# The Dangers of the Hebrew Roots/Messianic Movement



## fivesolas (Mar 11, 2009)

http://www.angelfire.com/la/jlush/dangersHRM.html

"...the Hebrew Roots Movement claims falsely that the original Gospels were written in Hebrew, or possibly Aramaic, and that the Greek New Testament is a mere translation and in some cases a mis-translation of the Hebrew or Aramaic originals."

"This movement is seeking to cast doubt on the faith once delivered to the church by challenging the very Scriptures we have been given by the Lord. They claim Christians can't fully understand the Scripture until we understand the Torah. "

"I believe the Hebrew Roots organizations have become the modern equivalent of the Judaisers who followed the Apostle Paul from city to city, spying on the NT believers' liberty in Christ and striving to pervert the Gospel and cause confusion among the Early Christians. "

I agree.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 11, 2009)

Should say some, most "Messianics" are not really jewish so they are not really Messianics,LOL

By The way How do you know they were not written in Hebrew ?
The 12 Apostles were Hebrews, so they went around speaking to Jesus in Greek  because ?

Given that most of the NT was written By paul to Greek Churches they were probably written in Greek, Makes sense doesn't it ?

But the book of Matthews that was found in the 60s which is at the Jerusalem University on displayed have being dated to first century and it is in Hebrew ,Yet Found in India. Book which I have eyeballed and read the display pages, huh huh ?
What Imagine that a book of one of the disciples written in Hebrew ? wow !
When Jesus appeared t John, I mean Yeshua to Yochanan sound s weird eh ?
Did he say , Iam the alpha and the Omega or did he say Eiyeh ha Aleph ha Tav ? what do you think ?

Isa 29:13
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:


----------



## farmasis (Mar 11, 2009)

Has anyone seen the original manuscripts?

If not, how can it be proven falsely of which language they were written?


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 11, 2009)

That's what I'm Asking, but it's just a cheap shot, cut and paste from someone with little Bible knowledge,IMO.


----------



## earl (Mar 11, 2009)

I thought you guys said that the torah and the OT were the same .


----------



## Israel (Mar 11, 2009)

earl said:


> I thought you guys said that the torah and the OT were the same .


Torah is first five books.
Tenach=Old Testament.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

> Lowjack said:
> 
> 
> > Should say some, most "Messianics" are not really jewish so they are not really Messianics,LOL
> ...


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

Israel said:


> Torah is first five books.
> Tenach=Old Testament.



Torah-law, direction, instruction- Jesus used the word law to refer to the "whole" as well- like the law and prophets 

Pentateuch- first five books of the O.T.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 11, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Torah-law, direction, instruction- Jesus used the word law to refer to the "whole" as well- like the law and prophets
> 
> Pentateuch- first five books of the O.T.



The Torah and the Pentateuch are the same thing... the first five books of the bible... which is the law.  

IMNSHO, the Messianics are the closest to what the original Christians would have been. What would Jesus do?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

> Dixie Dawg said:
> 
> 
> > The Torah and the Pentateuch are the same thing... the first five books of the bible... which is the law.
> ...



I disagree.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 11, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I disagree.



What do you mean it isn't limited to it?  The Torah and the Pentateuch are both the first 5 books of the bible, what else do you think that it is?  

I'm sure you do disagree.  But the fact of the matter is that Jesus was a Jew.  He observed the feasts.  Passover.  Yom Kippur.  Rosh Hashannah. etc.   He would have read/heard the Torah from a scroll in Hebrew in the temple in Jerusalem. Why don't you?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Are you asking what the Septuagint is?



no sir.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 11, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Because they were Hellenized and like all others spoke the lingua franca of the region they lived in. This is why they would have used the Alexandrian Canon or Septuagint and not the Palestinian Canon. Many of them probably could not even read Hebrew.



Exactly hardly anyone wrote in hebrew much less read it outside the temple. Especially the letters of Paul.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

> Dixie Dawg said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean it isn't limited to it?  The Torah and the Pentateuch are both the first 5 books of the bible, what else do you think that it is?
> ...



Not sure what you are proving here? But,  Let me give you a reason why I don't observe the feasts or keep the day of atonement. 

Since the feasts were pointers to Christ, He is the fulfillment of them therefore since He has come we no longer need pointers, I have the substance and real thing I d no longer need the shadow. Thus, He no longer holds me to the substance of the ceremonial law. 

By the way there has been no sacrifice in the temple since 70 ad. So what does that mean????



Now, As for Jesus keeping the day of atonement??? He had no reason to offer a sacrifice for sin, he was sinless. Where do we ever see Him offer sacrifice of any kind in the N.T.????


----------



## earl (Mar 11, 2009)

Do you use the OT for historical reference only ? It sounds like you are saying that the NT supercedes and replaces the OT.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

earl said:


> Do you use the OT for historical reference only ? It sounds like you are saying that the NT supercedes and replaces the OT.



Is this directed to me??


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 11, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Not sure what you are proving here? But,  Let me give you a reason why I don't observe the feasts or keep the day of atonement.
> 
> Since the feasts were pointers to Christ, He is the fulfillment of them therefore since He has come we no longer need pointers, I have the substance and real thing I d no longer need the shadow. Thus, He no longer holds me to the substance of the ceremonial law.
> 
> ...



If he didn't keep the day of atonement, then he did not fulfil the law.  As far as sacrifices, well, making sacrifices was part of the law. As was repentance.  If he didn't sin, then he was not 'fully man', because the bible says that all men sin.

And you don't see him do a lot of things in the NT... like the 32 some years between his birth and his death.  

This is a big reason why I find it difficult to believe in the NT as well.  As a child, he would have done all of that with his parents.

There haven't been sacrifices because there is no temple. The bible says that there will be a long period of no sacrifices, and in the meantime to offer prayers of repentance in place of sacrifice.   Nothing in there about believing a man died for your sins. In fact the bible says that there is no vicarious atonement.


----------



## earl (Mar 11, 2009)

yes


----------



## farmasis (Mar 11, 2009)

earl said:


> yes


 
No, that would be me, but not reformed....


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

earl said:


> yes



No, I think, I would be a lot more consistent with the O.T. than many on here. It's more than historical.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 11, 2009)

The law was made for man, not man for the law.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

> Dixie Dawg said:
> 
> 
> > If he didn't keep the day of atonement, then he did not fulfil the law.  As far as sacrifices, well, making sacrifices was part of the law. As was repentance.  If he didn't sin, then he was not 'fully man', because the bible says that all men sin.
> ...



Where do you find this?


----------



## earl (Mar 11, 2009)

Post 16


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

earl said:


> Post 16



Me again???


----------



## earl (Mar 11, 2009)

[Since the feasts were pointers to Christ, He is the fulfillment of them therefore since He has come we no longer need pointers, I have the substance and real thing I d no longer need the shadow. Thus, He no longer holds me to the substance of the ceremonial law.]
Thats where I extrapolated no need for the OT .


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 11, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Because they were Hellenized and like all others spoke the lingua franca of the region they lived in. This is why they would have used the Alexandrian Canon or Septuagint and not the Palestinian Canon. Many of them probably could not even read Hebrew.



Aaah I see, so the Romans whose mother language was Latin Spoke in greek while they possessed the Holy Land for over 100 years, I see !
So what other story have you learned from that cult ? LOL
When Jesus read the Torah in his town and read Isaiah it was in greek because he couldn't read Hebrew,right?
When Jesus was crucified he called on God in Greek too, right?


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 11, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> If he didn't keep the day of atonement, then he did not fulfil the law.  As far as sacrifices, well, making sacrifices was part of the law. As was repentance.  If he didn't sin, then he was not 'fully man', because the bible says that all men sin.
> 
> And you don't see him do a lot of things in the NT... like the 32 some years between his birth and his death.
> 
> ...



He he he, Good answer.
Who says there hasn't being sacrifices ?, you all should come to my rehab house and see how we get thousands of chickens donnated  after Yom Kippur ?
But she is right there hasn't being a national sacrice of atonement since 70AD.
You guys sure need some bible schooling you are argueing things you know nothing about.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 11, 2009)

gtparts said:


> The law was made for man, not man for the law.


No that would be the Sabbath.

Read Your Bibles people !


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 11, 2009)

earl said:


> [Since the feasts were pointers to Christ, He is the fulfillment of them therefore since He has come we no longer need pointers, I have the substance and real thing I d no longer need the shadow. Thus, He no longer holds me to the substance of the ceremonial law.]
> Thats where I extrapolated no need for the OT .



Whom Should I listen to ,Pastor Paul or Messiah Yeshua ?"Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men likewise shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven..."(Matthew 5:19).
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law..." (Matthew 5:17).

Until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one point will by any means pass away from the Law, until all things come to pass..." (Matthew 5:18). 

Matthew 22:40 that all the Law hangs on two commandments, wasn't he referring to, and advocating obedience to, the Mosaic Law? 

So who saves you Paul who advocates the law is over with, Or Christ that says until Heaven and earth passes not a yod of the Law will de done away with ?
Did the heavens and earth passed away and I didn't hear about it ?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19, NIV).
I bet Paul feels foolish and small by now, he himself called himself the Smallest Apostle.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 12, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Whom Should I listen to ,Pastor Paul or Messiah Yeshua ?"Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men likewise shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven..."(Matthew 5:19).
> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law..." (Matthew 5:17).
> 
> Until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one point will by any means pass away from the Law, until all things come to pass..." (Matthew 5:18).
> ...




Not sure I understand this post. The Apostle Paul never contradicted Jesus or any of His teachings. Where in Paul's teaching did he oppose what you have posted?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 12, 2009)

earl said:


> [Since the feasts were pointers to Christ, He is the fulfillment of them therefore since He has come we no longer need pointers, I have the substance and real thing I d no longer need the shadow. Thus, He no longer holds me to the substance of the ceremonial law.]
> Thats where I extrapolated no need for the OT .



Earl, how can I be throwing away the whole O.T. by not offering sacrifices, or keeping the dietary law? Is that all the O.T. says?????

The Ceremonial laws were wonderful and full. But Christ is better.  The Ceremonial laws are on no use since Christ. He is our sacrifice, our priest....etc.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

Dominic said:


> So you don’t know the term lingua franca? Maybe this will help. I speak English as my native tongue, and I have a friend whose native tongue is Hindi. I do not speak Hindi, he does not speak English, but we both speak Japanese. He can yell at me all day in Hindi and I will not understand a word, I can yell at him all day in English and he will not understand a word, but we can talk to each other in Japanese because we both understand Japanese. So what language should we try to speak to each other in?
> 
> Hellenized peoples used Greek as their common language, they wrote it, read it, spoke it, they used Greek for trade, and the Jewish community even used it their synagogues, which is why we have the Septuagint and is why the New Testament has more agreements with the Septuagint then it does with Masoretic text.
> 
> ...



If you speak Japanese can you come decipher the sushi menu at my favorite restaurant for me???


Good points every one.


----------



## Free Willie (Mar 12, 2009)

Dominic said:


> So you don’t know the term lingua franca? Maybe this will help. I speak English as my native tongue, and I have a friend whose native tongue is Hindi. I do not speak Hindi, he does not speak English, but we both speak Japanese. He can yell at me all day in Hindi and I will not understand a word, I can yell at him all day in English and he will not understand a word, but we can talk to each other in Japanese because we both understand Japanese. So what language should we try to speak to each other in?
> 
> Hellenized peoples used Greek as their common language, they wrote it, read it, spoke it, they used Greek for trade, and the Jewish community even used it their synagogues, which is why we have the Septuagint and is why the New Testament has more agreements with the Septuagint then it does with Masoretic text.
> 
> ...




As my 6 and 5 year old boys would say, "OOOOHHHH!!!!! YOU GOT BURNED!!!!!!"


----------



## Free Willie (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> If you speak Japanese can you come decipher the sushi menu at my favorite restaurant for me???
> 
> 
> Good points every one.



Son, we call that sushi stuff "bait" here in North Georgia.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> Son, we call that sushi stuff "bait" here in North Georgia.



Yeah... I am a progressive I know...


Don't knock it till you try "I Love Sushi" in Conyers... I thought that too till a friend took me there... I am passed hooked. Been eating there now for 3 or 4 years at a steady rate... So much so they don't even give me a menu...


----------



## Free Willie (Mar 12, 2009)

Do they serve deep fried sushi? If so, I'm in.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yeah... I am a progressive I know...
> 
> 
> Don't knock it till you try "I Love Sushi" in Conyers... I thought that too till a friend took me there... I am passed hooked. Been eating there now for 3 or 4 years at a steady rate... So much so they don't even give me a menu...




I think you have flung a craven on me. Sushi for lunch it is.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I think you have flung a craven on me. Sushi for lunch it is.



That was just mean right there........ Just mean........

I'll be dining at home. Man I have to get out soon and get me a spicy scallop roll. And some mackeral.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> Do they serve deep fried sushi? If so, I'm in.



Come on down willie. I'll introduce you to the wonderful world of Sushi... We will even go over and visit the Monastery right down the road together.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 12, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> Do they serve deep fried sushi? If so, I'm in.



To be authentically southern we'll to find some week old french fry grease to dip it in...


----------



## christianhunter (Mar 12, 2009)

I really don't see the edification of debating this.GOD confounded the languages at the Tower of  Babel.I only speak english,therefore
I have to put my trust in GOD,that HE directed the translators,to translate directly,that which was in The original tongues.The Bible has been Translated in many if not all languages.English is unquestionably the most diverse,of all languages.It does not run fluently with some during translation,or transliteration.Therefore you have Italics.Defending noone but GOD,JESUS was and is JEWISH.HE had long hair,and a beard.He did not come from the lineage of Japeth the father of caucasions,nor Ham the father of the black's,but Shem who went to the east.JESUS is WHO and WHAT HE is,not what we want HIM to be.Accept HIM for that.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> To be authentically southern we'll to find some week old french fry grease to dip it in...



No problem. You can bring it from NuWay. Probably a lot older than a week...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> He he he, Good answer.
> Who says there hasn't being sacrifices ?, you all should come to my rehab house and see how we get thousands of chickens donnated  after Yom Kippur ?
> But she is right there hasn't being a national sacrice of atonement since 70AD.
> You guys sure need some bible schooling you are argueing things you know nothing about.




Uh oh Lowjack... you agreeing with me twice in as many days... surely that is a sign of the apocolypse!!!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2009)

Dominic said:


> He may have been able to read Hebrew, but I would doubt that many of his disciples could. They did not grow with it. They grew up in a region that spoke mainly Greek or Aramaic and in some cases Latin, but the Hebraic language was not in common usage even within the Jewish community.



How many Torah scrolls have been found in languages other than Hebrew?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 12, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> No that would be the Sabbath.
> 
> Read Your Bibles people !



Certainly, the Sabbath, from Scripture.

But, I was not quoting Scripture verbatim. The purpose of the law was to establish God's standard of perfection and by pointing out our inability to perfectly keep the law, cause us to recognize our need for redemption....the Savior, Jesus Christ.

I thought the form of my comment was useful. I know that the substance of it is true.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 12, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> Son, we call that sushi stuff "bait" here in North Georgia.




  You will catch more if you stick to sashimi.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

gtparts said:


> You will catch more if you stick to sashimi.



Yeah the rice tends to fall off the hook.


----------



## thedeacon (Mar 12, 2009)

My bible is written in English. I don't read Hebrew or Greek. Therefore I have to depend on what I can read and understand. I know that some things may have been lost in the translation but I have to depend on God to direct me in the right direction.

I don't pay much attention to movements and concepts anymore. Since I have gotten up in age a little. "just a little" I tend to want to keep things a little more simple.

These arguments on things that are not a matter of salvation mean very little to me. I pray to God to direct my steps and so far he has been pretty streight with me and I read that he will continue to do so.

My English bible is working quiet well thank you. Don't get me wrong I am thankful for my greek dictionary, it has helped me emencely to understand difficult statements.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

thedeacon said:


> My bible is written in English. I don't read Hebrew or Greek. Therefore I have to depend on what I can read and understand. I know that some things may have been lost in the translation but I have to depend on God to direct me in the right direction.
> 
> I don't pay much attention to movements and concepts anymore. Since I have gotten up in age a little. "just a little" I tend to want to keep things a little more simple.
> 
> ...



And thank God for the men who understood the languages who risked life and limb (and some lost their lives) to translation the Bible into English.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 12, 2009)

Dominic said:


> So you don’t know the term lingua franca? Maybe this will help. I speak English as my native tongue, and I have a friend whose native tongue is Hindi. I do not speak Hindi, he does not speak English, but we both speak Japanese. He can yell at me all day in Hindi and I will not understand a word, I can yell at him all day in English and he will not understand a word, but we can talk to each other in Japanese because we both understand Japanese. So what language should we try to speak to each other in?
> 
> Hellenized peoples used Greek as their common language, they wrote it, read it, spoke it, they used Greek for trade, and the Jewish community even used it their synagogues, which is why we have the Septuagint and is why the New Testament has more agreements with the Septuagint then it does with Masoretic text.
> 
> ...


Good fiction there buddy.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Good fiction there buddy.



Historically he's accurate and has the resources to back it up. Now your ideas on the other hand are.... well... Let's just say up for debate.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Celt,
> 
> I'm not sure he can hear you.







That was a good pic!!!


----------



## Free Willie (Mar 12, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Good fiction there buddy.




Any time you start typing, just have links and references. You have lost your ability to be believed. 

Dom handed you your lunch then Celt beat you up and took it.

Good job seperating the wheat from the chaff, fellas!


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 12, 2009)

At the risk that my comments have already been once before relegated to the dust bin of where worn out treads and posts go and that my comments might frustate your inteligence for the bumkin like comment I am going to make  in any case concerning the the old covenant of the law and the new covenant of grace, has it occured to some that both continue to be in rigour. 

If one man is willing to forgo the orange for the apple, then he is under the law, which continues as the Lord says till the suns colide, and if another man choses the orange to forgo the apple then he or she is under the covenant of grace.

It is therefore such that man makes his spiritual way, one under the law and one on to the covenant of grace.  If one man eats yeast in his bread and another not, what is that? It is good to the man of law and so this man must be given grace, because for grace one is faithful to all of God's creation, but that one man's Christ is a jew, and to another He is a greek, what does it matter to the poor and the sick and those who suffer?


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 13, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> At the risk that my comments have already been once before relegated to the dust bin of where worn out treads and posts go and that my comments might frustate your inteligence for the bumkin like comment I am going to make  in any case concerning the the old covenant of the law and the new covenant of grace, has it occured to some that both continue to be in rigour.
> 
> If one man is willing to forgo the orange for the apple, then he is under the law, which continues as the Lord says till the suns colide, and if another man choses the orange to forgo the apple then he or she is under the covenant of grace.
> 
> It is therefore such that man makes his spiritual way, one under the law and one on to the covenant of grace.  If one man eats yeast in his bread and another not, what is that? It is good to the man of law and so this man must be given grace, because for grace one is faithful to all of God's creation, but that one man's Christ is a jew, and to another He is a greek, what does it matter to the poor and the sick and those who suffer?


A sensible thought !


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 13, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> At the risk that my comments have already been once before relegated to the dust bin of where worn out treads and posts go and that my comments might frustate your inteligence for the bumkin like comment I am going to make  in any case concerning the the old covenant of the law and the new covenant of grace, has it occured to some that both continue to be in rigour.
> 
> If one man is willing to forgo the orange for the apple, then he is under the law, which continues as the Lord says till the suns colide, and if another man choses the orange to forgo the apple then he or she is under the covenant of grace.
> 
> It is therefore such that man makes his spiritual way, one under the law and one on to the covenant of grace.  If one man eats yeast in his bread and another not, what is that? It is good to the man of law and so this man must be given grace, because for grace one is faithful to all of God's creation, but that one man's Christ is a jew, and to another He is a greek, what does it matter to the poor and the sick and those who suffer?





I am trying to follow your line of thinking here, so, please be patient. 

Are you saying it really doesn't matter who or what Jesus is? What does matter is He's is believed in? Is this correct? 

A good question for folks thinking about all of the different laws in the O.T. is, when did the covenant of grace begin?


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 13, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I am trying to follow your line of thinking here, so, please be patient.
> 
> Are you saying it really doesn't matter who or what Jesus is? What does matter is He's is believed in? Is this correct?
> 
> A good question for folks thinking about all of the different laws in the O.T. is, when did the covenant of grace begin?




What I am saying is that both covenants are still in effect. Those who never know grace, are under the law. Those who fall from grace are under the law. Not one smigen of the law will be done away with for them. On the other hand those that are in Christ under the covenant of grace are not under the spiritual law of the fallen or those who chose to live spiritually under the law. ( And I am not saying that those who live under the law are fallen!!!!!!!!

God has many mansions, Moses furnished one, Christ raised another, and there are more.....

There are basically two universal spiritual ways that are valid in my tradition, the law is one, and grace is another. Both fools and saints call both homes.

Grace for some, the law for some, God is ever faithful.
That is why I don't think it is a good idea or good news, when christians or Jews say "We need to make the Arab sands into sheets of glass and the chinese have enough televisions to become christians if they what to." The Arab and the chinese is also under the covenants, some under the law and some onto grace just as me and you...


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 13, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> What I am saying is that both covenants are still in effect. Those who never know grace, are under the law. Those who fall from grace are under the law. Not one smigen of the law will be done away with for them. On the other hand those that are in Christ under the covenant of grace are not under the spiritual law of the fallen or those who chose to live spiritually under the law. ( And I am not saying that those who live under the law are fallen!!!!!!!!
> 
> God has many mansions, Moses furnished one, Christ raised another, and there are more.....
> 
> ...



Very Good and there are those of US who have both Covenants, One By Perpetual Commandment and Covenant from God which are the Natural receivers of the Covenant by Blood ,and those who are not that have not received any Covenant but have received Forgiveness by Grace, Very few people understand that, the lord Bless you for the Holy Spirit revealed that to you.


----------



## Hawkeye (Mar 13, 2009)

I think Messianics(Jews)are about the closest to the true Christianity found in the NT.IMO


----------

