Discussion Hebrew Roots; error or something else?

[MoreCoffee]

His books and sermons helped to get word into the public arena. I don't think most Torah observant congregations are directly related to his COG, though some may have read his work. He was very close to the messianic or Hebrew roots beliefs of today.

His books and sermons misled many and brought many into religious servitude as bad or worse than that which the Lord Jesus Christ rebuked in the Pharisees. But it does seem that teachings inherited from the Worldwide Church of God created by Herbert W Armstrong are playing a significant role in the development of doctrine in the HRM.

 

[Frogster]

Our old nature was nailed to the tree, not the Torah.
https://biblethingsinbibleways.word...ition-misunderstandings-regarding-eph-214-16/

the torah went with it..and legal means law,
14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

 

[Frogster]

This is not the law.

Read
http://yrm.org/handwriting-ordinances.htm

the law was one, and it contained ordinances, so it is the same thing. There were even ordinances about the sabbath, and that is one of the 10.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Perhaps your post meant to speak of the coming again promised in holy scripture? (John 14:3)

 

[MoreCoffee]

How do you suppose Yeshua "fulfilled" the law without being Jewish? A Jewish Rabbi at that. And, what scripture exactly did HE say they were now to be called Christians and that they could now act like the heathens instead of how God had instructed them?

Yeshua? It is Jesus who fulfilled the law. It seems odd to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as "Yeshua" when writing in English. If one truly wants to use modern Hebrew names then why write in Latin letters rather than Hebrew? Besides is it common for Modern Hebrew language new testaments to spell Jesus' name as "Yeshua" (I can't see it myself, it would look very odd to have Latin letters intruding in a Hebrew text).

 

[Frogster]

Ummm, yes. They did not "come out" of anything. Accepting the Messiah was the natural continuation of the true and original faith. Because not all believed, they were, by definition, a sect.
John 1:45
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

Speaking of Paul:
Acts 24:4-6
Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

again, for paul to have persecuted them prior, how in to judaism could they have been?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hebrews 9:9,10 say all that need be said about dietary restrictions and regulations for the body. Those ordinances cannot give a worshipper good conscience.

Colossians 2:16,17 say all that need be said about feast days, new moons, and sabbath days. Those were all shadows that cannot make a worshipper good.

Romans 14:3 says all that need be said about making distinctions based on carnal ordinances. Those distinctions are wicked.

Galatians 1:6-9;2:15-21 says all that need be said about returning to the law. Doing so is to being down a curse on one's self.

I notice these "snippets" are lifted out of their context giving them a meaning they do not have.

They are not snippets they are citations. Any reader who desires (and is curious enough to find out) can read them in their context that is why they are cited in the first place.

 

[Frogster]

technically it does not say the law was nailed to the tree, it uses the accounting/judicial term cheirographon which denotes a list of offences outstanding or debts to be paid. It is the list of your law breaking offences which was nailed not the laws you have broken.



Steve

p.s. see the following link which it not taken from some religious dictionary but is from a lexicon of words in their classical ancient usage - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13037/abstract

the ordinances were against...ordinances are laws. Eph 2:15 says the law was abolished.

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;

 

[Frogster]

The law of Moses is also the 10 commandments. That can't be nailed to the cross. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind... Oh that's too hard to do so that awful law is nailed to the cross so now we can love the Lord with all our heart.

do you mean the ministry of death and condemnation on stones?


2 Cor 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Yeshua? It is Jesus who fulfilled the law. It seems odd to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as "Yeshua" when writing in English. If one truly wants to use modern Hebrew names then why write in Latin letters rather than Hebrew? Besides is it common for Modern Hebrew language new testaments to spell Jesus' name as "Yeshua" (I can't see it myself, it would look very odd to have Latin letters intruding in a Hebrew text).

Yeshua is his name in Hebrew. I don't care what they say in Latin. It's what I believe His mama called him therefore, that is what I will call him too. I found this article interesting.

 

[Frogster]

However, whether you were a heathen or not, under the law, if you broke one law you break them all. The law was all or nothing.

Preach it!

 

[MoreCoffee]

They were to the early believers. It was the church of Rome that changed it to what it is now...specifically Constantine.

I see that your post relies on the oft repeated myth of Constantine changing the Law of God and other things too. What is the basis for your post's fanciful claim and can you document it from credible sources?

 

[Frogster]

The word for law is nomos, the word for ordinances in that verse is dogma... which speaks of verdict of guilt written against us, but not the law itself. If the law itself was nailed to the cross, then it would say "Blotting out the handwriting's of nomos," but it does not. "Do not steal" or "Do not lay with a man as you would a woman" was not nailed to the cross, our guilt was!

It is just like here...ordinances were a part of the law..commandments expressed in ordinance, the law was one legal code, so that it that.


15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yeshua is his name in Hebrew. I don't give a rip what they say in Latin. It's what I believe His mama called him therefore, that is what I will call him too.

Yeshua is not the Lord's name in English and since this thread is written in English (except for an occasional word of phrase in Greek and one or two in Hebrew). Besides "yeshua" is not a word in Hebrew it is a word in Latin letters.

 

[Frogster]

The issue that is being debated here and across the land is should Christians abandon the English name and title by which they call upon the Lord and scrupulously use modern Hebrew pronunciations (such as Yahweh and Yeshua) and should Christians observe dietary rules and other ordinances from the old covenant as a moral and religious obligation? Are the ancient feast days to be set aside and observed and the sabbaths observed as a commandment from God which to disobey will being chastisement from God? Shall Christians adopt superstitious customs like spelling God as G-d and Lord as L-rd? The answer to these questions is no. No Christians ought to be instructed to do these things or use these words as an act of religious worship or sacred duty. If a Christian wants to see what a Jewish passover is like then by all means see one, or read about it but let it be out of curiosity and do not attach any religious significance to it as if it were something that Christians must do or else be in disobedience to God. The holy scriptures explicitly condemn those who teach such things.

By the way, there are no scriptures telling Christians to bless the modern state of Israel nor was the promise to Abram a promise about blessing Israel; when the promise was made Israel was not yet born and he would not be born for many years to come and Abram (who was later renamed as Abraham) was not his natural father but rather a grandfather to him. The blessing was addressed to Abram and to him in the singular not to a nation of millions.

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee*, and curse him that curseth thee*: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
(Genesis 12:1-3 KJV)​

* thee is the singular form for "you"; in the Hebrew and in the Greek of this text the singular is used.

And one more thing, the psalms do encourage prayer for Jerusalem and under the old covenant it was the Earthly Jerusalem that was in mind but for Christians the New Jerusalem is the one whose peace we are to pray for and she is the bride of Christ the Church of the Living God so we pray for the peace of the Church of God but not for a city shared between the state of Israel and the Palestinian authority.

You are a good writer, and articulate things well.

 

[Frogster]

Yeshua is not the Lord's name in English and since this thread is written in English (except for an occasional word of phrase in Greek and one or two in Hebrew). Besides "yeshua" is not a word in Hebrew it is a word in Latin letters.

Not only that, but if they think it to be, then why not talk Hebrew all the time, to be "more like the Lord".

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

They are not snippets they are citations. Any reader who desires (and is curious enough to find out) can read them in their context that is why they are cited in the first place.

Ok, then they are citation snippets. I know I can read them in their context however, the majority of people do not and just accept that you have quoted it in correct context when you have not...giving the impression of it saying something it does not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not only that, but if they think it to be, then why not talk Hebrew all the time, to be "more like the Lord".

There are many people in the world who think that Hebrew was spoken by Adam and his wife Eve; it is part of a mythology created to glorify fleshly Israel and the HRM is only the most recent manifestation of it. There are many other worldly views being privately brought into the christian community and pastors, teachers, and those in the pews need to speak against these things. This thread may help a little in that task, By the way, thank you for your posts because they are often very succinct and very telling refutations of the errors that some want to propagate.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Here is the Hebrews ref in full context:

The Earthly and the Heavenly Sanctuaries
Hebrews 9:1-22 One New Man Bible

1. Now truly the first covenant had both regulations for service and the earthly Sanctuary. 2. Indeed a Tabernacle was prepared. The first room in it has the menorah and the table and the bread of the presence, which first room is called "Holy:" 3. but after the second veil in the tent, the one called "Holy of Holies," 4. there was a golden altar of incense* and the Ark of the Covenant, which was covered entirely in gold, and had in it the gold jar with the manna and the rod of Aaron that budded and the tablets of the covenant, 5. and above it two cherubim* of glory that overshadowed the mercy seat: I shall not now speak in detail about this.
6. And such as these indeed were the furnishings in the first Tabernacle, and so the priests always entered, fulfilling the services,* 7. but in the second room, the Holy of Holies, once a year*, only the High Priest, not without blood, when he offered on behalf of both himself and the people for the sins committed in ignorance, 8. although the Holy spirit made this clear, the way into the Holy of Holies had not yet been revealed while the first Tabernacle was still standing, 9. which was a symbol for the present time, according to which both gifts and sacrifices were brought which were not able to perfect the conscience of the worshipper, 10. they were only regulations of flesh on food and drink and different immersions*, imposed until the time of the new order.

11. But when Messiah appeared He was High Priest of the things that were of a higher order through the greater and more complete Tabernacle, that was not made by human hands, that is not of this creation, 12. and not entering by the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered once into the Holy of Holies, finding eternal redemption for us. 13. For if the blood of goats and bulls and sprinkling the ashes of a heifer sanctify those who have been defiled, making their flesh clean, 14. how much more the blood of the Messiah, Who through the eternal Spirit presented Himself blameless as an offering to God, cleanses our conscience from dead works in service to the Living God.
15. Then because of this death He is Mediator of a new covenant, by payment of a ransom for transgressions under the first covenant. When His death took place those who have been called could take the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16. For where there is a will, death of the testator must be announced: 17. for since a will is valid only upon death, then it is not valid while the one who made the will is still alive. 18. On this account the first was not inaugurated without blood: 19. for when every commandment was spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Torah (teaching), then he took the blood of the calves and the goats with water and red wool and hyssop and this he sprinkled on the scroll and all the people 20. saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded for you." (Exod. 24:8) 21. And he sprinkled the Tabernacle and all the vessels of the service with the same blood. 22. Then he cleansed every vessel by means of blood according to the Torah (Teaching), and without blood being shed there is no forgiveness.

So we see Paul here giving a little history lesson of the earthly sanctuary made by the hands of Moses. The regulations of operation within that sanctuary were imposed upon them until the new order came. The new order was Messiah Yeshua as the High Priest. He was High Priest of a higher order and it is through a greater and more complete Tabernacle. One just like the first Tabernacle but not made by human hands. Yeshua entered the Holy of Holies but not by the blood of goats and lambs but by the shedding of His own blood. He entered the Holy of Holies only once and in that once, He made eternal redemption for us. For if by the blood of goats and bulls being sprinkled and if the ashes of a heifer sanctify those who have been defiled, making their flesh clean, how much more did the blood of Messiah do. He presented Himself blameless, as an offering to God. Because of this He cleanses our conscience from dead works.

Because of His death He is now Mediator of a new covenant. Because He died those who'd been called could receive their inheritance. When Moses spoke the commandments he took the blood of the calves and the goats and red wool an hyssop and he sprinkled it on the scroll and on the people saying, "this is the blood of the covenant which God commanded for you." Without blood being shed there is no forgiveness.

What a comparison between what was done via Moses and what was done via Yeshua. Yeshua did it once and for all. Our new Mediator is forever.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ok, then they are citation snippets. I know I can read them in their context however, the majority of people do not and just accept that you have quoted it in correct context when you have not...giving the impression of it saying something it does not.

Citations cannot be snippets. If the one who reads them checks what is said they have to do so by opening a bible and reading it. They would be very lazy to restrict their reading to the verses mentioned alone. Every Christian knows, or ought to know, that the holy scriptures are to be read with reverence and studied carefully. One can hardly fulfil that duty by skipping around reading this verse and that without paying proper attention to the surrounding passage.

PS; I cited the verses I did not include quotes from the bible. Citations are not quotations.