Discussion Hebrew Roots; error or something else?

[Ken Rank]

Ummm, yep, it is your "paradigm" that is the problem, that's the point. It is your "paradigm" that continues to confuse language with culture. As your posts so clearly show. Because that is the basis that you use to justify your promoting of old covenant concepts and principles as applicable and necessary for new covenant believers.

Yes, old covenant concepts like love God and neighbor, both repeated from the Torah by messiah. If you believe that you can now steal, serve other gods, and dishonor your parents... go right ahead, I prefer to cling to these old covenant principles. Take care!

 

[Frogster]

There are also movements that can't even admit His Name is Yeshua originally. I don't think He cares how we call Him, some Eskimo's called Him Jesuisi. It's important though if you want to win Jews.

But I think my sis gets the point? What language does Jesus speak to you in?

Jews were won to Christ at Pentecost, as they heard the Spirit in Gentile tongues. So they were not hearing "Yeshua" in any of those languages, were they?

Point being, some in the HRM argue language, just to turn anything into a platform for promoting a doctrine that tries to bring Judaism into the church, sorry but it is just true, no offense, and really it does not matter, hence when you get a word from God, it is not in Hebrew. Thanks, froggy.

 

[Steeno7]

Yes, old covenant concepts like love God and neighbor, both repeated from the Torah by messiah. If you believe that you can now steal, serve other gods, and dishonor your parents... go right ahead, I prefer to cling to these old covenant principles. Take care!

And I prefer to cling to Christ. You take care too.

 

[Frogster]

Yes, old covenant concepts like love God and neighbor, both repeated from the Torah by messiah. If you believe that you can now steal, serve other gods, and dishonor your parents... go right ahead, I prefer to cling to these old covenant principles. Take care!

No we don't want to be in the flesh, and steal, but it also goes to show how the law was really just given as a negative restraint for flesh. The law was given to a dead creation, all in Adam, it did not save, it did not work.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Not at all... you know more about my beliefs than I do, apparently. It isn't the language, it is the paradigm. If you think the philosophies of people like Aristotle or Plato have not permeated Christianity, then you need to be shown these things. It is very clear they have and they have redirected the direction of the faith. The Greek "form centered" mindset is not compatible with the Hebraic "function centered" mindset and that is just a fact. You can argue against it, but you would be arguing from a position of ignorance. And that is NOT SAYING you are dumb, I am saying on this topic you are lacking information. You could have asked, "Hey Ken, share some things and let me ask Father if there is anything for me." Instead, you mounted a defense on a topic you are not well versed in at all. And I say that because you have clearly indicated you have no idea what I believe.

Peace.
Ken

In a discussion, what is the problem with someone stating what they think you believe? This is your opportunity to say what you believe.

I have not read anything that has put this on a personal level, I think it has stayed focused on beliefs.

 

[Frogster]

In a discussion, what is the problem with someone stating what they think you believe? This is your opportunity to say what you believe.

I have not read anything that has put this on a personal level, I think it has stayed focused on beliefs.

 

[Ken Rank]

In a discussion, what is the problem with someone stating what they think you believe? This is your opportunity to say what you believe.

I have not read anything that has put this on a personal level, I think it has stayed focused on beliefs.

If the person is here and willing to talk, why not just ask them? I have shared very little doctrine but much has been attributed to me. But even so, while I admit this thread has mainly stayed on beliefs, it is HOW we talk to one another. Is it in love of brethren? Disdain for that which we don't agree with? There are ways to disagree, ways to correct or even rebuke if and when necessary. But when the discussion becomes combative it isn't edifying to anyone. For example:

Produce some credible evidence from reputable sources to support the claim that the new testament was not written in Greek or admit that the claim is vain babbling.

Is the latter part of that sentence necessary? Does it edify or tear down? That followed a post where I gave two SOURCES (Eusebius and Jerome) and that amounts to "vain babbling" if I don't cite chapter and verse. Why not ask for chapter and verse instead of making a comment like that?

I am not overly sensitive, I can handle the heat... but I won't for the good of the body engage in a theological urinating match where God's Word is just thrown around as if common. That profanes Him and His word and it divides brethren from brethren. Not a good thing!

 

[ToBeLoved]

If the person is here and willing to talk, why not just ask them? I have shared very little doctrine but much has been attributed to me. But even so, while I admit this thread has mainly stayed on beliefs, it is HOW we talk to one another. Is it in love of brethren? Disdain for that which we don't agree with? There are ways to disagree, ways to correct or even rebuke if and when necessary. But when the discussion becomes combative it isn't edifying to anyone. For example:



Is the latter part of that sentence necessary? Does it edify or tear down? That followed a post where I gave two SOURCES (Eusebius and Jerome) and that amounts to "vain babbling" if I don't cite chapter and verse. Why not ask for chapter and verse instead of making a comment like that?

I am not overly sensitive, I can handle the heat... but I won't for the good of the body engage in a theological urinating match where God's Word is just thrown around as if common. That profanes Him and His word and it divides brethren from brethren. Not a good thing!

Well, this in itself is a unique opportunity. People often feel battered when their opinions differ from the majority. You can however make your position about scripture and choose not to take it to a personal level. I think that is what we all are trying to do in the end. I see much scripture being posted, so I don't think that Jesus or God's Word is being profaned at all. If anything iron sharpens iron and all involved are using scripture to make their point. There is a certain divide already in HR and Christianity just with the emphasis on the OT. That has always been the decisive point, imho.

 

[ToBeLoved]

If the person is here and willing to talk, why not just ask them? I have shared very little doctrine but much has been attributed to me. But even so, while I admit this thread has mainly stayed on beliefs, it is HOW we talk to one another. Is it in love of brethren? Disdain for that which we don't agree with? There are ways to disagree, ways to correct or even rebuke if and when necessary. But when the discussion becomes combative it isn't edifying to anyone. For example:



Is the latter part of that sentence necessary? Does it edify or tear down? That followed a post where I gave two SOURCES (Eusebius and Jerome) and that amounts to "vain babbling" if I don't cite chapter and verse. Why not ask for chapter and verse instead of making a comment like that?

I am not overly sensitive, I can handle the heat... but I won't for the good of the body engage in a theological urinating match where God's Word is just thrown around as if common. That profanes Him and His word and it divides brethren from brethren. Not a good thing!

But if they are asking a question, that has to do with beliefs that they do not understand or agree with, than what did you think that they would do but ask questions. I think that your spirit may be a little down and you may be personalizing it to a certain degree. Our spiritual beliefs tend to be very personal and it is not hard at all to do.

I think carry on and refocus back on to facts, not personality. These are good people in this conversation. You have gotten lucky in that respect.

 

[Ken Rank]

These are good people in this conversation. You have gotten lucky in that respect.

I don't believe in luck but I get your point. I have no doubt these are good people. MoreCoffee made some posts I really enjoyed that I didn't agree with. I haven't agreed with everything you have posted, but I enjoyed them and gleaned from them. But I am not the one making it personal... when a line gets thrown in like, "continue your vain babblings" that isn't exactly conducive to a healthy conversation and I wasn't the one who went there.

I decided to answer the OP in this thread because, being an elder in a Hebrew Roots congregation, it made sense to be a voice from that side. I can still be if folks want.. or I can move on. These forums can be a real time suck anyway!

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't believe in luck but I get your point. I have no doubt these are good people. MoreCoffee made some posts I really enjoyed that I didn't agree with. I haven't agreed with everything you have posted, but I enjoyed them and gleaned from them. But I am not the one making it personal... when a line gets thrown in like, "continue your vain babblings" that isn't exactly conducive to a healthy conversation and I wasn't the one who went there.

I decided to answer the OP in this thread because, being an elder in a Hebrew Roots congregation, it made sense to be a voice from that side. I can still be if folks want.. or I can move on. These forums can be a real time suck anyway!

Maybe all has been said that you feel is necessary to say. I guess that's my point. These type of threads do not come around everyday, so if you have been able to in your mind make a good case for the movement, than maybe there is nothing more to say. I would think that that would be the priority for you, I guess that's what I've been trying to get across.

 

[Ken Rank]

Maybe all has been said that you feel is necessary to say. I guess that's my point. These type of threads do not come around everyday, so if you have been able to in your mind make a good case for the movement, than maybe there is nothing more to say. I would think that that would be the priority for you, I guess that's what I've been trying to get across.

I will stay out of this thread and don't use the forum much. I am not paying for a "premium thing" and I have gotten 3 viruses already from adware on here. No, I have not made any case at all.. I have shared little. I shared one short thing and then have been on defense over people wanting to argue who don't even understand what I believe, which was my point earlier. Should anyone want to have a real discussion, some good give and take.... let's discuss it even if in the end we don't agree. I am less concerned with what some believes as much as I am wanting to know how they arrived at what they believe.

Anyway, please be blessed!

 

[ToBeLoved]

I will stay out of this thread and don't use the forum much. I am not paying for a "premium thing" and I have gotten 3 viruses already from adware on here. No, I have not made any case at all.. I have shared little. I shared one short thing and then have been on defense over people wanting to argue who don't even understand what I believe, which was my point earlier. Should anyone want to have a real discussion, some good give and take.... let's discuss it even if in the end we don't agree. I am less concerned with what some believes as much as I am wanting to know how they arrived at what they believe.

Anyway, please be blessed!

You too. Stay away from those computer viruses. lol

 

[Ken Rank]

PS: Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History was written long after the gospels according to saints Luke and Mark. His claims do not appear to be correct for a number of good reasons not least of which are the opening words to the gospel according to saint Luke and also the opening words of The Acts of the Apostles. I will not quote the opening words because every reader of this thread can check them for him or her self and see what is said.

You added this later so I want to address it. Of course Eusebius wrote later, did I not already say he was a contemporary of Constantine? He wrote around 300 AD, and he apparently had information that he believed suggested that those two gospels were written in Hebrew. Whether they were or not is for you to prove or disprove but to not investigate means you can't prove all things. For the only way to prove all things is to fairly consider all things. Anyway.... Matthew was definitely written in Hebrew and Jerome when he translated the Vulgate, either lied when he said he had Hebrew originals of many NT books, or he had many original copies in Hebrew. I can go through the Gospel of John, the books of James, and both books of Peter and show you in the language why it was written in a Semitic language (in this case Aramaic or Hebrew) but you don't really want to know. You just want to tell me how wrong I am without hearing the case. So... we are done too.

By the way, if you believe in Yeshua/Jesus as messiah and are His... you are a saint according to Scripture. So have a great day, Saint MoreCoffee!

 

[Steeno7]

I encourage folks to read this fine explanation of why the HRM is wrong about the source of our NT and why they work so hard to get us to believe the NT was written in Hebrew.

http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr08.html

 

[Messy]

And now some good news:

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/26739/Default.aspx

Growing up, Baleeston was acquainted with a large number of Italian Catholics, leading him to believe that Jesus must be Italian. In the video he explains how “the understanding that [Yeshua is] actually Jewish was a shock. And then to hear that the New Testament was written by Jews, I couldn’t believe it. …when I open it, I’m reading a story written by Jews about Jewish people.”

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
Is the latter part of that sentence necessary?

It's an appeal not to repeat the same posts again and again. It is an appeal to be frank about evidence and sources and intended meaning. It is also what saint Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:16 KJV. It reiterates my earlier post at #807 and the passage quoted therein.

The final goal at which this instruction aims is love, issuing from a pure heart, a clear conscience and a sincere faith. Some people have missed the way to these things and turned to empty speculation, trying to be teachers of the Law; but they understand neither the words they use nor the matters about which they make such strong assertions.
(1 Timothy 1:5-7 NJB)

​

Does it edify or tear down? That followed a post where I gave two SOURCES (Eusebius and Jerome) and that amounts to "vain babbling" if I don't cite chapter and verse. Why not ask for chapter and verse instead of making a comment like that?

Eusebius and saint Jerome both wrote from two or more centuries after the composition of the canonical gospels - though the gospels were not yet included in an undisputed canon - and their testimony is valuable but not determinative, you know that as well as I. The history of the canon of the new testament and the critical reconstruction of the ancient text of the new testament do not - at this time in history - offer any confirming manuscript evidence for the claim made in your post. You are welcome to produce the Hebrew language texts from the fourth, third, second, or first centuries that are not known translations of the Greek new testament. Failing that you are welcome to produce credible scholarly evidence supporting your post's claim. Failing both do not repeat the claim because it will be rejected as wishful thinking. A waste of our time to repeat.

I am not overly sensitive, I can handle the heat... but I won't for the good of the body engage in a theological urinating match where God's Word is just thrown around as if common. That profanes Him and His word and it divides brethren from brethren. Not a good thing!

 

[MoreCoffee]

You added this later so I want to address it. ...

I added it 11 minutes after finishing the post you've quoted from. That was 4 hours 37 minutes before your reply was posted.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I encourage folks to read this fine explanation of why the HRM is wrong about the source of our NT and why they work so hard to get us to believe the NT was written in Hebrew.

http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr08.html

Is the source you've linked to a KJV/Textus-receptus as the original source site? I did click around in it and it appears to be. The KJV/Textus-receptus as original source idea is as poorly supported by the evidence as the Hebrew as the original new testament language claim.

 

[Messy]

I added it 11 minutes after finishing the post you've quoted from. That was 4 hours 37 minutes before your reply was posted.