The Hebrew Roots Cult - Jim Pruitt

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Acts 15:28-29 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Leviticus 7:26 And wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal.

I guess some things they believe in aren't so crazy after all. But this one part of the original post pretty much sums up my thoughts on the entire post. It addresses a very broad topic and in a very general manner, so much so that I really see no point to it. For instance...

There is such a thing as logic and common sense. If the leadership of the church had just got through saying that gentiles are under no obligation to keep the law of Moses, and then say that they would do well to observe one thing that is in the law of Moses, we can reasonably conclude that there is a reason for this directive apart from keeping the law of Moses.

And the logical reason is suggested by what follows: that Jews reside in every city observing the law of Moses. So it can be reasonably inferred that the church leaders were advising gentile believers to avoid doing things that would offend Jews in their cities and place a stumbling block before them in regards to Christ.

 

[TheAristocat]

I debate with these KJV-only people all the time and they say "Holy Spirit" just like you do.

Praus, that was a joke. I'm sorry you took me seriously, but I don't believe in Gnosticism.

 

[TheAristocat]

There is such a thing as logic and common sense. If the leadership of the church had just got through saying that gentiles are under no obligation to keep the law of Moses, and then say that they would do well to observe one thing that is in the law of Moses, we can reasonably conclude that there is a reason for this directive apart from keeping the law of Moses.

If Paul observed the laws in the Torah, went through an entire ceremony to affirm his observance of the laws, talked about himself being ceremonially clean, went to the temple to make offerings, did in fact give the Gentiles one law specifically stated in the Torah, and Jesus said that he never came to abolish the Torah and that the person who taught others to not obey one of the least of the commandments would be least in the Kingdom of God... then common sense tells me that it is the will of God we conform our lives to his Torah. This is so spectacularly clear to me it stumps me how others cannot even admit to this as being a valid assessment but instead resort to one of their usual scare tactics of asserting that anyone who obeys the Torah is not saved.

Christians will have a hard time believing that Holy Spirit is leading you to disregard the teaching of the Apostle Paul...

Aren't we debating what Paul actually taught? Or was that already decided, and my interpretation of the New Testament doesn't count?

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

If Paul observed the laws in the Torah, went through an entire ceremony to affirm his observance of the laws, talked about himself being ceremonially clean, went to the temple to make offerings, did in fact give the Gentiles one law specifically stated in the Torah, and Jesus said that he never came to abolish the Torah and that the person who taught others to not obey one of the least of the commandments would be least in the Kingdom of God... then common sense tells me that it is the will of God we conform our lives to his Torah. This is so spectacularly clear to me it stumps me how others cannot even admit to this as being a valid assessment but instead resort to one of their usual scare tactics of asserting that anyone who obeys the Torah is not saved.

Didn't Paul do all that Torah stuff so he could infiltrate the synagogues and preach Jesus to the (unconverted) Jews?

 

[Praus]

The Holy Spirit led me?

I debate with these KJV-only people all the time and they say "Holy Spirit" just like you do.

Praus, that was a joke. I'm sorry you took me seriously, but I don't believe in Gnosticism.

The Holy Spirit is God, not an idol for us to joke about. It must be a Messianic Jew joke then...

Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

Ps 103:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, [bless] his holy name.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

If Paul observed the laws in the Torah, went through an entire ceremony to affirm his observance of the laws, talked about himself being ceremonially clean, went to the temple to make offerings, ...

Paul was merely being a chameleon, so to speak.

For although I am free from all people, I have enslaved myself to all, in order that I may gain more. I have become like a Jew to the Jews, in order that I may gain the Jews. To those under the law I became as under the law (although I myself am not under the law) in order that I may gain those under the law. To those outside the law I became as outside the law (although I am not outside the law of God, but subject to the law of Christ) in order that I may gain those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, in order that I may gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, in order that by all means I may save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, in order that I may become a participant with it. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23​

...and Jesus said that he never came to abolish the Torah...

Christ didn't come to dismantle the law, but to render it powerless by virtue of a more excellent way, i.e., the spirit. By fulfilling the law of Moses, he rendered it powerless.

abolish
G2673 καταργέω katargeo
1. to make entirely idle

GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT BASED ON SEMANTIC DOMAINS
76.26 καταργέωc: to render ineffective the power or force of something—‘to invalidate, to abolish, to cause not to function.’

Ephesians 2:15 (KJV)
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;​

destroy
G2647 καταλύω kataluo
1. to loosen down (disintegrate)
2. (by implication) to demolish

GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT BASED ON SEMANTIC DOMAINS
20.54 καταλύωa; καθαιρέωc; καθαίρεσιςa, εως f: to destroy completely by tearing down and dismantling—‘to destroy, to tear down, destruction.’

Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.​

and that the person who taught others to not obey one of the least of the commandments would be least in the Kingdom of God...

There is a fatal flaw in this interpretation of Matthew 5:19. The law of Moses stated that every male must be circumcised in the flesh. Paul taught that circumcision is nothing, and forbade its practice as a means of obedience to law. According to your interpretation, Paul will be among the least in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[TheAristocat]

A gentile was never expected to hold to the law tradition,gentiles were adopted into the new covenant to begin with.I can't understand why they would want to observe something they were never expected to.

Now I understand why there is so much suspicion of me. He doesn't have to obey the laws, so why did he start? There must be more to this that he's not telling us. Smells like a cult! But let me ask you a question, Letti. Why get baptized? Why participate in Communion? None of these useless laws saves you. Smells like a cult! Just kidding.

By the way, I have Jewish ancestry. But I would've chosen the same path had I no Jewish ancestry. My mother was part Jewish - my father was not. Both considered themselves Baptists and weren't particularly knowledgable on their ancestor's pasts.

 

[Praus]

I know messianic Jews that have accepted Christ hold to tradition but , IDK why a gentile would when they were not even raised Jewish.I am more skeptical of gentiles who adopt the old tradition they never were a part of to begin with.Jewish people are brought up with it so it is a lot more easier to understand,but a non Jew,whats wrong with being a gentile it isn't sufficient or what?

The gentiles (goyim ) are the reason that I started this thread in the first place.

link -> Kineti L'Tziyon: God Let the Gentiles In (to Messianic Judaism)

"You know that whole Messianic Judaism thing? ... by some estimates, it’s now 80% gentile.

"Similar to how Messiah’s original followers were all Jews, only to be overwhelmed by a massive gentile following in the decades after, the same has been true in Messianic Judaism. Initially almost entirely comprised of Jewish believers in the 1970s, Messianic Judaism has attracted a large number of gentiles who are fed up with the church and wish to return to the faith of Messiah and the disciples.

 

[TheAristocat]

There is a fatal flaw in this interpretation of Matthew 5:19. The law of Moses stated that every male must be circumcised in the flesh. Paul taught that circumcision is nothing, and forbade its practice as a means of obedience to law. According to your interpretation, Paul will be among the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul did not teach against circumcision. He taught against circumcision as a means to salvation. And he did not burden the Gentiles with circumcision, because that would have made it more difficult for them to come to Christ. He did, however, agree with some Jews to participate in a ceremony to demonstrate his observance to Torah. Some say this was a front - that Paul deceived. But I think the most logical explanation is that he was a Jew, believed in the Jewish Messiah, and followed the Jewish Torah.

I have nothing against you, friend. And I expect you to come up with a counter-argument. But I've been debating these points for years. And in terms of what I've seen used against Torah observance, there is pretty much nothing new under the sun. Suffice it to say, our views of Paul's teachings are completely opposed. But thank God almighty and merciful that this is not the case when it comes to the Gospel.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

Now I understand why there is so much suspicion of me. He doesn't have to obey the laws, so why did he start? There must be more to this that he's not telling us. Smells like a cult! But let me ask you a question, Letti. Why get baptized? Why participate in Communion? None of these useless laws saves you. Smells like a cult! Just kidding.

But we are expected to be baptised ("repent and be baptised...")! We are expected to partake in communion ("This do in remembrance of me").

Paul did not teach against circumcision. He taught against circumcision as a means to salvation. And he did not burden the Gentiles with circumcision, because that would have made it more difficult for them to come to Christ.

Surely if Paul's, or Christ's, view of circumcision or any of the other Mosaic law was the same as of that toward communion or baptism, it would have been commanded? As Christians, we know that communion and baptism don't save, but we do these out of love and obedience. The same would have applied for circumcision or any of the other Old Testament laws, but no such command was made about these.

 

[TheAristocat]

Surely if Paul's, or Christ's, view of circumcision or any of the other Mosaic law was the same as of that toward communion or baptism, it would have been commanded? As Christians, we know that communion and baptism don't save, but we do these out of love and obedience. The same would have applied for circumcision or any of the other Old Testament laws, but no such command was made about these.

The Jews already had the laws. They didn't need anyone to tell them to observe them. In essence, it already was commanded once - by God (who I recognize Jesus to be). If God - through Jesus - gives new laws to obey that's not saying anything about the old ones. Christ came to fulfill (i.e. fill up) the Torah. At any rate, I'll turn this back over to the original purpose of this thread - to talk about cults. I think I've hijacked it long enough.

But I'd like to add that you do consider my point of view and at least oppose it with logical arguments. I appreciate that.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

The Jews already had the laws. They didn't need anyone to tell them to observe them. In essence, it already was commanded once - by God (who I recognize Jesus to be). If God - through Jesus - gives new laws to obey that's not saying anything about the old ones. Christ came to fulfill (i.e. fill up) the Torah. At any rate, I'll turn this back over to the original purpose of this thread - to talk about cults. I think I've hijacked it long enough.

So you're saying that you're not in a Hebrew Roots cult, because you obey some of the Torah for purposes of tradition, rather than salvation?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Paul did not teach against circumcision. He taught against circumcision as a means to salvation. And he did not burden the Gentiles with circumcision, because that would have made it more difficult for them to come to Christ. He did, however, agree with some Jews to participate in a ceremony to demonstrate his observance to Torah. Some say this was a front - that Paul deceived. But I think the most logical explanation is that he was a Jew, believed in the Jewish Messiah, and followed the Jewish Torah.

I have nothing against you, friend. And I expect you to come up with a counter-argument. But I've been debating these points for years. And in terms of what I've seen used against Torah observance, there is pretty much nothing new under the sun. Suffice it to say, our views of Paul's teachings are completely opposed. But thank God almighty and merciful that this is not the case when it comes to the Gospel.

Paul was teaching believers that had already come to Christ, who were being deceived by pharisees from Judea that said they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. The leaders in Jerusalem soundly rebuked such falsehood.

The most logical explanation for Paul's observance of Jewish custom is his own explanation for why he did such things, i.e. to befriend all so that he could win more to Christ.

If our views of Paul's teachings are completely opposed, contrary to what you think, you are not walking in the gospel of Christ.

 

[TheAristocat]

So you're saying that you're not in a Hebrew Roots cult, because you obey some of the Torah for purposes of tradition, rather than salvation?

I don't care about traditions. My observance has more to do with why people observe Communion or Baptism. To me the teachings on communion, the passover, baptism, circumcision... they're all in the same category in my mind. They're rituals given to us by God for a purpose. And I think if we could understand all there is to understand about these rituals by reading about them God would never have commanded us to obey them.

Short answer: I don't obey them for salvation. I obey them for the same reason I obey communion or baptism.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

But I'd like to add that you do consider my point of view and at least oppose it with logical arguments. I appreciate that.

I presented a very logical argument that your interpretation of Matthew 5:19 is impossible, and you blew it off. Please refute the logic. Jesus said:

Whoever abolishes one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever keeps them and teaches them, this person will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19​

The law of circumcision was more than a least commandment; it was the very doorway into the old covenant.

In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Leviticus 12:3

The uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:14​

Yet Paul said circumcision was nothing and taught people against it.

Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing! And again I testify to every man who becomes circumcised, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law [of Moses]. You are estranged from Christ, you who are attempting to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:2-4​

Therefore, logically, a person has to conclude either that Paul will be considered among the least in the kingdom of heaven, or that their interpretation of Matthew 5:19 is wrong.

 

[TheAristocat]

I presented a very logical argument that your interpretation of Matthew 5:19 is impossible, and you blew it off. Please refute the logic. Jesus said:

Don't worry. I kept you in mind, too, when I wrote that post. Very logical points from a certain perspective. But I have already answered them many times in the past. Married_Richenbrachen had a somewhat novel take on old arguments that I thought was interesting. I had no idea you wanted me to answer your objections, so I remained silent.

Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing! And again I testify to every man who becomes circumcised, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law [of Moses]. You are estranged from Christ, you who are attempting to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:2-4

So if a Gentile decides to circumcise their child because they believe it to be a healthy practice, then that child is cut off from Christ? Paul had been circumcised before his conversion. Does Christ profit him nothing then? Paul circumcised Timothy (who had already been converted I presume) in Acts 16:3 in order to get along with the Jews. Does Christ profit Timothy nothing? That doesn't seem to support what the Gospel says. So when can we be circumcised and Christ still profit us something? Perhaps it's a heart issue? What then if the person believes circumcision is in obedience with God's will and wants to please God by being circumcised? Read on.

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Baptism doesn't count and has no value? Communion doesn't count and has no value? After all, he said that the only thing that counts is faith. Wait. Counts toward what? What's being considered here? Let's back up.

Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be declared righteous by God through legalism have severed yourselves from the Messiah! You have fallen away from God’s grace!

This tells me that they're trying to be justified with God (the only thing that can justify sinners with God is Christ's sacrifice) through circumcision. And Paul basically says that they have circumcised themselves off from Christ. That is the imagery he uses anyway.

So Paul's beef here is not with circumcision but with the use of circumcision to try to be made righteous in God's sight. The context of Paul's message to the Galatians afforded him making some generalizations that these days people will twist and distort to mean that he contradicts himself or that he teaches against Torah. I just think he knew the Galatians would understand it from the perspective that they were trying to be made righteous through their observance of Torah. Whether or not Torah has any value for purposes other than salvation does not enter the discussion.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

So if a Gentile decides to circumcise their child because they believe it to be a healthy practice, then that child is cut off from Christ? Paul had been circumcised before his conversion. Does Christ profit him nothing then?

This is just a distraction. You know full well what Paul meant. The context is obedience to the law of Moses.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Baptism doesn't count and has no value? Communion doesn't count and has no value? After all, he said that the only thing that counts is faith. Wait. Counts toward what? What's being considered here? Let's back up.

More distraction. Baptism and communion are not the law of Moses. They are commands of Christ.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

So Paul's beef here is not with circumcision but with the use of circumcision to try to be made righteous in God's sight. The context of Paul's message to the Galatians afforded him making some generalizations that these days people will twist and distort to mean that he contradicts himself or that he teaches against Torah. I just think he knew the Galatians would understand it from the perspective that they were trying to be made righteous through their observance of Torah. Whether or not Torah has any value for purposes other than salvation does not enter the discussion.

And you've skirted the point entirely that your interpretation of Matthew 5:19 is flawed because Paul taught to disobey a commandment of the law.

Again, either your interpretation is wrong, or Paul is among the least in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[TheAristocat]

And you've skirted the point entirely that your interpretation of Matthew 5:19 is flawed because Paul taught to disobey a commandment of the law.

Again, either your interpretation is wrong, or Paul is among the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Ok. You don't understand my post. That's okay. I'll go through it step by step to be as clear as I can.

Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing!

So if a Gentile decides to circumcise their child because they believe it to be a healthy practice, then that child is cut off from Christ? The answer is that this circumcision has no weight on the child's salvation. To say otherwise is ridiculous. Let's go through this again.

Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing!

Paul had been circumcised before his conversion. Does Christ profit him nothing then? Again, the answer is that Paul's former circumcision has no weight on his salvation. Let's go through it one more time.

Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing!

Timothy was already a Christian (i.e. saved) when Paul circumcised him. Did Christ suddenly profit Timothy nothing? Again, the answer is that Timothy's circumcision even after accepting Christ has no weight on his salvation.

My view of Paul's words then is that he was saying that if you rely on circumcision to serve the same function as Christ's sacrifice, then you have cut yourself off from Christ and Christ will profit you nothing. The book of Galatians, as well as Paul's life, supports this interpretation. He's not teaching against the act of circumcision. If that were the case then Christ would profit Timothy nothing and Paul would have ended up spiritually murdering Timothy. But instead Paul is teaching against the use of circumcision to replace Christ's work. This passage has nothing to do with obedience to circumcision for the sake of obedience.