YOU are discussing scripture or "perverted Hebrew Roots"? You suggest that all covenants are wrong except the one in Christ that is new and improved, and by wanting scripture ignored you are not the perverted one?
Unbelievable.
She has said nothing of the sort, and I'm familiar with the sources she has posted and they do nothing of the sort.
"All covenants are wrong except . . . "
Where have any of us said that?! We are rightly dividing the Word and simply believing what God says when He says that in Christ, we have a better covenant built on better promises, and that in Christ, the covenant given at Sinai is obsolete. And it clearly is! There is no Temple, the priesthood has been replaced, and no one on Earth is practicing let alone keeping the Law as God gave it! Obsolete. Not 'wrong', not 'bad'; OBSOLETE.
The other covenants? They are based on Grace and stand. The promise to Adam of a Redeemer after the Fall, the covenant of the rainbow after the Flood, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant . . . no one is saying they are 'wrong' or 'bad' . . . you're simply making that up.
I don't think so. Hebrew Roots means accepting the scripture that God breathed, all of it as one scripture. You want the NT made the major scripture and you throw stones at others? It is a glass house you are living in.
No.
The Hebrew Roots Movement elevates and idolizes Torah, many in the movement deifying the Law, claiming that 'Yeshua is the Living Torah'. The Hebrew Roots Movement absolutely distorts the New Covenant writings, not accepting them for what they clearly teach.
Your suggestions do not include any of the new findings we need. They are incomplete.
Do you realize that you are saying that the Scriptures are incomplete? That more 'insight' and 'hidden knowledge' is needed?
Do you also realize that every cult ever thought up does the exact same thing?
They are studies, mine are studies. Why do you think that only you can be brilliant enough to suggest a study, but throw stones at other ones?
Sigh. No one is saying you don't have the right to post a link to a study. We are saying that we believe the study is flawed and promotes false teaching. You accuse us of throwing stones, when we are merely exercising discernment.
AND you COMPLETELY IGNORE that you're throwing ridiculously huge boulders yourself trying to shut down any dissent about what you post.
The study I suggest is not promoting a certain churches stand, can you say that about yours?
The links you promote disparage the Church, that is true. Your implication there, however, is that the 126 page study on a short, six chapter letter is not pushing an agenda. It is. And exhaustively so.
As for Angela's links, they represent the New Covenant position. And you have a problem with her links because you have a problem with the New Covenant.
-JGIG
