The 10 Commandments

[eternally-gratefull]

Hebrew roots is a term that have a certain interpretation of the law. They call themselves christian as in they claim to believe in Christ, they attempt to take christians back to the roots of the Hebrew Bible (the law) hence the term Hebrew roots.

 

[Dino246]

That is exactly what I believe about scrpture. It is trying to get the interpretation out of our of our understanding, and hear what the Lord is saying.

All the rules the Pharisees made for how to live scripture were based on their interpretation. I think we cut the interpretation best when we accept scripture exactly as written without adding to it.

But to me I see the roots movement as a movement to cut the interpretation from scripture and you see it as adding interpretation to scripture. I see added interpretation in much bible scholars have added to scripture, especially through the councils, in these 2,000 years after Christ, you sometimes use it to explain scripture.

Okay... given that, are you willing to subject everything that the "roots movement" is teaching to rigorous examination, and to reject anything taught in the roots movement that contradicts plain Scripture?

 

[Blik]

Okay... given that, are you willing to subject everything that the "roots movement" is teaching to rigorous examination, and to reject anything taught in the roots movement that contradicts plain Scripture?

If you read scripture with the preconcieved idea that any movement is always right instead of understanding that the Lord is always right, you handicap yourself.

I often use a commentary that is written by a man who works with the roots movement because I found his knowledge of scripture and of the way people of the times of each period thought was great. I have searched and searched for someone who would join me in this study, because I need help in determining if it includes his opinions and is not pure scripture. I find no one in my town or on the net who will help me.

 

[Blik]

Hebrew roots is a term that have a certain interpretation of the law. They call themselves christian as in they claim to believe in Christ, they attempt to take christians back to the roots of the Hebrew Bible (the law) hence the term Hebrew roots.

I have used a man whose writings is posted by a "roots" movement church, and I have found that your accusations against them are false. If you claim you have studied them and know, would you put your sources of information from scripture here?

I think that if you studied this commentary on scripture that I found it would prove to you that you are disobeying the command to not bear false witness against you neighbor. But you seem call the roots of Christainity the law, and feel we should not go back to it. Would that mean that it is OK to bear false witness?

They feel the old testament is a shadow of Christ, and shadows do not distort what they are the shadow of. They believe in the reality of Christ as He brought those shadows to perfect light and fulfilled them.

 

[Blik]

Okay... given that, are you willing to subject everything that the "roots movement" is teaching to rigorous examination, and to reject anything taught in the roots movement that contradicts plain Scripture?

That is why I have pleaded at my chuch, my town, and the net for someone to join me in my study.

If you are preparing to accuse the roots movement of some terrible idea that is against scripture, you will be joining many people. I am sure there are 'roots" people who have said that we are obliged to follow Jewish customs. The entire movement is judged by those few people.

There is a disagreement about what is Jewish customs and what the Lord suggests it would be to our advantage to do, like the feasts. Organized churches have united in declaring feasts are not to be celebrated and most in the roots movement think scripture said they were good for us. All that they speak of should not be decided on something so trivial.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I have used a man whose writings is posted by a "roots" movement church, and I have found that your accusations against them are false. If you claim you have studied them and know, would you put your sources of information from scripture here?

I think that if you studied this commentary on scripture that I found it would prove to you that you are disobeying the command to not bear false witness against you neighbor. But you seem call the roots of Christainity the law, and feel we should not go back to it. Would that mean that it is OK to bear false witness?

They feel the old testament is a shadow of Christ, and shadows do not distort what they are the shadow of. They believe in the reality of Christ as He brought those shadows to perfect light and fulfilled them.

For someone who bears false witness almost every time she speaks

your hypocritical to accuse others of your favorite sin

 

[Blik]

For someone who bears false witness almost every time she speaks

your hypocritical to accuse others of your favorite sin

Against how we are told to act toward each other in scripture, you have used a Christian site to declare yourself an enemy of mine. Your tactics are like those used by the gestato of Hitler, only you can't get to me bodily. You sound dangerous. Now you accuse me of being a liar about what? Being a false witness is lying about something.

What in the world started you off? It seems to relate to the law. I speak of obedience being of God. I wonder why the law is so violently opposed? It is as if the law is against the law of love that is the base of all law, and those against law use violence and speak of love. It bewilders me.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Against how we are told to act toward each other in scripture, you have used a Christian site to declare yourself an enemy of mine. Your tactics are like those used by the gestato of Hitler, only you can't get to me bodily. You sound dangerous. Now you accuse me of being a liar about what? Being a false witness is lying about something.

What in the world started you off? It seems to relate to the law. I speak of obedience being of God. I wonder why the law is so violently opposed? It is as if the law is against the law of love that is the base of all law, and those against law use violence and speak of love. It bewilders me.

Maam

ypu declared yourself an enemy of mine when you started to claim I believe stuff which was not true you have not stopped nor have you repented.

own up to your own sins, you claim we should obey, well practice what you preach

 

[Blik]

Maam

ypu declared yourself an enemy of mine when you started to claim I believe stuff which was not true you have not stopped nor have you repented.

own up to your own sins, you claim we should obey, well practice what you preach

So this is all about your decision that you have been wronged by me? How would you like me to treat you that you consider the right way you should be treated? You say apologize, for saying things about you that are not true, but I haven't been told what is true of you that is different from what I thought you said. Could I please know what I am apoligizing for? If it for saying I think God wants us to obey? For saying you are my enemy?

 

[Dino246]

That is why I have pleaded at my chuch, my town, and the net for someone to join me in my study.

If you are preparing to accuse the roots movement of some terrible idea that is against scripture, you will be joining many people. I am sure there are 'roots" people who have said that we are obliged to follow Jewish customs. The entire movement is judged by those few people.

There is a disagreement about what is Jewish customs and what the Lord suggests it would be to our advantage to do, like the feasts. Organized churches have united in declaring feasts are not to be celebrated and most in the roots movement think scripture said they were good for us. All that they speak of should not be decided on something so trivial.

It's unfortunate that you haven't found anyone to study that particular book with you. Perhaps if you simply sought someone to study Scripture you would find someone more readily. Surely there are churches in your community who have people willing to come and spend time with you?

I don't need to accuse the roots movement of anything; others have already done the homework on that. Most movements are judged by a few people within them.

While the views I hold about the place of the OT law in the life of the Christian may have been influenced the comments of other people, they are founded on Scripture directly. When someone teaches something that contradicts plain Scripture in one area, I am not likely to listen to them in other areas.

 

[Blik]

It's unfortunate that you haven't found anyone to study that particular book with you. Perhaps if you simply sought someone to study Scripture you would find someone more readily. Surely there are churches in your community who have people willing to come and spend time with you?

I don't need to accuse the roots movement of anything; others have already done the homework on that. Most movements are judged by a few people within them.

While the views I hold about the place of the OT law in the life of the Christian may have been influenced the comments of other people, they are founded on Scripture directly. When someone teaches something that contradicts plain Scripture in one area, I am not likely to listen to them in other areas.

This IS a study of scripture!! The only thing added to scripture is what the words meant to the writers at the time they wrote and that is carefully documented.

I am well aware of all the judgments made against this study, and checked them out. I haven't found any truth, yet, in that my study is not strictly scripture, unless they deny all history. That is why I keep asking for someone to check it out with me. I found one person who had also studied the commentary I did, they said it was wonderful.

You are taking other people's ideas as your own. Why don't you look into it for yourself?

I have found that much of your interpretation of scripture is based on the "Israel only" view. This colors all scripture. If scripture is viewed as truth from the Lord and not only to a certain race it is understood in a different light. And you have said scripture tells you this. So you have a certain slant on scripture.

 

[Dino246]

This IS a study of scripture!! The only thing added to scripture is what the words meant to the writers at the time they wrote and that is carefully documented.

I am well aware of all the judgments made against this study, and checked them out. I haven't found any truth, yet, in that my study is not strictly scripture, unless they deny all history. That is why I keep asking for someone to check it out with me. I found one person who had also studied the commentary I did, they said it was wonderful.

You are taking other people's ideas as your own. Why don't you look into it for yourself?

I have found that much of your interpretation of scripture is based on the "Israel only" view. This colors all scripture. If scripture is viewed as truth from the Lord and not only to a certain race it is understood in a different light. And you have said scripture tells you this. So you have a certain slant on scripture.

Scripture itself tells me that God chose Israel out from among the nations. Scripture tells me that God gave the Law to Israel. Scripture tells the history of Israel. Jesus came first to Israel. Paul preached the gospel first to Israel.

You can call that a "slant", but I suggest you take it up with the Author.

 

[Blik]

Scripture itself tells me that God chose Israel out from among the nations. Scripture tells me that God gave the Law to Israel. Scripture tells the history of Israel. Jesus came first to Israel. Paul preached the gospel first to Israel.

You can call that a "slant", but I suggest you take it up with the Author.

I have taken it up with the author. The author tells me that when he speaks it is truth, no matter who he is having the conversation with.

 

[Dino246]

I have taken it up with the author. The author tells me that when he speaks it is truth, no matter who he is having the conversation with.

So if you ask Him the current temperature in Miami, does His answer necessitate that the temperature will never change? No. The old covenant was truth, and it was superseded by the new.

 

[Blik]

So if you ask Him the current temperature in Miami, does His answer necessitate that the temperature will never change? No. The old covenant was truth, and it was superseded by the new.

So you believe God changes, and I do not believe that. God tells us He is eternal. He improved His covenant with us, but God is the same God with the same charateristics in who he is and all he does. There is a sameness in the changes we are asked to see.

 

[Dino246]

So you believe God changes, and I do not believe that. God tells us He is eternal. He improved His covenant with us, but God is the same God with the same charateristics in who he is and all he does. There is a sameness in the changes we are asked to see.

Wow... (edited). Facepalm.

NO, I DON'T believe God changes.

No, He did NOT "improve" His covenant with us.

Where do you get this garbage?

 

[Blik]

Wow... (edited). Facepalm.

NO, I DON'T believe God changes.

No, He did NOT "improve" His covenant with us.

Where do you get this garbage?

oops! I am misunderstanding you? Please explain. Do you think God cancelled the old covenant? If God cancelled all of it, wouldn't that mean God changed? How could God with the same ways, same characteristics, cancel what he said one day and say something completely different the next without changing? Why would scripture say that the first was imperfect so God gave a better covenant if it was not "improved"? I am not understanding why this line of thought is garbage, please explain.

 

[Dino246]

oops! I am misunderstanding you? Please explain. Do you think God cancelled the old covenant? If God cancelled all of it, wouldn't that mean God changed? How could God with the same ways, same characteristics, cancel what he said one day and say something completely different the next without changing? Why would scripture say that the first was imperfect so God gave a better covenant if it was not "improved"? I am not understanding why this line of thought is garbage, please explain.

Yes, you are misunderstanding me.

I believe that it was God's intention from the start that the old covenant would be temporary. God intended it to point towards the new covenant in Christ Jesus. That doesn't mean God changed at all, but it does mean that He did some things for a limited time.

If I sell my present car and buy a different car, have I changed? No. If I plant geraniums in a pot one year, and impatiens in that pot the next year, have I changed? No. If I build one chair from maple, and the next from oak, have I changed? No. So when God does things one way at one time, and a different way at a different time, why do you think He changed?

The old covenant was not "improved"; it was replaced. Nobody can follow the old covenant now; it is impossible, and has been since 70 AD. That's what seems to be at the core of the confusion: the two covenants are distinct. Read Galatians 4:21-31. Hagar was not "improved" to become Sarah, and Ishmael was not "improved" to become Isaac.

 

[Blik]

Yes, you are misunderstanding me.

I believe that it was God's intention from the start that the old covenant would be temporary. God intended it to point towards the new covenant in Christ Jesus. That doesn't mean God changed at all, but it does mean that He did some things for a limited time.

If I sell my present car and buy a different car, have I changed? No. If I plant geraniums in a pot one year, and impatiens in that pot the next year, have I changed? No. If I build one chair from maple, and the next from oak, have I changed? No. So when God does things one way at one time, and a different way at a different time, why do you think He changed?

The old covenant was not "improved"; it was replaced. Nobody can follow the old covenant now; it is impossible, and has been since 70 AD. That's what seems to be at the core of the confusion: the two covenants are distinct. Read Galatians 4:21-31. Hagar was not "improved" to become Sarah, and Ishmael was not "improved" to become Isaac.

Thanks for explaining.

Don't you think there are some similarities in the covenants? They both give the law. The law never changes, even though the true law is a law of love, one covenant gave the law in fleshly terms (Hagar) and the new covenant gave law through the spirit, (Sarah). God gave fleshly orders to guide us like fleshly cutting of flesh to guide to belonging to him, and then he gave spiritual guidance through the holy spirit.

The law given as rules was the law. Each rule was a way to express love, but it was done through stone rules although the true law is of love and stone has no love. So the stone laws could be disobeyed by following them without love. We are given the same law, but through the heart.

The entire old testament explains God through things of the flesh, like the temple and the priests. The new testament speaks directly to our heart without symbols.

To understand the old testament, we must understand the truth of the symbols. It seems to me that is also true of the covenants.

It seems to me we can see this truth best when look for the unity in scripture, for what is the basis of God's ways. I think scripture confirms this when we are told God is love.

 

[Dino246]

Thanks for explaining.

Don't you think there are some similarities in the covenants? They both give the law. The law never changes, even though the true law is a law of love, one covenant gave the law in fleshly terms (Hagar) and the new covenant gave law through the spirit, (Sarah). God gave fleshly orders to guide us like fleshly cutting of flesh to guide to belonging to him, and then he gave spiritual guidance through the holy spirit.

The law given as rules was the law. Each rule was a way to express love, but it was done through stone rules although the true law is of love and stone has no love. So the stone laws could be disobeyed by following them without love. We are given the same law, but through the heart.

The entire old testament explains God through things of the flesh, like the temple and the priests. The new testament speaks directly to our heart without symbols.

To understand the old testament, we must understand the truth of the symbols. It seems to me that is also true of the covenants.

It seems to me we can see this truth best when look for the unity in scripture, for what is the basis of God's ways. I think scripture confirms this when we are told God is love.

Yes, there are similarities between the two major covenants. However, those similarities do not necessitate following the requirements of the old covenant in order to be in right standing with God under the new covenant.