmed, or whether it just need not be denied. For all I know it might be optional for them. I haven’t read anything that suggests that it must be denied. Is there an actual doctrinal statement for the HRM? No matter what, I think it’s a gnostic cult. It’s just to what degee I’m not sure about.

  79. Pete Rambo said,

    December 24, 2013 at 10:53 am

    Jason Loh said (#66)

    On Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, the prophets prophesied concerning the “last days.” The last days are the days when the Spirit is poured out in full.

    Joel 2 and Acts 1:
    “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams …”

    Here’s the problem, both Isaiah and Micah say, in context, that ‘swords will be beaten into plowshares..never again shall they learn war.’ Therefore, Acts 2 is only a partial fulfillment. If you continue reading Isaiah 2, Joel 2 and 3, etc. you will see there are numerous unfulfilled prophecies pointing to ‘that day,’ ‘the day of the Lord,’ and ‘the last days.’ There is yet a greater fulfillment of these and many OT prophecies.

    Further, the New Covenant, in both Hebrews and Jeremiah states, “they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen and everyone his brother, saying, ‘know the Lord,’ for all will know Me…” Again, evidence that this is not yet fulfilled.

    My specific question is this: How would you explain Zechariah 14:16-19 and Isaiah 66:16-17ff that are clearly unfulfilled future prophecies involving all mankind and the keeping of dietary and festival ordinances?

    Shalom.

  80. John McNeely said,

    December 24, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    Pete said, “My specific question is this: How would you explain Zechariah 14:16-19 and Isaiah 66:16-17ff that are clearly unfulfilled future prophecies involving all mankind and the keeping of dietary and festival ordinances?”

    If you want to interpret Zechariah that literally you are forced to not interpret Hebrews correctly when it clearly teaches that Christ’s sacrifice is once and for all. Zechariah clearly states that in those days people will still travel to Jerusalem to do sacrifices Zech 14:21. If you want to ignore the teaching of the new covenant on the old and continue to follow the mistakes of the Jews who interpreted those prophecies in a more wooden and literal way than the way the new covenant interprets them then you must reject Christ’s once and for all sacrifice for sins. i noticed you didn’t include the rest of the chapter in Zechariah 14. This is common among people who embrace the false teaching of the HRM. They quote verses out of context. they ignore verses that do not fit their paradigm. And many when trying to be consistent with their paradigm end up rejecting Christ. If you use the same exegetical approach Christ and the writers of the New Covenant use to interpret the Old Covenant those verses in Zech and Isaiah do not pose a problem. In Zech and Isaiah God was using language that the immediate audience would understand in conveying the idea that ‘in those days’ people from all nations of the world will worship the one true God.

  81. Pete Rambo said,

    December 24, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    John,

    I was hoping Jason would respond, but he may be busy. I suspect he would agree in substance, so I’ll answer.

    i noticed you didn’t include the rest of the chapter in Zechariah 14. This is common among people who embrace the false teaching of the HRM. They quote verses out of context. they ignore verses that do not fit their paradigm.

    That is the best laugh I’ve had in days! You might want to read the whole chapter before assuming I took anything out of context. It clearly speaks of future events. The whole chapter. And, not in metaphorical language.

    One thing I know about the Reformed tradition: It has no real understanding of eschatology. The framers of the generally accepted amill position could not in any meaningful way conceive of a restored Israel, language/land etc. The result was that in their ignorance, they had to find ways around or had to spiritualize passages they could not understand. Today, you are not ignorant. Pick up a map, the newspaper and the prophets and see how very literally they all fit together…

    The pew sitters in the Reformed churches generally have a better grip on eschatology… evidences in part why there is a hunger to understand the context of Yeshua’s coming and the writing of the letters of Paul. Which reminds me, I have mentioned the oral traditions of the Jews that Yeshua and Paul had to deal with several times on this blog and .. not a peep. Nobody wants to recognize that there was an unwritten code/law (later codified as the Talmud) that Yeshua and Paul spoke against regularly… That is part of the context we have to learn and understand so we can rightly understand Paul’s multiple uses for ‘law.’

    You mention Hebrews and the ‘once for all sacrifice.’ Yeshua was the atoning sacrifice and the Pesach lamb, but there are plenty of other offerings and sacrifices in the temple that can easily continue. Further, just as you celebrate an anniversary or birthday, there can be sacrifices that look back as much as those before Him looked forward. You find sacrifice so distasteful, but you’ll drop a steak on the grill for a special occasion and think nothing about it. Remember, if there is some form of restored priesthood (Ez. 44 and Isaiah 66:21) in the Millennial kingdom (Rev. 20:1-7), there will need to be some way to feed them, a secondary purpose for the sacrificial system. And, if the sacrifice is a reminder that looks back to THE sacrifice, I don’t see the problem. It denies nothing. It celebrates something! (And provides the meat for the party!)

    If you are truly against all sacrifice, you should consider vegan!

    Back to Zechariah 14 and context: The OT IS the context that helps us understand the new.

    Judges 2:1-5 has an amazing Christophany. The Angel of the Lord says, “I brought you out of Egypt, I swore to your fathers, I will never break MY covenant, you have not obeyed ME…” That Law you denigrate… IS Yeshua’s Law. He was the giver on Mt. Sinai.

    He said, ‘If you love Me…’

    In a previous post on this blog someone asked the question where the terms of the New Covenant are. I answered and was kindly asked to take a seat… I watched ‘leaders’ fumble for answers because they did not want to deal with the obvious answer: The terms have not changed. It is a re-newed covenant. The Torah will go forth from Zion and HE will teach us His ways. (Is. 2:1-5)

    Brother, I would humbly recommend, instead of trying to explain away passages that we don’t understand, maybe we should be re-evaluating the lens through which we judge Scripture and try to fit the pieces together. I promise. They all fit.

    On your comment about rejecting Christ… I have 250+ posts on my blog. At least 150 are teaching posts. Find even one place where works salvation or a rejection of Messiah is offered. Yes, I am just one example… but I would say the same for Bill Cloud, Brad Scott, Rico Cortes, 119 Ministries, Monte Judah, Avram Yehoshua, etc… Don’t judge the movement by the radicals or the ill informed. Rather, have the temerity to study this thing out. Even if you do not agree, I think you will find a vibrant, growing, passionate movement that loves the Risen Messiah as you do and seek to walk fully in HIS ways.

    The wild accusations in the OP are laughable. And false. Yes, there are bad examples, but I can find you errant Presbyterians, too.

    Wrestle with a scholarly work: J.K.McKee, The New Testament Validates Torah. I’ll even pay for it, just contact me through my blog. In fact, any credentialed pastor who will honestly study this out, I’ll buy. You don’t have to agree, just study it out! Be willing to wrestle with a coherent, complete defense of the Messianic position.

    Okay… /soapbox! I try not to wear out my welcome… LOL!

    Shalom!

  82. Connie E said,

    December 24, 2013 at 8:17 pm

    Hooray! Hooray! Very nicely said Mr Pete. I’ve been trying to get some of these same points across. And get some Scriptures read and some questions answered. I get theological dissertations goin around the same circle and ignored.

    Ah, by the way, GB, can you answer one of my first question from #5? When is the Sabbath? Your welcome to answer the others?

    You wanted to know where I stood on who Y’shua is. I answered.

    As Pete stated so well, ‘can’t these things just be prayerfully considered?’ The wise man as Prov. says would. Please. We take nothing from Y’shua’s work. But when/what He writes on our heart it is good.

    I try to be a humble servant of The Most High. Please forgive me if I came across any other way. I only want to encourage others to live for Him in a greater way by receiving all of His Word as He says it. We should not be making it complicated to understand His Word. Albeit there are many things yet to learn. I’m excited to be learning more all the time. As Daniel was told ‘in the last days knowledge will increase and the truth will be revealed.’ We are there. Don’t you think???

    May Yahweh abundantly bless you with wisdom. knowledge, and understanding of His Wonderful Word and Ways. Know that I/we are praying for all of you.

  83. John McNeely said,

    December 24, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    Pete, I have studied this thing out, as you said. I have read several books by people in the movement. I have several friends who are in the HRM including the former charismatic church that first brought the gospel to my family. The claims of the movement cannot adequately deal with the narrative, and commands from the New Testament. Your claim that we use the Old to understand the New Covenant leads to many errors. We in the reformed community allow scripture to teach us how to interpret scripture. You try to claim nothing has changed in God’s laws and by so doing you reveal your ignoring that fact that the temple is now the people of God. As much as you like to believe you are honoring all of Torah the simple truth is you are not. one of the many examples is when was the last time you obeyed Exodus 27: 20-21? When you observed Passover this year where did you find a priest from the tribe of Levi to sacrifice your lamb? There are many other ceremonial Laws in Torah that you cannot obey in the exact form they were given. This is because we are supposed to obey them by trusting Christ who fulfilled and offered up Himself as a sacrifice once and for all. Your explanation of Hebrews and Galatians is wrong. When Christ came He fulfilled the ceremonial laws perfectly and decisively brought them to an end. The veil of the temple being ripped was the beginning of its end with the destruction of the temple in ad70 being the end of that system in its entirety.

  84. Don said,

    December 24, 2013 at 11:52 pm

    Pete Rambo 81,

    Nobody wants to recognize that there was an unwritten code/law (later codified as the Talmud) that Yeshua and Paul spoke against regularly… That is part of the context we have to learn and understand so we can rightly understand Paul’s multiple uses for ‘law.’

    You can make this argument from, say, Matthew 15:9–which no one here denies or is failing to recognize–but not from Romans 7:6, which as has been mentioned is explicitly in reference to the written law, the Torah, the old way in which we no longer serve.

    You mention Hebrews and the ‘once for all sacrifice.’ Yeshua was the atoning sacrifice and the Pesach lamb, but there are plenty of other offerings and sacrifices in the temple that can easily continue.

    I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry here, but perhaps you’ve noticed there is no temple? Hasn’t been one for 1,943 years? This is not peripheral to the argument. I’m honestly not sure how you think something can be done “in” something that does not exist, let alone “easily” done.

  85. Connie E said,

    December 25, 2013 at 12:19 am

    Honestly, that is not what he meant at all. No sacrifices at all could be made now. That would be totally against Torah. There is no one in HRM making sacrifices. It will happen again. When there is a Temple. Check out some of the prophets.

  86. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 25, 2013 at 1:17 am

    Don,

    Please read the chapter before Romans 7 and the chapter afterwards. Taken fully in context, it becomes clear that the “law” Paul was speaking of was not at all the Torah of Yahweh.

    Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the LAW OF SIN AND DEATH.

    You must remember that Paul’s writings were letters. We do not know the questions he was answering. We are only getting one side of the conversation. We must try to discern from the context what is being addressed.

    Unfortunately, the New Testament translates the word law the same way, whether it is speaking of God’s Law, the Oral traditions, or as in this case, the law of sin and death.

    The Greek word nomos is used in all instances. I realize that you do not understand, and I feel that you are honest in trying to defend your faith.

    Let me say this… No one is ever punished for obeying the law. Even in our civilian courts. If you murder someone, you come ” under the law ” which will punish you accordingly,(to the fullest extent of the law).

    Similar to the scripture which says .” The wages of sin is death.”

    If the governor pardons you and grants you clemency, you may be free from the murder you committed, but you are not free to go back and do it again.

    We have all sinned. And we were all guilty under the law. Yeshua paid the price for our sin and pardoned us. But that does not mean we should return to our lawless ways.

    I am not sure how to explain it you. I can tell you that when I embarked on this journey to return to my Father’s ways, I have never been freer or happier. I can truly say like David, ” Oh how I love your law !”

    It was like the scriptures came alive in me. Things I never understood before now made perfect sense. The blessings that come with obedience have overwhelmed me.

    Obeying His word is a joy. It has nothing to do with my salvation. Only the blood of Yeshua could provide that. Nothing, absolutely nothing I could do would grant me that. I know that all too well.

    And my heart is so grateful, so completely in love with my Savior, that I gladly obey his Torah. It is not a hard thing. It comes as natural as breathing to me. I would love to be able to impart to you the beauty of keeping His Word. But I cannot. Only the Holy Spirit can show you that.

    Jer 29:13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

  87. Jason Loh said,

    December 25, 2013 at 2:18 am

    Dear Teresa (re#61),

    “Jason, the word end in Romans 10:4 is telos in the Greek and it does not mean end. It means “goal”. Messiah is truly the goal of the Law for every chapter in the Torah speaks of him.”

    Yes, “telos” means end *and* goal. And both are “one” in Jesus Christ, that is, the end is the goal and the goal is the end. Once the Law had reached its goal in Jesus Christ, there is nothing else for the Law to do. Its “role” in exposing sin and accusing sinners come to an end in Christ.

    For St Paul, the “Law” is not a revelation of supernatural knowledge but revelation of natural *guilt* (Romans 3, Romans 5). Its *ultimate* purpose is to accuse and condemn.

    Romans 5:13-14 …
    13 (For until the law (that accuses and condemns) sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law).

    14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

    The accusing voice of the Law (i.e. its “theological use”) has its “origin” or source in the *broken* relationship *after* the Fall (Genesis 3:11).

    The political/ civil use of the Law came first in the form of the command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2). In other words, the Law was originally given not as a standard of righteousness or even to express the eternal will/ plan of God but to regulate life here on earth. That is, the Law does not so much reflect what is “up there” but “down here.”

    Both uses of the Law in Genesis 2 (civil) and 3 (theological) are natural law in society and conscience, respectively. These two uses or roles or functions of the Law were to become combined in the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses (including the ceremonial law) differ from natural law only in quantity and not quality. That is to say in the extent of the revelation. The natural law of Genesis 2 & 3 were to degenerate and be “absorbed” or “assimilated” (or simply fade away) into general revelation over time and space – only to be “republished” in a clearer and at the same time particular form by way of special revelation in the Law of Moses.

    The Law is in no way the ultimate will of God. The Law is limited in scope and duration and passes away when this world passes way finally. Only the Gospel, the Cross is the ultimate will of God. Only the Gospel, the Cross has the final say. To put in another way, the Gospel is God’s election and predestination. Ephesians 1 is the Gospel. IOW, the heart of God is not the Law but Love (1 John 4:8). And because God is love, He *gave* His *Only-Begotten Son* so that whosever believes on Him shall not perish but have *eternal life.*

    The Law demands complete obedience and surrender; God the Son gives of Himself, holding nothing back, surrenders to death. One is bondage; the other *freedom.* And if the Son sets you free, then you are free indeed (John 8:36) …

  88. Jason Loh said,

    December 25, 2013 at 2:28 am

    Dear Teresa (#61),

    >>The Torah led us to Yeshua much like a tutor or nanny that guides you into adulthood. When you are grown you have no need for the nanny to tell you to brush your teeth, wash your face, etc. because they have become a part of your lifestyle. But you do not discard the things she taught you. So it is with Torah. Now that we have Messiah we do not need the tablets of stone , we have His Word living in us, which was the very purpose of the New Covenant.<>Jer 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
    Jer 31:32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
    Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will WRITE IT ON THEIR HEARTS. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.<> He says He was their husband. Torah was a marriage covenant. We know this because he even divorced the House of Israel and gave them a bill of divorce. I know this is difficult for you to understand. If you seek Him with your whole heart He will show you the truth.<<

    Then I'm sorry to say that you've just undermined your case that the Law of Moses is unchanging and forever – which strikes at the very heart of the HRM.

  89. Jason Loh said,

    December 25, 2013 at 2:34 am

    Dear Teresa,

    >>The Torah led us to Yeshua much like a tutor or nanny that guides you into adulthood. When you are grown you have no need for the nanny to tell you to brush your teeth, wash your face, etc. because they have become a part of your lifestyle. But you do not discard the things she taught you. So it is with Torah. Now that we have Messiah we do not need the tablets of stone , we have His Word living in us, which was the very purpose of the New Covenant.<<

    St Paul is clear from the passage which you've quoted that to be under the Law is to be in bondage to the Law. On the contrary, the Son came to redeem sinners from the Law. So, yes, Jesus came to discard the Law. We do not need the Law. We have Spirit – which is only given in Word and Sacraments. The Law does not and indeed cannot give the Holy Spirit. The Law and Spirit do not mix.

    St Paul is also clear that Christians are in their very nature as the Old Adam/ Old Eve under the Law (theological and political) – they married to the Law – whilst the New Adam/ New Eve is married to Christ. Contrary to the wisdom of the world and philosophy and human logic, St Paul clearly teaches that Christians exists as two persons, not one.

  90. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 25, 2013 at 3:25 am

    Jason,

    To say that Torah has ended is to say that Yahweh has ended. Yahweh and His Word are one and the same. So you must be very careful what you come against.

    Pro 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the LAW IS LIGHT; And reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

    1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that GOD IS LIGHT, and in him is no darkness at all.

    Isa 8:20 To the LAW and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this WORD, it is because there is no LIGHT in them.

    Oh I almost forgot, the fact that YHWH divorced Israel in no way makes the Law change. God did not break the covenant, man did, But through the death of Yeshua we have been given the opportunity to return.

    A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives but if he dies she is free to remarry. Yeshua died, and we were crucified with Him, he can now take us as His bride.

    This is what Paul was referring to in Romans.

    Shalom !

  91. Jason Loh said,

    December 25, 2013 at 3:28 am

    Dear Pete (re #79),

    >> Here’s the problem, both Isaiah and Micah say, in context, that ‘swords will be beaten into plowshares..never again shall they learn war.’ Therefore, Acts 2 is only a partial fulfillment. If you continue reading Isaiah 2, Joel 2 and 3, etc. you will see there are numerous unfulfilled prophecies pointing to ‘that day,’ ‘the day of the Lord,’ and ‘the last days.’ There is yet a greater fulfillment of these and many OT prophecies.<> Further, the New Covenant, in both Hebrews and Jeremiah states, “they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen and everyone his brother, saying, ‘know the Lord,’ for all will know Me…” Again, evidence that this is not yet fulfilled. My specific question is this: How would you explain Zechariah 14:16-19 and Isaiah 66:16-17ff that are clearly unfulfilled future prophecies involving all mankind and the keeping of dietary and festival ordinances?<<

    The problem as everyone else has been saying is that the HRM tend to interpret the NT in light of the OT when it should be the NT that interprets the OT. Otherwise why the NT is called New and better, everlasting?

    Colossians 2 …

    11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

    12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

    13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

    14 Blotting out the handwriting of *ordinances* that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

    15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

    16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

    17 Which are a *shadow* of things to come; but the *body* (both Incarnate and Church) is of Christ."

    Isaiah 66:16-17ff clearly applies to the elect from all nations. And Zechariah 14:16-19 talks about the Feast of Tabernacles. I'm someone who is not well-versed at all in OT and Jewish feasts, ceremonial law, etc.

    But we all know that the Feast of Tabernacles (as shadow) points to Christ (as reality). If so, the feast of tabernacles in Zechariah 14: 16-19 cannot be literal but has its fulfilment in Christ. And since the only ordinances that Christians observe are Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and closest thing to the feast of tabernacles is the Lord Supper, then to keep the former is to keep the latter. I have learnt that the word, "tabernacle" means the presence of God with his people. In the Lord's Supper, Jesus Christ is present with His people (whether un-mediatedly for Lutherans or mediatedly for Reformed).

  92. Jason Loh said,

    December 25, 2013 at 3:36 am

    Dear Pete,

    >> Judges 2:1-5 has an amazing Christophany. The Angel of the Lord says, “I brought you out of Egypt, I swore to your fathers, I will never break MY covenant, you have not obeyed ME…” That Law you denigrate… IS Yeshua’s Law. He was the giver on Mt. Sinai.<<

    And yet the Lord *divorced* apostate Israel. And the covenant with Israel is limited whereas the promise (contained in the covenant) remains forever …

    Romans 9 …

    "4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

    5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

    6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. *For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel*:

    7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

    8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

    9 For this is the word of promise …"

    This is St Paul's interpretation and commentary on the OT. Why follow the HRM when we have St Paul's teachings in Romans 9 and elsewhere?

  93. Jason Loh said,

    December 25, 2013 at 3:46 am

    Dear Teresa,

    The Law is light in the OT but in the NT, Jesus is the Light (of the world). The law cannot express one’s righteousness or be used as a standard or measure of righteousness, even if from God Himself. Hebrews 10 teaches that the will of God and the Law is not the *same.*

    ” 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

    8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the *law*;

    9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy *will*, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

    10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

    Once we have the Spirit, we are not under the Law as Paul says in Galatians 5 …

    ” 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

    19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

    20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

    21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

    22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

    23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”

    The Law only serves for a time … until Christ in so far as redemption history is concerned. In so far as the Christian’s dual nature is concerned, he/ she is not under the Law as the New Adam/ New Eve since righteousness is *apart* from the Law. There is no Law in heaven as it is *behind* us. The New Adam/ New Eve who is righteous in Christ is already in the new heavens and the new earth – by faith.

    But as the Old Adam we need the Law to curb, to be a mirror, to guide, to instruct us on how to live our lives in *this* world.

  94. Jason Loh said,

    December 25, 2013 at 4:12 am

    Dear Connie (re #82),

    >> Ah, by the way, GB, can you answer one of my first question from #5? When is the Sabbath? Your welcome to answer the others?<<

    The question, in light of the NT, should be, I humbly state on behalf of the Reformation Churches, is not "when" but *where* is the Sabbath? For the Sabbath, that is rest, is none other than Jesus Christ Himself Who is our Rest. In other words, Sabbath is ultimately not a time but a location. We see the language of location used in Hebrews 4 …

    "4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

    5 *And* in *this place* again, If they shall *enter* into my rest.

    6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of *unbelief* (not disobedience, that is, non-observance):

    7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

    8 For if Jesus had *given* them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of *another day*.

    9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

    10 For he that is entered into *his* rest, he also hath ceased from his own *works*, as God did from his (faith is pit against works)."

    Jesus Christ is the Rest when He is proclaimed in Word and Sacraments.

    Matthew 11:
    "25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

    26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

    27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

    28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

    Just like Hebrews 4, Matthew 11, resting *in* Jesus is paired not with Sabbath observance but with belief or unbelief synonymous with election and predestination.

  95. Jason Loh said,

    December 25, 2013 at 4:29 am

    “As Daniel was told ‘in the last days knowledge will increase and the truth will be revealed.’ We are there. Don’t you think???”

    Yes, Connie, the “last days” certainly refer to the New Testament. This fits in well with Acts 2 (and the prophecy of Joel):

    “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy …”

    The mistake some people make including the late Harold Camping was to treat the “last days” as some mathematical point based on some calculation. The last days and the coming of the Lord also go together.

    Hebrews 1:
    “1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

    2 Hath in these *last days* spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.”

    1 John 1:
    1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

    2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

    3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

    and

    1 John 2:18
    “Little children, it *is* the* last time*: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”

  96. Pete Rambo said,

    December 25, 2013 at 4:47 am

    Jason (#91),

    Isaiah 66:16-17ff clearly applies to the elect from all nations. And Zechariah 14:16-19 talks about the Feast of Tabernacles. I’m someone who is not well-versed at all in OT and Jewish feasts, ceremonial law, etc.

    Excuse me? And you’ve spilled how many gallons of ink on this thread and others over this topic? Sorry, sir, but you can step off the witness stand, now. I have no more questions for you.

    Seriously, would you read the last 15 chapters of Oliver Twist and use that to formulate your understanding of the first 38? In fact, you can’t understand the end of the book without knowing the beginning… I wouldn’t even take a test knowing only the back of the book, never mind trying to teach others of the insignificance of parts of the front!! (John 5:46-47)

    Now, I understand your antinomianism. You might want to take advantage of the free book offered back up this thread as it will help you fill in the gaps. ;)

  97. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 25, 2013 at 5:06 am

    Dear Jason,

    Yes, Yeshua is the light. He and the Father are one. He is also the WORD of Yahweh, the Living Torah. To reject Torah is to reject him.

    Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    Joh 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
    Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    Joh 1:14 And the WORD became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth

    If you studied Hebrew idioms you would find that words like truth and light are synonymous with Torah. And grace is not a New Testament idea. The Torah is full of the grace of Yahweh. He revealed Himself to Moses as Mercy.

    Exo 34:6 And Yahweh passed by before him, and proclaimed, Yahweh, Yahweh El, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

    Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

    Trying to see these things without the Ruach HaKodesh, ( the Holy Spirit) is impossible. I wish that I could impart to you the wisdom and knowledge to grasp these things. But I cannot. You must be willing to seek Him with all your heart.

    I pray blessings upon you and ask our Abba to reveal Himself to you in a deep and lasting way.

  98. Jason Loh said,

    December 25, 2013 at 6:48 am

    Dear Pete,

    Seriously you’re not saying that someone must be well-versed in the ceremonial as you or others are before understanding the *significance* of the ceremonial law in light of the *New Testament*?

    After all, doesn’t the doctrine of the Trinity (and by extension and inclusion the rest of theology) mean that the understanding of God in the OT is based on the NT?

    How can it, therefore, be legitimate for that which is fulfilled/ fulfilment be interpreted in light of that which is shadow or type?

    What the HRM is doing is simply squeezing OT shadows and types into the proverbial Procrustean bed of the New Testament. How can that which is *only* shadow and type continue in validity when the Reality has come?

    Matthew 9:16-17 …

    “No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.”

    Matthew 27:51 …
    “And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom …”

    Having said this, I am really tempted to take advantage of your free offer. Thank you. My interest is in the patristic, medieval and Reformation history and theology. I believe – in common with the Reformation Churches – that, e.g. the patristics understood the apostolic and sub-apostolic mind much better than the HRM.

    Indeed, the liturgy and worship of the patristics are grounded and shaped by the OT. Just like Luther, the patristics regarded the salvation history and revelatory experience of the patriarchs (and not just the prophets) as every much the salvation history and revelatory experience of the Church. The doctrine of recapitulation of St Irenaeus means that Jesus Christ recapitulates, recontextualises, repeats, etc. the salvation history of the OT, not the Law. Jesus recapitulates the Law, not the other way around – which would be the implication of HRM.

    This is based on Paul’s teaching that Jesus is the New/ Last Adam (and by extension Mary as the New Eve). Apostolic succession in relation to the ministry continues the OT pattern in new form – namely that the offices of the bishop, priest and deacon correspond to the offices of the priest, priest and Levite. Except that as Luther points out, instead of a ministry of sacrifice, we have the ministry of proclamation which gives (rather than offers) – the “sacramental reversal.”

  99. Ron said,

    December 25, 2013 at 7:34 am

    Teresa,

    Do you believe in the Trinity?

  100. Jason Loh said,

    December 25, 2013 at 8:03 am

    Dear Teresa,

    “If you studied Hebrew idioms you would find that words like truth and light are synonymous with Torah. And grace is not a New Testament idea. The Torah is full of the grace of Yahweh. He revealed Himself to Moses as Mercy.”

    Yes, grace is as old as the OT. But the Law is not grace, is not of faith. Only by distinguishing Law and Gospel can we see grace in the OT. Grace/ faith is always related to or paired with the promise. The OT saints always looked to the promise of God as the basis of God’s own faithfulness and righteousness.

    The Law demands complete conformity. The Messiah was numbered amongst the transgressors, cursed for hanging on the tree, reviled for eating with “unclean” people, known for breaking the Sabbath, etc. Jesus Christ was the Number One law-breaker of all time. Can we say God denigrated His own Law? I think we can.

    And even amidst the demands for conformity and observance of the ordinances, there were the sacrifices and offerings. I mean if observing the Law expressed God’s righteousness, then why the need for sacrifices and offerings? If the intention of giving the Law was to fulfil the will of God, why must sacrifices and offerings still be made, particularly since these are made collectively, on behalf of the entire nation of Israel? Doesn’t this part imply that somehow the Law itself is incomplete somehow? If incomplete, then how to express the eternal or everlasting will of God in the first place? Is God playing games?

    Even if, granted, that the sacrifices and offerings were for imperfect obedience to the Law (on the part of Israel), why these in the first place? Why can’t forgiveness and mercy be given alongside the Law – after all mercy also expresses the will of God? Unless the sacrifices and offerings were instituted to show that obedience to or observance of the Law does not purify or sanctify. If such is the case, the Law does not and cannot express the righteousness/ holiness or the holy will of God. Hebrews 9 reminds us that even in the OT, death & the shedding of blood were necessary for the purification of the flesh and the remission of sin. Of course all of these point to Christ and His death on the Cross.

    Doesn’t this show the *self*-imposed limitation of the Law?

  101. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 8:11 am

    Connie, you didn’t answer no. 77. Please kindly do. Thx.

  102. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 8:13 am

    Teresa, please answer Ron’s question, no. 99. Also, please answer my questions in no. 77 as well.

  103. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 8:14 am

    Teresa, you mentioned you obey Torah. Do you mean perfectly, as to the jot and tittle?

  104. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 8:53 am

    Connie: in no. 82 you referenced the blog owner, Rev. (Pastor) Lane Keister as “GB” (I assume an abbr. of the blog title). In the same comment you referenced Pete Rambo as “Mr. Pete”.

    What part(s) of Torah are you following in your use of honorifics? Why is there a difference between how you referenced these two men?

    Reed DePace

    (Not being sure of your understanding of Torah on this point, I don’ t want risk being rude and potentially setting you up. To that end only, I am blessed to be called to serve as: a pastor of a church, a teaching elder in the PCA, and a moderator here again GB.)

  105. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:01 am

    Jason,

    I believe that Yahweh is God, Yeshua is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. I believe they are a unified compound. Much like H2o which can be expressed as water, ice, or steam.

  106. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:06 am

    Connie: in no. 82 you asked Lane what day he thinks is the Sabbath. Based on past practice here at GB, in Lane’s absence I am willing to engage your question. Lane trusts me in such things, knowing we are of like mind, and that he can step in and clarify or counter anything I say which he thinks he and I are not in agreement.

    With this in mind, before answering your question, it might be wiser to make sure you don’t already know the answer. You do know(?):

    > that Lane is a pastor in the PCA, and
    > that he affirms by oath before Yahweh, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit
    > that the Westminster Confession of Faith efficiently summarizes his own convictions on what the Bible teaches about the subject of the Sabbath?

    If not, I’ll be grateful to give a straightforward answer to your question, hopefully one not laden with theological dissertations.

    If you do know these things, then you already gave your answer. Thx.

  107. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:12 am

    Connie: in no. 82 you said,

    “I try to be a humble servant of The Most High. Please forgive me if I came across any other way.”

    As you qualified your request for forgiveness with “if” it is not clear if:

    > you are acknowledging breaking Torah on you part, or
    > you using a culturally accepted form of politeness to stress why you are justified in expressing yourself at times in a tone (demeanor, manner of expression) that could be misunderstood?

    Sincere question I’d ask you answer as I don’t want to assume and let misunderstanding mar my desire for clarity in conversation.

    Thx

  108. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:18 am

    Teresa, no. 90: is Jesus Yahweh?

    If so, when Jesus died did that not free the Jews from their marriage views to Him? Since the Jews have clearly gone and got married to another god/husband why is it not a gross violation of Torah to ask them to divorce their new god and remarry their old God/Husband?

  109. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Reed,

    I keep all the Laws that apply to me to the best of my ability. Obviously some laws do not apply to me. Such as circumcision. Some laws can only be fulfilled in the Land, such as the Laws concerning harvesting fruits. There are many laws that are not relevant to me.

    I don’t have a bull, so I don’t have to worry about penning him up and I don’t have a parapet on the top of my house that I need to build a fence around to prevent someone from falling.

    If I did have those things, then yes I would follow the Torah’s recommendations. It’s common sense.

    As to keeping them perfectly, I try. However, if I mess up I do have an advocate with the Father, Yeshua Ha Meshiach. My obedience to the Torah has absolutely nothing to do with my salvation.

    My obedience brings blessings in this life and will in the next.

    Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    I certainly don’t want to be least in the kingdom.

  110. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:27 am

    Teresa, no. 105 and no. 99, that was myself and Ron asking about your belief in the Trinity, not Jason. (Just clarifying.)

    I would be grateful if you would answer question by question no. 77. But, as an offering of respect while I wait for you to do so, let me engage on the basis of what you did offer in no. 105.

    The phrase “unified compound” is one for describing the Trinity for which I’m not familiar. Might you clarify that for me?

    You reference the analogy to the three states of water (solid, liquid, gas). By this, do you mean that the Godhead is one entity that appears in three forms? Would the analogy to an actor playing three different roles in play suffice to characterize what you mean?

  111. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:33 am

    Reed,

    I do not believe in three Gods. I believe in one God who has three distinct personalities/ manifestations.

    Deut. 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

  112. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:40 am

    Teresa, no. 109, thanks. So you only worry about those parts of Torah which explicitly apply to you?

    I understand the issue of a bull and circumcision. With reference to laws that can only be fulfilled in the Land, can you point me to Scripture where it teaches that this is an appropriate way to divide Torah’s application?

    Regarding laws such as the rooftop fence, do you mean that this does not apply to you because you don’t have a deck on your roof or because your home is not in the Land?

    On the same kind of law, do you believe it is appropriate to make extrapolations of such, like the Pharisees did with tithing their herb gardens? I.e., is it Torah keeping for me to maintain safety features on my property so that visitors are safe in normal usage of it?

    If one may still be in the Kingdom, even though least, is that not a good thing?

    If Jesus the Messiah is good enough for your Torah failures, isn’t he good enough for any believer’s failures?

  113. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:42 am

    Reed,

    As to your question about Israel being divorced and returning to YHWH, when Yeshua died, we died to. I am crucified with Christ therefore I no longer live…

    If I died with Messiah and am now resurrected as a new creation, I am free to marry again. There is no need for a divorce. The old me who went after strange gods has died.

    That person no longer exists. I hope this helps. I would love to chat more but I need to do a few things around here. Maybe later…

    Abba bless you !

  114. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:45 am

    Teresa, no. 111: thanks. With you, I believe in one God.

    You note three personalities and qualify that with the word manifestations. Do you mean God manifests (presents, displays, portrays) Himself as three personalities (characteristics of a person)? To be a bit clearer, are you saying there is one God only manifesting Himself as three persons, and that He does not exist in His essential nature as three actually separate persons?

  115. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 9:48 am

    Teresa, no. 113, appreciate your time. My family are all still in bed. I am up because a nasty cold won’t let me sleep.

    Regarding divorce, my question was particularly to ethnic Jews. Are you ethnically Jewish? If so, then your answer applies. If not, do you think your answer applies to the Jew?

    Thx.

  116. Ron said,

    December 25, 2013 at 11:43 am

    “I believe in one God who has three distinct personalities/ manifestations.”

    Sounds like modalism (at worst) or poor communication (at best) but I’ll stay tuned. At the very least, I find it a bit passing strange that those who at best cannot articulate the Trinity without sounding heretical would presume to offer theological instruction of any sort.

  117. hisloammi said,

    December 25, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    Maybe it’s just the fact I have no seminary degree, but didn’t Jesus call the Word of God the ‘old testament’ bc there was no New. When He quoted Scripture He was quoting from the ‘old’. He is that Word, and we are told not to add or subtract from it. No wonder folks believe in evolution when pastors say the old is no longer any good. No wonder they figure they can be homosexuals, the law has been done away with…beastiality must be ok too bc it wasn’t in the big 10 and Jesus didn’t come repeat it in The ‘new testament’….

  118. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    Yes, think you’ve captured the possibilities Ron.

  119. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Hisloammi: the blog owner does not allow anonymous posting. Please identify yourself for us (name, church, info. to help us know you exist, where you are coming from).

    If for some reason you do not feel comfortable doing so on-blog, you may email the blog owner or one of his moderators (of which I am one). In this case you will need to explain why you wish to remain anonymous on blog.

    As an act of good will, I posted the one comment that was most appropriate for the discussion at present.

    To respond to your point, the difference between those of us who disagree with the HRM is not whether or not the OT still applies, but how it applies.

    As a pastor who regularly preaches from the OT, striving to interpret it the way Jesus teaches us to interpret it, I take particular offense at your characterization of those of us here who disagree with the HRM’s method of interpreting the OT. You would do well to study first the Reformed understanding of how Jesus commands His people to interpret the OT.

    Then come back with a bit of humility and we’ll be glad to discuss our differences graciously.

    Reed DePace,
    A pastor who believes the HRM is in error, and who believes that of course the OT is still good.

  120. Mark B said,

    December 25, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    Just a couple things that have become clear to me that I’ll toss out on the theory that they may be helpful (although I don’t think this is a conversation that is going anywhere). I’ve been rather blunt above, so everyone should know where I’m coming from.
    1. The HRM thing is broad, and the point of unification is one issue. There is no overarching confession of faith that we [reformed] can address. Those I’ve ran into personally and who have commented here have a wide disparity of views on issues we [as reformed] would view as defining orthodoxy. An analogy would be a Baptist convention, where you have 1689 confessionalists on one end, and dispensational arminians who don’t believe that Jewish and Gentile Christians will be in the same heaven and the only parts of the Bible that are for modern Christians are the letters of Paul, are at the other end of the spectrum. They are bound together solely by some shared views of credobaptism. So while it’s reassuring [to us?] if they [who's they] affirm the Trinity or affirm that a good English translation of the Bible is actually Gods Word, these are individual views which may or may not represent the majority of HRM advocates. So the fact that someone I’ve dealt with in the past who was (and still is) a prominent leader in the movement wants to claim when pressed on a passage that the new testament was originally written in Hebrew and he is the only one who knows what is said because he’s received a vision from god, it doesn’t necessarily mean that is the view of all advocates of HRM, or if Connie doesn’t explain the trinity exactly the way we think she should, it doesn’t tell us what most advocates of HRM believe, and for that matter, she may have an orthodox understanding and just not be communicating it well. All that to say that their uniting view is error enough to deal with without dealing with other issues (FWIW).
    2. Most (not all) I’ve met come from a charismatic and or hyper-dispensational background, which is helpful to remember when discussing HRM views with them. They were reacting [wrongly] to what they [rightly] saw as the errors of dispensationalism. Put yourself in their place. If your background leads you to give credibility to someone who claims to have received direct revelation from God, and you are under the impression that the mainstream church holds to some sort of radically dispensational view, your interaction with reformed Christians is going to be very confused. In other words, HRM advocates have more in common with covenant theology than dispensationalism, so in that case a start would be to show them, or for them to realize, what we [reformed] really believe about the old testament.

  121. Reed Here said,

    December 25, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Mark, agreed. Thx.

  122. Ron said,

    December 25, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    So while it’s reassuring [to us?] if they [who's they] affirm the Trinity or affirm that a good English translation of the Bible is actually Gods Word, these are individual views which may or may not represent the majority of HRM advocates.

    True. My query is intended to flesh out whether a discussion such as this with these particular folks is putting the cart ahead of the horse given that the Trinity is most fundamental.

  123. Mark B said,

    December 25, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    “No sacrifices at all could be made now. That would be totally against Torah. There is no one in HRM making sacrifices. It will happen again. When there is a Temple. ”

    If the nail was in the coffin, call that sort of statement six feet of dirt on top. If Christ is the perfect sacrifice offered once for all as stated in Hebrews, how can the reinstitution of an earthly temple with levitical sacrifice be anything other than an abomination before God?

  124. Mark B said,

    December 25, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    @ Ron
    I saw your point, and don’t disagree. (Which is why I stated that I’m not sure this conversation is going anywhere). It is putting the cart ahead of the horse, but I for one don’t know how to avoid that, as on, say the trinity, there doesn’t seem to be a practical way to sort out if any given advocate is expressing something that is considered central to HRM, their personal understanding, or something that they think should be essential but that other HRM’s disagree with.

  125. Mark B said,

    December 25, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Think about some of the interactions with the FV guys, if they could continually plead that they were misunderstood, and most of them wanted to at least claim to be confessional, how far can one get on a basis of understanding with a group as diverse as HRM’s that are gospel marginalizing Biblicists, or at best have a singularly focused imposed systematic theology? Not criticizing, just truly wondering out loud.

  126. Ron said,

    December 25, 2013 at 7:52 pm

    Hi Mark,

    The cart and the horse I’m talking about is the cart of the theology of, say, *Connie* and the horse of *her* doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, there’s no way we can become better informed of the HRM from her / them, your point. That was never my expectation. Your point, which I share, is that if our goal is to debate the HRM we can only miss the mark because there’s no creed let alone a spokesperson for them.

    I do think FV is different in this regard if for no other reason leaders have been published in a single volume and spoken at conferences.

  127. jjarjw said,

    December 25, 2013 at 11:18 pm

    Shalom Mark,
    Just wanted to let you know that I am not ignoring or avoiding you. I’ve had a lot of family things going on here and try to make sure I balance family, computer time, etc. I appreciate what you had to say and where you’re coming from. Things should slow down soon so I can get back on here to respond to your comment. Before I get off here I will say you made a few points that are right on. HRM/Hebrews/Messianics/Jewish Christians/Hebrew Christians/Truth Seekers/Messianic Orthodox (we are known by many titles according to what resonates in our hearts) do not have a unified statement of faith/belief because there is no head church, church fathers, etc that we fall under. We believe that we should have statements of faith/belief according to our individual beliefs since we don’t all agree on everything. As well, we don’t all agree on everything whether it’s an issue which pertains to the calendar, how to dress, how to keep Sabbath, what HIS name is, whether or not to use HIS name, etc. We have much in common with one another but not everything in common just like any other religion out there. Which leads me to another thing. Most (if not all) Hebrews/Messianics would say that we don’t follow the doctrine of man. We follow the Scriptures as we understand them according to the culture and language of the time in which they were written.
    There are HRM/Messianic ministries/teachers out there that we do agree with or follow their teachings but even then it may not be on everything. The great thing about that is if there’s something we don’t agree on or understand, a lot of these ministries/teachers will take the time to discuss things with you. You may still not agree but there is a mutual understanding between each other. Even though these ministries/teachers are out there for the most part we all agree that teachings must line up with the whole of the Scriptures. There are some HRM/Messianics who blindly follow after teachings and man just like in any other religion. We also have our fanatics and the ill informed just like any other religion. We don’t want to be judged by those who would misrepresent us in that way.
    A lot of people think that the Messianic Movement/HRM is something that is very new when in fact it isn’t. There are MANY Messianics/HRM’s who have come out of The World Wide Church of God which was founded in 1934 so they’ve been keeping Sabbath, Yah’s Feasts, eating Biblically clean, etc since infancy. A lot of people from World Wide Church of God left after the founder died because the church doctrine had been changed to fit mainstream christianity and many disagreed with that. Once people left they joined HRM, 7th Day Adventists and some went into the mainstream church. We have friends who were born into The World Wide Church of God and left after many many years and joined HRM.

  128. Ron said,

    December 25, 2013 at 11:35 pm

    We believe that we should have statements of faith/belief according to our individual beliefs since we don’t all agree on everything.

    Do you all agree on that? Must you? If so, is that your creed, that you should agree on not having to agree?

  129. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 12:08 am

    My husband is the head of the household/our household. Not a church father, a pastor or anyone else. We speak for ourselves and what we believe. We haven’t actually written a statement of faith/belief for our family but many families have…not everyone does. I know lots of christian and messianic/hebrew homeschoolers who write statements of faith/belief for their homeschools. If asked what we believe and why then we share but we don’t go around preaching, trying to convert, thumping people on the head with our beliefs and we try our very best not to judge others as we don’t want others judging us for only God knows our hearts. Ron, I think I understand your last question but I could be wrong so I will answer the best I can to what I think your asking. I don’t know if creed is the right word to use but…if I understand your question correctly…if there’s an issue that we disagree on within our community we discuss it so we can at least allow one another to understand what we believe and why. Then we agree to disagree peacefully. This doesn’t always happen. Sometimes congregations split over silly simple issues. There are Messianics/HRM that do fall under or follow UMJA or MJAA.
    I had originally jumped back on here real quick because I had a thought. Amongst other things (which have been stated on here) I think one of the hardest things for people outside HRM to understand and wrap their brains around is the fact that we are and can be so diverse and individual in our thinking and beliefs and not answer to a head church, pastor etc. There are some core beliefs we have in common with one another but things can be very different outside those core beliefs but I would never speak for another individual or family. If asked about someone else’s beliefs I refer that person to the person/people being asked/talked about. Messianic/HRM teachers and ministries have their statements of faith/belief that can be found on their websites. I hope I’ve expressed my thoughts clearly. Sometimes things don’t always come across that way in the written word.

  130. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 12:20 am

    Quick P.S. Your right Ron, unless a Messianic/Hebrew falls under UMJA or MJAA we do not have a spokesperson who speaks for us. We speak for ourselves as individuals and families. My family and I (as well as many others that I know) do not fall under either one of those organizations.

  131. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 12:20 am

    Is the Trinity, in your opinion, an essential doctrine of the movement?

  132. Jason Loh said,

    December 26, 2013 at 12:30 am

    Dear HisLoammi,

    What do you think of the New Testament?

    Presumably your “handle” name is taken from Hosea 1? How do you explain God’s saying to Israel “Ye are not my people” and “Ye are my people one and the same time? How come God speaks in a contradictory manner?

    Hosea 1:
    “9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

    10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

    11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.”

    For us Reformation Christians (Reformed & Lutheran) in general, and Lutherans in particular (since I’m one – from Malaysia), God speaks two distinct and contradictory Words, not one Word. One Word is wrath, judgment; the other Word is mercy and promise. And the second Word always triumph over the first and is the final Word. To employ NT language, the Gospel is always final, not the Law.

  133. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 12:46 am

    Ron,
    It depends on how the Trinity is viewed.

  134. Jason Loh said,

    December 26, 2013 at 12:48 am

    Dear Jjarjw,

    Regarding the sameness of God, may I please further elaborate. I do not believe that is now OK to commit adultery. What I meant was the Law comes to an end in Christ Who ushers or brings in the new age, new heaven and new earth, the new creation. In heaven we do nor marry or are given in marriage. So, the Law concerning adultery does not apply. The Law has *limits.* The Law is not eternal. There is no need for the Law in heaven. It is done away with – forever. What stays the same is God’s promise to be the Lord God of His people – for ever.

    Do you believe in election and predestination? Election and predestination by its very nature is against the Law – since Christians are chosen/ justified by God apart from the Law – rather than Christians choosing God (on the basis of the Law).

  135. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 1:02 am

    I believe we have free will. I believe that because we have free will we will make choices that aren’t exactly what God would have for us. We make those choices based on Scripture and on the information we have at hand. I believe that we are chosen by God because it is HIS Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) that convicts the heart of man. Without conviction from the Ruach we, in our sin nature, would never choose God. We are fallen and born into this world as such. I believe we either belong to God or we don’t. I believe that God is all knowing and there are things HE wants for us but we don’t always listen. We all have a purpose and a reason for being on this earth. God has a purpose in everything.

  136. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 1:06 am

    I asked: Is the Trinity, in your opinion, an essential doctrine of the movement?

    Your response:

    It depends on how the Trinity is viewed.

    It would seem to reason that you do believe there is an essential doctrine of the Trinity, rightly defined that is. That’s the only way I can make sense of your statement because if you didn’t think there was an essential doctrine of the Trinity then presumably you’d just say “no, there isn’t one.” Now we’re getting somewhere. Please sketch this Trinitarian doctrine out for me – the one that is the correct one, i.e. the one the movement holds to in your opinion. Secondly, since you say there is no formal doctrine for the movement, one what basis do you believe that all within the movement hold to this doctrine?

    Many thanks.

  137. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 26, 2013 at 1:44 am

    Psa 119:151 But you are near, O LORD, and all your commandments are true.
    Psa 119:152 Long have I known from your testimonies that you have founded them FOREVER.

  138. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 26, 2013 at 1:59 am

    Psalms 111:7-10
    The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. 8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. 9 He sent redemption unto his people: he has commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. 10 The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endures for ever.

  139. Don said,

    December 26, 2013 at 2:15 am

    Teresa Cannon 86,

    Please read the chapter before Romans 7 and the chapter afterwards. Taken fully in context, it becomes clear that the “law” Paul was speaking of was not at all the Torah of Yahweh.

    Rom 8:2 …

    Unfortunately, the New Testament translates the word law the same way, whether it is speaking of God’s Law, the Oral traditions, or as in this case, the law of sin and death.

    The Greek word nomos is used in all instances. …

    Yes, it’s true that “law” sometimes has different meanings, most clearly in the contrasting “laws” of Romans 8:2 or 3:27. So context matters: What is the law of the Spirit of life? What is the law of sin and death? That is, what “law” cannot condemn sin in the flesh (8:3)–cannot free us from sin?

    (That said, I’m not sure why you think it’s “unfortunate” that the word for law is always translated as “law,” when you immediately admit that it’s the same word in the original. You seem to be seeking an interpretation or a paraphrase, rather than a translation?)

    Nevertheless, let’s return to Romans 7:6, which says we are “released from the law” and no longer serve “in the old way of the written code.” If it’s “clear” that this is not referring to the Torah, then what type of law is Paul referring to here? And what evidence (from the text, preferably) supports this? (That is, I’m asking for something a little more specific, and supported, than “it’s clearly not the Torah.”) I would hope that you realize that “written code” would make it clear he is not referring to oral traditions. If we use context, as you correctly suggest, then we can look at the next verse and find that when Paul talks about what the law says, he quotes the Torah. So, what law are we released from?

  140. Jason Loh said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:06 am

    Dear Teresa,

    Psalm 119: 152 may not necessarily be referring to the “commandments” in Psalm 119:151 but refer back to the “testimonies.” The KJV reads as: “*Concerning* thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.”

    This Psalm also strongly hints that the speaker is not David but Christ Himself. That is, it’s not about us – who emulate David in *obedience* but Christ Who we “see* by *faith.* “… I have *known of old* that Thou has founded them for ever.”

    Yes, testimonies are related to the commandments. But testimonies are not necessarily synonymous or the same as commandments which in the OT is associated with the Law (of Moses). Testimonies have the “ring” of something “broader” than the Law. These may include the Law but they may also include the promise/ deliverance (Gospel).

    Deuteronomy 6:

    “20 And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the *testimonies* (here testimonies assume priority *and* come first in the sequence*), and the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord our God hath commanded you?

    21 (Likewise the response which is according to the priority and sequence) Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh’s bondmen in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand (deliverance/ promise/ Gospel):

    22 And the Lord shewed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes (deliverance/ promise/ Gospel):

    23 And he brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers (again deliverance/ promise/ Gospel).

    24 (And then only come the response concerning the statues and judgments) And the Lord commanded us to do all these *statutes*, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

    25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these *commandments* before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.”

    Thus, Deuteronomy 6 *distinguishes* testimonies which pertain to the promise of the Word from the statutes and judgments which are the commandments – the distinction between Law and Gospel. It is distinction between what the Lord God has done for you and what the Law demands from you – very important distinction to be made.

    Secondly, keeping the Law (of Moses) suffices only for *external* righteousness. We know this is so from the New Testament and from the passage itself. Keeping the commandments is not for God’s sake but for “our good,” that we may be “preserve[d] … alive.” The Law of Moses which is the natural law *localised* to Israel of the OT is for their (physical) well-being. Otherwise, you’ll have to also start to openly deny that Jesus is your only Righteousness.

    So, only the Gospel is for ever. The Law is only for *this* old, passing away creation.

  141. Jason Loh said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:16 am

    Dear Teresa,

    Thank you for quoting Psalms 111:7-8
    “The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.”

    Again, the commandments are done and fulfilled by Christ and Christ *alone* – for Christ alone is truth and righteousness. Christ (alone) is the Subject of Psalm 111. We emulate Christ by loving the neighbour – the *entire* Law hangs on it and loving God can only be so if we have faith. That is we can only love God with our mind, heart, soul, with the entire person only by faith and faith alone.

    We can only receive Christ by faith (as our Saviour) and follow His Example in the Law of Christ whereby the Law of Moses is turned upside down so that instead as a means of relationship between God and the Christian, the Law becomes the means of relationship between the Christian and the old creation. In heaven, we will not be commanded to love one another because we will be loving one another. This is true ecstasy.

    At present, we are told to carry one another’s burden (Galatians 5) but in heaven such Law would be meaningless.

    Also not least, Paul has no time for the Law of Moses but only the Law of Christ. He doesn’t even mention the Law of Moses and Christ but *just* the Law of Christ. Doesn’t that speak volumes of his attitude towards the Law of Moses?

  142. Jason Loh said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:32 am

    The Law is not of grace. The Law (that is the Law used to define the divine-human relationship) presupposes and implies that there is a *distance* between God and sinners. The Law, therefore, was not meant to bridge the gap between God and sinners, i.e. it is not Jacob’s ladder to heaven.

    Rather, the Law is meant to say to us: No exit, no escape. You’re trapped. We can only die in sin and in our sins.

    However, when the Law is used to preserve creation, care for the well-being of creation, to uphold and maintain order in creation, then the Law performs its “natural” function. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, then the Garden of Eden would continue to exists. The commandment not to eat of the forbidden fruit was given for the then spiritual and physical well-being of Adam and Eve. Of course now, the Law is *limited* only physical well-being, and of course after the Fall, the “sword” was added to the *first* use of the Law.

    But Christ came down so to re-establish the proper use of the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses *is* the Law of sin and death. It is the Law (of Moses) that aroused concupiscence and incite the Original Sin (that is the divine ambition to be like God) of the Old Adam.

    Romans 7 …
    5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto *death*.

    6 But now we are *delivered from the law*, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

    7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    8 But sin, taking *occasion by the commandment*, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For *without* the law sin was dead (here Paul blames the Law for arousing the lust for self-righteousness).

    9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin *revived*, and I died.

    10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto *death*.

    11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, *deceived* me (into thinking that it was the way of righteousness), and by it slew me.”

  143. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 6:55 am

    Ron,
    I am only speaking for myself in regards to your question about the Trinity. When I close my eyes and try to picture God I don’t picture HIM as 3 different beings walking around keeping an eye on things from above. Come to think of it I don’t picture God as a person at all. There is 1 God who manifested Himself as a man (Yeshua) for a specific purpose and a specific time. I believe the Ruach HaKodesh (Breath of Holiness/Holy Spirit) is the very essence of God…HIS breath…HIS Spirit. HE is all knowing and is everywhere. HE can do all things. There are no limits when it comes to what HE can do and who HE is. God can’t be placed in a box of any kind. HE is infinite.
    Does the bible tell us what the Trinity is? The word trinity isn’t in the Bible. In my humble opinion, it’s a way/a word to try to put God in a box. HE cannot be boxed. As well, earlier manuscripts of the New Testament do not state that the three are one. The Scriptures expresses that they are witnesses.
    As far as your second question, I’m not quite sure what you’re asking.
    As well, I would just like everyone to know that I am not here to point fingers or to say who is right and who is wrong. That is for God to decide in the end and honestly, to some extent, we are all wrong about something or about everything. Only God is right about everything. We are only human so we have biases when it comes to interpretation. There is no human on earth who can say they don’t have a bias whether it’s a spiritual matter or not.
    This may help in summing up HRM/Messianic Believers. I have an 18 year old son with autism. He is high functioning which is a huge blessings in itself. We have a saying in the autism community and it is this,”If you’ve met one person with autism, then you’ve met one person with autism.” Meaning…all people with autism are different. They may have a few things in common like favorite foods, rocking back and forth, and social awkwardness but they are all very different people with different abilities and levels of functioning. No two autistics are alike.

  144. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 6:59 am

    Ron,
    What is your understanding of the trinity?

  145. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 8:57 am

    As well, earlier manuscripts of the New Testament do not state that the three are one. The Scriptures expresses that they are witnesses.

    So, you deny the Trinity that the historic Christian church has confessed through the ages. My guess is the others from HRM posting here also deny that God has eternally existed in three distinct persons, all sharing one substance, in the unity of the Godhead. I’m not here to debate but rather to help bring to light what you and the others believe about God (as opposed to what you believe about the law).

  146. Jason Loh said,

    December 26, 2013 at 9:59 am

    Dear Jjarjw,

    Don’t you believe in the eternal Fatherhood and eternal Sonship of God? Doesn’t the term, “Only-*Begotten* imply that the Son is not the Father and yet both are equally God?

  147. Pete Rambo said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:23 am

    @ Jason Loh, (#140),

    Psalm 119: 152 may not necessarily be referring to the “commandments” in Psalm 119:151 but refer back to the “testimonies.” The KJV reads as: “*Concerning* thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.”

    This Psalm also strongly hints that the speaker is not David but Christ Himself. That is, it’s not about us – who emulate David in *obedience* but Christ Who we “see* by *faith.* “… I have *known of old* that Thou has founded them for ever.”

    While 119 is written by a human, I will happily agree that it is the Word of ‘Christ Himself.’ Here are a few things He said,

    v. 1 How blessed are those whose way is blameless,
    Who walk in the torah of the Lord.

    v. 18 Open my eyes, that I may behold
    Wonderful things from Your torah.

    v. 29 Remove the false way from me,
    And graciously grant me Your torah.

    v. 34 Give me understanding, that I may observe Your torah
    And keep it with all my heart.

    v. 44-45 So I will keep Your torah continually,
    Forever and ever.
    And I will walk at liberty,
    For I seek Your precepts.

    v. 51 The arrogant utterly deride me,
    Yet I do not turn aside from Your torah
    .

    v. 53 Burning indignation has seized me because of the wicked,
    Who forsake Your torah.

    v. 55 O Lord, I remember Your name in the night,
    And keep Your torah.

    see also 61, 70, 72, 85, 92, 97, 109, 113, 126, 136, 142, 150 153 163, 165 and 174.

    All are awesome verses worth pondering the significance of ‘torah,’ though I would state, and other pastors on here would agree with me, that the many other words, ‘judgments, precepts, statutes, commandments, etc’ are simply synonyms. Therefore, we can’t parse the Torah into three or a thousand pieces.

    Perhaps the most beautiful verse is 174:

    I long for Your Yeshua, O Yahweh, and Your torah is my delight.

    Rev. 12:17 and 14:12 both say that the saints have ‘the testimony of Yeshua AND keep the commandments of God,’ echoing the previous verse from Psalm 119.

    Also, Jason, earlier you describe two laws, the second of which overrides the first… You also identified yourself as being in Malaysia. (Is that an islamic nation like Indonesia?) Islam teaches two halves of the Quran where the second overrides the first… And, Greek mythology has warring ‘gods’ who have to ‘fix/undo’ the errors of other ‘gods.’

    Scripture teaches no such thing. YOU identified Psalm 119 as being the words of Yeshua. Did He change His mind? I/we believe He was on Mt. Sinai and gave the Law. The story is ONE action from beginning to end and all parts are/will be accounted for, man’s unbelief be damned.

    I would recommend taking the time to sit and read/ponder all of Psalm 119. That is what HE thinks of HIS whole law. Shouldn’t we?

    God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

    Shalom!

  148. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:25 am

    Jaimi (Jjar): thanks for the frankness.

    Teresa, still waiting for your response to my last question, at 115:

    Teresa, no. 111: thanks. With you, I believe in one God.

    You note three personalities and qualify that with the word manifestations. Do you mean God manifests (presents, displays, portrays) Himself as three personalities (characteristics of a person)? To be a bit clearer, are you saying there is one God only manifesting Himself as three persons, and that He does not exist in His essential nature as three actually separate persons?

    It sounds like you agree with Jjar in no, 143 (you’ve used the same “manifesting” language). Do you?

    Do you come from a Pentecostal background? Not setting you up in these questions. I really am striving for understanding.

  149. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:30 am

    Connie: still hoping for an answer to no. 77. If you like, maybe you could read Teresa’s (no. 111) and Jjar’s (no. 143) answers to the same question, and tell me if that captures your conviction or how your belief God’s being differs.

    Also, see no. 106. Curious about how Torah applies in such situations. Thanks.

  150. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:31 am

    Reed,

    I’m beginning to wonder whether Teresa, Connie and jjarjw are one person in three distinct manifestations. :)

  151. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Peter Rambo: seems fair to ask you the same question. I think you are most likely familiar with the creedal formulations of the Trinitarian relationship, especially the Athanasian Creed or the Westminster Confession language.

    Do these formulations adequately express your conviction of what the Bible teaches about the nature of the Godhead? If they differ, where do they differ?

    What do you think about the incipient modalism in Teresa’s and Jjar’s responses? (Not assuming they necessarily intend it, simply that this is the language of modalism.) Do you agree, disagree?

    How does the HRM deal with this issue, the nature of the Godhead? Essential to true faith, non-essential to true faith, room for agreeing to disagree?

    Thx.

  152. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:38 am

    Hey Pete,

    Would someone be less spiritual if he believed like you but didn’t use all the Hebrew jargon?

  153. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:39 am

    Ron: rotf. ;0

    Ladies (Teresa, Connie, and Jaimi), grateful for interaction. Please continue.

  154. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:46 am

    Ladies, I do echo Ree’ds sentiment. Please know I am jesting. There is heart felt concern here about your understanding of God.

  155. Pete Rambo said,

    December 26, 2013 at 11:13 am

    Ron, (#152 and a dozen other places.. lol)

    On the trinity.

    I think where most Messianics get skittish in your question is your use of the word ‘distinct.’

    As Jjarjw previously explained, there is a good bit of diversity and a good part of that is because when people come into this understanding of Scripture and they begin to see inconsistencies from Protestant dogma, there tends to be a knee-jerk reaction that can put them way outside normative Christian thought until they can re-evaluate what they have been taught.

    My comments here should reflect the median of Hebraic thought, and where most end up after they get over the shock of wrestling with Christian doctrines that are diametrically opposed to Scripture… Take that for what it is worth.

    Mainstream Messianics agree to the Divinity of Yeshua(Jesus), however, we see much more connectivity between He is in the bosom of the Father and hath revealed Him. Most fellowships chant the Shema in Hebrew and English extolling the ‘echad’ (united one) nature of God.

    I think you would agree that the ‘Angel of the Lord’ appearances in the OT are ‘Christophanies,’ right? Then what are the implications of those?

    Yeshua is the One who made promises to Abraham in Ge. 15. (Word of the Lord in v. 1 and ‘Word of the Lord’ in v. 6 (Targum Onkelos))

    Yeshua is El Roi (Gen. 16:7-13)

    Yeshua was involved in the offering of Isaac. (Gen. 22)

    Yeshua was in the burning bush addressing Moses. (Ex. 3)

    Yeshua makes promises through Balaam in Numbers 22.

    Yeshua (the Angel of the Lord) makes astounding claims in Judges 2:1-5! He says, “I brought you up out of Egypt and (I) led you into the land which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break MY covenant with you,… but you have not obeyed ME!….”

    Messianics deeply understand the Divinity of Messiah and fully expect HIM as the visible God to make good on HIS promises and reign over HIS people.

    As to ‘distinct’… Greek thought tends to set gods against each other. That bleeds into early theology (circa 3rd century) and divides the Father and the Son, setting them against each other, where a Biblical approach that takes in the whole of Scripture really reveals something MUCH more connected. They are on the same page. Jesus ONLY teaches the doctrine of the Father. The message is one coherent message with one ‘will,’ or ‘way’ from beginning to end. The plan of Elohim (plural) has ALWAYS been a people that worship Him and walk in His unchanging ways.

    Several recent articles on my blog explore the connectedness of Yahweh and Yeshua. See ‘Yeshua as you’ve never seen Him’ and ‘What did Moses see in the Burning Bush,’ and ‘Was Jesus on Mt. Sinai? Does it Matter?’

    Because Messianics understand a deep connectedness between Yeshua and Yahweh, we understand the significance of the ‘everlasting Torah’ and the promises that go with it. Thus, the vigorous defense of the Torah and the fact that Yeshua said, ‘I did NOT come to abolish the Torah.’

    Thank you for trying to understand and asking reasonable questions instead of wild accusations and Scriptural ping pong.

    As a former Reformed pastor and now congregational leader, I admit, there are some fundamental differences between us, but we are your brothers seeking to walk as Yeshua walked.

    Shalom.

  156. Jason Loh said,

    December 26, 2013 at 11:17 am

    Dear Pete,

    >> Also, Jason, earlier you describe two laws, the second of which overrides the first… You also identified yourself as being in Malaysia. (Is that an islamic nation like Indonesia?) Islam teaches two halves of the Quran where the second overrides the first… And, Greek mythology has warring ‘gods’ who have to ‘fix/undo’ the errors of other ‘gods.’<<

    You bring up an interesting point. And yes, Malaysia considers itself an Islamic nation as in the government says that it is. But many Malaysians particularly the non-Muslims strongly disagree. We would say that Malaysia is both a secular and a Muslim-majority (dominated) country. And Indonesia is officially a secular nation that recognises the five mainstream religions. But these fanatics and fundamentalists no different from the Communists (and I'm afraid the Reconstructionists, et al) fantasise about imposing Sharia law and forcing Indonesia to be an Islamic state of some sort. The Mohamedans on the fringes of the world of islam or rather those in the South Asia and Southeast Asia try to be more Arabic than the Arabs, that is the common or average Joe Arab. They should take a look at Iran when the vast majority of the young adult population have become disillusioned with Islam, the rejection of the Moslem Brotherhood by the millions of Egyptians, the rejection of Islamism by urban Algeria; heck even Turkey under the current Islamists dare not go all out on Islamisation except on issues such as head covering.

    It is true that Allah is capricious and keeps changing His mind, abrogates earlier commands. Yes, the latter half of the Quran (the war verses) would override the earlier half (the peace verses).

    If I may be so crude … Luther's God is not based on Allah but based on the seeming irrationality and unpredictable ways of God Who actively "hides" Himself (e.g. Isaiah 45:15). It is a God Who "does all in all," Who "neither deplores nor takes away death" – the sovereignty of God Who is *not bound* to His promise or Word. Yes, *this* God seems capricious and arbitrary. Luther said that this God actually hides behind the "masks" of creation. But it does not reflect the true, proper nature of God. His "heart" is reflected in the Cross, in the Gospel, in the Word preached *for you.*

    It is actually a intense struggle of faith – the experience of having to cling to the promise *despite contrary/ contradictory/ opposite, etc. experience – the struggle between "sight" and "hearing." It is the experience of the OT prophets who even in their lamentation holds God on to His promise even against their experience of Him Who comes with judgment and destruction. So, we are "driven" from the God without the promise ("unpreached" God) towards the God with the promise ("preached" God). For Luther, the hidden God can also be indistinguishable from the devil. He is sheer power and all-power – destructive and indiscriminate.

    In relation to the Law, for Luther, the Law in its civil or political use changes because they are for the sake of humanity. The are essential for life on earth. But life on earth take different forms and expressions in time and space. So the Law which emerges from within society develops alongside or in tandem with society. It is not a "prescription" of what the Law "ought to be" but a "description" of what the Law actually "is." But the Law was not intended to be used to set up heaven on earth. But Allah's commands change because they are for Mahomet's greed and lust for power and dominion and all that.

    So, yes, in so far as the political or civil use of the Law is concerned, the latter law by default would override the earlier law as is usually the case unless we are discussing about retroactive or retrospective laws which normally would violate the principles of natural law itself.

    The overriding I had been sharing relates more to the distinction between Law (in its accusing and judging use) and Gospel – whereby the Gospel overrides the Law. The Gospel is the final Word of the two Words that God speaks. For Luther, the Law is against us; the Gospel is for us. The Gospel as the proclamation of Christ Himself is the end of the Law means that the Law is limited to this age (ontology – that which is "physical"). The Gospel is the new age (eschatology – that which is "spiritual"). The Law represents the oldness of the letter; the Gospel represents the newness of the spirit as per Paul in Romans 7.

    Jesus Christ kept/ keeps the Law for us – forever – so that we don't have to. In Jesus Christ, the Law comes to an end.

  157. Jason Loh said,

    December 26, 2013 at 11:22 am

    Dear Pete,

    Yes, this is where the patristics (particularly the Eastern) would wholeheartedly agree with you; I would agree with you that the One who spoke to patriarchs and the prophets and the I AMs of the OT was the Son. The I AM of the Burning Bush was none other than the Second Person of the Trinity.

  158. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 11:32 am

    I think where most Messianics get skittish in your question is your use of the word ‘distinct.’

    Pete,

    I don’t understand why “distinct” persons is a problem unless, of course, you don’t believe in three persons but rather three manifestations of one person. Although the acts of the Trinity are undivided, distinct-persons do distinct things. For example, the Father sent the Son; the Son was incarnate and died upon the cross; the Holy Spirit gives new life etc.

    As Jjarjw previously explained, there is a good bit of diversity and a good part of that is because when people come into this understanding of Scripture and they begin to see inconsistencies from Protestant dogma

    This is not “Protestant” dogma. It’s the teaching of the the holy, catholic church throughout the ages. Whether it’s apostolic or not is another matter. My single point is that prior to debating the apostolic tradition let it be known that you’ve departed from the historic creeds of the Christian church. That the Bible is one’s only creed merely qualifies a person to be a cult leader.

  159. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Pete: might you look at no. 151 and answer there? Appreciate your effort above, but there is not much there. In particular, the question is what do YOU believe? (We’ve already got that there is not much unity within the HRM on such topics)

    Do you or don’t you agree with the historic formulation of the Trinity? Do you affirm some form of modalism?

    What about Jjar’s language regarding the Holy Spirit? On the face of it her description reads like nothing more than the term Holy Spirit is referencing the spiritual aspect of the Godhead’s nature? Is this what you believe, that the Holy Spirit is not a person?

  160. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 11:39 am

    Pete: by the way, might you help identifying Hisloammi for me (from in or near Greenwood, SC)? I note on your blog you reference this person as a friend. Might you tell me, male or female, member or leader in a messianic group? Thanks.

  161. Jason Loh said,

    December 26, 2013 at 11:39 am

    >> Thank you for trying to understand and asking reasonable questions instead of wild accusations and Scriptural ping pong.<<

    Despite what you think, it's not ping-pong, Pete. The sword of the Spirit, i.e. the Word says that Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4). So Christ came to fulfill the Law in order to end it. First to go was the ceremonial law. This was already evident in the context of the passage you quoted. The Sermon of the Mount has nothing to do with keeping feasts, keeping the Sabbath, and the ceremonial law. The ethics of Matthew 5 reflects the universality and inclusivity of the Church – the political/ civil use of the Law. Next to go shall be the Law itself – in its theological, i.e. accusatory use. Paul says that Christians are not under the Law *but* grace led by the Spirit.

    What remains for the Christian is the Law of Christ as he/she relates to the Church in its earthly nature (the church is one of the estates of life on earth as well as the Kingdom of God) which is the Law of Moses turned upside down and the broader natural law as he/she is a citizen of this world.

    Jesus Christ alone is the Mediator between God and humanity – He is the "last Man standing" – it's Him alone or none at all. And Paul says that Christ as the end of the Law *is* the word that is preached to you (Romans 10). He alone is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

  162. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 11:41 am

    Pete: you said,

    “As to ‘distinct’… Greek thought tends to set gods against each other. That bleeds into early theology (circa 3rd century) and divides the Father and the Son, setting them against each other, …”

    Would the Athanasian Creed be an example of this to you?

  163. greenbaggins said,

    December 26, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    I think it is fascinating that the doctrine of the Trinity is being discussed now. I predicted this. You cannot get to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity from the hermeneutic of many people in the HRM.

  164. Pete Rambo said,

    December 26, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Reed (160),

    hisloammi is a person with whom I am familiar. They are solid in their understanding and faith in Yeshua. They are from the Greenwood area and, to my knowledge, truly separate and distinct from the others you are communicating with. If they choose to keep gender and name covered, I will respect that.

  165. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

    Exo 40:20 He took the testimony and put it into the ark, and put the poles on the ark and set the mercy seat above on the ark.

    “Albuquerque. See, I can do it too. Snorkel.” Riley Poole

  166. Pete Rambo said,

    December 26, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Reed, (#162),

    I can agree with the Athanasian but am learning to be very careful with the Mystery. The catholic faith may profess unity, but many doctrines do violence or tease the edges of that unity.

  167. Pete Rambo said,

    December 26, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    Reed (#159),

    I have posted direct links and references to exactly what I believe…

    This is the Statement of Faith for the Fellowship I help lead: http://davarchaim.org/statement-of-faith/

  168. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    Teresa: is there a reason you are not responding to my questions? See no. 148. Please, respond. Thx.

  169. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Pete: your website won’t seem to load (server space issue?). Might you just post the section from your statement of faith concerning your belief about the nature of God?

  170. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    Pete: other unity issues aside, there is NO disagreement on the Athanasian Creed’s summary of the Bible’s teaching on the Trinity. Is this what you believe the Bible teaches? Or is it fair to say that in this regard you are not in unity with the rest of the Church? Sincerely interested as I do want to understand.

  171. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    Pete: so the Athanasian Creed IS NOT an example of:

    ““As to ‘distinct’… Greek thought tends to set gods against each other. That bleeds into early theology (circa 3rd century) and divides the Father and the Son, setting them against each other, …”

    What would be? More significantly, as you made this comment in response to questions concerning the nature of the Trinity. exactly what Greek thought are you talking about? Please, give me an example? How do you think it conflicts with the Bible?

    You have an MDiv from Columbia, right? Not trying to trick you but have an honest conversation.

  172. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 3:03 pm

    Pete: ten minutes later since my last comment on your website not loading. Not a problem on my end (I’m able to load multiple sites at a time). It seems like there may be a bandwidth problem on your end. That happens, especially if you live in an area not yet served by widespread broadband (I don’t know just guessing).

    Anyway, might you simply post what your fellowship’s statement of faith says about the nature of God? If you’ve got this organized like others, this would include maybe four sections: Godhead, Father, Son and Spirit. If you’ve got more than these that would help me capture your conviction, please post them too.

    Thx.

  173. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    Connie, Teresa, Jjar: are you all, like Pete Rambo, a part of a Messianic fellowship? If so, do they have statements of faith (like Pete’s does)? If so, can you give me links to where I can look at them? That would go a long way towards helping me understand if we worship the same Yeshua Ha-Masiach. Thx.

  174. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    Reed,

    This is from the link:

    Yahweh God is Three Persons and yet One God; a TriUnity; a Family:

    a. the Father

    b. the Son

    c. and the Holy Spirit.

  175. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    Ron,
    I was just simply stating what I’ve read in Scripture as well as what I understand earlier manuscripts say about the trinity. I don’t know what the historic christian church has confessed through the ages so I can’t deny something I know nothing about. God can and has manifested Himself in the form of man, Holy Spirit and well God. I believe there is only One God not 3 different gods. Scripture clearly speaks of One God. I believe that God has always been…HE has always existed. I believe that Yeshua was there from the very foundations of the world (John 1:1-4) and the Holy Spirit (from what I understand) is the very breath of God. HIS Spirit. God is Spirit. Again I truly don’t think there is any one person out there who has a complete grasp on this subject because we live in the physical world. As humans it’s hard for us to understand the spiritual world because it’s so abstract. Our human minds have limits.
    I don’t hold to traditions of man…traditions of doctrine whether they be christian or jewish. I am here to share my Walk and what it is that I believe in the hopes that it will give others some insight into the HRM/Messianic faith. Again, I do not and cannot speak for all HRM/Messianics.

  176. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    Ron, hmm… sounds Trinitarian.

    Pete, if this is your statement of faith, why do you hesitate on using the word “distinct”? Doesn’t your statement of faith mean three “distinct” as in three actual persons who are not each the other?

    The statement does seem to capture the necessity of the unity of the Godhead that you are concerned that the “Protestant Church” has lost (or tends to lose? Not sure exactly what you mean.) And it sounds essentially the same as every other church’s statement of faith who accepts the Trinity as the BIble’s own teaching.

    Sincerely, Pete, if you’ve been trained at a reformed seminary, as I have, why shouldn’t we be able to affirm clearly and without equivocation our agreement on the Church’s UNIVERSAL historic understanding of the Bible’s teaching on the Trinity?

    Surely this is a central topic, essential to the HRM, built around the Shema, the essential unity side of the Trinity. Why are you hesitating to just straightforwardly affirm this? Sincerely, I really want to know if you have some quibbles, problems with the expression of the Trinity of which I may not even be aware.

    Thx.

  177. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    Reed,
    In the past my family and I have attended Messianic/Hebrew congregations. We are military and just settled into our new duty station a few months ago. We found one Messianic congregation but they fall under one of the Messianic Jewish organizations (not sure which one) so fellowshipping with them isn’t an option for us as we don’t adhere to their beliefs. We have like minded friends here as well as 2 towns over so we do home fellowship. For us (as well as many Messianics/Hebrews we know) it’s not about what religion you’re affiliated with. It’s about relationship with the Heavenly Father.

  178. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    Reed,

    I was debating whether to keep commenting. My husband cautioned me that maybe I should not. He asked me to consider if I were helping or hurting. Abba knows I don’t want to do any harm. That’s why I had only posted scriptures.

    I was raised Methodist, so no on the Penecostal upbringing. I am not a part of any fellowship. I am in agreement with Brad Scott’s teachings from Wildbranch Ministries and some other similar teachers.

    I answer to my husband. He is my head. Yeshua is His head.

    I do not believe that Yeshua was the Father, he was the exact image of the Father, Yet he has eternally existed. I believe that God is a Spirit. And we cannot fathom all that that entails..

    To me He can be or do what He desires. However, in my thinking, I don’t see God like three people sitting on the couch, as Brad says.

    I know that God sent His son to save me from my sins. ( what I consider to be and what scripture verifies as violations of Torah). I do not think in any stretch of imagination that keeping His commandments will save me.

    They will not. They cannot. It is only the precious blood of Messiah that is able to do that. So, in that respect I would say you and I are on the same page.

    My husband and I were keeping Torah before it was labeled Hebrew Roots. A dear friend once told me that people want to label things so they can figure out how to attack them.

    People in the Hebrew Roots are just people. Just like you. With families they love, a desire to serve God, and anticipating being with their soon coming King.

    Most do not try to force their beliefs on anyone. But they will gladly share if someone is interested. Reed, if we disagree it does not mean that I do not still have the love of Messiah towards you. One man cannot answer for another man’s servant.

    You are a servant of Christ , you answer to Him, as do I, I hope I have answered your questions.

    Blessings !
    Teresa

  179. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    I don’t know what the historic christian church has confessed through the ages so I can’t deny something I know nothing about.

    jjarj,

    Not to disagree too abruptly but sure you can. One can deny the teachings of the historic Christian church regardless of whether they know that the church has taught those things being denied. In the like manner, one can deny the existence of God without having ever heard of the Scriptures, which presupposes and teaches His existence. One simply has to deny the propositions contained therein. So, one can deny the doctrine of the Trinity, which is a teaching of the church, without knowing the Trinity is a teaching of the church. That’s not a matter of theology but pure reason. Now with that aside…

    I do appreciate your candor. I only hope that you don’t let this become a badge or righteousness:

    I don’t hold to traditions of man

    There’s a sound of pietism there that is not biblical. Although the traditions of men can go astray, the institutional church has the truth. Remember, the prophets were part of the same Israel as the false teachers. Accordingly, I might merely suggest you look to what the historic church confesses since God promised to lead her, not individual mavericks. Maybe also reflect upon Philip and the Eunuch (Acts 8) and learn of the humility that looks to teachers in the church, for it is normative learn from a teacher. Moreover, you might consider: “…and if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

    May God be pleased to order your steps.

  180. Ron said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    Yes, Reed, I agree. I’m hoping all things here. Sounds Trinitarian. So, as you asked, why not “distinct” persons? Or, are these “persons” referenced in the doctrinal statement really persons (i.e. distinct) or just manifestations? Again, why the hesitation to confess without equivocation? Let’s see…

  181. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Thanks Teresa: appreciate both your straightforward responses and your serious consideration of your husband’s counsel.

    So, to be fair with what you’ve said:

    > While you are not intentionally anti-Trinitarian, you are not comfortable affirming that the Bible teaches the Trinity, as expressed by all the historic creeds of every branch of the Church Universal. I conclude that simply on the basis of your comments. You do not affirm an separate personhood to the Spirit. As well, you seem unclear on the exact nature of Yeshua’s divinity, at least with reference to the Father. To be fair, you may be like a lot of Christians, basically unclear on exactly what is the Trinity, as taught in Scripture.

    > As well, you do not seem to agree that a relationship with local Trinitarian, gospel believing and teaching church of the Church of Yeshua is an essential consequence of your faith. With you I affirm no work of ours will in any manner positively effect my state of salvation. Yet the Bible does clearly teach that active, submissive participation in a (rightly called and ordered) local church is an essential fruit of the Spirit’s work in the person who has been saved by the blood of Yeshia Ha-Mashiach. Your conviction seems to be that some sort of loose affiliation with like minded people, under only the authority of one’s house IS all that the Spirit calls for by way of the obedience of love that is to be the norm in the believer’s life.

    These are two substantial differences between your convictions and mine. While I will not conclude that you are not saved, I am forced out of love to say that your faith is seriously deficient, even dangerously so. I’d love to engage further over such differences but not in the interest of verbally bullying.

    As to labels, yes they can be abused. On the other hand Yeshua himself used labels, did he not? Else wise how could we apply His commands to be not like the Pharisees?

  182. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    Teresa: appreciate your observation about HRM people not forcing their beliefs on others, I am sure in their zeal they are sincerely motivated for my good.

    I am sad to say that my experience on this blog has been exactly the opposite of what you describe. I’ll not say you specifically, but my experience has been one of being treated as a second class Christian at best. At worst, I’ve been accused as being one who teaches people not to keep God’s law, jeopardizing their soul and mine with the fires of eternal damnation.

    And that is just in the comments that I and other moderators post. There are an equal number of comments that are simply so rude, unloving and unkind that we have no choice but to delete them for well being of both those who wrote them and the readers of the blog.

    For folks who stress the necessity of torah keeping, my experience with HRM-minded folks has been one of people who tithe mint and cumin but ignore the weightier matters of the law, such as loving neighbor as self.

    Now, that is not universal. I have received the occasional gracious comment from even the most obnoxious HRM-minded person. As well, I can think of at least one HRM-minded person who has been gracious in all their comments here at GB.

    Further, lest someone read too far and impute things unfairly to me, I am not making blanket statements about all HRM-minded people, just those with whom I have rubbed shoulders.

    (Final caveat, and my criticisms are most certainly NOT applied to the average Messianic believer, among whom I count some dear friends).

    Finally, I understand how zeal for the Lord who loved us enough to give Himself can lead to some carelessness in comments, saying things in a manner that are less than gracious and humble. I am guilty of that myself far too often. Please here me then Teresa, not so much as pulling a shotgun trigger here, as simply observing my sincere sadness over the behavior of those who profess that their love for Torah and its God is greater and better than the rest of us.

    I pray for them as I pray for myself, that God’s mercy in Christ would rule and change them, at least in this regard.

  183. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    Jaimi (Jjar), no. 177, letting Ron’s deeper wisdom suffice for in depth questions regarding your Trinitarian convictions, I’ll conclude for you the same as for Teresa. You are not anti-Trinitarian, but you are not sufficiently well versed enough in the biblical data concerning the Trinity to affirm that this is your conviction. Fair enough, and no pejorativity is intended in my observation.

    Secondary curiosity question, you note that you are unable to fellowship with nearby Messianic Jewish congregations because their beliefs differ from yours. The differences must be pretty substantial in your view. E.g., I’ve got some close friends who are committed believer-baptists only and they have worshiped and served alongside of me in an infant-baptism also church.

    Might I ask, what are the differences in beliefs, and why are they so significant for you and your husband? Thx.

  184. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    Pete, nos. 170, 171, & 176. Thx.

  185. Pete Rambo said,

    December 26, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    Reed,

    As I explained before, my reticence is that I believe the Mystery is greater than the box we try to put Him in. I also believe that historic Christianity, particularly under the influence of Roman Catholicism has dwelt mightily on the disctinctions of the Person (TriUnity) to the detriment of the Unity. [Much of that goes back to the very bad habit of the RCC to syncretize the local paganism to its own benefit. Pagan godheads have been in existence since Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz.]

    Yes, I have an M. Div. from Columbia Biblical Seminary, 2002. I have always been been premil with a strong bent toward pre-wrath. You know all that.

    Now, I realize, back in 177 you said, ‘I really want to understand,’ but remember, I’ve had to counter tilting at windmills on this blog before. And your ‘nice questions’ turned into an attempted ambush.

    I am willing to have a discussion and exchange between peers, but I want to draw a very clear line here. Lane, nor anyone on this board has any authority, ecclesiastically or otherwise, over me or even the HRM. I/we (and I am small potatoes) seek to live according to Scripture and we are willing to turn over every stone, particularly in the First Century historical context to undo the mess that Greek/Roman bishops made of the ‘faith once delivered.’ My daily goal is to go back to the foundation in order to avoid the antisemitism and pagan tradition tracked into the faith of those who would walk as Yeshua walked.

    Honestly, I have said it before and I’ll say it again. I love my brothers in the pulpit, but I have learned and found things that do not square with some things I was taught. I will expose and renounce those traditions. To my fellowship. To my family. To those I previously taught. To any who will listen. Period. I am accountable before God and I fear for all of us! We have inherited some lies and frankly, it never hurts to go back to the beginning!

    What was the faith practice of believes in the Messiah from 35 AD to 95 AD? Honestly study it out with NO presuppositions, and you will find Sabbath-keeping, feast observing, clean eating Jews and Gentiles who walked Torah WITHOUT observing (or holding in higher regard) the oral traditions of the Pharisees. When we understand and grasp that and are willing to wrestle with it, suddenly HUGE sections of Scripture fall into place with no excuses for seeming contradictions. Paul did not DO one thing and SAY another.

    Those who have the most trouble setting aside presuppositions and tradition are the ones with the most to lose. It cost me the pulpit and my ordination in the ARP. Knowing what I know now, I would do it again IN A HEARTBEAT! I’d pay twice the price!

    I have given you strong words. We’ve never met, but I do love and respect you. I do enjoy debate and apologetics, but I have increasingly felt the need to draw/redraw some firm boundaries on here. My apologies if they cut, but I want to be honest here. And, I want to rightly defend against false understanding/attacks against the HRM.

    I hope you understand. Thank you.

    Peace.

  186. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Mark,
    It seems a lot of people have come across this movement or people in this movement or have heard from a friend of a friend of a friend. When it comes to the latter that is a dangerous thing. For example, years ago when I explained to my mother what we believe and why she was fine with it. As long as we didn’t deny the deity of Yeshua (which we don’t) then she was fine with everything. A few years later she was talking with a lady at church about HRM. This lady said she had heard bad things about HRM. She talked with my mother which in turn resulted from a phone call from my mother. She told me everything the lady had told her. I assured her those things weren’t true, they were all rumors and gossip. Unless she experienced or heard those things for herself then it’s gossip and slander. I will give you an example. This lady told my mother that we sacrifice our children…literally sacrifice our children!!! How absurd and ridiculous!!! I have given birth to 4 children and I assure you they are all alive and well. She still believes this lady over anything I have said to her. I cannot change that.
    Yes, most HRM/Messianics believe that we should pursue/keep/study/walk out Torah to the very best of our human ability. That seems like a lot of work but it truly isn’t. There are 613 in Torah however one has to realize that as a woman I cannot keep all 613. Some of those apply to men, priests and the temple, animal sacrifices (which we absolutely do not practice), etc. For a complete list…http://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/articles/ck01mitzvot.html
    We still keep all of the Biblical Feasts sans animal sacrifice. Without a temple in Jerusalem that would be an abomination to God. I do see how one would consider reestablishing the sacrificial system as an abomination and a denial of Yeshua’s sacrifice. When my husband and I crossed over to this Way we weren’t sure about it either however we became Bereans and dug into the Scriptures and studied the sacrificial system so we could understand. Once you study it, things become more clear.
    I can only speak for myself and my family. We believe in the deity of Yeshua. HE was/is the sacrificial lamb. HE was crucified on the stake for the sins of all mankind. Without HIS sacrifice there would be no way for us to atone for our sins. HIS very Name…Yeshua means Salvation. HE is the Son of God.
    You ask if we have the Scriptures. I believe we have them in the only form that is available to us. I don’t believe that the Bible of today is as whole and complete as it once was but we have what we have and we do the best we can with what we have. I believe it’s ok to speculate and discuss Scripture however when we study Scripture we shouldn’t go to the Bible to find Scripture that matches our theology. We should go to the Scripture to find out what it says about whatever it is that we are studying. To the very best of our ability we should throw out all our man made traditions/teachings and focus on Scripture. If there’s something we don’t understand then we employ the use of concordances, etc. HRM/Messianics study and read Scripture through the eyes of the Hebrew culture (and to the best of our ability) the Hebrew language. I hope this answers your questions. If not please let me know and I will try to be more clear.

  187. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Jason Loh,
    I would have to really find out what “Only-*Begotten* entails before I could give any kind of an opinion. God is an eternal God in all forms/beings. Again, when it comes to spiritual things cannot be seen it’s hard to understand them because they are very abstract.

  188. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 26, 2013 at 5:22 pm

    Reed,

    I apologize that some have been unloving. I am sure they didn’t set out to be. I think it’s possible that one can get that way if they feel they are being unfairly attacked. Most anyone is capable of going on the defensive.

    As far as your comments about the church… it has been translated ekklesia but is really the same as the qahal, or congregation, assembly.

    It is not a building or an organization but the people themselves. It is the same congregation Stephen spoke about in the Book of Acts.

    Act 7:37 This is that Moses, who said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me.
    Act 7:38 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us:
    Act 7:39 to whom our fathers would not be obedient, but thrust him from them, and turned back in their hearts unto Egypt,

    I am a part of God’s congregation. I do not need a building to be a part. And I do worship with others when possible. My husband leads a Bible Study during the week with a handful of other believers. We all learn together just as they did in the early church.

    I was taken aback that you consider my faith insufficient . If the blood of Yeshua does not qualify me for salvation, then surely everyone’s faith is insufficient.

    Are you saying that I must belong to organized religion in order to be saved? Because I have never read that as a requirement. Abba knows my heart, and I know my Abba. I have no doubts as to my salvation.

    And truthfully, I would never presume to doubt yours. That isn’t my place. Hebrew Roots has adherents from a wide variety of backgrounds. Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Penecostals, and the list goes on.

    But we all have a shared belief in the blood of Yeshua as the only means of salvation. The fact that we keep Torah does not in any way negate that fact.

    I am really not sure why anyone finds that so disagreeable. I really believe that when Messiah returns we will ALL find out that none of us had all the answers. If we think we have arrived then that is a sure sign that we have not.

    Until then, I am going to continue loving my brothers and sisters in Messiah no matter what their background.

    Shalom,
    Teresa

  189. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    Pete: I edited your comment to remove things that are of a private nature between you and Lane. In my role as a moderator, I deem stating them here unhelpful and unkind to both you and Lane.

    I appreciate your explanation for your pointedness. For the record, I never heard of you until you first responded, rather intensely, to Lane’s first post on this topic. As there was nothing in that post identifying you personally, I would not have known who you are from anything Lane has said, either publicly or privately. All that I know about you I know from you, no one and no where else.

    It is clear that your personal circumstances have encouraged you to be a bit suspicious. Notwithstanding my sympathy your suspicious toward me is unfounded and unfair.

    I particularly deny your accusation of formerly asking “friendly” questions only to then to attempt to ambush you. Again, it may be that your life experiences elsewhere are coloring your hearing here at GB. Willing to bear with you as you work through that I respond just as strongly with the charge to stop assuming unkind motives and then on that basis mislabeling my actions as sinful towards you. You are wrong to do so and sinning. Like you, strong words offered in love and respect, sincerely.

    I asked you sincerely for sincere, straightforward answers Pete, about one topic, the Trinity. I did not ask for you to present your apologetic for the HRM (which you seem to want to work into at least a third of your comments). As it is, you still keep equivocating on exactly what you believe about the Trinity.

    Instead of simply stating what you believe you keep making veiled accusations in two directions: 1) the failures of the Ancient Church (now including Greek and Roman bishops, and the Roman Catholic Church), and 2) modern Protestantism (Reformed guys like me in particular).

    If such accusations are based on objective criticisms, I’m a big boy. I wouldn’t ask what you believe if I wasn’t willing to take criticism of my own beliefs. State your piece and let me respond. After all, that is what debate is about, right. If you do not have any formulated accusations to make, then might it not be better to be silent, study more, and then speak when you can back them up?

    If your accusations are based on suspiciousness that you are being set up, again, I do sympathize. I’ve had my share of stabbing knives from folks who asked me to trust them and turn my back to them. And, I deny your belief that you need to treat me in such a manner. I have not set up you up and then attempted an ambush in any conversation I’ve had with you. Instead when I disagree with you I’ve only offered sincere counter points to comments you’ve made.

    Regarding your conviction on the Trinity, my goal is two-fold (and possibly a third, but not specifically relevant to this conversation). First, I want to simply know if we have this in agreement. If we do, this provides a good starting point for building further understanding. If we don’t then identifying this will help us avoid making wrong assumptions that will lead to misunderstanding each other.

    Second, I do think there is a fundamental and foundational argument to be made about the role of the Trinity in the Torah. The argument gets changed rather substantively depending on how much agreement we share. No set up, no hidden gotcha. Just simple, straightforward discussion.

    (Third (the one not specifically relevant here), I am curious merely by way of anecdotal evidence how much of the doctrine of the Trinity is really understood by Christians. I am curious as to how well someone like you, seminary trained in the reformed tradition, understands and believes by faith in the doctrine of the Trinity. Again, this is secondary and not applicable to our conversation here. Yet in the interests of encouraging you to believe I am sincere in my intentions toward this conversation, I did want to mention it.)

    I am not interested in letting the doctrines of man rule me. Instead, I offer my submission to the Word of God, as interpreted by the Spirit of God. Not sure who or how your presuppositions and traditions comment applies to our conversation. FWIW I suggest you drop that line of thinking if you’re applying it to me. If it can’t be proven from Scripture than I am not interested in the discussion.

    So, how about it, no more equivocation? What do you actually believe about the nature of the Godhead? Would it be helpful to go line through line through the Athanasian Creed? Of course, identify what you believe by Scripture.

    Thx.

  190. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Jaimi (Jjar): you said,

    “We still keep all of the Biblical Feasts sans animal sacrifice. Without a temple in Jerusalem that would be an abomination to God. I do see how one would consider reestablishing the sacrificial system as an abomination and a denial of Yeshua’s sacrifice. When my husband and I crossed over to this Way we weren’t sure about it either however we became Bereans and dug into the Scriptures and studied the sacrificial system so we could understand. Once you study it, things become more clear.”

    What exactly are your practices in these feasts? Where do you get these practices from? Where does the Bible teach these? Where does the Bible teach it is proper to hold these feast, using the practices you do, without also doing all the other parts, such as sacrifices?

    Still also curious what are the differences b/w your convictions and the local Messianic congregations.

    Finally, thank you for your husband’s and your family’s services. My family is grateful for your sacrifices for our protection.

  191. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    Ron,
    I understand what you’re saying about denying the teachings of the historic christian church. I put it that way because if I understood what their teachings were then there could possibly be something there that I would agree with. I don’t like to throw the baby out with the bath water. I like to study and search things out.
    When I say I don’t hold to the traditions of man be they christian or jewish I am absolutely not being haughty or pious. If I came off that way I didn’t mean to. The written word can be misunderstood. My deepest apologies for any offense that was taken in regards to my statement. Please forgive me. I was just merely stating that because I feel that following the traditions and teachings of man can be dangerous as we are not perfect and very fallible. God should be our only guide/teacher, etc. I understand that HRM/Messianics seem like individual mavericks however God has promised to lead all of us whether we are part of a church/congregation or not. If God doesn’t lead us as individuals, what would be the point of having a personal relationship with God? We won’t stand before God as a church/congregation to give an answer. We will stand before HIM as individuals to give an account for our lives/Walk/relationship with HIM.
    I don’t think God meant for the church to become an institution. You say they have the truth. It depends on what your view (or their view) of the truth is and who or what is the institutional church?
    I do understand the humility it takes to look to teachers for some guidance and understanding. We have teachers in this movement that we look to. We don’t’ agree with all those teachers all of the time but again they are open to discussion so there is understanding.

  192. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    Teresa: thank you for your comments and not taking unnecessary offense at some of the stronger things I said.

    Regarding judging someone else’s profession of faith, isn’t Yeshua’s teaching on this in the sermon on the Mt clear? We’re not to judge unrighteously (hypocritically calling others for sin we ourselves refuse to acknowledge). Instead we are to judge righteously (assessing people based on the fruit if their lips and lives). That is all I am seeking to do.

    I said I found your faith to be deficient, not insufficient. I certainly hope I will be with you on the side of the sheep (and not the goats) on the judgment day. Yet does not Yeshua promise that the Church will be filled with false professors, right up until the time the Angels come to collect God’s children? You may indeed truly be saved, and it is on that basis I offered my caution. Ruach HaKodesh will confirm what is true and what is not for God’s children.

    You profess membership in the Church Universal. Great, I do to. You seem to think I believe membership in a building called a church is also necessary. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Instead, does not the Bible teach that the individual believer’s membership in the Church Universal is expressed in active, submissive participation in a local church, not a building, but a rightly ordered congregation (qahal, ekklesia, called out and gathered ones) gathered in Christ’s name.

    Else wise:

    > how could Paul identify individuals as members of specific local churches (see the lists at the end of Romans)?
    > why would God ordain men to an office that only functions over a local congregation (see Eph 4:11-12)?
    > why would God command such ordained men to take personal responsibility for the spiritual welfare of such members in a local church (see 1Pe 5 and Heb 13:17)?
    > why would God command believers to submit to “their” recognizable elders (see Heb 13:7)?
    > why would God command believers, on pain of potential judgment on the day of judgment, to be committed to the regular life of a local church (see Heb 10:24-25)?

    These, and many other verses make it clear that an essential fruit that the Spirit produces in the life of one savingly united to the Messiah is membership in a local expression of the Church Universal. This is why John spoke so seriously about those who had abandoned their commitment to the local church, when he said, “they went out from us because they were never part of us.” (1Jo 2:19)

    Your observation about the universal nature of the qahal-ekklesia is true, as far as it goes. The point I am observing here is that Yeshua does not recognize a person as a member of His qahal-ekklesia unless that expresses itself in by faith submission to participation in a local church. Yes, not all churches are rightly called churches. Yet there are plenty in this country that still maintain the essential commitments. A person willingly standing outside of membership in such a group is denying Yeshua’s very application of Torah on this point.

    That is one reason why I offered the warning about deficiency in your professed faith. You are denying a fruit that Messiah says He gives to ALL those who are truly His. It may be that you are simply not informed on this topic, or due to bad experience with some local churches (a sad reality in our day and age) struggling with submission to this doctrine. Nevertheless, Torah cannot be broken and this is what the Bible teaches. I offered this observation not out of a judgmental-ness but our of sincere kindness.

    Finally, my warning was also based more on your deficiency in belief concerning the Trinity. This is far more serious, as it strikes at the heart of Torah, the Shema itself. But even here, I did not make the warning to be nasty, but hopefully to be helpful.

    Is that not in keeping with Yeshua’s Ha-Mashiach’s Torah love commands?

  193. Pete Rambo said,

    December 26, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    Reed (#189),

    It must be nice to have such a short memory… LOL! (It is a joke… )

    You said,

    For the record, I never heard of you until you first responded, rather intensely, to Lane’s first post on this topic….I particularly deny your accusation of formerly asking “friendly” questions only to then to attempt to ambush you. Again, it may be that your life experiences elsewhere are coloring your hearing here at GB. Willing to bear with you as you work through that I respond just as strongly with the charge to stop assuming unkind motives…

    http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/the-hebrew-roots-movement/ was the first post that I know of, and I was Lane’s ‘poster boy.’ But when I came on here to offer a defense, there was no real addressing or discussing of the Scriptural points I and others made.

    http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/hebrew-roots-unhelpful-fruits/ was written by you. We (you and I) had several exchanges there. You set an ambush and I called you on it and knowingly walked in, in the interest of truth.

    Other posts, which I participated, in were posted on June 7 and June 8.

    Having read and participated in those discussions, it rings a little hollow when you say,

    I am sad to say that my experience on this blog has been exactly the opposite of what you describe. I’ll not say you specifically, but my experience has been one of being treated as a second class Christian at best. At worst, I’ve been accused as being one who teaches people not to keep God’s law, jeopardizing their soul and mine with the fires of eternal damnation.

    From the beginning, this blog’s approach has been one of denigrating or attacking the HRM with zero provocation. It this blog who has treated Messianic believers as second-class citizens or even heretics.

    Just calling it as I see it.

    Now that you can go back and verify all of that, your memory may be less cloudy. ;)

    Forgiven, and moving on…

    Now to address your last post.

  194. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    Pete: with regards to Lane mentioning you by name, I stand corrected. With regards to what I learned about you and from where, however, my point stands. Lane’s post interacted with your own published views. He did not mention anything about your personal life. All that I’ve learned about that I’ve learned from you alone.

    Yes, you certainly did accuse me of ambushing you in the comments on the post Hebrew-Roots Unhelpful Fruits. I maintain you sinned in doing so, and are again. You are judging me based on your own presumption of my motives.

    What I said however, stands in direct contrast to your false accusation. I did not ask any questions in a gotcha manner. Instead I did exactly as I said I would:

    > I asked you to respond to specific questions,
    > to which I then responded with more pointed challenges.

    That is not an ambush. That is ordinary debate between reasonable men who treat each other with respect.

    You belittle me with joke comments that are actually unkind and mean spirited. You maintain a false accusation without proof. You call my sincere expression of sadness over the treatment I’ve received from men such as yourself as hypocritical (“rings hollow”). And then you have the gall to offer me forgiveness?

    You don’t think this kind of behavior is Torah consistent do you? No sarcasm here, just asking you to live by your own standards.

    You call is as it you see it, and break Torah in doing so. You did then, and you do so now. I will accept your forgiveness for any sin I truly did commit, but not one that you have made up in your own mind.

    Are you sure you’re not just being touchy?

    Meanwhile the central issue of the Trinity remains fuzzy and unanswered.

  195. Pete Rambo said,

    December 26, 2013 at 6:55 pm

    jjarjw,

    This is where Reed is going, read the comments section: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/hebrew-roots-unhelpful-fruits/

  196. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:09 pm

    Jaimi(Jjar), indeed that is where I am going, and even further if I can. Nothing hidden here. Obviously I disagree with the HRM, nothing is being hidden by me.

    And that is the essential characteristic of an ambush, hiding the attack that is then launched against an unsuspecting foe.

    I’ve hidden nothing of my motives or disagreements with the HRM. I do not see Jaimi (Jjar) or anyone else here commenting favorably on the HRM as a foe (including you Pete). I do no launch unsuspected attacks. I openly dialogue in a straightforward manner.

  197. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    Pete, in a sincere effort to secure peace with you, let me say it straight up:

    Yes I disagree with the HRM.
    Yes I disagree with what I have learned from you about your HRM based convictions.

    These are obvious and never hidden by me.

    I do not have any personal animosity toward you. This is true even though you continue to malign me with false motives and deceptive words.

    I simply ask you to stop it and engage without the suspiciousness. If you cannot then for the sake of Christ maybe we should not talk together. And since this is in part my house, maybe you should simply stop responding.

    Your last comment to Jjar was unkind to say the least. If you wish to continue such behavior, do it elsewhere.

    I would prefer, however, that you accept my offer of sincerity.

  198. Pete Rambo said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:19 pm

    Reed (#194),

    Let the reader of the comments on those several posts be the judge. I do not think I have unfairly summarized the way all of that was handled. We can drop it.

    As to the Trinity, I said in #166,

    I can agree with the Athanasian but am learning to be very careful with the Mystery.

    and I said in #167,

    http://davarchaim.org/statement-of-faith/

    and Ron said in #174,

    This is from the link:

    Yahweh God is Three Persons and yet One God; a TriUnity; a Family:

    a. the Father

    b. the Son

    c. and the Holy Spirit.

    And in #185, I said,

    As I explained before, my reticence is that I believe the Mystery is greater than the box we try to put Him in. I also believe that historic Christianity, particularly under the influence of Roman Catholicism has dwelt mightily on the disctinctions of the Person (TriUnity) to the detriment of the Unity. [Much of that goes back to the very bad habit of the RCC to syncretize the local paganism to its own benefit. Pagan godheads have been in existence since Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz.]

    I also provided a link to multiple articles where in I deal with the presence of Yeshua at major junctures in the Torah, not the least of which is Mt. Sinai…

    What more do you want? Please go read what I wrote and see the links I provided.

    I have clearly expressed that I see more connectedness, or at least see more clearly the connectedness of the Father and Son than the doctrines I was raised with…

    I don’t know how to state it more clearly! Do we agree? Probably, though, because I understand Yeshua to have been on that Mountain, I will hold to acknowledging that the One who gave the Law as covenant, did not then change that Law. If He breaks the covenant, He has to die. He can’t die for our sin AND His. And, as I have previously stated on this blog, I believe the terms of the ‘new’ covenant (actually, a renewed covenant) are the same as the covenant at Sinai, confirmed in Deuteronomy with ‘heaven and earth’ as witnesses. (Remember the witnesses Yeshua calls in Matthew 5:18?)

    So, the Father and the Son are intimately connected. The Son reveals the Father and the Will of the Father, and speaks nothing apart from the Father. The Son, Yeshua, will be the visible King, Immanuel, reigning from Zion in the Millennium, teaching Torah and ruling with a rod of iron.

    Hope that fits the bill.

  199. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    Reed,
    How are my comments not favorable towards HRM when I am a part of HRM? just want to know what you mean by this?

  200. greenbaggins said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    Just, you still need to identify yourself. I do not allow anonymous comments on the blog.

  201. greenbaggins said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    I mean Jjar.

  202. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    Pete, not quite, as I explicitly explained. For some reason I cannot get into your site(s) so the links do me no good. The part Ron posted from your fellowship site is unclear, in light of your quibble with the phrase “distinct persons”.

    The one simple follow up I’ve asked from you is your meaning of the word “person”. It is clear from comments from some of the ladies that they’ve been taught what amounts to some sort of mix of modalism with ill formed understanding of the nature of the personhood of the three persons of the Trinity. Given your quibble related to distinct persons, I am not sure what you mean in the phrases Ron posted and whether or not this is characteristic of HRM convictions.

    You said you can go along with the Athanasian Creed. That is not the same as saying you believe it accurately represents what the Bible teaches.

    Maybe you could just focus on what you believe about the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Or, if you want, simply affirm your agreement (unequivocally) with something like the Athanasian Creed (or even the WCF). I’m not being picky. Instead I am asking you to clear up confusion your own statements have left. Nothing more.

  203. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    JJar, no. 199, not sure to what you are referring. I identified you as someone commenting favorably on the HRM, and someone I do not think of as a foe.

  204. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:39 pm

    Jjar, see Lane’s comment no. 200. I apologize for not stating this already. I thought you had previously done so. You may contact Lane or one of his moderators through email if you want to identify yourself privately.

  205. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    Ok, Reed. I guess I misunderstood what you said in regards to #196. I’m not sure how I need to identify myself? What does that entail?? I’m running out the door to cut wood with my family so I’ll be gone a while. When I come back I will identify myself just need direction on how to.

  206. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    Thanks Jjar. Simply looking for enough info to know who you are, name, locale, that kind of thing. If you gave you own blog (or FB page) where such info can be found, linking to it is sufficient.

  207. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 8:10 pm

    Sorry Hisloammi, as I stated to you previously, no anonymous posting. I moved your comment into the pending folder. It will be posted if/when provide the necessary info about yourself. Thx.

  208. Pete Rambo said,

    December 26, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    This place is a lot like a merry-go-round. A lot of fun, but not going anywhere.

    Isaiah 8:20 … To the torah and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

  209. greenbaggins said,

    December 26, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    By the way, I am on vacation, with limited access to internet, so I plan on joining the conversation in earnest when I get back.

  210. greenbaggins said,

    December 26, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    So in quoting this verse at us, your intent is to claim that we have no light in us at all?

  211. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 8:27 pm

    Pete, why will not interact with integrity? Why do you avoid answering straightforward questions straightforwardly? How is such behavior consistent with one who had the light of Torah?

  212. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    Ok, I am back on shortly as we are waiting for our pickup to charge.
    Shalom All,
    My name is Jamileh. I am a 39 year old homeschooling mother of 4 beautiful but very different children…never a dull moment here. Two have graduated and two are still being schooled. We just moved to Eielson AFB in North Pole, AK 5 months ago. My husband and I both come from a charismatic protestant background. My dad (who was in the Army for 43 years, I married Air Force) went to seminary and got his degree however he has never done anything with that degree because he has been an abusive womanizer all his life and my mother feels it’s her duty to stay with him as she is his only way into heaven. My father is Irish and German and my mother is Iranian. Even as a child I’ve always felt drawn to something more than just christianity as no one in my home or church could ever answer my questions. My family and I came to this Way almost 14 years ago. We weren’t looking for it. I will try to make this short. Fourteen years ago the church we were going to was hosting a week long conference. The very last night of the conference the speaker told people if they wanted prayer for anything at all to come to the front. My husband and I went up. We almost never miss out on an opportunity for prayer. We didn’t ask for anything specific. She prayed over us and then said that God had a word for us. She said,”God would tell me to tell you that HE is going to change your doctrine.” We were confused by what she said. It didn’t make sense. A few months later some friends (who went to the same church) invited us to go to a Saturday congregation that they had been attending. We went and were hooked. About 6 months later we left the church. Several people left the church as well and started attending this Saturday congregation.

  213. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    Thank you Jemileh. A curiosity follow up: you note a woman speaker as a conference was the one who was used of the Holy Spirit to speak prophectically over you and your husband (and family).

    I take it then that you believe that women are rightly called to authoritatively teach Torah? How do you square that with Scripture which seems to clearly deny this?

  214. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    O.k. Pete, looks like getting into your site(s) was a problem on my end. For some reason my filtering software (Covenant Eyes) does not like your site(s, or where they are hosted) and so blocked my access to them. No veiled imputations, just observing what happened.

    I will observe that a weak understanding of the Trinity increasingly appears to be characteristic in the Hebrew Roots Movement. I am still thinking about this and hesitate to draw any conclusions at this point. I can at least say that I don’t think it is inherent to the system. If I’m right in this regard, at least in this sense we can find some hope.

  215. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 26, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    Reed,

    I have nothing against anyone attending a local body of believers. As I said earlier, my family does gather with others when possible. The verses in Hebrew are referring to attending the Feast Days. Check the Torah and you will see when it speaks of “assembling together”, it was concerning the Festivals of YHWH.

    Paul himself went out of his way to be in Jerusalem for the feasts. So, if I gather with believers once a week to study God’s Word and attend His holy convocations , how is my faith deficient?

    You seem to be most concerned over the doctrine of the trinity. I have never found the word to even be mentioned in the scriptures. In fact, the term did not come about until the 3rd century.

    Even the verse in 1 John 5:7 is not found in the original manuscripts. So I am supposed to adopt a teaching which appears to be created by man?

    I have told you that I believe Yeshua is the Son of God. I believe He has always existed. I believe there is one God, not three Gods.

    I believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. How does that make my faith deficient ?

    I think it might be more troublesome to you that I am not submitting to some so called church hierarchy. The Pharisees in Yeshua’s day had the same concerns with Him and his disciples. Paul even had many believers arrested. He stood by while Stephen was stoned. Yet, he thought he was doing God a service.

    It’s always the same. Any belief that does not conform to the widely accepted belief system of the day, somehow must be evil and must be stopped. They did it to the early believers and it is still going on.

    The HRM does not deny Christ. Or His divinity. They are not encouraging sin, quite the contrary. They are not denying that Yeshua’s blood is the only means of salvation. They strongly affirm it.

    So why not research their beliefs and ponder these things in your heart before coming to wrong conclusions.

    Why not do as Gamaliel advised. If it is not of YHWH it will not stand.

    Shalom ( I mean it)
    Teresa

  216. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 9:00 pm

    Reed,
    At the time of the conference (14 years ago), it wasn’t something we thought about. She was the only woman speaker there. She had clearance from our church pastors and the Church of God headquarters as that was something our pastor’s wife was sensitive to. If God has given you a gift (whether you are man, woman, child…you or old) that gift should be used for the edification of the body of Messiah. I do not believe a woman is to be over a man. Not to get off subject but that’s the problem with my son’s place of employment. Women have roles in their homes as well as in the body of Messiah. I believe the older women should be teaching the younger women. There isn’t enough of that anywhere…in any religion or walk. When we were stationed in Omaha we attended a messianic congregation where there were 5 elders (all men) and they did all the teaching. A few women in the congregation asked why there were no women teachers. As a congregation we sought this out and Scripture and came to an agreement. Every Sabbath when an elder got up to give a teaching, if his wife wanted to sit with him and participate with him, she could. Of course the husband would have to give his consent (as he is her covering) otherwise his wife wouldn’t sit and participate in the teaching/discussion in a leadership manner. Only 1 or 2 of the wives, out of the 5 participated in this manner with their husbands. I think in that setting and handling it in that manner it’s fine. God can use whoever whenever and we cannot limit God. Whatever is taught or spoken must line up with Scripture.

  217. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    Reed,
    In regards to #183…The 2 organizations that Messianic Jews can fall under (if they so choose) are the UMJA and MJAA. Both organizations make very clear and distinct differences between jew and gentile. Whether you are jew or gentile you are very welcome to attend their congregations and gatherings however unless you have jewish blood running through your veins they will treat you as a gentile…which means you are second class citizen who doesn’t really have to keep Torah and you are there specifically to serve the jewish population of the congregation monetarily and otherwise. Jews sit on one side of the sanctuary and gentiles on the other. There’s an attitude of arrogance. This has been our experience with 2 different congregations at 2 different bases. We left as quickly as we had gone. There are NO second class citizens. God loves us all equally. HE made us and wants to fellowship with us. HE doesn’t care what kind of blood flows through our veins. HE put that blood there! Anyway, that kind of attitude brings about much division and piety. It’s sad, disgusting and has been hurtful to so many people.

  218. jjarjw said,

    December 26, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    Ok, truck is charged and we are off!

  219. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 9:24 pm

    Jjar, thanks. Got it about the Messianic Jewish congregations.

    My question regarding the woman speaking in authority about your change in beliefs still stands. You’ve stated that your current belief and practice is that a woman cannot independently speak in authority.

    While we may quibble on that (my understanding of Scripture is a bit more restrictive), how do you square that with this woman’s prophecy? How do you she was not speaking in her own authority? Was her husband present by her side?

    Thx.

  220. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    Teresa, I’m sure you do mean Shalom and I am grateful. May you too rest and rejoice in the peace of Christ.

    You and I will disagree on the application of Heb 10:24-25. No biggie. But how do you square what is effectively independence with the other Scriptures I mentioned? In particular, how are you effectively in submission to elders when your practice is to maintain independence from any group of rightly ordained elders?

    I’m not interested in promoting the hierarchy of some institutional church that may or may not be consistent with the Bible. Hence my repeated emphasis on a rightly ordered church. No, my interest is express in Torah. Did not, for example, the membership in the qahal in the OT express itself in submission to the leaders of 10′s, 100′s, 1,000′s, who had some degree of spiritual declarative authority over the qahal?

    I do agree that there have been abuses by those in (supposed) church authority. But did not Paul and even Yeshua submit to the rightly ordered qahal authority, even though they recognized them to be wolves in sheeps’ clothing?

  221. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 9:44 pm

    Teresa: I would appreciate if you would not throw out the charge that I am in some manner in cahoots with those who want to bring you under the slavery to the doctrines of men. I could easily make the argument about you and the HRM in the same manner.

    Instead, might we simply just limit ourselves to what the Scripture says? That is, after all, the foundation for what I am saying.

    As to your belief in the Trinity, you may very well believe as the Bible teaches. Yet you have used language that is not consistent with the Bible.

    In particular you have used language about the nature of the three persons of the one Godhead that is modalistic. This is an ancient heresy condemned by the Bible as nothing more than a form of pagan idolatry.

    Again, I have not said that you yourself believe this, only that your expressions are consistent with this. I am actually assuming that you are like a lot of Christians, ill informed by your pastor(s) as to what the Bible teaches on this topic. That happens. I am sure I have some sheep in our congregation to whom I owe a better explanation of this Biblical doctrine.

    (Edited this paragraph to be more accurate) As well, how do you understand the Holy Spirit’s personhood? Someone else here (I believe Connie, but I may be wrong) particularly described the Holy Spirit with language that characterized him as merely an inanimate force, a projection of the spiritual nature of the Father. That too is a heretical formulation. Here too I am not assuming that this is your personal belief, but what do you think the Bible teaches about the Holy Spirit? Is it right to refer to Him with male pronouns, or is third person singular pronouns more appropriate (i.e., “it”)? Is the Holy Spirit a distinct person separate from the Father (i.e., not the Father or merely an emanation of the Father), yet still one with the Father and the Son in the Godhead?

    As to why make an issue of this, as the Bible itself does not use the word trinity? Well, simply this, the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. Does it have to be labeled in order to be Biblical? (Before you answer think about your previous quibble with labels ;-) .)

    If a person gets the nature of God wrong, they will not keep Torah. In fact they will horribly pervert it. This is the emphasis of the first four of the 10 Commandments; getting the nature of God right so you can relate to Him rightly.

    That is why this is so important.

    Please, think about this Teresa before responding again. Nothing I am observing here about the Trinity fundamentally challenges your HRM convictions. In point of fact, if I am right about the Bible’s teaching here and its importance, getting it down can only help your convictions grow more secure.

    Peace

  222. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    Reed,

    You are correct in saying that Moshe appointed judges for the people to handle disputes and matters of the Law. And I do believe that there ought to be accountability.

    We have a personal friend and mentor who introduced us to the value of the Torah. We look to him, and others like him, that have wisdom and are full of the Ruach. They help when needed and also correct if needed.

    Ultimately, the Word is the final authority. No one in our Bible Study sees themselves any greater than any other person. Even my husband, who is the one teaching. In fact, he is very humbled to be in that role.

    He does not teach in a way that makes anyone feel that they ‘must ‘ believe everything he presents, either. Rather, he allows them to search the scriptures to see if it is truth.

    The problem we found when in the mainstream church, was that the laity was accountable to the pastors, but the pastors seemed to be accountable to no one. A lot of abuses, as you mentioned.

    I also like the model of Yeshua in discipling a small group and getting to know each one personally. This way you share one another’s burdens, pray for and encourage one another. Sometimes these things get lost in a large congregation.

    I am sure you know that the early church met in each other’s homes. There is a special unity in sharing the Word this way. But , by no means are we a bunch of renegades just out doing our own thing.

    We do have men that we can, and do, turn to. They are all godly men living exemplary lives. Thank you for being kind in your answers. It does mean a lot.

    Blessings,
    Teresa

  223. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    Reed,

    Just now got your latest comment. I think perhaps my husband was wise in advising me to use caution about responding. Apparently, I have angered you. That was not my intention.

    I guess we will just have to agree to disagree and move on. No hard feelings.

    Shalom,
    Teresa

  224. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:22 pm

    Thanks Teresa. Indeed, I do know that the governance of the Church has seen better days. One of the reasons I am a PCA minister is because our church government conforms to the Biblical standards in this regard. I.e., I am not independent, but accountable, both to my congregation to the fellow elders in the nearby PCA churches. Deficient church government can be amended.

    Follow up question, do you believe that the Spirit is still giving pastors and elders to the Church? How can they function according to Heb 13:7, 1Pe 5, etc., unless there is some form of tangible submission to them spiritual authority? Of course, this all has to be ordered consistently with the Bible. Yet isn’t independency not Biblical? Could a member of the OT qahal function the way you describe, merely seeking advice from their rulers when they wanted to do so? How was the threat of being cut off from the qahal expressed in any meaningful way if anyone could simply conclude, “i do not acknowledge your authority?”

    Take a look at Heb 13:17 and give some serious thought to what this must look like. How can God hold men accountable for your spiritual well being if you functionally do not have any relationship expressing biblical submission? Does this not break Torah?

  225. Reed Here said,

    December 26, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    No Teresa, you did not anger me. Please don’t read between the lines. I said exactly what I meant. :-) You repeatedly make references to doctrines of men vs. doctrines of God, with the inference that I am merely pushing doctrines of men. That is not fair, as I repeatedly reference my observations back to Scripture.

    I was asking you to stop that line of debate, as it does apply to my conversation with you. I said nothing about anger, because there is none.

  226. Jason Loh said,

    December 27, 2013 at 12:25 am

    Re #221(re the Trinity), am glad that Pastor Reed is making or raising this very important issue. Very apt indeed. I share the sentiment of Pastor Reed et al.

  227. Ron said,

    December 27, 2013 at 12:39 am

    You seem to be most concerned over the doctrine of the trinity. I have never found the word to even be mentioned in the scriptures. In fact, the term did not come about until the 3rd century.

    Teresa,

    I’ve read this that sentiment in this thread at least twice. Do you believe that only terms used in Scripture can reflect biblical truth? Don’t you embrace doctrines that are constructed negatively without Scripture arguing for them positively? Does the Bible teach that world was created out of nothing? Does it use the term ex nihilo or do you come by that doctrine some other way? Once we deny eternal matter and pantheism aren’t we’re left with creation ex nihilo by necessity, from default if you will, without Scripture having to state it positively? See the analogy with the Trinity? Naturally, it shouldn’t surprise us that the Trinity is derived apart from Scripture referring to the “Trinity.” Moreover, not all theological terms are aimed at revealing who God is but rather they’re aimed at refuting concepts of God that are heretical. Does Scripture undermine Sabellianism or Arianism etc.? Does Scripture attribute divinity to the Holy Spirit? By working through heresies that God through His wisdom and providence has brought to the church, we have received from God’s word by good and necessary inference our doctrine of God. Accordingly, your reference to the 3rd century is not terribly germane. It would be like saying that the laws of logic used prior to the formalization of Aristotelian logic were not valid.

    Just trying to sweep away some of the clutter as Reed ministers to your soul.

  228. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 27, 2013 at 1:02 am

    Reed,

    I did not mean to imply that I disagree with having pastors. I do believe that God uses men as pastors, teachers, evangelists. etc. There are many HR congregations throughout the country.

    Like I said, we meet on Feast Days throughout the year and we have the weekly study. As far as our doctrine, we align ourselves with some very learned and capable men. Men that we trust.

    If these men were in close proximity to our home we would be attending their congregations. But currently, we live too far away.

    It may be that one day we will find ourselves in a position to be able to attend a congregation on a regular basis. Even so, we are thriving. We are seeing a lot of maturity and growth within our group.

    God’s Word is being taught and that is what is most important. My husband and I are not new believers. We both gave our hearts to the Lord as children. I realize that not everyone understands our beliefs.

    If the Holy Spirit had not opened our eyes to this message, we wouldn’t understand either. But the fact is, he did. We can’t deny what we have experienced , what we have been shown from the Word, and the complete joy it has brought us.

    In the meantime, we have nothing but love for all our brothers and sisters in Messiah. No matter their particular denomination.

    Shalom,
    Teresa

  229. jjarjw said,

    December 27, 2013 at 1:08 am

    I am back. In regards to your question Reed #219…a woman cannot and should not independently speak in authority. At that time, while I was still in the church, I didn’t believe this. I felt a woman should and can do whatever a man does regardless of what God or anyone else says. I no longer feel this way. I will say that God used Esther and Deborah in a very purposeful and powerful way. HE also used a donkey to speak to Balaam. God can use anyone for HIS purposes. This woman didn’t know us and had never spoken to us. At that time we weren’t looking for another doctrine or another church. We were happy with the church we were in. God does what HE does and uses who HE uses. We don’t always know why. What she said wasn’t good or bad. It was what it was. it wasn’t until roughly a year later that I remembered that and played the tape containing the sermon and prayer time. Even if we had stayed in the church, in my opinion it’s valid.

  230. jjarjw said,

    December 27, 2013 at 1:11 am

    Shalom Reed,
    In regards to #190….this is something I would really like to answer however I will warn you…there are 7 Feasts listed in the Scriptures so it could be quite lengthy. It will take a bit of time.

  231. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 3:31 am

    Jar, so take just one feast. As Pete observed, my particular interest is to see how you validate the details of what you do with Torah. In my experience quite a bit of the practices are applications learned from sources outside the Torah.

  232. jjarjw said,

    December 27, 2013 at 6:24 am

    Reed,
    This is something that I will prayerfully consider. My brother called tonight so my mind is filled with so much right now. I need to sleep on this.

  233. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 9:50 am

    Teresa, would you say that all non HRM pastors are not trustworthy? Do you believe the woes applied to the Pharisees in Mt 23 apply to them?

    What about other local churches of other denominations? Are they truly Christian? Do you see them as true brothers and sisters if something else?

    BTW, is Ernest your husband?

  234. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 27, 2013 at 10:08 am

    Reed,

    I would never say that. There are trustworthy and non- trustworthy in both camps. I see everyone who names the name of Messiah and have been washed in His blood as my brothers and sisters.

    I said earlier that no man can judge another man’s servant. The servant answers to his master. Would I like for all my brothers and sisters to see the value in Torah? Absolutely !

    Because I know how blessed it is to walk in His ways. It would be nice, though, if we weren’t called heretics or cultic. I don’t care who you are , that’s hurtful.

    As brothers and sisters couldn’t we just agree to disagree?

  235. Jason Loh said,

    December 27, 2013 at 10:22 am

    Dear Teresa,

    By cultic, it is meant worship, religious ritual. It’s not meant to refer to the normal usage such as Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult. I do understand that some who left say that HRM is a cult. I suppose it’s presently hearsay for me.

    And with the exception Connie, I believe that all of you here subscribe to a broad orthodox understanding of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that may not necessarily be expressed in orthodox terms. Even regarding Connie, I believe that the understanding and expression has more to do with the teaching from the leaders and “elders;” (as per Pastor Reed) and perhaps vestiges of the background from the Oneness Pentecostal movement, etc.?

  236. Ron said,

    December 27, 2013 at 10:29 am

    By cultic, it is meant worship, religious ritual. It’s not meant to refer to the normal usage such as Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult.

    Jason,

    Please speak for yourself.

  237. Jason Loh said,

    December 27, 2013 at 10:35 am

    Dear Ron,

    Yes, I was referring to myself re the cultic word.

  238. Jason Loh said,

    December 27, 2013 at 10:39 am

    I do support the State of Israel – just that I’m not Christian Zionist. Christian Zionism and Christian Palestinianism are two extremes of the same spectrum. I support the State of Israel for historical and political – not/ never religious – reasons.

  239. Ron said,

    December 27, 2013 at 10:42 am

    Thanks, Jason. I didn’t want to mislead tacitly. I do believe it’s a cult on par with JWs.

  240. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 11:05 am

    Thank you Teresa. Of course to agree to disagree. While I think your zeal is misplaced, I do not deny the sincerity of your desire to see others blessed as you believe you have been blessed.

    The same motivation compels me to respond with similar zeal, although it finds itself diametrically opposed to yours. It does not mark hatred or disdain, but concern.

  241. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 11:10 am

    Pete: reading over your website some, as well as your fellowship’s website, I conclude that in some regards you are substantively out of accord with the Church’s historic understanding of the Trinity. Some statements on these sites are decidedly anti-Trinitarian.

    I am not making any pejorative statements in this. Merely observing my opinion of what I read in your professed belief. Nor do I infer anything other than what I’ve said here.

    You plead for other pastors to follow your footsteps. Friend, you are walking along the edges of a path that Scripture condemns. Sorry, I cannot follow you.

  242. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 27, 2013 at 11:16 am

    Jason, Ron,

    I have no idea what you are saying. I know that the Jw’s do not accept the deity of Messiah Yeshua. That is not the case with HR. . And the fact that someone left HR and said its a cult means nothing. I have heard people criticize just about any denomination you could name.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t a lot of people consider the apostles doctrine a cult? So much so that they were arrested and murdered?

    Why do people criticize what they don’t understand ? My goodness, with all the evil in this world is it prudent to be coming against those who just want to keep the commandments?

    Shouldn’t we be holding up one another in prayer ? Shouldn’t we see the real enemy is satan, not our brothers and sisters?

  243. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 27, 2013 at 11:20 am

    Reed,

    I don’t doubt your sincerity either.

  244. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 11:47 am

    Teresa: we understand more of the HRM approach than you may realize. I don’t think it is an issue of not understanding the HRM. Instead it is an issue of differing interpretive methods. We read the Bible differently than the HRM does. We understand how the HRM reads the BIble. We think the HRM reads the Bible wrongly.

    Hence our criticisms. Such criticisms will be of two types (maybe more, but these two dominate):

    1. Criticisms based on our interpretitive method: these seek to demonstrate how the HRarM reading of the Bible is inconsistent with the Bible.

    2. Criticisms based on the HRM’s interpretive method: these expressly seek to demonstrate how the HRM reading of the Bible is inconsistent with the HRM’s own interpretive method.

    Again, my simple point is that you probably shouldn’t assume we don’t understand. Instead, assume we don’t agree and then probe where and why we disagree. This will lead to profitable discussion, clearing up confusion, showing where we are in agreement, rather than not. At the very least it will remove weaknesses from our position, a good thing.

  245. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 11:51 am

    Teresa: the issue is not wanting to keep the commandments. The issue is wanting others to keep commandments we believe God has told us not to do so. The HRM’s monolithic insistence that the best Christian life is to be found in a Mosaic Torah keeping is specifically horror to our ears, a call to return to a slavery that not even the fathers could sustain.

    If it wasn’t for this insistence I don’t think any of us would even be discussing it. But when sheep in our congregations are being told that they are less of a Christian because they don’t follow the Mosaic dietary laws, feast, etc., we do our duty as shepherds and protect our sheep.

    I am saddened with you that the distance between us is that great. But it is.

  246. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 11:55 am

    Teresa: one comment on the issue of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. I noted previously why the HRm is suspect of not being biblically Trinitarian due to the lack of clarity in describing the Holy Spirit as a separate person, united to the others in the one Godhead.

    You keep repeating your affirmation of the divinity of Jesus. Is there a reason why you don’t also affirm the same for the Holy Spirit. Is He a person in His own right? Or is He the spiritual part of the Father’s nature?

  247. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    Teresa: after further research and prayer I decided to pull my comment here. I want to be fair and accurate in my interactions with the HRM.

    I admit at this point to being troubled by the lack of clarity from some HRM sources on the central dogma of the Torah, the nature of the Godhead. Yet I am not willing to conclude that these HRM-minded folks are heretical on this point. To be sure there seems to be a bit of confusion and lack of clarity, but that may be all it is. Still, given the supreme importance of the Shema to Torah, this greatly concerns me.

    Here are two articles, offered by two HRM-minded fellowships as more or less representative of their understanding of Jesus’ divinity. (As well, these touch somewhat on the Spirit’s divinity.) While I find a lot echoing what I read in the Bible, I find quite a bit which at the very least sounds less than consistent with the Bible.

    I’ll not draw any further conclusions at this point. I need to think and pray more about this.

    Yeshua: God the Son
    Yeshua–His Deity and Sonship

  248. Ron said,

    December 27, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    I know that the Jw’s do not accept the deity of Messiah Yeshua.

    Teresa,

    Whether you believe in the deity of Christ, even his eternal Sonship, does not speak to the question of whether the movement is a cult.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t a lot of people consider the apostles doctrine a cult? So much so that they were arrested and murdered?

    That premise proves nothing. That x is considered a cult does not imply that y shouldn’t be considered a cult.

    Why do people criticize what they don’t understand ?

    I can’t answer that but that’s not what is going on here.

    My goodness, with all the evil in this world is it prudent to be coming against those who just want to keep the commandments?

    The JW’s want to keep their understanding of the commandments too, so nothing can be established in your defense based upon that premise. More to the point, even if you were striving to keep only those commandments that are still binding, rather than those that have been abrogated, that too would not make the movement orthodox. Finally, the commandments you wish to keep eclipse and even undermine the gospel.

    Shouldn’t we be holding up one another in prayer?

    I prayed for you yesterday.

    Shouldn’t we see the real enemy is satan, not our brothers and sisters?

    I may not consider you a sister until you are received into the fellowship of a Christian congregation. I’m simply obeying God’s precepts.

    Now then, are you going to dismiss this post too, like #227 above, where I pointed out the fallacy of you disregarding the Trinity based upon the word not being found in Scripture?

    Please do not consider this as my debating you but rather clearing up some more of your misconceptions so that others might speak to your real needs, Christian orthodoxy and the gospel. In other words, I’m happy to leave the discussion dealing with your misunderstanding of the law to others who are so inclined. We all have liberty in that area but I’d prefer not to debate a woman in theology, though again others may in good conscience.

  249. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 27, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    Ron,

    I just had to laugh at the arrogance of that statement. It matters not if you think I am a sister. I am a child of God so you’ll have to take it up with the Father. Shaking my head….

  250. Ron said,

    December 27, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    Teresa,

    With all due respect, if you find a statement arrogant then at best you haven’t understood the biblical and / or logical rationale behind it. In any case, leaving me out of it for a moment, it appears from the thread that you haven’t demonstrated an interest in discussion but rather it seems that you’ve come simply to declare your obedience to God. Bowing me head in prayer for you.

  251. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    Teresa: might you review my last few comments? Thx.

    Also, in an effort to help you not write Ron off, but appreciate the sincere humility in which he is writing, let me offer this. He is not declaring that you are not saved. Rather he is saying that based on the Bible’s own standards he is not allowed to assume you are saved. He is not trying to be obnoxious, push his own doctrine, etc.. Instead he is striving to faithfully apply Torah.

    I get it that you disagree with his understanding, as he does yours. That does not mean he wishes you ill or disrespects your opinion. On the contrary, he is offering a deeply sincere form of respect. He will get nothing by way of man-centered praise for admitting this opinion. He only offered it out of respect for you.

  252. Ron said,

    December 27, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    Thank you, Reed.

    Teresa, I hope you can receive that from Reed, who has been nothing but good to you. I believe I’m tender to what I believe to be your situation.

    Unworthy but His,

    Ron

  253. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 27, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    Reed,

    I appreciate your patience. I really am not trying to push my views on anyone. Someone asked about the Holy Spirit. Can’t remember who. But
    I will try to express my view as best I can.

    Yes, I believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son.

    But somehow, they are echad. I don’t pretend to know all that there is to know about our Elohim. I really don’t think any of us can say we know all there is to know about Him.

    I do know I love Him. And I know that I have a relationship with Him. I know that His son died to take away my sins.

    If someone tells me they have received Yeshua as their Savior, I do not question it, regardless of whether they feel led to follow the Torah or not.

    I will follow the links you left and of course I will also be in prayer. Abba loves all his children. And He loves us each of us right where we are.

    Shalom and Blessing,
    Teresa

  254. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    Pete: saw you recent post concerning your discussion with us here. You’re being disingenuous on two accounts.

    First, the particular issue which we were discussing in the comment you quoted, ref. (no. 185) is about your view of the Trinity. Your post misrepresents this discussion. You our conversation out to be one in which you defend the unity of the Godhead and one which I (and others) seek to destroy.

    Simply wicked Pete, as it is not true. I said nothing of the sort, didn’t even come close. That may be a hobby horse for you, but using our conversation (as limited as it was) as the building block is disingenuous.

    Second, I count a total of ten uses of the word “heretic” (one being “heretical”. None are specifically addressed to you. None are addressed to you on the basis of your position on the Trinity. In stark contrast to your claim that I (or someone else) labeled you a heretic over your position on the Trinity, I specifically said in no. 247:

    “I admit at this point to being troubled by the lack of clarity from some HRM sources on the central dogma of the Torah, the nature of the Godhead. Yet I am not willing to conclude that these HRM-minded folks are heretical on this point.”

    This is the second time you have born false witness against me Pete. You seem to want to be a martyr for the cause, instead of discussing with integrity our differences. No one is compelling you to participate on this blog. Since you seem bent on breaking Torah when you do, maybe you shouldn’t?

  255. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    Thanks Teresa. Given the significance of the differences between us you are responding with an appreciated measure of grace.

    Might I ask you to clarify this regarding the Holy Spirit (I’m the one who has asked):

    > Do you see the Holy Spirit as his own person, having all the essential characteristics of a person? – OR -
    > Do you see the Holy Spirit being just the spiritual component of God’s nature, not actually a separate person. – OR -
    > Something else (feel free to fill in the blank).

    By “separate” I in no way am denying the unity of the Godhead; three persons-ONE God.

    Thx.

  256. jjarjw said,

    December 27, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    Reed,
    If I am wrong please let me know. The whole premise for inquiring of HRM/Messianic beliefs is to gain a better understanding of our doctrine/walk/practices etc. This was prompted by a christian father whose relative was/is drifting into the HRM. This person is very concerned about his relative which is understandable. A couple of questions here. Has this man gone to his relative in love and talked with his relative about this issue? Matthew 18 is a good start? As well, I do realize people have come here to comment on this post so one comment is made, then another, then another until you have well over 200 comments. in your posting entitled Hebrew Roots, Unhelpful Fruits a few times you state that you have come to conclusions about things regarding the HRM. If conclusions have been made on your part and you believe we are wrong what is the point in inquiring any further?

  257. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 27, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    Reed,

    I see the Ruach as separate,yet one, having a distinct personality.

  258. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    JJar: discussion is always appropriate no?

    Further, I’ve not said anything that leads me to comprehensive conclusions. In the post you reference I was very careful to limit what I was concluding, as to specifics. Further, I’ve been careful to be very general in terms of labeling individuals. I recognize that the HRM is a widely scattered viewpoint, with only a few common focal points.

    As to my reason for discussing here at GB, no, you are reading into what I said. My initial investigation, outside of the discussion here at GB, was prompted by the need of the father. As a fellow believer, I responded positively when he asked me for help. I noted this previously only to provide context why I initial looked into this topic.

    But that circumstance has nothing to do with why I engage in the discussion here. I am one of the blog owner’s moderators. In such role I pretty much try to review all comments by others. Simply by necessity I am potentially involved in any conversation here.

    And, as my interests and other responsibilities allow, I participate in this conversation for the ordinary reason I participate at all on this blog on any topic: to learn more by interaction with others, both those of like mind and opposite mind.

    If you want to ask me what is the central thing I disagree with in the HRM folks with whom I’ve interacted, even there I could not give you an one-size-fits-all answer.

    In spite of my serious differences with the kinds of convictions I’ve learned from some HRM folks, I am open to discussion, even including possibly changing my mind on some things. Nothing hidden here.

  259. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Thx Teresa.

  260. jjarjw said,

    December 27, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    In regards to the trinity. I think the issue is this. HRM/Messianics don’t like to put a title on things, especially if it’s a term that comes from the christian church/understanding. The reason being is this. In my opinion it is better to explain what you believe and why. When you attach a title to something…ie the trinity…there isn’t necessarily one universal understanding of trinity. The understanding of what the trinity is can vary from person to person. You wouldn’t want someone thinking that you believe their understanding of the trinity when your understanding could be completely different. So beating this poor horse to death is going to be pointless. There isn’t going to be any confession with a title attached to it. Does that make sense?

  261. jjarjw said,

    December 27, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    Thank you for sharing Reed. I never thought there was anything hidden just a few questions I had.

  262. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 7:39 pm

    Jjar: I don’t think one has to choose between a title (label) or explanation. The Bible does not. It uses titles and explanations. The title Trinity indeed can have a variety of explanations attached to it. But this is NOT because there is not sufficient explanation. Instead it is because a person hasn’t learned it, or has and doesn’t want to acknowledge it.

    Like in the HRM, men who studied the Scriptures, deeply, over hundreds of years, worked hard and diligently, in faith in Messiah, to express exactly what the Bible teaches about the nature of God – and say nothing more. The result of this work is captured in a number of explanations called the historic creeds of the Church. These carefully and clearly explain exactly what the Bible teaches about God in His three persons and one Godhead. The title “Trinity” has been understood to be nothing more than a label for this explanation. Using it does not mean ignoring the explanation. On the contrary, use of the label obligates one to understand the explanation of the label. TO do otherwise is to use the label deceptively, even if unintendedly.

    Unless someone wants to arrogantly that the Early Church was thorough corrupt and not Christ’s TRUE Church, then this historic explanation is still a safe and accurate guide for us today.

  263. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    Jjar, when you say, “especially if it comes from a christian church,” what do you mean by this distinction?

    Do you think the HRM fellowships and “Christian” churches are not part of the same Church?

    Do you think one or the other is not Chris’s church?

    Why this distinction?

    I am aware that down through the ages up to today there are a wide vareity of churches, some more, some less pure, untainted by the World. This is exactly as Messiah taught (Mt 13). Even those men who sought to reform the Western Church and were kicked out for their troubles (your and my spiritual ancestors) understood this and studied Scripture to identity the necessary characteristics that mark a true church.

    I appreciate there are many “denominations” today that are less consistent with Jesus’ commands than otherwise. Do you think only the HRM are basically consistent?

    If so, why?

    If not, why characterize things in this manner?

  264. jjarjw said,

    December 27, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    Reed,
    In regards to your comment in #262…I can see your point here. However if you were to say the word trinity to a Jew they automatically think 3 separate and different gods. They’ve been taught all their lives that there is only 1 God. This is why they come against those who believe in the trinity.

  265. Tim Harris said,

    December 27, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    When people insist on using Hebrew names for everything, I smell kabbala.

    In any case, it’s a superstitious misunderstanding of how language works.

  266. jjarjw said,

    December 27, 2013 at 9:20 pm

    In regards to #264….I will have to address this later. We have friends coming over for Sabbath Bible study.

  267. jjarjw said,

    December 27, 2013 at 9:21 pm

    Tim,
    What Hebrew names are you referring to??

  268. Ron said,

    December 27, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    jjarjw,

    Why not assume that Tim means all the Hebrew words that are being employed? That would be the immediate inference after all. I made a similar comment above and it was dismissed as a non-issue, but certainly there must be some motive behind the esoteric use of such words. Is it an attempt to gather, scatter or possibly promote elitism?

  269. jjarjw said,

    December 27, 2013 at 11:25 pm

    Ron,
    There are many people around the world who speak Hebrew fluently or as a second language. There are even hebrew linguists in the military. So, the hebrew they speak would be kabbalistic? For some of us speaking or using the hebrew language is an everyday occurrence for us. It’s no different than people who learn or use words from any other foreign language. I homeschool my kids so we are learning hebrew. Is this kabbalah? To assume we use hebrew words to scatter, gather, or promote elitism is ridiculous to say the least. It suggests that you know the intent of our hearts which is impossible. For some of us hebrew is woven into who we are…our lifestyles…our beliefs. People have used greek terminology on here but I would never assume it’s to gather, scatter or promote elitism. Something simple as using Yeshua is not kabbalah. It’s HIS name as the letter ‘J’ has only been around for about 600 years so there’s no way that letter was used in HIS name. As well, HE was not greek so the letter ‘I’ wasn’t used either. Ron, I don’t like to assume. I like to hear it straight from the person’s mouth from which it was spoken. There are SO many comments on here that the possibly of them not being read in their entirety is pretty high. I don’t have that kind of time so I missed your comment. My apologies.

  270. Ron said,

    December 28, 2013 at 12:00 am

    So you’re not using it to gather, to be all things to all people that you might win some?

  271. jjarjw said,

    December 28, 2013 at 3:13 am

    Ron,
    I want to make sure I know what you’re asking. You think that those of us who use hebrew terms and hebrew language do it because we are trying to get people to convert to our way of thinking…HRM????? Just trying to get a better grasp on what you’re thinking.

  272. Ron said,

    December 28, 2013 at 9:16 am

    jjarjw,

    I wouldn’t expect Christians that speak another language other than English to speak English. That would be unreasonable and unnatural. Accordingly, one who speeks “Hebrew fluently” would discuss Scripture in Hebrew. Same for Italians or Greeks who spoke Italian and Greek. However, our English Bibles use “Holy Ghost” and “Jesus”. English is our native tongue, so why the use of Hebrew when discussing Scripture with Americans?

    For some of us speaking or using the hebrew language is an everyday occurrence for us.

    Do you know some Hebrew words or is your native tongue Hebrew? Is there something more spiritually enriching in speaking Hebrew in the manner you do? Do you believe this enhances your walk with the Lord or give grace to those who hear? What is the motivation for using the Hebrew words you use when discussing God on this site?

  273. Reed Here said,

    December 28, 2013 at 10:45 am

    Jjar, no. 262: I’ve also been taught that it is not wise and loving to use the term Trinity with a Jew with whom you are witnessing. Makes sense.

    But here we’re not witnessing to Jews, right? The term Trinity does not mean what the Jew has been taught it means by unbelieving rabbis (at least that is the source of it). Jehovah Witnesses have been taught the same.

    But if we’re Christians, and the term has rightly been used by Christ’s Church to serve as the label for what the Bible actually does say about unity and diversity within unity of the Godhead,

    Why should an HRM-minded person, frankly, appear to refuse to use it? This does seem to be a common characteristic, at least in my interactions with HRM. It’s as if you’ve been taught it’s a term from the devil or something.

    Besides, our use of the term Trinity here is not critical. If you’ll look back you’ll note that I used a number of other phrases to ask for y’all’s view on what the Bible teaches about the nature of God. Labels aside, that is the REAL issue, right?

    Would you agree if we don’t get God’s nature right we can’t keep the first two of the 10 Ac’?

  274. greenbaggins said,

    December 28, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    Pete, I have not had time to address your concerns in comments 8 and 9, but I will do so now. You object that “I don’t need to address it. I’ve already demonstrated that your eisegetical approach regarding Paul’s attitude toward ‘ceremonial law’ (reading into the verses something that is not there, even though you desperately want to see it there) is demonstrably false when informed by multiple witnesses and passages.” This is highly fallacious. Do you think my wife agree that just because she had misunderstood me once that therefore she always misunderstood me? I am even giving you the benefit of the argument here (agreeing, for the sake of argument that which I emphatically reject otherwise, that I have misread Paul in other places). This is called the fallacy of hasty generalization. You do not offer any comments on 1 Corinthians 9 because you think you don’t need to do so. Quotations from an extra-biblical source like McKee (which I find highly ironic) on 1 Corinthians 9 do not alleviate the problem, since my position does not require Paul to be disobeying the law. It is a question of how he saw himself. You have not answered this exegetical point about becoming a Jew to a Jew, and becoming a Gentile to a Gentile. Quoting a bunch of other texts out of context with no explanation or exegesis is not argument. Those texts must be explored. I plan on doing so in the future, Lord-willing.

    As to the meaning of “abrogated” in the WCF, I would refer you to the chapters on law (19), where the principle of “general equity” is explained. If the ceremonial law has an underlying moral law principle to it, then that principle continues in the New Testament. A good example is how Paul interprets the sacrificial law in Romans 12:1-2. Because Jesus sacrificed Himself for us, we offer our bodies as living sacrifices for Him. This is only logical (logikes).

    Unless you want to accuse the Westminster divines of the grossest possible contradiction which even a child could have seen through, it would be better to interpret the word “abrogated” in its context of the entire treatment of the law. I take the word “abrogate” therefore to mean that the way the OT ceremonial law was kept before Christ no longer applies in the same form, but has been changed by the change in priesthood.

    The vast majority of verses you quote, such as Matthew 5:17-18 (on which I plan to write very soon indeed) have to do with the permanent pointer those laws are to Jesus. There are quite a few exegetical issues in Matthew 5, but merely quoting those verses will not do as an argument.

    With regard to comments 208-210, do you have any comment? Are you in fact accusing us of not having any light at all?

  275. Ron said,

    December 28, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Pete,

    I couldn’t agree with Lane more. How is preaching Christ as the end of the ceremonial law a violation of that law? Moreover, if the Lamb of God is the fulfillment of the temple service, how can preaching Christ as the final sacrifice – the fulfillment of the shadows and typology of the temple, be an offense to the temple? Did the author of Hebrews give offense when he penned chapter 10? That Paul gave no offense does not logically imply his adherence to an HRM interpretation of the law. To say: “Those verses alone put to rest any idea that Paul considered parts of the Torah of Moses to be ‘negotiable’” is to assume the argument by definition. An argument for “how he saw himself” is in order.

    It, also, bears repeating that “Quoting a bunch of other texts out of context with no explanation or exegesis is not argument.” I too would like to see some exegesis regarding “becoming a Jew to a Jew, and becoming a Gentile to a Gentile.”

    Regarding the Divines, come now. Is it that difficult to render an interpretation of the WCF that is internally consistent?

  276. jjarjw said,

    December 28, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    Ron,
    When I was in junior high and high school I took spanish which came in handy when we moved to southern TX a few years ago. In regards to hebrew, it is a language my family and I have been learning over the past couple of years. We’ve been learning biblical hebrew as well as conversational hebrew. There is a difference. I use hebrew with everyone I speak to unless they truly don’t know any hebrew which typically isn’t the case. Yeshua spoke hebrew, HE lived the life of a hebrew so why not learn the language of our savior.I believe learning hebrew and knowing the culture of the times brings a richness and deepness to the scriptures that wasn’t there before. Just because I discuss scripture with americans doesn’t mean I have to use all english terminology. People have used greek terminology on here, it doesn’t offend me. Hebrew is not my native tongue. I am in the process of learning farsi as well. I am teaching it to my husband and children so there are words and phrases I use often in farsi so they can be learned. As well, I have a friend who is half persian like I am so we will text and speak some things in farsi, no biggie. Using hebrew words/language doesn’t make me better than anyone else. It’s what I’m comfortable with. It’s become a part of who I am. To stop using it would be like living without water. This isn’t the only site I’ve used hebrew on.

  277. jjarjw said,

    December 28, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    Reed,
    You said, “It’s as if you’ve been taught it’s a term from the devil or something.” I assure you, this is not the case. We don’t like labels because labels put limits on things. God is limitless and we don’t want to limit HIM.
    You also said, “the first two of the 10 Ac’?”…. The Ac?

  278. Ron said,

    December 28, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    Yeshua spoke hebrew, HE lived the life of a hebrew so why not learn the language of our savior.

    Seems to me that Jesus being God is the author of all languages. Because heaven will be represented by all tongues and nations, it seems to me that no language in this present context should be considered more important to learn than any other language (unless of course you want to study the original language not to throw around terms but to understand Scripture better, which is not how you’ve been using Hebrew. Because you’re American and Jesus is not a respecter of persons it seems to me that what Jesus spoke is not terribly relevant.

    We don’t like labels because labels put limits on things. God is limitless…

    How is “limitless” any less a label than Trinity? In fact, when you predicate anything about God how do you avoid labels? Seems to me that there’s something else about “Trinity” you don’t like since your reason for avoiding the label is not consistent with your use of labels. Just sayin’. :)

  279. Ron said,

    December 28, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    I’m going to bow out now, friends. We’re soon approaching 300 posts and no proponent of the HRM has touched Lane’s post. Also, the comments box is filled with way too much arbitrariness and inconsistency from the HRM crowd. Lastly, there’s nothing significant I can add that Lane, Reed and others haven’t already addressed.

    Good Lord’s Day tomorrow!

  280. jjarjw said,

    December 28, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    Since Ron has bowed out of the conversation there is no need for me to address his comments towards me. Would like to but don” see the point.

  281. jjarjw said,

    December 28, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    In americanizing Yeshua we further remove ourselves from who HE is, how HE lived (HIS culture) and what HE came to do. In removing ourselves from all that we further remove our understanding of HIM (and scripture) in HIS entirety as well as HIS reason for being here on earth. We turn HIM into a blonde haired, blue eyed, pork eating, law (Torah) changing, anti-semtic savior. Since my mother is from the middle east we grew up knowing this wasn’t true. What’s the harm in knowing who Yeshua truly is?? It seems to be a threat to most people. Like understanding that their savior is a jew (with no americanization whatsoever) is a sin.

  282. jjarjw said,

    December 28, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    Reed,
    In regards to #263…As far as I know the church is the only one who employs the word trinity or the teaching of the trinity so that’s why the distinction. I know this may offend some however I don’t believe the christian church and HRM/Messianic fellowships are a part of the same church. Our beliefs seem to almost be polar opposite with maybe one thing in common. It depends on the definition one would use for Christ’s church. As far as consistent….consistent with what? I think the only thing consistent about any religious beliefs are core beliefs that don’t change as in the deity of Yeshua and HIS sacrifice. That’s a belief that seems to be consistent among christian and HRM/Messianic believers. I do know (from experience) that there are a few messianics who don’t believe in the deity of Yeshua and HIS sacrifice. We’ve only met a few but they are there.

  283. jjarjw said,

    December 28, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    As well, right now, I’m not comfortable sharing how my family keeps the Feasts. These appointed times are very dear and personal to us. I don’t want to put it out there to be scrutinized by anyone. I will share this…my favorite Feast is Sukkot. I encourage everyone here to look into the scriptures and study this feast as well as the other 6.

  284. jjarjw said,

    December 28, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    Shalom Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I had the most enlightening phone call from my younger brother a few nights ago. He is 7 years younger than me and would describe his faith/beliefs/walk as that of a very conservative protestant christian. Some would even say that he’s a little old fashion. Anyway, we talk a couple of times a week. We’ve always been very close to one another. Nothing has ever been able to break the bond we have whether it be religious differences or whatever.
    I’m sure most everyone here has heard about all the upheaval with Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson. It’s something my brother and I have talked about the last 3 times he’s called me. It’s something that’s really rubbed him the wrong way. I know we aren’t here to discuss this. I am getting to my point. He was talking with a friend of his who happens to be muslim. His friend was talking about what happened with Phil Robertson and how wrong he feels that whole situation is…he backs Phil Robertson. He said he can see how our country is on a quick downward spiral. Conservative people and people of all faiths will soon be persecuted for saying God or expressing any kind of views that aren’t in line with the mainstream liberal media. Our country has been on this downward spiral for many many years and it’s only getting worse.
    So, here we sit…men and women of faith. It’s SO easy for us to come together on a forum/blog and have a debate/discussion about the things that divide us…about our differences. This kind of debate/discussion has it’s good and bad points but I won’t get into that. What I will get into is this. HaSatan/satan/lucifer (whatever you call him) is SO good at being deceptive and cunning. He knows the Scriptures better than we do! I believe it is quite possible for people to become SO deeply involved in debates and discussions such as this that we are being distracted from what is truly important. Ask yourself this…what we are doing here…is it glorifying God? Are we helping our fellow man? Are we improving the world, the country, our communities in which we live by coming together only to divide ourselves? Are we feeding and clothing the poor? Are we taking care of the orphan and the widow? Are we visiting the prisoner? We have all these distractions in our lives and while we’re being distracted our freedoms and liberties are slowly dwindling away. We are becoming a people, a country of total political correctness, calling evil good and good evil. Can you imagine the strength that could come from us uniting as one to come against what harms our liberties and freedoms?? What about the issues we do agree on and that we can work together on? What about laying our differences aside and falling on our knees before God in repentance and praying for the life of our country?

  285. Connie E said,

    December 28, 2013 at 9:37 pm

    jjarjw, well said. You, and Pete, and Teresa has spoken volumes. And for the most part have been ignored or falsely accused of what??? not answering the trinity right according to their catholic trinity doctrine, the Westminster creed, the Athenian ? (that includes me too) I have gone back over this blog, looked up their references etc.

    How can anyone answer without being mistakenly accused of being a ‘heretic’ or any number of other false accusations. I have written down a couple dozen words or phrases used from the very first entry to vilify us. We could start with the first one in the opening dialog speaking of the “hideousness of the HRM”, “utterly detestable doctrine”, “cult”, “God condemns it”, “denying the Gospel and love for the body”. That is just a start.

    This blog was never meant to understand HRM. It was set to condemn by collectively pouncing.

    Never have I seen such lack of Y’shua’s love and compassion as I have seen here. We who I have fellowshipped with, even though we might not all be at the same place of our walk, would never condemn and criticize one another as you have all done. We pray for one another and encourage each other to put our Faith and Trust in the only One who can bring us through these troublesome times.

    Why we would put ourselves through more by dialoging like this is a wonder. But we would want others to know our Saviour and the Freedom we have to love Him, serve Him, and Honor Him by keeping His Commandments. AND LOVING ONE ANOTHER TO SHOW WE ARE HIS!!!!

    I know we will all keep praying for all of you.

  286. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 28, 2013 at 9:59 pm

    Connie and jjarjw ,

    Well said. Both of you. I too, think that there are more important things that believers ought to be doing instead of arguing. And it appears to me that this was not about familiarizing themselves with what we believe, but aiming questions designed to attack what we believe.

    It is no different than the tactics used by the Pharisees to try and trap Yeshua. I hold no ill will against anyone on this blog. That it the truth. But I have to call it like I see it.

    It seems it was more important to some of you to prove us wrong so you could feel right. I don’t know what affiliation any of you belong to, but do you not know that at one time it was probably accused of being a cult. too?

    The Catholics persecuted the Lutherans and the Lutherans no doubt persecuted anyone who didn’t believe as they did. And the list goes on and on. Everyone could be accused of being a cult.

    Please stop the insanity. Try to accept and love one another. We were all created in the image of God. If you are a believer, you are His representative. Think about that .

  287. jjarjw said,

    December 28, 2013 at 10:13 pm

    An encouragement and challenge to everyone here. If you TRULY want to know what HRM/Messianics are all about…visit a local congregation in your area. You may think it’s something that is beneath you…you would never visit a cult…etc,etc. However, if what some of you have said is true and you want to understand us better, then swallow your pride and gird yourselves with love and humility, go to a local congregation and find out for yourself. If you are strong enough in your faith then you won’t be swayed to ‘cross over.’ Instead you’ll come away with a better understanding or maybe you’ll come away totally disgusted. Either way, at the very least, you can say you’ve experienced it for yourself. Experience is the best teacher. You cannot speak of something you have not experienced. Praying for everyone here.

  288. Mark B said,

    December 28, 2013 at 10:43 pm

    jjarjw

    Thanks for taking the time to comment here. We strongly disagree on things, but you have given a more level headed account of HRM than anyone I’ve ran across online.

  289. jjarjw said,

    December 28, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    Wow Mark, thank you! To the best of my ability I try to be clear and balanced in the hopes that people might at least understand what I believe even though they may not agree. I am ok with that as long as we can agree to disagree in love and unity and pray for one another.

  290. Connie E said,

    December 28, 2013 at 11:06 pm

    Thank you Teresa.

    Have any of you men even thought of the damage to the Kingdom of Elohim (God) that you might be doing??? I think He would be better served if you would be kind, pray for others, and be an example of true believers.

    Teresa and I have both brought up the admonition of Gamliel who advised the Pharisees to leave these men alone or they might find they are fighting God. That if it they were false it would die out like some others.

    Another one was brought to my memory about ‘restoring your Brother with meekness’. By any stretch of the imagination have you done this?

    Please we just want to love Yahweh and Y’shua for all that has been done for us and be ready for His Coming.

    If you will be honest, all this has nothing to do with accusing us of living in sin. It has to do with the catholic doctrine of the trinity as the catholic dogma states that anyone who does not hold to ‘these’ will not be saved. Plus, the idea of the ceremonial law being done away with and Paul’s words (hard to understand by those who twist his words/the lawless).

    I for one will not anymore blindly accept man’s doctrine/traditions that do not line up with the Word of God/Living Word. When I first got saved I accepted because I knew nothing. Over the years Father led me to greatly desire to know His Truth. I sought Him and studied His Word. It started me on a wonderful journey. I am most grateful.

    You might better go back and study what the ‘ 1st century Fathers spoke of how the 1st century believers lived their lives. (Pete has some great links for quotes from THEM). You will honestly be shocked.

    As I said before I will not argue The Word. I want to be an encourager to others to live a pleasing Set Apart (Holy) life, as He has called us to do. Would you not agree?

    Shalom and may His blessings of Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding be upon you from this day forth.

    Please read the Proverbs for the day.
    Prov. 28:4 says “Those who forsake Torah praise the wicked, but such as keep Torah contend with them.”
    Prov. 28:7 says “Whoever keeps the Torah is a wise son, ……….
    Prov. 28:9 says ” He who turns away his ear from hearing the Torah, even his prayer will be an abomination.”
    Prov.29:18………..but, the one who keeps Torah is happy.

    Sirs, I am happy in Y’shua. and I’m sure you can talk to these others and they would say the same thing. Praise His Wonderful Name!!!! Bondage?Absolutely not!!! I/we are free from the law of sin and death through the Blood of our Messiah. He is writing His Torah on our hearts.

    Be free Brothers.

  291. Jason Loh said,

    December 28, 2013 at 11:30 pm

    Connie,

    St Peter doesn’t what Pete says (you should check out the passage in particular rather than take his word at face value) …

    2 Peter 3;16 …
    “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

    And YES, the ceremonial law *is* bondage. In fact, the Law is bondage unless it is done for the neighbour.

    Galatians 5 …
    “1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

    2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

    3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

    4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

    5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

    6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

    The Law is not be kept for God. God has kept the Law FOR YOU. Now go and go and keep the Law for the neighbour – in love … a Law that does NOT remember and even KNOW what the right or left hand does.

    Matthew 7 …
    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the *will of my Father* which is in heaven.

    22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many *wonderful works*?

    23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

    What is the “will of my Father”?

    John 6 …

    “28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

    29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the WORK of God, that ye BELIEVE on him whom he hath sent.

    40 And this is the WILL of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and BELIEVETH on him, may have everlasting life …”

    The whole of the Christian life is faith and faith alone. For as the prophet Habakkuk and St Paul says:

    “The just shall walk by faith” …

  292. Mark B said,

    December 28, 2013 at 11:38 pm

    I think this particular thread has run its course (for me, at least), so unless someone comes up with something profound, I think I’ll sign off too. I was trying to think of a good verse to end with, there are so many, but I’m going with this: Hosea 6:6 “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” (This verse is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 9 also). I would ask those here who are caught up in the Hebraic Roots thing to realize that there are many of us in the Body of Christ (the Christian Church) who desire to live righteous lives as God has commanded us to, but who vehemently disagree with HR over the way God wants us to do that. Praying that we will all grow in our understanding of God and his will for his children.

  293. Connie E said,

    December 28, 2013 at 11:47 pm

    ABSOLUTELY! You have Quoted well. We definitely are walking by Faith. You have never heard any of us say we by any stretch of the imagination that we are earning our salvation through Torah. It is our Love for Him as a child loves His Fathers direction. But where you get His Torah is bondage as you say, I don’t know. Some of your quotes are supposition/men’s teaching.

    I did not quote right about Paul. I can’t find my concordance and was trying to get done here so I could close for the night. Just receive and dig into ALL the Word, not just certain points.

  294. Jason Loh said,

    December 28, 2013 at 11:56 pm

    Dear Teresa,

    I speak for myself and I do not consider the HRM as a whole as a cult. However, I do consider HRM as a heresy – the Judaising heresy that St Paul condemned. This does not means, however, that I consider you unsaved. (And it does not mean that there are no HRM groups or related-groups that are cultic or have the characteristics of a cult). The testimony of those left the HRM are very important.

    1 Corinthians 3 …
    “10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

    11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

    12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

    13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

    14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

    15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”

    The foundation of the Christian life is Christ and Christ alone. Not even the Law must stand BETWEEN God and the Christian. We are either married to Jesus or to the Law (Romans 7). St Paul makes clear that the New Eve/New Adam is married to Christ alone whilst the old nature is BOUND to the Law – the law of sin and death (Romans 8).

    It is therefore insane to return to the bondage which Christ has delivered you from.

    Think about it. A relationship with Christ is MARRIAGE between Christ and you. What marriage would be it be if the Law takes the pre-eminent place so that it tells you what to, how to do? Aren’t you an adult (Galatians 4) who knows what to do already? Do two LOVERS needs to be told how to love?? Where’s the spontaneity, ecstasy, the rapture??

  295. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 29, 2013 at 12:01 am

    Jason.

    The context of all those scriptures you quoted is ” for salvation”. Circumcision means nothing if done for salvation. If you allow yourself to be circumcised for that reason then the death of Yeshua would mean nothing.

  296. jjarjw said,

    December 29, 2013 at 12:10 am

    Yeshua is the law…the living Word….the Torah.

  297. Jason Loh said,

    December 29, 2013 at 12:23 am

    Dear Connie,

    That the Law is nothing but bondage for those who want keep it as the Law of Moses (rather than the Law of Christ) is straight from St Paul himself.

    The Law of Moses was good in its time only for external or civil or political righteousness – the moral righteousness that is for the good of Israel’s well-being amidst the heathen nations. But Christians do not keep the Law (moral, ceremonial) to be blessed (spiritual or otherwise). The OT conditions were only for the OT Israel. The blessings that God has PROMISED to all of Israel (Jew and Gentile alike) is the forgiveness of sins — adoption to be the children of God, new life, etc.

    Romans 11 …
    “26 And so ALL Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

    27 For this is my COVENANT unto them, when I shall take away their SINS.”

    It is the blessing of the NEW age, new heavens and the new earth, the new creation … that is hidden under, with and in the old creation and only received by faith at present.

    Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

    John 14:
    “2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to PREPARE a place for you.

    3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that *where I am, there ye may be also.*”

    The Lord’s Supper IS the heavenly banquet … which the Feast of Tabernacles and so on cannot compare with …

    Mark 10 …
    “36 And he (Jesus) said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

    37 They (James and John) said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

    38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

    39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper – are the Gospel – that is the SELF-GIVING of GOD)

    40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is PREPARED.”

    NO Law, only GRACE alone. We do not (need to) observe the Law to be blessed.

    For “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Romans 8:32) ……

  298. Jason Loh said,

    December 29, 2013 at 12:29 am

    Dear Teresa,

    Yes, and if I’m circumcised, then I am bound to the Law – in bondage to the Law, am I not? Bound to keep the Law of *Moses* in its entirety am I not? Circumcision is part and parcel of the WHOLE package of the Law of Moses. It is both entrance and a “symbolic summary” of the Law of Moses.

    And yet Paul says also “For ALL the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Galatians 5:14). So we do not keep the ceremonial law even post-salvation (after we are saved).

  299. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 29, 2013 at 1:03 am

    Jason,

    IF… you rely on it for salvation then that would mean you have not accepted Messiah for salvation.

    Mat 22:40 On these two commandments the whole law hangs, and the prophets.

    Loving God and loving your neighbor are the commandments from which the entire Law hangs.

    Think of those two commandments as a clothes line, that all the other commandments/clothes hang. Doesn’t mean the clothes are gone, they are just hanging on the line.

    If you love God, then it follows that you would keep His commandments. Yeshua said that Himself.

    If you love your neighbor then you will not steal from him, covet his wife, etc.

    So, yes I believe that if you keep the two commandments which are the line, then you would get all that hangs on the line.

  300. jjarjw said,

    December 29, 2013 at 1:38 am

    We are to love our neighbor and love God but we are to love God more and above all else. What do we do if we love God? We obey HIS commandments. HE is our Father and knows what’s best for us.

  301. Jason Loh said,

    December 29, 2013 at 4:05 am

    Yes, yes, we love God by obeying His commandments. But that does not include keeping the feasts and so on and so forth. God is not Law. He is Love. His will and the Law are not the same. God is not bound to the Law. In other words, the Father’s personal will which is eternal is not the same as His Law which is temporal.

    1. The Law is temporal in so far as the Kingdom of God is concerned. There are no rules and regulations in the Kingdom of God. Romans 14:17 “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” Do we need rules and regulations on how to be joyful? The Law cannot give peace. Only the Holy Spirit give joy and peace. Do you need the Law to tell you to love God AFTER you are saved? You’re already married to God. So we keep the Law for the neighbor, not for God’s sake. We have the Spirit and that is all the matters before God.

    2. The Law is temporal in so far as its proper use as rules and regulations are concerned in this world. The Law was never meant to express righteousness or to provide a standard of righteousness before God – but before humanity, and for humanity.

    Before God, the Law pronounces us guilty. It can only pronounce us guilty. For the unbelievers, the Law as judgment and condemnation is, yes, everlasting. It can’t be compared though to the wrath of God.

    For God is NOT bound to the Law. His wrath is intensely personal and goes beyond the Law. For “I am a jealous God” precisely is the obverse, that is the opposite counterpart of “God is Love” means that God is above the Law and will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. For who can resist His will? (Romans 9). Isaiah 45:7 – “7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

    We walk by faith in God’s promise. His favour is precisely by grace, not by Law. We are saved by grace alone, we are blessed by grace alone.

    The Law cannot and is unable to cause you to lose salvation. Not at all. The Law has no power over you. Otherwise it is superstition.

    Matthew 25:34
    “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world …”

    Luke 12:32
    “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

    John 6:37
    “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

    All apart from the Law. The Law cannot comfort; only the Gospel. But in the sight of humanity, the Law is a good, holy and proper guide. In the sight God, only His Son matters and never the Law.

    For the Law is NOT the Way, is NOT Life, is NOT the truth, but “…the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”

  302. jjarjw said,

    December 29, 2013 at 5:45 am

    God is love and in a sense HE is the law…the law giver. Love isn’t love with boundaries and accountability. You can’t have love without everything else. If that’s the case we should just love everyone no matter what they do. No correction, no accountability…just run around doing what you want when you how you want because as long as we have love it’s all good. When someone comes to rob my house I will stand by and love them as they take everything I have. When my children do something they shouldn’t I will love them and not teach them about accountability and consequences. God chastens those HE loves.

  303. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 29, 2013 at 6:22 am

    Jason,
    According to scripture the Law is everything you just said it was not:

    Psa 119:142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And thy LAW is TRUTH.

    Pro 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the LAW is LIGHT; And reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

    The word ‘but’ was added to the following verse. This is how it reads without the addition:

    Joh 1:17 for the Torah was given through Mosheh – the favour and the truth came through יהושע Messiah.

    Yeshua is the Living Torah, the very Word of God. To say the Law is abolished would be to abolish Yeshua :

    Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

  304. Jason Loh said,

    December 29, 2013 at 6:36 am

    Dear Jjarjw,

    Yes, God indeed is the law-giver. But He is the law-giver in the sense that Moses is the law-giver. Temporal sense. God’s love is not according to law. If it were, none of us would be saved. As Romans 9 makes clear, God’s love is according to His good pleasure. He loves Jacob but hates Esau. That is, God’s love is FREE/ FREEDOM.

    The Law is not freedom. It is bondage. The constant “You shall do this.” Whereas we have the Spirit – Who PRODUCES the fruit in us – APART from the Law.

    And just as God created us of His sheer goodness, likewise He re-creates us out of sheer goodness. Which means we are saved by His sheer goodness and remain saved by His sheer goodness.

    Paul makes clear that we cannot separate the Law as knowledge of what to do from knowledge of our guilt. The two are inseparable. When the Law tells us what to do, it means precisely because we have NOT done it. We are pronounced guilty there and then.

    James 2 …
    “10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

    11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

    12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

    13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”

    So the Law is indiscriminate. It cares not if we try to keep it. If only we offend in just one point, the Law crushes us. “For He shall have judgment without mercy” – that is, God through the Law judges us guilty without mercy, no mitigation. And at the same time, mercy (Gospel) is the final word against the Law.

    The Law cannot be domesticated or controlled for *our* use for the sake of God UNLESS it be used for the sake of the neighbor (political/civil use of the Law). This all the more so when the condemning and political uses of the Law are MIXED together in the Law of Moses.

    The Law uses us as Paul says – leading only to a dead end. Whereas the Gospel makes alive. A life that is ALREADY in heaven – by faith … apart from the Law.

    1 Timothy 1:
    “Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

    6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

    7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

    8 But we know that the law is good, if a man *use it lawfully*;

    9 Knowing this, that the law is NOT made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, … etc. (here the condemning use and the political uses of the Law are both implied).”

  305. Jason Loh said,

    December 29, 2013 at 6:39 am

    Dear Teresa,

    The Law is truth only when it points to Jesus Who is the Subject of the Psalms. Is the Law Life? Is the Law the Way?

    Grace and Truth, says John, is pitted AGAINST the Law (which came by Moses). We cannot RECNCILED both Law and Gospel.

    That is, both are opposed to each other. We need the Law – as old beings in this old creation. Because of the Gospel, we are already new beings in the new creation – where there is no Law.

  306. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 29, 2013 at 7:07 am

    Dear Jason,

    I can see that we aren’t going to agree, but that is okay. You are entitled to your belief. I have trouble wrapping my brain around how you consider the Law to be bondage.

    I suppose it would be if I had to keep all the Oral Law and traditions of the Jews. But, I don’t . I keep only the Laws God set forth. Many of them I was already keeping without recognizing them as Torah.

    I am sure that you keep many of them, as well. It’s common sense to refrain from murder and stealing, etc. You wouldn’t say that keeping those brings bondage would you ?

    I have been keeping Torah for around ten years. And there has been nothing that has been arduous or enslaving. I am not sure what you think we do as far as the Torah, maybe you have a misunderstanding on that point.

    The Torah is all about loving your neighbor. Loving your neighbor did not originate in the New Testament.

    Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, I am the LORD.

    Yeshua was quoting Torah when he gave the same admonition in the book of Matthew. All of the instructions of the Torah are so that your life will be enhanced. They are common sense.

    I cannot imagine my life without them. It would be the same as if suddenly your city removed all the stop signs. Chaos would ensue.

    Rom 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

    Blessing to You My Brother, I need to get some sleep. I am sure you do, too.

    Teresa

    .

  307. Pete Rambo said,

    December 29, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Lane (#274) and Ron (#275),

    You have not answered this exegetical point about becoming a Jew to a Jew, and becoming a Gentile to a Gentile.

    I have answered that question, all the way back in #3! I think I have mentioned the same elsewhere in this thread and on this board. I know others have as well.

    What you fail to consider is that there was an oral tradition that is NOT written into the Law of Moses. That is the very type of tradition that Yeshua spoke against in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 (hand washing), Matthew 12 (picking a few heads of grain), dining with sinners, speaking to the Samaritan woman, etc.. It is the very tradition that Paul set aside when spending time among the Gentiles, but was sensitive to when among the Jews.

    I reiterate, you fail to consider the context in the first century of rabbinic oral tradition that began more than 500 years earlier during the Babylonian exile. Centuries after Yeshua, that oral tradition/oral law was recorded and published in various partial/complete forms… Babylonian Talmud, Mishna, etc…

    It was a horribly complex mish-mash or laws/rulings that were binding on the people. So much so that many simply ‘gave up.’

    Here is one example:

    R. Elazar said in the name of R. Oshiya: “When anything is dipped in sauce, the hands should be perfectly clean”; i.e., previously washed. Said R. Papa: “Thence we may infer that the lettuce must be entirely immersed in the Charoseth (sauce), for otherwise what need would there be of washing the hands, they would not touch the sauce?” Nay; perhaps this is not so: the odor of the sauce might neutralize any poison which might be lurking in the lettuce, and thus the lettuce need not be entirely immersed, and as for washing the hands, that is merely a precaution lest they accidentally touch the sauce.
    R. Papa said again: “The bitter herbs should not be allowed to stay any length of time in the sauce, lest the spices draw out the bitterness, and thus make the bitter herbs tasteless.”
    R. Hisda led Rabbana Ubqa by the arms and the latter preached: “If a man washed his hands prior to dipping the lettuce the first time, he should nevertheless wash his hands again when dipping a second time.” The rabbis told this to R. Papa, and remarked that the statement did not refer to the Passover-meal alone, but that it was a general rule; for if it referred to the Passover-meal alone, why should a man wash his hands the second time, he had already performed that duty?

    And, that is not even the whole discussion and ruling about something so dumb as hand washing and dipping lettuce!

    Paul and Yeshua BOTH taught against THIS Law. The oral tradition!

    And this unlocks the phrase ‘to the Jew, a Jew; to the Gentile, a Gentile.’

    Paul was willing to submit himself to the oral tradition when WITH the Jews so as to have a hearing. He did NOT abide by it when with Gentiles… rather, CONTRARY to Jewish oral tradition, he would enter the homes of Gentiles and fellowship at their tables. To the Jew, a Jew and to the Gentile a Gentile. He did NOT violate the Torah/Commandments of God. See his own testimony as previously quoted. If he did, then he is a liar.

    He also taught AGAINST this law for ALL believers, Jew and Gentile.

    It also explains much about the ‘yoke’ that is spoken of in Acts 15, it explains numerous seeming anti-law passages.

    Recapping: To understand the context of Paul’s writing, you MUST take into account the existence of the well attested ORAL LAW.

    Of course, doing so will force you to rethink a number of things and that will require some humility and deep introspection. You will have to ‘re-tool’ your thinking on a number of things dealing with Paul.

    Please go back and re-read my original three or four posts. The whole answer is there and I stand by it.

    Now, I had previous determined to get off this merry-go-round, and it is time I make good on that.

    I genuinely bid you ‘shalom!’

  308. greenbaggins said,

    December 29, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    Pete, I see your answer now, though I don’t see it in the text of 1 Corinthians. You have to import the idea of oral law into the context. It may be well-attested in the first century, but you have not proven that this is Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 9. (As I said, simply quoting other Scriptures without explaining them is not an argument). Simply saying that he left behind that oral tradition when talking to Gentiles does not seem to me to do justice to the phrase “becoming like a Gentile.”

    On another topic, you have now refused twice to answer my question in 210, regarding your comment in 208. Are you intending to say that teachers like me have no light whatsoever, and that the Gospel is hopelessly distorted if one does not teach your version of HRM?

    When Paul summarizes what he preaches, it is all about the person and work of Jesus Christ: “I preach Christ crucified.”

    Connie, Jjar, and Teresa, Jason’s comments on the sharpness of my tone (among others) are right on target. One thing I have noticed about some HRM folk is that they often lack in the category of self-awareness. For instance, the rhetoric of HRM has been just as heated as mine or any other critic’s, and in 208, I would say goes quite a bit beyond heated, if I take Pete’s comment at face value (which is to claim that I have no light in me whatsoever). So, comments directed at lowering the heat will have quite a bit more credibility if one observes the beam in one’s own eye first. I have had quite the slanders directed my way from several HRM proponents, ranging from accusations of pride and unteachableness to accusations of having no light in me whatsoever. I regard the HRM as a dangerous error, and I am seeking to protect the sheep from it. That is my motive. You obviously think I should not write this way in order to protect the sheep, and that’s fine. However, reading motivations is a very dangerous thing to do, since none of us can know what is in someone else’s heart. I have now told you my motivation for writing these posts.

  309. Connie E said,

    December 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    Respectfully, the same rules should apply to both sides. I have not seen from the HRM the derogatory names and accusations as those from GB to us. I’m sure you must recognize our defense and frustrations at times in relating the Scriptures and asking for answers to them and us being completely ignored. I feel as the rest that this is going nowhere. I wish you well and no ill will. I love you in Mashiach and hope for the best for all.
    May ALL of us this year be blessed in all wisdom, knowledge, and understanding of Him who loves us and gave His Only Begotten Son for us so that we CAN live for Him. Amein.

  310. Ron said,

    December 29, 2013 at 3:23 pm

    Count it all a joy, Lane. These accusers are outside the church, the ordinary ark of salvation.

  311. dannym said,

    December 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    Pete Rambo,

    If there is a ‘merry-go-round’ in play here, it is of your own making. Reed has very patiently been asking you to clarify your position regarding the Trinity, especially your quibble over tbe three persons of the Godhead being ‘distinct’ from one another.

    You have singularly failed (refused?) to address Reed’s concern. Indeed, it is *you* who has led Reed, and the rest of us painfully looking on, on an absurd merry-dance just to avoid providing simple clarification.

  312. Tim Harris said,

    December 29, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    1. Gesu did not speak Hebrew ordinarily. He spoke Aramaic.

    2. That it is right and normal to transliterate proper names from Hebrew to the other vulgar tongues can be proven from Scripture. For, the apostles did so in writing the gospels and epistles. Iesous, Kyrios, Theos, Pneuma, etc. Is someone going to claim that the apostles fell short of fully honoring our Lord?

    3. Those that SAY they are trying to honor Gesu’s native tongue are fudging, for I have never heard any of them make an attempt at the guttural ‘ayen. It should be Yeshua’, not just Yeshua. So, either you are in fact accommodating your pronunciation to modern English (just doing a partial transliteration) OR to modern Hebrew, which has also lost the guttural. In neither case, however, are you making the effort to “honor the language spoken by Gesu” (even leaving aside the fact that he didn’t speak Hebrew except perhaps liturgically and occasionally).

    Here, I use the Italian for our Savior’s name, to try to bring home how silly this project is.

  313. jjarjw said,

    December 29, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    Jason,
    We are not saved by goodness, we are saved because we acknowledge and accept the sacrifice Yeshua made. HE is our salvation.
    Tim,
    Looks like you’re an expert in the linguistics. Yeshua did speak aramaic however hebrew was HIS native tongue. We don’t learn hebrew to honor Yeshua as you suggest. We learn it hebrew so we can appreciate and have a better understanding of the scriptures. I don’t believe the hebrew language is as pure today as it was thousands of years ago so we do the best with what we have. We also learn and read about the culture and times in which the scriptures were written. The whole of the scriptures…not just the renewed covenant which is something I don’t think I’ve seen here from the christian side of the house. So sorry you think our “project” is “silly.” I thank you for the insult and count it all joy!
    All,
    I have been clear about my motives in commenting here. I have only commented here to share what I believe and to shed a little light on what HRM/Messianics believe. We barely scratched the surface of HRM/Messianic beliefs. I’m not here to convert anyone or to argue/discuss man made doctrines and theology. Nowhere in the scriptures does it ever say that we should follow doctrines and theologies of men. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling according to scripture not what the church fathers say as they are human and fallible. We should never allow anyone to dictate our beliefs.
    I would like to refer everyone to my comment #284. This kind of division (or division of any kind) does nothing for those God says we are to help and take care of. It’s easy for us to sit in our homes on our computers and go back and forth with all this. What are we doing inside and outside our home to minister to our families and others?? This is something that has been said but is worth saying again. People of all faith strive to do what’s right and serve God in the way God has revealed to them. They (we) love God with all our hearts and we love our neighbors as well. There is passion on both sides so we must be careful to be loving in our ways and discussions. I don’t go about preaching and trying to convert people to my way of thinking. If I am asked what I believe I share. I believe everyone has a right to live peacefully without fear of persecution from others who don’t’ agree. This discussion is going nowhere and unfortunately I don’t think anyone really has understood what we believe and why. Even though I don’t agree with it I can understand why christians believe what they believe. For the sake of my health it is time for me to sign off. Over the years I’ve been asked several times what my favorite scripture is. From Genesis to Revelation it’s hard to choose! Every scripture is powerful and significant. A few months ago I chose a scripture, not as my favorite but every time I read it or hear it read it brings tears to my eyes and speaks so much of the God I serve. I appreciate the discussion that I was a part of and I will diligently pray for everyone here. My verse… ”If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn (SHUV) from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
    Shalom to you all
    Jamileh

  314. Tim Harris said,

    December 29, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    Well Jamileh, in #276, you said “Yeshua spoke hebrew, HE lived the life of a hebrew so why not learn the language of our savior.”

  315. Teresa Cannon said,

    December 29, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    Tim Harris,

    I believe I recall that when Paul had his encounter on the road to Damascus Yehsua chose to speak Hebrew, not Greek, not Aramaic, but Hebrew. Why you and some others feel the need to torture that poor woman who has been nothing but gracious to you is beyond me.

    Do you hope to appear more intelligent or do you get a thrill from harassing others? Whatever your motive, it was not loving your neighbor. Since that is the only law you feel obligated to keep, you would think you could at least get that one right.

  316. Connie E said,

    December 29, 2013 at 11:29 pm

    She is right. #315

    Just watched the video Teresa suggested #295. First time seen. Would be good for all here to watch. Even if you reject what is said maybe you could get a better understanding of certain things.

  317. Tim Harris said,

    December 30, 2013 at 8:35 am

    Girls — my original remark had Rambo in mind. Like Ron, I have no desire to argue with women, and it was probably a mistake to answer #313 by reminding of a previous statement in #314.

    You have been led astray by an incoherent and unbiblical Hebrew-fetish, but you will probably not be cured until the men in your movement can be brought to their senses.

  318. Reed Here said,

    December 30, 2013 at 10:09 am

    Jemileh, Jjar: auto correct turned 10′s C ( as in 10 Commandments) into 10 aC (or something like that). The point is that the position you’re espousing (and common with HRM) folks appears to be breaking to first two commandments, the ones about worshiping Him alone, as He is rightly defined in the Bible.

  319. Jason Loh said,

    December 30, 2013 at 10:12 am

    I cannot agree more, Tim. Unfortunately …

  320. Reed Here said,

    December 30, 2013 at 10:12 am

    Jjar: thanks for saying that you think churches like the one I Pastor and HRM fellowships are not in the same Church.

    So, since the Bible teaches that there are actually only two Churches: which one of us is the Church of Christ, and which one of us in the Synagogue of Satan?

  321. Reed Here said,

    December 30, 2013 at 10:20 am

    Connie and Teresa, I must echo Lane’s observation about calls to tone it down here. You have both responded with a shrillness that even Paul refused to treat the High Priest with.

    Is such discourtesy in keeping with Torah?

    Please, do not respond with observations concerning what y’all (or Pete) have been called. This has been a serious discussion of doctrinal differences on our part. We’ve not made it personal.

    As I said to Pete, if you struggle to not take disagreement with your beliefs personal, it is probably best for you to not comment.

  322. Reed Here said,

    December 30, 2013 at 10:25 am

    Jjar: followup on another comment from our discussion; do you believe 1ti 2:11-12 and 1Co 14:34 have biblical authority?

    If so, how do you square your husband and you submitting to the authority of the woman prophet who predicted your move into the HRM?

    Sincerely, this is the kind of contradiction that causes me to scratch my head.

  323. jjarjw said,

    January 1, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    Greetings, Reed…This is Jack, Jamileh’s husband. I normally try to stay out of theological discussion and in this case of this blog Jamileh was handling herself very well and did not need me to even say anything. Nor does she need me to say anything now. Discussion or conversation in or about theology, religion, politics and sports always seem to conjure up much emotion. So I was moderately struck with emotion as I read your last few posts and it has lead me to address you directly. I am not sure you will even know I have posted anything to you but since I had some free time I wanted to engage in some moderate intellectual conversation. I will comment on a few of your posts; 318, 320, 321 and 322.
    However, further I must introduce myself. I walked as a Christian in the salvation of Jesus just before I became a freshman in high school. My conversion story is one of true change and a story for another day. I walked uprightly according to the Scriptures for many years. As a matter of fact during those many years I was preaching in churches around the country and in foreign lands. In the late 90s I was a licensed exhorter with the Pentecostal Church of God. Within a year or two I would have been a licensed pastor. I was on my way. I had felt a void for so many years in my heart and I thought ministry was the thing that would heal the void. Preaching, teaching and praying for people sure seemed to help with the void so I naturally thought ministry was going to fill the void.
    Then a very interesting thing happened in 2000…this would answer your post #322. I took the liberty of looking up the versus you suggested and placed them here: King James Version on both here…
    1 Timothy 2:11-12; 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Corinthians 14:34; 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
    Jamileh expressed that in 2000 we were in church and a woman was there sharing her life experiences, etc. There was eventually an altar call and I felt compelled to go up with my wife. I had no idea why we were up there. We were last in line when she came to us and rather than ask what we needed she stated that God had a message for us. Break, Break…let us remember we are still under the covering of the church and the church fathers. So if she has a message from God, from what God did she get the message? I will guess…it was satan, it was the Bad God of the Old Testament or it was the Good God of the New Testament. Okay, back to the versus, I was neither taught by this woman prophet, nor was I mentored by this woman prophet and the church leaders of the Pentecostal Church of God allowed, per her, per church doctrine to speak in the church I was then going to. Also, I think you are reaching here, I mean Timothy and 1 Cor.., show me earlier examples in which Jesus tells women to be silent. There were powerful women that followed Jesus.

  324. jjarjw said,

    January 1, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    I wonder dear sir, would you stand up in your church and hush Mary the mother of Jesus if she were given the pulpit? I dare say would you silence Mary Magdalene if she stood and shared the story of how she washed the feet of the Messiah? I actually think you would never get to hear them speak (or teach) because your church obviously holds to your standard found in Timothy and 1 Corinthians. Let us please be honest here, were either of them to go to any church today and preach and teach about who Jesus was and what he taught we would all be floored. Religion and denomination are boxes that keep us from seeing the true heart of the Father.
    Okay, I got off on a small goat trail. Please let me continue with an observation regarding Timothy’s letter. Can we please take a very simply and educated look at Timothy’s letter? Did Timothy see a problem within the congregation he was addressing? Was he speaking out against women who may not have been given authority to speak by the church leaders? We cannot have it both ways, either women have a voice all the time as we see throughout the whole of the scriptures or they have no voice and then does Timothy really have the authority to tell all women throughout the ages they have no voice? Dear Sir, studying the Bible is like studying history, most of the time you have to dig to find the truth. However, I understand where you are coming from in using Timothy and Corinthians, I, like you, have been taught to always take things at face value and not dig into the reality of the versus you are using to prove a very weak point. As a side… checkout the role of women in the church during the 1940s and 1950s…if what were written in the verses you provided held true, there would likely be no church today. Women held the church together while men were fighting during WWII and Korea; they stepped up and gained a lot of power within the church as a whole.
    Now the prophecy spoken over us by the “woman prophet” was simply, “God is going to change your doctrine.” This simple statement was meaningless to us. As a matter of fact when she spoke these words I looked at the pastor who stood beside her and he shrugged his shoulders. So maybe you can see now that the statement really had no meaning until about six months later.
    At this point in my message to you, Reed, I would like to share a little more about myself. Please do not take me for a fool (nor take my very educated and intelligent wife for a fool), I am not an uneducated man. I have an associates in Human Resources Management (CCAF), Bachelors in Management (Wayland Baptist University) and I am pursuing my Masters in Theology with Wayland. As well, I served 21 years in the USAF and I am currently a Department of Defense Historian. I understand history and I understand the church and its history. So when the “woman prophet” spoke those words over us, who knew what it all meant.
    Please Reed, do not in your sarcasm scratch your head too much, your efforts to prove some kind of a contradiction have nothing to do with “HRM” we were in the Church, that replaced Israel. So at the time of the prophecies I, as the covering for my family, was under the covering of the Good God of the New Testament. Your sarcasm is laughable. My wife shared her heart, she is a child of the most High God, whom you, I am sure “aspouse” to follow. Mockery/sarcasm is unbecoming and suggests the intent of ones heart.

  325. jjarjw said,

    January 1, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Next post, #318…this one I will keep simple, please walk out your salvation with fear and trembling and I assure you I will as well. For there is only one judge in the end and I think we will both stand before the Mean God as He begins to judge our works which are filthy rags before the one true God that sets upon the throne. Why even bother following the Ten Commandments, they just seem to be types and shadows of things that God thinks He wants us to do and they are in the Old Testament and authorized by the Mean God. Sarcasm implied… Let us follow what Jesus says, Luke 10:27 (KJV) “And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” This is really how we should live right. Well let us dig into what God is saying here. Oh, God is Jesus and Jesus is God…so, God is breaking down the Ten Commandments…the first five deals with our relationship with God and the last five deals with our relationship with others. Anyway, on to your next post…
    Reed, once again your sarcasm is astounding, post #320, I honestly think this comment is extremely anti-semitic and again shows your true heart. I think the Jewish/Hebrew/Messianic communities would be interested in your take on the synagogue of satan. Take me for a simpleton but, I truly believe you would be the first to cast a stone at my wife and I with my children watching and then turn to them and state that God wills it. There are two seeds oh, I apologize, that is a teaching from the Old Testament. So let me share what I learned from your Church of Christ. Remember, I have been in the church and a part of church leadership. I think it is interesting how pastors have taken the place of the Levites. It seems like the Mean God meant what He said but, then changed His mind later. The change came when the Nice God removed the Temple and the Levites from priesthood and allowed preachers to accept money from believers. I think it is interesting how money is king in the church and how the church lives off other’s hard earned money. The Paul we preach all the time did not accept anything…is that the Mean God rule or Nice God rule? Anyway, I really do not feel I need to answer post #320 you have already judge little “g” od. You are acting in the place of the Mean God. What happen to the Nice God?

    On to post #321, Reed once again your comment is laughable with regards to, “a serious discussion of doctrinal differences on our part. We’ve not made it personal, it is probably best for you to not comment.” You have made it personal. Your dogma lashes out with the suggestions you have made about the two churches, the Church of Christ and the Synagogue of Satan. Your comments are very anti-Semitic. Why use the word Synagogue? Your savior was raised in the synagogue, He was a Rabbi of the highest order, He taught from the New Testament, oops, He taught from the Old Testament. But then He would be teaching the Mean God way and then because Jesus is God, He then would be contradicting Himself. Weird, so, I guess He was making up a new way of following Him. Wow, He waited thousands of years to change His mind when He already knew what was going to happen. He should have just changed His mind earlier.

    In conclusion, I pray sir that you are never my judge. I am condemned before you, for you have shown your heart. Please forgive me for how I follow my God because it is different from how you follow Him. I am a lousy sinner in your eyes even when I proclaim that I believe in Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior, I am washed in the blood of the lamb, I proclaim His salvation from the rooftops but, I am damned because I want to follow Torah, because I want to follow the whole of the Old Testament and the whole of the New Testament. I have allowed you to interpret the Scriptures the way you choose, why I am I condemned for interpreting them the way I do? Does God speak any differently to the pastor, educated or the poor peasant as myself? Who is the author of good and evil? God has control of both; to say otherwise removes His ability to be God. You think you are right and I know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. Judge not dear sir, lest the Holy Judge render His judgment.

  326. Reed Here said,

    January 1, 2014 at 7:51 pm

    Jjar (Jack): no. 323, 324, and 325: at first I responded to your comments section by section. But the Spirit convicted me that I was engaging in an argumentative spirit in doing so. Accordingly, I’ve repented and deleted those comments. I will let this one here suffice for my response.

    I am not sure if you read all the commented between your wife and I. If so, you will note that I never made any personal comments toward her, but showed the utmost respect. ALL of my comments were based on discussion of what the Scripture teaches. Yes, we have differences in conviction, serious differences. But that does not mean I was demeaning, judgmental or sarcastic toward your wife (or by inference you or any other person following HRM convictions). I was not.

    I ask you to back off your judgments of me. The are unkind, unfair and in part, somewhat evil (especially the anti-Semitism charge). These judgments are based not on what I said, but your reading between the lines of what I said, and ignoring my expressions of sincerity. You impute motives to me that you have no right to do.

    It is clear you and I have a different understanding of what the Bible teaches on these matters. I am not inclined to argue them with you, as I think you would not be interested in trusting my willingness to engage with integrity.

    Suffice to say, if I might observe one thing that goes to the heart of your criticisms, I’ve not said observing the OT ceremonial and dietary laws is sinful. Please, go back and read what I’ve said. You’ll not find that anywhere. Instead, I am persuaded that the reason why HRM-folks want to observe these is condemned by the Bible. That is not personal, it is a Scripture based opinion.

    Of course you can disagree with it, as I know you do. To conclude that I am mean-spirited toward you is simply uncalled for. If you do, you must conclude the same about yourself, as your HRM based convictions say that my failure to keep Torah according to your understanding of this) is dangerous to my soul.

    Finally, of course I’m not your judge. Pardon me for observing that you most certainly are letting your emotions get the better of you making such an unsupported accusation. Jesus Christ will judge us both, according to His Scriptures. I’m sure we agree on this.

    Again, please back off your accusations towards me. They are not supported by the actual conversation I’ve had with your wife (and the other HRM commenters).

  327. Ron said,

    January 1, 2014 at 10:35 pm

    Give it a break, Jack. Reed did nothing wrong and I think you know that. Either debate the issues or refrain.

  328. Ron said,

    January 1, 2014 at 10:50 pm

    Reed,

    You were at liberty to debate these women, if they even were a plurality of women and not just one. The reason I wouldn’t debate “them” is I wasn’t sure I could remain blameless and if not, there’s always the “rude” trump card that can get thrown down, as we just saw. You are better equipped, probably both by grace and nature, for such a task than I, so I yielded the microphone. I’m glad you spoke up and you did so without stepping over the line. Jack, at best, is unwittingly a tool in the hands of the accuser of the brethren. In this case, this accuser is not pointing out your sin but rather offering occasion for the binding of your conscience when you were speaking the truth in love. Being a mere man, Jack’s words can possibly dog you. I pray his unfounded attacks and frothy arguments like about yielding the pulpit to Mary won’t cause you to doubt.

  329. Reed Here said,

    January 2, 2014 at 10:51 am

    Ron: appreciate your kind words. Both of us know anything about them that is true is not to my credit. ;-)

    I paid attention to your reticence, and to Tim’s (maybe Jason’s as well), and saw some wisdom that I learned a bit more from. As the women have been intent on commenting, I decided my role as a moderator at least called for me to try to respectfully respond.

    I’ll be frank and note that I did ask about husbands to at least two of the woman. I did so out of respect for the 5th Commandment and Paul’s teaching on women speaking in authority to men. Some may think these don’t apply. All I ask is that no one bind my conscience as I seek out of love for my Savior to keep Torah.

    I won’t make any further observations about the particulars of the comments in this thread, or in other HRM threads. I may very well put together some posts in the future. I’m still processing what I’ve learned. Ordinarily I don’t think the sources of the HRM come into much contact with our neck of the woods. Lane’s circumstances plus my small experience here are giving me some pause to reconsider that opinion. Nothing new under the sun, to be sure. Yet it always seems to come dressed in a new outfit. Takes time to realize it is the same old style.

  330. January 10, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    […] one HRM proponent in particular has accused me of having no light in me whatsoever, because my views on OT law are not HRM. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 327 other followers

%d bloggers like this: