Discussion Hebrew Roots; error or something else?

[Frogster]

I know they are from scripture, but they are not exclusive to the New Covenant. 1 Cor 10:23 is scripture too. I did not make it an obligation, just told you what God said is food and what is not.

Gen 9:2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

 

[Frogster]

I know they are from scripture, but they are not exclusive to the New Covenant. 1 Cor 10:23 is scripture too. I did not make it an obligation, just told you what God said is food and what is not.

It doesn’t matter about what we eat before God.

1 Cor 8:8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.

The kingdom of God, is NOT about foods.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.



This..The LORD showed Paul, other than for the weak conscience Jewish person, who does not know better. Verse 14:20 says it is clean also.

Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean


Peter was eating Gentile unclean food.

Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

Corinth sold the unclean idol meat, strangled meat, that had blood in it. Paul said eat it.

1 Cor 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.



QUOTING A PSALM HERE, to confirm his point about eating, after he said eat all in the pagan markets of Corinth...in chapter 10.

1 Cor 10:26 For "the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof."


What kind of food would a Corinthian pagan serve? Paul said it eat, other than for their weak conscience, a different issue, but he said eat it, knowing it was idol food.


1 Cor 10:27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.


Doctrine of demons, = food abstinence.

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.


Peter ate unclean gentile food after the sheet event.

Acts 11:3Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Philippi had so few Jews, that there was not even a synagogue there, yet Paul stayed with Gentile Lydia, did he not eat setting food , while being a guest there? The Roman guard in Acts 16, proves the same point, he fed Paul meat, it was not Kosher meat.

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Paul ate the unclean meat of a Roman guard.


Acts 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.



How could Paul and Barnabas, preach and live with their Gentile converts, and the alienate them, by declaring them unclean, because of Mosaic food laws? That would be the very thing, Paul rebuked Peter for doing in Antioch, recorded in Galatians 2.

And of course....of course...Mark 7:19, Jesus declared all foods clean! That is an Aramaic Bible I used there too.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Mark 7:19“Because it does not enter his heart, but his belly, and is discharged by excretion, which purifies all foods.”


1 Cor 8..eating non Kosher, unclean meat, and meat that had blood, and strangled idol temple food was allowed, so long as stumbling was not going on.

 

[Frogster]

I'm sorry you are taking offense. Having a new High Priest who never will die is a huge difference. I don't take it lightly. However, I'm curious as to what you think are the new covenant promises that are not in the old. What is offensive about that question?

What are the curses? I raise a fair point.

 

[Frogster]

Why is Israel still not receiving the wonderful blessings that you said the Old Covenant gave them? Why is Israel still among war and strife?

It was said earlier that the Old Covenant welcomed heathens and those who repented, so why can't Israel graft the people in to the Old Covenant today? And all of them receive the blessings that the Old Covenant had for them?

exactly!

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

True. But the entire premise of the Law was that if you did not keep all of it, you have kept none of it. So the flaws were there from the start in that it was and is an all or nothing covenant.

If that were true we would not have Hebrews 11. None of those people listed kept the law perfectly, yet it was written that their faith was accounted to them as righteousness.

The flaws as described by the writer of Hebrews says the weakness was in the human high priest and their offering up sacrifices that did not take away the sins of the person, much less than the world. Jesus though, did it once and for all. Sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

Romans 10:
16. “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”


18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
​

​

So which law from Deut 28 blessings, is thrown out?

​

 

[ToBeLoved]

If that were true we would not have Hebrews 11. None of those people listed kept the law perfectly, yet it was written that their faith was accounted to them as righteousness.

The flaws as described by the writer of Hebrews says the weakness was in the human high priest and their offering up sacrifices that did not take away the sins of the person, much less than the world. Jesus though, did it once and for all. Sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

Romans 10:
16. “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”


18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
​

​

So which law from Deut 28 blessings, is thrown out?

​

The entire Old Covenant is insufficient compared to the New Covenant. Period. That's my answer to your question.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

The entire Old Covenant is insufficient compared to the New Covenant. Period. That's my answer to your question.

That's one way to say, you don't know.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Reading the entire chapter helps. A single phrase taken out of context can mean anything you want.
...

Yes, reading the entire books with all of its chapters helps with understanding the phrases one finds in the verses but since we all have read the whole book of Hebrews your helpful comment is superfluous.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That's one way to say, you don't know.

I saw you answering a question with a question for pages and thought I'd see how it works.

My response is that the entire Old Covenant is insufficient compared to the New Covenant.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The ONE Commandment to believe on the Name of his Son does not replace the remainder of the Commandments. If we keep them we dwell in him. The devil believes in the Name of Yeshua. Making Him Lord is an entirely different matter. A servant does what his Master says. Matthew 5:19

Revelation 22:14 Those that do his Commandments have the right to the tree of life.

If the Lord Jesus Christ can say that love of God and love of one's neighbour is the whole of the law and the prophets (Matthew 22:37-40) then when his apostle, saint John, says that the commandment of God is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and to love one another (1John 3:23-24) why object? Surely the creator of all the world will do right! Surely his words are true.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

I saw you answering a question with a question for pages and thought I'd see how it works.

My response is that the entire Old Covenant is insufficient compared to the New Covenant.

So you believe that God made an original covenant full of empty promises? That's impossible. God is not a man that He should lie.

 

[Biblicist]

I have serious misgivings about the Hebrew Roots teaching. It does not seem to be from scripture or from holy tradition and it is not taught by the Catholic Church. In fact the idea that being of Jewish descent entitles one to salvation appears to be based almost entirely on poor exegesis of Romans chapter eleven and especially verses 1a, 2a, 25, 26a.

Even though I am coming into this question rather late, I can at least say that any teaching which erroneously suggests that anyone can still come to the Lord within the Old Covenant has no place within serious theology.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Even though I am coming into this question rather late, I can at least say that any teaching which erroneously suggests that anyone can still come to the Lord within the Old Covenant has no place within serious theology.

I don't know any that teach that. But if there are some not all can be lumped into the same clay. If you are Baptist, could we assume that means you're part of the Westboro Baptist group? Of course not. Or being as you're Pentecostal, can we assume your part of the one that says you must speak in tongues to be saved? Or the snake handler Pentecostals?

 

[Frogster]

If that were true we would not have Hebrews 11. None of those people listed kept the law perfectly, yet it was written that their faith was accounted to them as righteousness.

The flaws as described by the writer of Hebrews says the weakness was in the human high priest and their offering up sacrifices that did not take away the sins of the person, much less than the world. Jesus though, did it once and for all. Sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

Romans 10:
16. “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”


18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
​

​

So which law from Deut 28 blessings, is thrown out?

​

the weakness was animal blood.

heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

 

[ToBeLoved]

So you believe that God made an original covenant full of empty promises? That's impossible. God is not a man that He should lie.

Now in truth, you know that I said nothing of the sort. Are you putting words in my mouth? That is not righteous. I expect you to be righteous and Godly and quote what I do indeed say.

I like how you put in there that God is not a man/woman and would not lie. We know HE/God wouldn't.

 

[Frogster]

That's one way to say, you don't know.

It was also because the old cov, had laws that aroused sin, read my siggy, there are some great verses to prove it.

 

[Frogster]

If that were true we would not have Hebrews 11. None of those people listed kept the law perfectly, yet it was written that their faith was accounted to them as righteousness.

The flaws as described by the writer of Hebrews says the weakness was in the human high priest and their offering up sacrifices that did not take away the sins of the person, much less than the world. Jesus though, did it once and for all. Sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

Romans 10:
16. “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”


18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
​

​

So which law from Deut 28 blessings, is thrown out?

​

frog green color above.

What curses are still kept? you can't have blessings without the curses. You say other "don't know", but it seems that maybe you don't know, sorry, l am just saying what you say, with all due respect. frog.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't know any that teach that. But if there are some not all can be lumped into the same clay. If you are Baptist, could we assume that means you're part of the Westboro Baptist group? Of course not. Or being as you're Pentecostal, can we assume your part of the one that says you must speak in tongues to be saved? Or the snake handler Pentecostals?

You have made a lot of assumptions though. It wouldn't be the least truthful thing that you have said.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Even though I am coming into this question rather late, I can at least say that any teaching which erroneously suggests that anyone can still come to the Lord within the Old Covenant has no place within serious theology.

That is true yet the teaching is being propagated and some are accepting it out of respect for its teachers and some because the accumulation of knowledge from history and from ancient languages awes them into believing the message that hangs on the coat tails of the knowledge. Saint Paul warned against such knowledge and the false teachings associated with it (1Tim 6:20,21).

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. (Romans 10:1-2 KJV) Here we see that pathos of this kind of knowledge. It is very like the Hubris that the ancient Greeks (pagan though they were) recognised as inevitably leading to destruction. This kind of Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Now in truth, you know that I said nothing of the sort. Are you putting words in my mouth? That is not righteous. I expect you to be righteous and Godly and quote what I do indeed say.

My response is that the entire Old Covenant is insufficient compared to the New Covenant.

You're saying the entire Old Covenant is insufficient, which would mean that God made empty promises. I expect that when you make a statement like that that you are capable of backing it up. Yet you only dodge the question giving a blanket statement that does not address the question.