Hebrew Roots Movement

[just-me]

The Roman Catholic church did not come into being as we know it until about 600 AD and this has no bearing on Constantine's edict. To quote it in this context is disingenuous.

325 A.D. is when the creed that Jews had to take, and was written. Constantine beliefs, along with the thread of Catholics and Protestants I started, were the principles which Constantine attributed to and doctrines evolving from these people in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries. They created division. What do you think my forte is on this matter? I'm right in the middle and I am forced to be involved with division. Why should I stand for this falsehood? It's certainly not the gospel.

 

[Elin]

That's good input. Under the law is observing the law without spiritual understanding of the law. It is totally carnal.
Rejecting the law is due to carnality also on the opposite end of the spectrum because of no spiritual understanding.
The only recourse is to reject it all, even though God has preserved it in the English language for us.
I do sincerely believe that we should observe it spiritually.
God is Spirit, and not carnal, therefore Paul stating that the law is spiritual, becomes exactly true.
If I am not a Messianic Jew, and ascribe to the spiritual aspects of the law, then I must belong to the HRM? DUH
How does that one work, for false accusations cause separation in the long run?

What you have in common with HRM has been shown above.

 

[just-me]

Regarding your remark about the Feast of Tabernacles in the Millennium, if you want to use consistent reasoning, you would have to promote animal sacrifices now, as the Prophets also spoke about them in the same context.

No I don't. What should be defined are the attributes of what the animal represents in spiritual terms. There you go with carnal thinking again. Why do you think that Nadab and Abihu got smoked? They wanted to present themselves unto God the way they wanted instead of doing it right.

 

[Elin]

Matthew chapter 5 is a great chapter, but it seems like a lot of people stop after the blessed are in the sermon on the mount, instead of whole chapter.

The whole chapter is the sermon on the mount.

 

[Elin]

Matthew 5:17-22

I suspect they read the whole sermon on the mount which goes far beyond chapter 5.

 

[just-me]

People propagate the doctrine of the gospel and the "mystery" that was revealed to the Apostles including Paul. That was to have the Gentiles grafted into the true vine along with the believing Jews. (To the Jew first and also to the Gentile) It is a gospel of cohesiveness. Yet at the same time their actions propagate division by rejection and assumptions. What's up except the doctrine of Constantine and the first Rome Catholic church separating Jews from the Gentiles? The bible doesn't say to the Gentiles first and also to the Jews.

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

[Elin]

I repeat "Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology, is a Christian theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism."

See Mt 21:43.

The Church is the fulfillment of the true Israel--the fulfillment of the promise to Israel to rebuilt David's tent (Am 9:11-12) in God taking to himself a people from the Gentiles (Ac 15:18-18).

 

[sparkman]

325 A.D. is when the creed that Jews had to take, and was written. Constantine beliefs, along with the thread of Catholics and Protestants I started, were the principles which Constantine attributed to and doctrines evolving from these people in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries. They created division. What do you think my forte is on this matter? I'm right in the middle and I am forced to be involved with division. Why should I stand for this falsehood? It's certainly not the gospel.

It seems like this vow relates to the desire to keep the group called "Narazenes" in check..who claimed that the Old Covenant Law applies to Christians..including physical circumcision.

Again, I have noted how Judaizers try to cause division and accuse others of being spiritually inferior or unsaved. I imagine this is what governed the formation of such a vow.

Your assertion that the Roman Catholic Church existed at such an early date is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. It did not exist until about 600 AD despite their claims to supremacy. They were only one bishopric of a number until about that time frame.

In addition, this vow applied to one specific church in Constantinople and not to Constantine himself. This was not part of his ruling in AD321. This edict did not prohibit Sabbathkeeping but merely enforced Sunday rest.

The history regarding this is irrelevant, though, because Colossians 2:16-17 is clear about Sabbath and annual festivals being shadows. They are grouped with "food and drink" offerings which are no longer applicable. In addition, the same language of shadows of things to come is used in regards to animal sacrifices.

So, the history is irrelevant as Scripture is very clear on this issue. One must import a false context into Colossians 2 to make the assertions that Sabbath and festival keepers do.

 

[Elin]

So I see accusations toward me, based on false principles,

What false prinicples?

 

[just-me]

The "abomination of (that causes) desolation standing in the holy place", is the same as the paganism that causes separation standing in the church that is contributing to the "falling away." We see this in CC. Let us all discern the infiltration of separation-persuasion.

"I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth." (Revelation 2:13)

 

[just-me]

It seems like this vow relates to the desire to keep the group called "Narazenes" in check..who claimed that the Old Covenant Law applies to Christians..including physical circumcision.

Again, I have noted how Judaizers try to cause division and accuse others of being spiritually inferior or unsaved. I imagine this is what governed the formation of such a vow.

Your assertion that the Roman Catholic Church existed at such an early date is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. It did not exist until about 600 AD despite their claims to supremacy. They were only one bishopric of a number until about that time frame.

In addition, this vow applied to one specific church in Constantinople and not to Constantine himself. This was not part of his ruling in AD321. This edict did not prohibit Sabbathkeeping but merely enforced Sunday rest.

The history regarding this is irrelevant, though, because Colossians 2:16-17 is clear about Sabbath and annual festivals being shadows. They are grouped with "food and drink" offerings which are no longer applicable. In addition, the same language of shadows of things to come is used in regards to animal sacrifices.

So, the history is irrelevant as Scripture is very clear on this issue. One must import a false context into Colossians 2 to make the assertions that Sabbath and festival keepers do.

[h=3]Foundation by Constantine (284 - 337 CE)[/h]Emperor Constantine understood its strategic importance and upon reuniting the empire in 324 CE built his new capital there -- Constantinople.
Constantine was unsure where to locate his new capital. Constantine decided it was best to locate his new city at the site of old Byzantium, claiming it to be a New Rome (Nova Roma).

 

[just-me]

It seems like this vow relates to the desire to keep the group called "Narazenes" in check..who claimed that the Old Covenant Law applies to Christians..including physical circumcision.

Again, I have noted how Judaizers try to cause division and accuse others of being spiritually inferior or unsaved. I imagine this is what governed the formation of such a vow.

Your assertion that the Roman Catholic Church existed at such an early date is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. It did not exist until about 600 AD despite their claims to supremacy. They were only one bishopric of a number until about that time frame.

In addition, this vow applied to one specific church in Constantinople and not to Constantine himself. This was not part of his ruling in AD321. This edict did not prohibit Sabbathkeeping but merely enforced Sunday rest.

The history regarding this is irrelevant, though, because Colossians 2:16-17 is clear about Sabbath and annual festivals being shadows. They are grouped with "food and drink" offerings which are no longer applicable. In addition, the same language of shadows of things to come is used in regards to animal sacrifices.

So, the history is irrelevant as Scripture is very clear on this issue. One must import a false context into Colossians 2 to make the assertions that Sabbath and festival keepers do.

The physical that reminds us of the spiritual is why Jesus taught in parables.

"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." Luke 8:10

"Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." Deuteronomy 29:4

"And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken." Isaiah 32:3

 

[Josefnospam]

very bad thing here

 

[just-me]

very bad thing here

Yes it is. All who read should see where it is coming from, and what is instigating it.

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:" 2 Corinthians 10:3

 

[Elin]

No I don't. What should be defined are the attributes of what the animal represents in spiritual terms. There you go with carnal thinking again. Why do you think that Nadab and Abihu got smoked? They wanted to present themselves unto God the way they wanted instead of doing it right.

They got smoked because because they disobeyed the Lord's command (Lev 10:1):

1) only the High Priest was to burn incense before the Lord (Ex 30:7-8);
2) only the High Priest could look on the holy things in the Holy Place (Nu 4:15-20);
3) they used defiled coals which did not come from the divine fire (Lev 9:24) on the sanctified altar (Lev 8:24) as prescribed (Lev 16:12);
4) they did not approach God in the prescribed manner (through the High Priest), also see 2Sam 6:3-7; 1Chr 15:12-15;
5) they were guilty of will-worship (Col 2:23--KJV), worshipping God in their own way instead of God's way.

The fate will be the same for all who do not approach God in the prescribed manner--through his High Priest, Jesus Christ (Heb 7:24--8:2).

 

[Elin]

People propagate the doctrine of the gospel and the "mystery" that was revealed to the Apostles including Paul. That was to have the Gentiles grafted into the true vine along with the believing Jews. (To the Jew first and also to the Gentile) It is a gospel of cohesiveness. Yet at the same time their actions propagate division by rejection and assumptions. What's up except the doctrine of Constantine and the first Rome Catholic church separating Jews from the Gentiles? The bible doesn't say to the Gentiles first and also to the Jews.

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

Keeping in mind that Israel is not the olive tree, Israel are branches, just as are the Gentiles.

 

[Elin]

The "abomination of (that causes) desolation standing in the holy place", is the same as the paganism that causes separation standing in the church that is contributing to the "falling away." We see this in CC. Let us all discern the infiltration of separation-persuasion.

"I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth." (Revelation 2:13)

Yes, it is advocated by Judaizers.

 

[Elin]

The physical that reminds us of the spiritual is why Jesus taught in parables.

"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." Luke 8:10

"Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." Deuteronomy 29:4

"And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken." Isaiah 32:3

T
he NT Christian possesses all the "spiritual" aspects of the Mosaic regulations in Christ.

 

[atwhatcost]

How can I do that when I am asking what they represent? I cannot define a difference between me and what I know nothing about.

I have defined my beliefs to CC the first day that a began posting on this forum. I joined 2 years ago. I think that's plenty of time for people to know what I believe, and why, leaving no room for assumption on my part. That hasn't changed. I did not, and have no started the conflict. Those who rail accusations in assumptions have declared "war" i.e."combat" against me. The only way I cannot be involved in this, is to be silent according to Biblical principles. What would have happened if Jesus, or any of the apostles chickened out and became silent about the truth?

At the beginning of this week, I thought HRM was Her Royal Majesty. Now I now what HRM folks think. That was just a cursory study. I see where it's complicated since it isn't a denomination, but it's possible.

Since a few people have been telling you your views are HRM, then why haven't you figured out the differences by now? And the similarities? I'm supposedly Calvinist, but I can run down both why I am and why I'm not simply because I got tired of people telling me I'm wrong even with false ideas of what Calvinists are. I get it's annoying to constantly have to defend what you believe and get straight how off people are about what you believe, but, if it didn't bother you doing that all the time, you wouldn't have started this post.

You chose this topic, so deal with it.

As for you telling what you believe constantly, no, you don't as much as you think you do. I just read an answer from you, and I still don't get what you believe out of it. I'll prove my point by going back to that one, just so you can see how your explanation doesn't help at all.

(My next post will be how I received one of your posts, strictly so you see why I'm even more lost now than I was before you answered my questions.)

 

[Elin]

very bad thing here

Yes it is. All who read should see where it is coming from, and what is instigating it.

Agreed. . .