Why We Left the Hebrew Roots Movement

[TER]

Why We Left the Hebrew Roots Movement


link here

Many have asked us what specifically lead us away from the HRM, so here are several things that we found to be contradictory of the teachings of the HRM and even Protestantism and some are things we found to be historically accurate:


1. God's set up of the New Covenant

When looking at history during the era from the Babylonian exile to the time of Jesus, it is amazing at how everything was set in place for Jesus' coming. Evidence of this is found outside the Bible as well. While God was working among the Jews, he was also working among the Gentiles. Through two years of studying history and the Bible, we finally accepted this and fully understood what Paul meant when he said there is no longer Jew or Greek. The Jews AND the Greeks to brought the Gospel to the world. And God began preparing for Jesus' incarnation with the use and acceptance of the Greek language among the Jews. This is obvious from history as it was no coincidence that Jesus came when the Roman Empire had a common language that all people could understand. The Bible of the time was the Greek Septuagint (see #4 below), had been translated by Jews around 250 B.C. It was the common and accepted Bible of the Jews. This was a Bible that many people could read or taught of based on their common language. Furthermore, philosophy and Hellenization allowed for a different interpretation of the Law from the literal understanding to the true spiritual meaning.

In the writings of Socrates we found that he did not mention belief in the multiple gods of the Greeks. Instead he spoke of "the God" who Socrates said guided him in his philosophy. Later Plato, Aristotle and Alexander the Great paved the way for intermixing of philosophy with the study of the Law in the Bible. This lead to an understanding of the Law among the Hellenized people of Jesus' time in which others, like the Pharisee's, could not grasp. Those who were Hellenized as a majority recognized Jesus as the Messiah. They knew that the Law was set in place only for a limited period of time and that the Law was a complete foreshadowing of the Messiah. Something that only the Prophets had understood before and tried to warn Israel of their over emphasis of the letter of the Law rather than the spiritual understanding. The Hellenized people of Jesus' time began to see types in the Old Covenant that they fully understood now that the Messiah had come. We had completely overlooked God's action in bringing together the Law (Hebrews) and Hellenization (Greek Influence) in uniting two cultures who would ultimately recognize the promised Messiah and follow him becoming one people. Therefore, there is no longer any gain from observing the Old Covenant aside from the commandments Jesus mentioned. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled in Jesus' coming. It no longer served a purpose aside from a testimony to Jesus' fulfillment of all that was written of pertaining to him in it or all of the types that foreshadowed him. This does not mean that the Old Covenant is not important or that we do not need it, however we are not bound by the Laws contained in it:

"The famous phrase of St. Augustine can be taken as typical of the whole patristic attitude towards the Old Dispensation. Novum Tesramentum in Vetere latet. Vetus Tesramentum in Novo patet. The New Testament is an accomplishment or a consummation of the Old. Christ Jesus is the Messiah spoken of by the prophets. In Him all promises and expectations are fulfilled. The Law and the Gospel belong together. And nobody can claim to be a true follower of Moses unless he believes that Jesus is the Lord. Any one who does not recognize in Jesus the Messiah, the Anointed of the Lord, does thereby betray the Old Dispensation itself. Only the Church of Christ keeps now the right key to the Scriptures, the true key to the prophecies of old. Because all these prophesies are fulfilled in Christ".- Georges Florovsky, "The Fathers of the Church and the Old Testament," Aspects of Church History, The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. 4, Richard S. Haugh, gen. ed. Belmont, MA: Notable and Academic Books, (1987), p. 31 (emphasis mine)

"Old Testament religion has been accepted as propaedeutic to Christian theology because it looks forward to a fulfillment, to the time when no longer through prophets and messengers but through God's own appearance would redemption be achieved. The New Testament literature clearly reveals that it starts from the point where the Old Testament ends. "The law [of Moses] and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]," Jesus said (Lk. 16:16). Jesus Christ is constantly seen as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and expectation. In the opening chapter of the Gospel According to Saint Mark, we read that "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand'" (Mk. 1:14-15). In the incarnation, "the whole fullness of the deity" dwelled bodily in Christ, (Col. 2:9). Saint Paul writes that "when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law...so that we might receive adoption as sons" (Gal. 4:4-5).

"That Christ was received as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy is confirmed by many other passages of the New Testament. Christ's own testimony was that He did not come to destroy the old law but to fulfill it (see Mt. 5:17-48, Lk. 24:44). The early Christian community had no hesitation in seeing the Old Testament events as signposts to the event of the incarnation of God." - The Religious Quest as a Preparation for Christianity by Demetrios J. Constantelos (Emphasis mine)

2. There was never a take over of the Church by the Gentiles

Again, by the study of history, we found that there is zero proof of a take over of the Church by the Gentiles. The fact is, at around 132 A.D many Jews had abandoned Jesus as the Messiah by their own choice and began to follow Simon Bar Kochba; the leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans from 132 to 135 A.D. He was given the surname "Bar Kochba" which is Aramaic for "son of the star" in reference to the star of prophecy in Numbers 24:17. A large portion of the Jews believed that he was the Messiah and began to follow him rather than remaining faithful to Jesus. Of those who continued to follow Jesus, they were persecuted along with the Gentiles by their former, fellow believers. This is what caused the biggest separation between Jews and Christians. There is also not one shred of evidence that the Early Church was all Jewish and Gentile to Jewish converts. The Church was a mixture of both in the beginning, however the Gentiles did not become Jewish or observe Jewish customs. The Gentiles actually were pretty much ostracized by the Jews at first. Another important factor is that there was not one Church Father who was Jewish or who observed Jewish customs. Not even those from the first century, such as Clement of Rome, Hermas or Barnabas. Not one wrote in favor of following the Law of Moses. In fact they instead wrote of the spiritual meaning of the Law or in some cases an allegorical meaning. Plus, each of these men were taught by Apostles and their writings were once (and still are to some) considered part of Scripture. Logically speaking it would seem that at least one Father, especially one taught by an Apostle, would have written in favor of observance of the Law IF it were an requirement by God and remained in place. However the absence of any Father, any writing, anything at all, that shows that the Law is or was still in place corroborates the Orthodox teaching that it was fulfilled by and in Christ.


3. God's fulfillment of the New Covenant

We realized that we had been denying and persecuting what God had set in place. By believing that the Church was taken over and corrupted by Gentiles, we were in fact teaching against God and accusing him of being incompetent. We had been proclaiming that God's action in setting up the New Covenant had failed. God had said in the Bible that everyone, all the Nations, would know Him and that has happened. If they reject Him, that is one thing, but most have heard of God and of the name, Jesus. Also, the Bible is the number one selling book of all time, despite the fact that most versions of the OT are based on the Masoretic (see #4 below), the Gospel among most versions is the same aside from a few translation differences in wording. The Gospel had been protected by God. By denying this you must resolve how the Gospel spread all over the world, just as God promised and why people from every country use a form of the name Jesus from the Greek, Iesous and all of this happened through the Church. It simply does not make sense to give credit to God for spreading the Gospel while condemning the way it was done. The bottom line is, God was faithful to his promise. The Gospel and the name Jesus, spread all over the world just as God said it would. That is all that matters. Without the Early Church, this would not have happened. The New Testament canon would not have been defined. And had the Early Church not persevered, if God had not worked within the them making Constantine Emperor, so that it could become legal to worship on Sunday and be a Christian, what would have happened?

The New Covenant was the most important event in history. To claim that it was mishandled very early on, abandoned by God and left to the "destruction" of the Gentiles is to deny how important Jesus' incarnation was for man kind and to God. If this is true then God allowed all of man kind to believe a false Gospel almost right from the beginning. This would be not only cruel and misleading of God, but He would be a liar, unfaithful to his promises, as well as incompetent. And this we know is not true. Sure there were falsified versions of the Gospel, even during Paul's time, however God did not allow these heresies to over take the true Gospel and he placed the Apostles and then their successors in position to protect the Gospel, teach the Orthodox (right belief) faith and call out heresy.


4. The mindset of Judaism verses a Hebrew Mindset

After a while of studying, we found that Jesus was a Galilean. Sure the Bible says this, but I never understood what that meant or that the word Jew referred to anyone who lived in Judea, not to a religion specifically. Jesus was the Hebrew Messiah or the Messiah of the Israelites. However this is very different from a Jew or from being Jewish. I know this likely sounds anti-semetic but it is not. I am not saying that the Jews are bad people, that I hate the Jews or that they are not God's people (we all are) but the word Jew is not an indication of being chosen by God. The HRM teaches that we need to adopt the Hebrew Mindset, but what is a Hebrew Mindset? If it is related in anyway to Judaism then that is not correct since their language and culture, as it is today, technically did not exist during Jesus' time. So how can you acquire this mindset while avoiding Judaism? The problem is you can't. The Hebrew Mindset is really just a mimicking of Judaism. And by following Judaism, we are following those who deny Jesus as the Messiah. The fact is the Jews went through a lot of trouble to get rid of Jesus. We can see this in their Bible version while the Septuagint (the Greek version) was the source that Jesus and the apostles quoted from.

This Bible had been complied about 250 years before Jesus' time by seventy Rabbis. The Hebrew version of the Bible (that most people use today) comes from the 10th century A.D. It is called the Masoretic Text (MT). When compared with the Septuagint it is obvious that the Masoretes (the Rabbis who authored the Hebrew version) changed this text to distort Jesus' quotes of the Old Testament, as well as prophecies He fulfilled. Justin Martyr mentions this alteration of Scripture as already in process during his time.

Not only is the Hebrew Bible different from the Septuagint that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from, the Hebrew language is different as well. So if you use the MT version of the Bible (which is the version Evangelical Bibles are based on), you are following the translation of Scripture that was produced by Talmudist who went to great lengths to slander Jesus. These are the descendants of the same Rabbis that the HRM claims Jesus was condemning the traditions of in the New Testament. If Jesus condemned them for their traditions, why should we follow their interpretation of Scripture, their altered version of Scripture, along with their altered Hebrew language. Furthermore, the Jews also took on the Babylonian Calendar after the exile. Therefore, if you wish to observe Old Covenant feasts days, you can not observe them according to Judaism as their calendar is not God's.

This is why Ezra the Scribe is called the father of Judaism. All things "Hebrew" from the time of Ezra to today are based on Judaism, not the Israelites/Hebrewism. Therefore, the "Hebrew Mindset" is a nothing more than Messianic Judaism, which is a mixture of Christianity, the Babylonian culture and religion mixed in with what at one time was Hebrewism.

So again, using the "Hebrew version", using "Hebrew names", keeping the Old Feast days (which you technically can not keep accurately on the modern Hebrew/Jewish calendar), are not actually Hebrew in origin. These things are Talmudist in origin. Giving it a fancy name does not change what it is. Nor did it give us a better understanding of the Old Testament. In fact, all it did was cause us to keep the shadows of Jesus' coming resulting in us unknowingly following the same ideology of the Jews; that the Messiah had not arrived yet. So there you have it, the "Hebrew Mindset" is a modern phrase used to promote a new set of doctrines, all related to Messianic Judaism, which is related to the Protestant reformation, which is related to Roman Catholicism.


5. The Church is Israel

The HRM may claim to have ties to Israel through observance of the Law, however it is not because this grafts them into spiritual Israel. This only ties them to the physical nation of Israel, because they, like physical Israel, reject Jesus' coming and fulfillment of the Old Laws. The fact is, the Church is Israel. While many Jews may be saved, they must come to Jesus under the New Covenant as the Old has been fulfilled in Him. We do not have to be Jews or become grafted in as Jews to be saved. The Church became Israel, is still Israel and the reinstatement of the physical Nation of Israel has nothing to do with the Church era or the Bible. Again, God destroyed this division through Jesus Christ. You must be grafted into spiritual Israel by faith and following, not by nationality, a plot of land or a Nation, no by politics or legalism in any way related to the Law of Moses. As for the Church, it is alive ,doing well and never died out. Nor was it ever lost or anything else claimed by Protestants or the HRM. Once again, by studying history we found that the Church still existed and had remained virtually unchanged. Although there was a minor split between the East and what is now known as the Oriental Orthodox, this was not as dramatic as the later split between the Orthodox and what became known as the Roman Catholics. This split completely altered how the Western world would see the Gospel. When this happened, the traditional Orthodox Christians kept and guarded the teachings of the Early Church while what became known as Roman Catholics made changes some of which in turn produced the reformation, while others were carried over into the reformation. Since this time there is no united belief system among Western Christians. Heresy is abundant. It is so rampant today that even some Orthodox are not free from it. It is true that there was heresy in the Early Church as well, however the Apostles and the Fathers quickly spoke out against it, corrected it and defined it. If the Church had died out as some claim or was lost as others believe, that would be a heresy in itself since Jesus said that not even the gates of hades would prevail against his body of believers Therefore, the Church never ceased to exist and was never lost, but was striving somewhere. All we had to do was find it and we did when we found the Orthodox Church.


6. Roman Catholics did not rewrite history since they did not exist during the Early Church

The Church Fathers writings had not been changed by the Roman Catholics. In fact, 49 of the 50 Church Fathers (to 750 A.D.) came from the East, belonging to the Orthodox Church (which Roman Catholics were part of before the split). The writings of the Early Church corroborate the teachings of Jesus along with the Epistles of Paul and the other Apostles. These writings also prove that Christian observances have been falsely labeled as pagan. Sunday, for example, is called the Lord's Day in Revelation. Some may claim that this could have been the Sabbath, however the Didache, likewise calls Sunday the Lord's Day. This document predates the writing of the Book of Revelation by at least ten years. This proves to us that during the time that the Apostle John was writing Revelation, Sunday had long been known as the Lord's Day. Other writings that predate the book of Revelation, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, also prove that Sunday was observed by the first century Church. Other observances such as the Eucharist, tithing and hearing a message are also corroborated in these text, matching verses in Acts and 1 Corinthians. This is important because it proves the claim that Roman Catholics created documents to support their paganized version of Christianity. Again, Roman Catholicism did not exist by name until the reformation or by altering Christianity to their version until the 8th to 10th century. Everything else in the Early Church otherwise is Eastern Orthodox in origin, including the Churches named in the Bible.


7. The Church was against paganism, not practicing it

We found that the Early Church fathers had taught heavily against paganism. Therefore, not only are Christian practices such as Sunday not pagan, but Christian Holidays are not pagan as well. We can easily find proof for Christian holidays in history and the writings of the Church Fathers. For example, the goddess Eostre was not connected with the word Easter anywhere in history until after the 8th Century A.D . Easter was nothing more than a word, not a festival or a pagan goddess. In fact there is zero evidence that Eostre ever existed in Druid mythology, as the first mention of Eostre also comes from the 8th Century. There are many Wiccans who admit that she never existed and that there was never a holiday celebrated for her, until modern times. We found that Christmas likewise predates any pagan connections. December 25th (Julian Calendar) was given by several Church Fathers as Jesus' date of birth as far back as the early 2nd Century A.D. In the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, December 25th is listed as a feast day for the birth of Jesus. This writing comes from at least the 2nd Century as well. Oddly Judaism is not immune to paganism itself. If you study their calendar and the history of some of their observances, such as Hanukkah, New Moons, the Star of David, and even their month names, you will find that many of their traditions come from paganism as well. Even supposed holy days such as the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Trumpets have become pagan observances that were once very different than they are today. While it is true that there may be some pagan aspects in to things in Christianity, Western Christians are not the Early Church, so it really does not matter.


8. The Early Church was not Anti Semetic

The Church Fathers were not anti-Semitics. These men whom people accuse of being full of hate, were completely changed by the Gospel and would die for God. They tirelessly wrote and defended the Gospel, as well as proclaiming the name of Jesus, even to their deaths. Some of which were extremely violent. Yeah, they were a bit harsh at times in their wording towards heretics or Judaizers, but we should not label them as anti-Semitic, as this is a modern word only coming about in the last hundred years or so. We did not live in their times and we cannot even begin to comprehend what they must have lived through. So judging them based on their defense against people who persecuted Christians, who denied Jesus, and who were teaching the Law of Moses, is not reason to label them as anti-Semitic. This would imply that they hated the Jews based on their race. However, the Fathers never speak in hatred towards the Jews. All of their arguments were over the Law, just as it was during Paul's time. The fact is, the majority of people in the Roman Empire, including the Jews who did not accept Jesus were anti-Christian. And sadly people are becoming the same way today. The Church Fathers were only doing what the spirit guided them to do in defending the Gospel as handed down to them by the Apostles through Jesus.. The following quote found at orthodoxinfo.com really struck me concerning the claims of anti-semetism in the writings of the Church Fathers:

"Calling any Church Father anti-Semitic on the basis of ostensibly denigrating references to Jews, therefore, is to fall to intellectual and historiographical simple-mindedness. Applying modern sensitivities and terms regarding race to ancient times, as though there were a direct parallel between modern and ancient circumstances, is inane. This abuse of history is usually advocated by unthinking observers who simply cannot function outside the cognitive dimensions of modernity. My remarks in this regard apply not only to those who find literal anti-Semitism in the Fathers, but also to women, in our times, who, deviating from a true vision of femininity and a Christian understanding of the lofty place of the female in the Church, are quick to characterize statements in the Fathers about the FALLEN nature of women (which are often quite harsh) as symptomatic of a general denigration of females (as though fallen males are not also brutally portrayed in the Fathers). Post-Lapsarian and unrestored nature, whatever the gender of the individual, is corrupt and cannot be described in positive ways. (Restored men and women are another matter, and here equality in Christ prevails, whether as regards race or gender.) A clinical diagnosis of human spiritual ills is not the same thing as prescriptive racism or intolerance. To suggest this is unfair. It is not so much that the Fathers were misogynists or racists as it that those who find misogyny and racism in their writings are possessed by small minds, perplexed spirits, and the whimsical concerns of our age. I am loath to loathe anything; however, such smallness is something that I abhor!"​

 

[TER]

What We Learned From The Hebrew Roots Movement


link here

My husband and I have had quiet a journey for the last three years in discovering the true Church. We started out Baptist, both since a very young age, having been raised as such by our parents. We had no reason to question what we believed. We thought that what we had been taught was the basic facts of faith. So a few years ago we decided to build a Christian based website. We thought that since we both know how to build websites, it would be worth while to add another Christian site to the Internet, since the vast majority of what is online is pretty bad if not downright evil.

We began building content, but found that this required us to read more in depth on doctrines that we had been taught. And to our surprise we found that we just could not agree with them. There was so many things about mainstream (Westernized) Christianity that just did not match what the Bible says. All the base Protestant doctrines- Eternal Security, Penal Substitution, Faith Alone and Total Depravity- were not Biblically based. We had never been taught anything in depth on these doctrines growing up. Again, we thought they were simply the facts of faith. I personally thought that the only major difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants was the Pope, their views of Mary, Statues and the Rosary. As for Protestant Churches, I had heard that the only difference between the various denominations was their ways of worship. In reality we found that the differences ran much deeper than that. We had no idea that the main "doctrines of faith" were actually different among the Protestant Churches. Protestants as a whole subscribe to Sola Scriptura, but this seemed to be the only doctrine that was unanimously held. Next would be the Protestant/Evangelical view of atonement, which seems to be widely held as Penal Substitution, however many Evangelicals believe the Satisfaction Theory instead. Every other Protestant doctrine is interpreted differently among the various denominations and they are all fairly new to Christianity. Even Bible versions (among Evangelicals) varied significantly in some cases.

I believe that this is why many people are leaving the Protestant Churches. They realize that the Bible does not support many modern Doctrines, so they begin searching and find that what they have been taught varies dramatically among Churches. They end up feeling as if they have been lied to and lose trust in the Churches. So they leave to wonder in search of something stable and unchanged. This can be a good thing, however this can also lead some people the wrong way. Some lose faith all together, while others end up going to more extreme sects of Christianity. And this is what happened to us, in our search for the true Gospel and the true Church, we went the wrong way for a little while, into an extreme form of Christianity.


Discovering our "Hebrew Roots"

We had been receiving material from the United Church of God (UCG), but had never really paid it much attention. As we began studying the Bible more, discovering that the Protestant doctrines were not correct, we started reading the UCG material as well, and it really seemed to make sense. We thought if mainstream Christianity and Roman Catholicism were both wrong, then these teachings must be right. After all the UCG claims to be the "Church Jesus Built". The biggest selling point for us was that they do not teach the doctrines of Faith Alone or Eternal Security. So we began studying more of the UCG's material and this only drew us closer to what is known as the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM).

For those who may not know what the HRM is, it is a rather new teaching that believes that the Law of Moses is still binding on believers today. The HRM and the UCG both teach that the true teachings of Jesus and the Apostles were taken over by the Gentile Church very early on. The true Gospel was corrupted with a paganized version and this is what the mainstream follows today. Therefore the HRM is very similar to the UCG, however it is bit more extreme. One extreme is the use of "sacred" names rather than the name Jesus. Following this teaching, we stopped using the name Jesus instead prefering the name Yahshua (sometimes called Yeshua, Yahoshua or Yeshoshua) . As some of the most extreme HRM teaches, the name Jesus has no saving power, therefore those who call upon this name will not be saved. Yahshua, on the other hand, was the true Messiah of the Jews, not the pagan Jesus. And he did not set out to start a new religion or change Laws. Instead his incarnation was for the sole purpose of showing us how to follow the Law correctly and to defeat sin and death. He rejected the "traditions of men", so we did as well. As prescribed by the HRM , we began casting off anything Christian. We persecuted everything from holidays like Easter (Pascha in the Orthodox Church) and Christmas, to basic truths like the Trinity. We even believed that the Cross was a pagan symbol. We attributed all these "man made traditions" to the Christianization of paganism by Constantine and the Roman pagan Church, who were nothing more than anti-semites (as taught in the HRM), that persecuted the Jews (the true followers of Yahshua) causing all true doctrines to be lost until the HRM, the remnant of Israel, rediscovered them.

We believed virtually all of the HRM teachings, like that Jesus (Yahshua at the time) was born during one of the fall feasts (even though there is zero support for this). Or that he was resurrected on the evening of the Sabbath, therefore Sunday was a pagan corruption. We did not observe Easter or Christmas, since Easter was a pagan feast for the goddess, Eostre, and Christmas was a feast for Sol Invictus. If we came across anything that did not agree with Judaism or the Jewish interpretation of Scripture, we rejected it. However, if we found something that bashed the Early Church, we believed it. We were even thinking of buying a Sacred Names version of the Bible, thinking that other versions, which used the pagan name Jesus, were sinful. We studied Hebrew words and their meanings. We did not want any part of anything Greek. To us they were basically hijackers taking over the Church and destroyed it on pretty much on Satan's behalf. We had become Jews, only we accepted the Messiah. And we believed that this is what you were suppose to become once you accepted him, not become a Christian. In fact the word "Christian" was an insult since they had been deceived, but we had not. We had found our "Hebrew Roots" and we honestly thought that we would be saved, while most of the Christians would not.

As you can see we not only had a dramatic change of belief, but we also took on a dramatic change in attitude. We thought of ourselves as kind and humble, however our view of Christians was not so kind. We thought how stupid and ignorant they were. We began calling Churches, pagan temples. And the Sunday Church goers, Sun worshipers. We were honestly really "puffed up" as Paul calls it, from our new found "knowledge" and sadly we were too blind to see it. Speaking of Paul, we even began believing that he was not an Apostle, but instead was an Apostate, who had sabotaged the early Church.


Following Is Much Easier Than Proving

We began to completely overhaul our website to reflect our new beliefs. We wanted to convert all the poor Christians and save them! However, to our surprise and even disappointment at first, it turned out to be much easier to read other people's material and simply believe it, than to write in support of it. When attempting to write articles about what we had learned, we would most often end up hitting a brick wall. I would literally spend weeks studying history and digging to find proof of what the HRM teaches, but could not find anything. We spent a lot of time simply putting the Bible on our website since otherwise we were researching and coming up with nothing to write in support of the HRM. Soon we found that all this new knowledge we had, like Protestantism, was based on the teachings of modern men. We had read tons of material from the UCG and other HRM sources and believed them. We never once thought that they could be wrong as well. I had even read books by several Protestant "Bible Scholars" with similar views as that of the HRM, but in the end all their claims were unsupported by history and the Early Church. Even the Bible did not support any of the HRM's theology. It was not good enough for us to just rely on the HRM version of history. I wanted serious actual historical proof for their claims and ended up with nothing. In the end we found that the HRM version of Scripture is based on Sola Scriptura, just like Protestantism, which allows for various interpretations and twisting. As it turned out, most of the HRM teachings were based simply on their personal interpretation. So ironically in attempting to cast off the "traditions of men", we had ended up believing in a different persuasion of traditions of men.

We had learned on our journey that Protestants misinterpret the Bible due to following the doctrines of men from about 500 years ago. However, the HRM is really just another sect of Protestantism that observes the Laws of the Old Testament. Plus their (HRM) beliefs are only about 150 years old. While there were some groups in the Early Church who believed as the HRM teaches today, these were all labeled as heretics, even by the Apostles in the Bible. This is the only reason why Paul's writings are cast aside by many in the HRM, since his letters were heavily against heretics who taught that the Law of Moses was required in order to know God or to be saved. We at first thought maybe these heretics were the authentic Church, but if that were true surely God would have made certain at least some of their writings or histories had survived as examples for us, but they didn't. The only historical proof I could find of these sects came from the writings of the Church Fathers and from vague references in Jewish sources such as the works of Josephus. I began to see how God worked in history and I could not change history to suit what I wanted to believe. I had to accept that God guided and protected the Gospel. I realized that if God had been with the Israelites for thousands of years, even when they would backslide, wouldn't he be with the body of Christ as well, rather than leaving the early Christians very early on? And if the only information on the heretical sects of the Early Church were found in the writings of the Church Fathers, why should we believe this information (that these sects existed) but nothing else in the Church Fathers text when it came to the Law?

We realized that we had become the same as the heretics from the Early Church who had persecuted the followers of Jesus. We had went too far in trying to find the true Church. We had believed the false history of the conspiracy theorist instead. Serving God did not involve the observance of Laws. It started with faith and love, which we had very little of during our whole experience in the HRM. Jesus did not come to abolish the law as Protestants believe, the HRM is correct on that point. However, He did not come to follow it to show us how, as the HRM teaches. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, what the Law pointed to, what it had trained man for, and what the true meaning was, that being Jesus, his defeating death by death and Eternal Life. It was about the salvation of man kind by our loving creator. It was a life to be lived in Jesus. The whole Gospel was of love, communion and the Kingdom of God. Not wrath, punishment, Laws and legalism. Nor was it simply about Jesus setting us free from sin and all responsibility for our sins. Both the HRM and Protestantism were wrong. The HRM placed too much emphasis on works of the Law, while Protestants placed too much emphasis on avoiding any form of works for fear of trying to "merit" God's favor. I began to see Protestantism and the HRM as the same. One was the sister of the other, much like Roman Catholicism is the mother of both.


Conclusion

Surprisingly, while the Roman Catholic Church has strayed a bit, they at least retain the seven sacraments of the Early Church. However, they are not the Early Church as most people falsely believe. In fact the Early Church still exist today unbroken and unchanged among the Traditional Orthodox, who are pretty much unheard of in Western society. The reformers, on the other hand strayed far off of the true Gospel, taking the split between the East and the West of 1054 to a whole new heretical level. In turn they created a wrathful God who, one second is unwilling to forgive us, and then suddenly completely exonerates us from even future sins if we just believe! Based on this belief, we are Eternally Secure no matter how we turn out; we cannot be condemned to hell.

These are the doctrines that need to be put away, not the basic truths of the Gospel or the observances the Apostles handed down to the Early Church. Protestants blame Roman Catholics for skewing the truth however in reality Protestants are just as responsible for all of the confusion that exists today. Protestants have over 40,000 denominations. Along with this the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads many people to disregard other books that were considered Scripture during Jesus' time. This also leads people to disregard much of the Early Church history and the writings of the Church Fathers, because again many Protestants have promoted the belief that the Early Church was Roman Catholic when in fact is was not. Without these writings people believe that they are to interpret the Bible themselves rather than seeing how God worked in the Early Church. People are pretty much trying to build the Church again with only half of the blue print. This leads to a variety of misinterpretations and false doctrines.

I believe that in trying to weed through these doctrines and build a website to bring other people to God, God used it to bring us to Him. I truly believe He wanted us to live out and experience different beliefs, so that we could write about them and defend His Church properly. Christians are under heavy persecution currently, not only in other countries such as Syria, but in our own country as well. Persecution here is much milder at this time than in other countries, but Christians are still persecuted. God wants people to leave the doctrines that are misleading people and go back to the Early Church. But that does not mean He wants us to become Jews. We are Israel, no need in becoming Jewish. And he does not want us to persecute and deny everything Christian.

 

[TER]

 

[TER]

 

[TER]

Check out this link for the videos listed below: Father James Bernstein Lecures

Fr James Bernstein on: Beauty in Orthodox Worship

Fr James Bernstein on: Communal Prayer in the Orthodox Church

Fr James Bernstein on: Icons in Orthodox Christianity

Fr James Bernstein on: Individual Prayer in Worship & Daily Life

Fr James Bernstein on: Processions in Orthodox Worship

Fr James Bernstein on: Sacred Space

Fr James Bernstein on: Services of the Orthodox Church

Fr James Bernstein on: The Divine Liturgy

Fr James Bernstein on: The Royal Doors of the Sanctuary

Fr. James Bernstein on: Disciple of Christ

Fr. James Bernstein on: Love and Salvation

 

[TER]

Does God have a Name?

link here

The idea that God has a "true" or "sacred name" that was once lost is a product of the Sacred Names or Hebrew Roots Movements. These "movements" are somewhat new teachings that falsely claim to follow the Early Church. My husband and I followed this teaching ourselves for a short while. Thankfully, God showed us how deceptive their doctrines are, which generally consist of adhering to certain Old Testament laws, such as observance of the Saturday Sabbath, refraining from unclean meats and keeping the Hebrew festivals. They call this "Torah Observance".

Of all the many deceptive myths they teach, using what they call the "sacred name" may be the most deceptive. Sacred name enthusiast falsely teach people that "God" is a pagan name/title and that we should be calling our creator "Yah", "Yahweh." or other similar unbiblical names. They believe that the tetragrammaton--YHWH--can be sounded out, creating names such as "Yahweh", which is the most common sacred name used for the name of God. Psalm 68:4 is cited as proof, which we will get to shortly, but first let's look at the tetragrammaton.

God revealed his name to Moses

In Exodus 3:14, God revealed His name to Moses as, "I AM THE BEING." In Latin this was transliterated as YHWH. According to Bible Scholars, it can also be transliterated as YHVH, JHVH, or JHWH. In Greek it is IAO. In Judaism this is supposed to be the proper name of God, although Jews will not attempt to say God's name or write it, as it is a long held tradition that is attested for in the Talmud. Instead they say Adonai, which simply means "Lord.". Similarly, Christians only say "Lord" or "God."

Some Messianic Jews and others in the "Sacred Names" movement prefer such names as Yah, Yahweh, or Yahuah, claiming these are the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton. The problem that arises is the tetragrammaton does not contain vowel points; Ancient Hebrew did not contain vowels when written, so vowels had to be added based on the context of the content. Modern Hebrew differs from Ancient Hebrew. Paleo Hebrew, which was the format Moses would have written in looks very different from Modern Hebrew. Therefore, today if we have to insert vowels how do we know these are correct and the result is God's name? For example, we could just as easily add an "i" and "o" to YHWH, ending up with "Yihwoh." Adding vowels when none were present results in a guess, not God's name. Hence the reason Jews do not pronounce God's name. They are afraid they will blaspheme His name by pronouncing it incorrectly.

So how did they decide on the a and e to make Yahweh the name for God? Scholars say that the Masoretes inserted the vowels of the titles for God, Elohim and Adonai, below the tetragrammaton to remind scribes to not attempt to say God's name, instead reminding them to say Elohim or Adonai when they saw the tetragrammaton. Over time as translations of the Bible came out in English, the vowel points signaling YHWH to be spoken as Elohim or Adonai were mistaken as the vowels for the tetragrammaton and the name Yahweh or Jehovah became a part of some our Bibles.

So Who is Yahweh?

What God revealed to Moses, "YHWH" or "I AM WHO I AM" simply means, "I am the one true God," or "the one who causes you to be," or "causes you to exist." Basically, God is the one who creates. Simply put, the person Moses was speaking to was His creator and that is all he needed to know. In other words he was telling Moses, I created you and that is all that matters.

Another point is that Jesus in John 8:58 says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (KJV). Here Jesus refers to His Father's name as the name that was revealed to Moses, I AM. This is the best way to describe YHWH, by what it means, simply I AM. . Jesus doesn't say "Yah," "Yahweh," or any other name. Instead Jesus refers to God as Father or Abba. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see any name for God, nor do we see these names in the Septuagint. If God has a human name, surely Jesus would have called him by his name.

As for names such as Yah, Yahweh, or Yahuah, these names are found in other ancient religions. Therefore, when you say one of these names, you may end up calling upon the name of ancient false deities or demons. Many of these names are the product of back-slidden Israel. For example, the name Yah (Thoth) was an ancient moon god of Egypt; he was the god of the new moon, which can be found in later Judaism. After Mt. Sinai the Jews changed God's solar calendar to a lunar calendar based on new moons. Also, Ashoreth was the counterpart to Yahweh in ancient Canaanite religions.

Yah in Psalm 68:4

As mentioned at the beginning, some "Torah Observers" point out that this name is found in Masoretic version of Psalm 68:4 as God's real name:

KJV: Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, (Yah) and rejoice before him.
​

The Septuagint reads different:

LXX: Sing to God, sing praises to his name: make a way for him that rides upon the west (the Lord is his name) and exult before him. They shall be troubled before the face of him​

The Septuagint is the Greek version of the Old Testament, dating to around 450 B.C. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the Septuagint was the oldest version of the Old Testament available. The Masoretic Text--which is the Hebrew Old Testament that was used to produce the OT in the KJV--dates to the 10th century A.D. This text was the only Hebrew version of the Old Testament, until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.

The Masoretic text differs greatly from the Septuagint. When Jesus or His Disciples quote the Old Testament, the quotes match the Septuagint identically, whereas they are only found in paraphrases in the Masoretic Text, sometimes which don't even come close to matching; proving that the Septuagint is more reliable than the Masoretic Text. It is important to understand this, as it proves the name Jah/Yah is a later addition to the Old Testament, whereas the oldest version--the Septuagint--simply says "Lord.". Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls are based on a different Hebrew (Paloe) from that of the Masoretic Text. Bible Scholars had thought that the Dead Sea Scrolls would prove the Masoretic Text to be superior to the Septuagint, however they found the opposite to be true. The Septuagint had an underlying Hebrew Text that was quiet different from the Masoretic. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the Masoretic Text was not the true version of the OT. This has sparked renewed interest in the Septuagint.

Finally, we know that the modern Jews will not pronounce God's name out of fear of getting it incorrect, but if the Masoretic Text was based on the original Hebrew version of the Bible, why won't the modern Jews say Yah, as it is what their ancestors had written? It is because they know that this name was inserted by the Masoretes incorrectly.

So What is God's true or Sacred Name?

Based on all of this we know that God does not have a human name. He has given us what we need to know in regards to who He is. Since God only revealed His name as "I AM" or if you prefer "YHWH," which we know simply means the being or your creator, this is what he was known as. Calling God by a title such as Lord or God is a respectful title to address Him by. However, as pointed out to me by an Orthodox Bishop, we do know God's true name since the incarnation of the Lord has revealed it to us:

"through the incarnation of the Lord, and in particular the Theophany, we now do know the name of God Who has fully revealed Himself to us: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity."

This is why in Orthodoxy we call on the Holy Trinity. However, as far as other names often used by "sacred name" worshipers, saying any other name other than God, Lord, Jesus, and praying in their name or to the Holy Trinity, is incorrect or even blasphemous.

 

[TER]

The Hebrew Bible vs the Greek Septuagint


The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament is the considered by some to be the purest form of the Old Testament available today. Work on this text began in the 6th century A.D and was completed in the 10th Century by Rabbis (mostly Karaite) at different Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine. The authors of the text were known as the Masoretes. The Septuagint, however, has a much longer history since it was produced around 250 B.C., making the Septuagint almost ten centuries older than the Masoretic Text. It was developed by Rabbis who had settled in Alexandria Egypt. Since Greek had become the most predominate language, they needed the Old Testament to be in Greek. The Septuagint means seventy because seventy Rabbis were split up into separate quarters to translate the Old Testament into Greek. The finished product of each Rabbi matched with only minor differences. Their work was compared and the first manuscript of the Septuagint was born. The Priest and the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem even accepted the Septuagint as accurate and authoritative. It was not until after Jesus' coming that the Rabbi's decided that they needed a new translation of the Old Testament.

So which one is more accurate?

Those who claim that the Septuagint is corrupt believe so only because it was used by the Early Church. Some do not trust the Septuagint because they confuse it with the Latin Vulgate, thinking that the Septuagint is a Roman Catholic Bible when it is not. Furthermore, those who object to the Septuagint usually have not compared the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint side-by-side with quotes from the New Testament, for if they had they would see that the Masoretic Text is vastly different from the words spoken by Jesus or His Disciples. In the Masoretic Text it is hard to find word-for-word quotes, as most are only found in paraphrases. Therefore, if Jesus quoted from Greek version of the Old Testament as authoritative, how can we say it is inaccurate?

The Masoretic Text appears to have been produced because of Jesus. Rather than His words following the Hebrew, verses which He quoted were intentionally changed to make Him appear to be ignorant of what the Old Testament says. Similarly verses which were prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus were also changed so that He would not match them. Comparing verses we can see which text is accurate and which was corrupted:

1. Hebrews 10:5

Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but you have prepared a body for me; (EOB NT)​

This verse references Psalm 40:6

(LXX Septuagint) Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and [sacrifice] for sin thou didst not require.

(CJB Masoretic) Sacrifices and grain offerings you don't want; burnt offerings and sin offerings you don't demand. Instead, you have given me open ears;

(KJV Masoretic) Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required

Notice that in the CJB Masoretic it reads "you have given me open ears", whereas the LXX says "a body hast thou prepared for me", which matches the NT.

2. Matthew 1:23

Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son. They shall call his name Emmanuel;
which means, ‘with us [is] God. (EOB NT)​

This verse is a quote from a prophecy found in Isaiah 7:14

(LXX Septuagint) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.

(CJB Masoretic) Therefore Adonai himself will give you people a sign: the young woman will become pregnant, bear a son and name him 'Immanu El [God is with us]. (emphasis mine)

Again notice that the CJB Masoretic reads "the young woman will become pregnant", whereas the LXX reads "a virgin shall concieve" which again matches the NT.

Note: The translators of the KJV chose to disregard the Masoretic Text in this verse, sticking with the virgin birth.

3. Luke 4:18

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach Good News to the poor.
He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, to deliver those who are crushed (EOB NT)​

Here Jesus quoted from Isaiah 61:1

(LXX Septuagint) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;

(CJB Masoretic) The Spirit of Adonai ELOHIM is upon me, because ADONAI has anointed me to announce good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted; to proclaim freedom to the captives, to let out into light those bound in the dark;

(KJV Masoretic) The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound; (emphasis in the above verses are mine)

The CJB Masoretic reads "to let out into light those bound in the dark" whereas the LXX reads "recovery of the sight to the blind" which are Jesus' exact words in the NT.

4. Psalm 21:17 LXX or 22:16 Masoretic:

(LXX Septuagint) For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet.

(CJB Masoretic) Dogs are all around me, a pack of villains closes in on me like a lion [at] my hands and feet.

Here the Masoretic has completely removed the piercing of Jesus' hands and feet which we are told a number of times in the NT happened.
Note: The KJV translators again disregarded the Masoretic reading here in favor of Biblical truth.

5. Matthew 12:21

In his Name, the nations will hope.​

This verse is a quote from Isaiah 42:4

(LXX Septuagint) He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

(CJB Masoretic) he will not weaken or be crushed until he has established justice on the earth, and the coastlands wait for his Torah."

(KJV Masoretic) He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law

And here the Masoretic reads "and the coastlands wait for his Torah" whereas the LXX reads "and in his name shall the Gentiles trust" (gentiles is another word for nations) which is the same as the NT.

6. Matthew 15:8-9

8 These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me! 9 In vain do they express adoration to me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.​

This verse Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 29:13

(LXX Septuagint) And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.

(CJB Masoretic) Then Adonai said: "Because these people approach me with empty words, and the honor they bestow on me is mere lip-service; while in fact they have distanced their hearts from me, and their 'fear of me' is just a mitzvah of human origin

(KJV Masoretic) 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:

As you can see, the Masoretic text was changed by the Masorete Jews so that prophecies and words of Jesus would not match their Hebrew text. This is only a small sampling. There are numerous verses which were changed to reflect their denial of Jesus and the words he spoke. History proves that the Jews of the first century and the Early Church used the Septuagint. The division came around 135 A.D when the Jews who had not converted did not like the fact that Christians were using their Bible. This caused them to deny the Septuagint which later led to the development of the Masoretic text and the change in verses which pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. Justin Martyr mentioned altered Old Testament text during his time:

But since you [the Jews] and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;' … I shall endeavor to [discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ (pg.216)…And I, resuming the discourse where I had left off at a previous stage, when proving that He was born of a virgin, and that His birth of a virgin had been predicted by Isaiah, quoted again the same prophecy. .. And Isaiah said, Hear then, O house of David; Is it no small thing for you to contend with men? And how do you contend with the Lord? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa.7:14) …And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted.'

And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy.

And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.' Justin Martyr (A.D. 160) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1​

The Orthodox Church has always used the Septuagint for their Old Testament text. Only recently has some modernized Orthodox began using other text such as the King James Version. After the Reformation, the King James Version was developed based on the Masoretic Text. The thought was since it was the only Hebrew version of the Old Testament, then they would end up with a superior Bible as compared to the Catholics. Other Protestant Bibles have followed suit, using the Masoretic Text believing that the Septuagint was corrupted. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found Bible Scholars believed that they would prove that the Masoretic Text was superior to the Septuagint. What they found was that the text preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls matched the Septuagint more closely than the Masoretic, despite the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls where in Hebrew and Aramaic. Newer Bible versions now tend to compare each text rather than using just one for their translation. The best proof for the Septuagint however comes from the Bible itself. As shown above, the Septuagint matches the words of Jesus whereas the Masoretic rarely matches. When it does it is only in paraphrases. This means that Jesus and his Disciples quoted from the Septuagint as authoritative. If the Septuagint was considered the word of God by Jesus, then how can we claim that it is anything less.

 

[Terry1]

Absolutely wonderful teaching and testimony TER! I haven't had time to read through all of it yet because we're getting ready to leave here shortly, but thanks for posting these! Some of this I have already read from the EOC sites as well. Great reading.

 

[TER]

Sunday and the Early Church


link here

Many Christians have given up the observance of Sunday in favor of the keeping the Sabbath. Sadly, they believe the myth that Sunday observance comes from paganism or they fall for the teaching of cults, that the Sabbath was never fulfilled. As a former Sabbath keeper, I can attest to this fact myself. We believed that Sunday came from Constantine who, by what we had read online, was a sun worshiper. We believed that the Sabbath had been kept by the Early Christians, even well after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. We also thought that Jesus was resurrected on the Sabbath, even though the Bible clearly says it was on the first day of the week. We subscribed to a number of conspiracy theories. However, when we began researching on our own, we found that history and the Bible prove all these myths wrong. Sunday was in fact a very important and sacred day to the early Church, even during the first century. And it had nothing to do with paganism. In fact, the Church Fathers were extremely against any practice that came from paganism. To understand why Sunday was so important and why it became a day of observance in the Early Church we need to place ourselves in the position of the early followers of Jesus. First, looking to the Bible, we have examples of Sunday observance by some of Jesus' earliest followers:

Acts 20:7:​

On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight.

1 Corinthinans 16:1-2:​

1 Now in regard to the collection for the holy ones, you also should do as I ordered the churches of Galatia. 2 On the first day of the week each of you should set aside and save whatever one can afford, so that collections will not be going on when I come.

Some may brush these verses off claiming they they do not prove anything, however both are examples of early assemblies on the first day of the week. If you think about it, it is very hard to deny the similarities in Acts and 1 Corinthians when compared to the practices of the Early Christians as well as the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches today. In Acts, we see Paul giving a "message", "word" or "logos" (as rendered in some Bibles), along with the breaking of bread. In Corinthians, we see Paul taking up a tithe. Again both events took place on the first day of the week. These are significant details, as the Church Fathers tell us that the Eucharist was often called "breaking bread". We also know from their writings that the Eucharist was the center of worship to Early Christians as it remains so in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church. It was the most important aspect of the Early Church assemblies . It was common to hear a message and give a tithe as well. Sounds a lot like what is going on in Acts and Corinthians right? The Parallels are undeniable. Therefore even though these verses do not come out and say explicitly that these were assemblies on Sunday, we know from the the details that they were.

Next, in Revelation, we see the Apostle John receive extremely important visions on the first day of the week. These are visions that tell the destiny of man kind and how our Lord will come back to Earth:

Revelation 1:10-11:
​

10 I was caught up in spirit on the Lord's day and heard behind me a voice as loud as a trumpet, 11 which said, "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."

This is the only verse in the New Testament that refers to the Lord's Day. I have seen claims that this could be a reference to the Sabbath rather than to Sunday, however history again proves this idea false. We know Revelation was written around 96 A.D. There are documents from the early church which were written long before John wrote Revelation, that prove Sunday was called the Lord's Day as early as 50 A.D. Therefore, we know that the Lord's Day was in fact a reference to Sunday. Writings such as the Didache and The Epistle of Barnabas mention the first day of the week and the Lord's Day as the same day. Furthermore, these writings also mention celebrating the Eucharist, or "Breaking Bread," on the first day of the week, which again proves to us historically that it was common to gather for this event on Sunday.

Two of the Most important events in Christian History happened on Sunday:

The Bible lists many occasions on which something significant occurred in relation to Jesus or His Disciples, most of which occurred on Sunday, or the first day of the week. It is apparent that Sunday was a very important day in Christian history. If we look at all of the events that occurred, we can see why Sunday quickly became known as "the Lord's Day":

Mark 16:9:

9 But he rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Matthew 28:1:

1 AND in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

Luke 24:1:

1 AND on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared.

John 20:1:

1 AND on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre; and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

John 20:19:

19 Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you.

Most people are familiar with the verses above; each one states that Jesus' tomb was found empty on the first day of the week. To Sabbatarians, this is of little importance since Sunday was not commanded as a day of worship. Some even attempt to manipulate these verses so that Jesus' resurrection falls on Saturday evening rather than Sunday morning. Remember, we even attempted to do this ourselves when we were in the Hebrew Roots Movement. I can attest to the fact that this is impossible. If you read anything that claims that the resurrection took place on the Sabbath, it is based on theory and not facts. As for the verses above, if you place yourself in the position of the Early Christians imagine what they felt when they found or heard that the tomb was empty. This person who was so brutally beaten and crucified was gone! This would have been huge news. All the claims this Man made were true. He truly was the Messiah and He had actually come back to life! Imagine what death was like back then. There was little medical knowledge, and death was often painful, plus a very fearful thing, as it was permanent. There was yet any solid proof of an afterlife. However, Jesus' death was not permanent, He had conquered death and the grave. And if you believed and followed Him, you were promised the same thing one day; another life that is better than this one. It is no wonder that the first century Christians began keeping this day in Jesus' honor as the Lord's Day.

The Holy Spirit descended upon all the believers in the upper room on Sunday:

Acts 2:1-4:

1 AND when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: 2 And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. 3 Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

There are several things that make Pentecost an extremely important day. The first thing to realize is that it was the beginning of a new Law (the Law of the Spirit). The original Law (Law of Moses) was a tutor for the Hebrew people, but this new Law was for everyone. There were 3,000 believers in the upper room, all were from different areas, speaking different languages. Together with the Holy Spirit, they could all understand one another, showing the universality of the new Law in Christ.

Next, few people realize that the Old Law had been given to the Israelites on Pentecost. The Law of the Spirit came to those in the upper room on this exact same day. During Moses' time, God took them from Egypt on Passover, which is also the day that Jesus was crucified, as the Apostle Paul says, "For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed" (1 Cor. 5:7). Forty days later, Moses went up on Mt. Sinai, while forty days later Jesus went up on the Mount of Olives. Ten days after Moses went up, he came down with the Ten Commandments (old covenant written on stone tablets). Ten days after Jesus ascended from the Mount of Olives, the Holy Spirit descended on the believers (new covenant written on the heart). As we can see, the establishment of the new covenant is a direct parallel to the Israelites Exodus from Egypt to the receiving of the Law, and all of these events aside from the crucifixion occurred on Sunday.

In Judaism, Pentecost is known as Shavuot; this day occurred 50 days after First Fruits (the waving of the sheaf offering) which-as stated above-was when Moses brought down the Ten Commandments from Mt. Sinai. First Fruits always occurred "on the day after the Sabbath" (Leviticus 23:11), placing it on Sunday. As we know, there is a direct parallel between Moses (old covenant) and Jesus (new covenant), and the Apostle Paul says, "but now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Corinthians 15:20). Paul makes it clear that Jesus rose on the day of First Fruits (Sunday) as the "firstfruit", and starting from that day and counting 50 days would result in Sunday also. The Holy Spirit was not given on this day by chance, God choose this day for a reason. He choose this day because it represented the completion of one Covenant and the beginning of the Final and New Covenant.

Jesus never commanded us to keep the Sabbath:

Our salvation depends on our belief in and following the teachings of Jesus. The Bible tells us that there is no other way. Since we know that there is no other way, why didn't Jesus tell us to keep the Sabbath? Jesus goes over almost every commandment; if keeping the Sabbath were a requirement for salvation surely He would not have forgotten this one.

Matthew 19:16-21:
​

16 Now someone approached him and said, "Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?" 17 He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 He asked him, "Which ones?" And Jesus replied, " 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; 19 honor your father and your mother'; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" 20 The young man said to him, "All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?" 21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

In these verses Jesus was asked what was required to obtain eternal life. Jesus gives all of the required commandments, none of which include keeping the Sabbath. The man replies saying he has kept all of them. However, in order to be "perfect" Jesus says, he must sell all of his possessions and give to the poor then "follow [him]." You may notice that Jesus does not give the first three commandments either, however loving God with all your heart, having no other God's before Jesus' father, etc would be common sense as Jesus made it clear constantly that he comes from the one true God.

What does Paul tell us about the Sabbath:

Romans 13:9​

The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, [namely] "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Here, we see Paul going over the commandments also Notice he says, "and whatever other commandment there may be." There is no indication of observing the Sabbath. Each commandment Paul gives are moral Law. Just as each commandment Jesus gave was moral Law. Observing the Sabbath doesn't fall into the category of "love your neighbor as yourself," or any other of the moral Laws for that matter. However, persecuting others and manipulating Bible verses in order to persuade others to keep the Sabbath is breaking the commandments. If we are constantly judging others for their beliefs, rewording Bible verses to suit our needs, and denying the Church with the observances that God established, how are we loving others in doing this? Does it really matter to God what day we worship on as long as we are worshiping him and loving others?

Paul says to not judge others in what days they choose to keep:

Romans 14:4-6:​

4 Who are you to pass judgment on someone else's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 [For] one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God.

In these verses, Paul is telling the believers not to judge one another, but to let each man observe the way he feels necessary. He says that one may consider one day more important and another all days equally important; either way, as long as the days are being given to the Lord, this is what is matters. It is the state of the heart that God cares about. It is how we love each other, care for others and how much we love him. The Sabbath was given to the Israelites as a sign between them and God of their covenant. Due to their hardness of heart, the Israelites needed instruction to keep God in their hearts and on their minds. The Law was given to them as a trainer in the true worship that God desired. Through Jesus we know the worship that God desires and we no longer need a trainer.

Only a shadow but the reality belongs to Christ:

Colossians 2:16-17:
​

16 Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or Sabbath. 17 These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.

Here Paul plainly states that we are not to be judged for not keeping the festivals, new moon observances, and the Sabbaths of the Jews. Paul lists them in order by yearly, monthly and weekly observances, allowing us to know for certain that he was speaking of Jewish customs. Keeping in mind that Paul says these things are mere shadows while the reality belongs to Christ, let's look at Hebrews 4:

Hebrews 4:4-11:​

4 For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this manner, "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works"; 5 and again, in the previously mentioned place, "They shall not enter into my rest." 6 Therefore, since it remains that some will enter into it, and those who formerly received the good news did not enter because of disobedience,7 he once more set a day, "today," when long afterwards he spoke through David, as already quoted:
"Oh, that today you would hear his voice:
'Harden not your hearts.'"
8 Now if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterwards of another day. 9 Therefore, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God. 10 And whoever enters into God's rest, rests from his own works as God did from his. 11 Therefore, let us strive to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall after the same example of disobedience.

For some these verses can throw us off if we don't carefully contemplate what Paul means. On the surface it may seem that Paul is telling us that the weekly Sabbath remains. We use to interpret these verses in this way ourselves. However, there is a deeper spiritual meaning to Hebrews 4 that can be found when comparing what Paul is saying here with the verses he references from the Old Testament. Paul starts by telling us of the seventh day rest of God in the beginning, but then he moves on to the fact that the Israelites were not allowed to enter into what he is calling God's rest or when quoting Psalm it says "My rest", because of their disobedience. Paul further says that Joshua was not able to give them rest. This should tell people right away that Paul is not speaking of weekly Sabbath. As Jesus says the weekly Sabbath was made for man. God was clearly speaking of His rest as opposed to the carnal Sabbath commandment. Further, the Sabbath had already been given to the Israelites during Joshua's time, so it is not possible that Joshua could not have given them rest, for they were already observing the weekly rest day. If we go back to the Old Testament we see that God had promised the Israelites rest once they entered Canaan. This was a promise of a different rest, one that was more similar to God's own rest. However, due to their rebellion against God, the first generation died in the wilderness and did not get to enter that rest. See Deut 3:20; 12:9-10; Josh 1:13-1;Josh 21:43-45.

The land of Canaan was a type or shadow of Heaven. We can see that Hebrews 4 is not referring to the carnal Sabbath day, but instead Paul is telling us the rest that remains is the rest of Heaven. As Paul says, "let us strive to enter into that rest." There is no striving necessary to enter into a weekly sabbath; all you have to do is wait for that day to come. There may be some preparation involved however it is minor. We need to strive and make every effort to enter into Heaven-the rest that remains-or else we may fall short and not enter that rest just as the first generation of Israelites were not allowed to enter into the promised rest in Canaan.

Sunday worship comes from Paganism:

So finally what about all the claims that Sunday worship comes from pagan Sun worshipers? While this is true, the same can equally be said of Saturday or any other day of the week. Saturday worship is related to the planet Saturn. Saturn was called the "star of Tammuz" in Babylonia. The word Saturday means "Saturns Day". The Hebrew word Sabbath is even closely related to the Hebrew word Shabati for Saturn. God told the Israelites to keep the seventh day as a day of physical rest, however nowhere in the Bible are we told that this day was on Saturday In Babylon worship of the planet Saturn was common. Moloch, Chiun and Remphan (Rephan, Raephan, Raiphan) were all names for Saturn, as well as Baal. It is highly likely that while in Babylon, Saturday became the Sabbath day for the Jews once they adopted the Babylonian Calendar. We are told in the Bible that the Jews worshiped Saturn:

Amos 5:25-26:
​

25 Have ye offered to me victims and sacrifices, O house of Israel, forty years in the wilderness?26 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which ye made for yourselves. (LXXE)

Acts 7:43:
​

No, you took up the tent of Moloch and the star of (your) god Rephan, the images that you made to worship. So I shall take you into exile beyond Babylon. (NABre)

While it is true that Jesus was resurrected after the Sabbaths, this does not prove that the weekly Sabbath was on Saturday. There were at least 24 sects of Hebrewism/Judaism during Josephus' time. There was also at least three different calendars during Jesus' times. The Sabbath would have been on Friday or Saturday during the crucifixion week either way. However, it would not have been on every Saturday on God's true calendar.

Finally we come to the myth that Constantine established Sunday worship for Sol Invictus:

"In 321 A.D. Constantine made the Christian sabbath, Sunday, the rest day for the Roman Empire, but it was observed by Christians for nearly 300 years before it became law by Constantine."--Encyclopedia Britannica​

It is an inescapable historical fact that the Early followers of Jesus kept Sunday in his honor. God chose this day for many special events in the Bible. Further, the NT does not give us any reason to keep the Saturday Sabbath. In fact the Old Testament never once states that the Sabbath was on a Saturday. Even if it was, the New Testament makes it clear that it is no longer an obligation for the Body of Christ. While some early Christians kept both days, none are recorded to have solely kept the Sabbath. The Sabbath pointed to heaven, which Jesus made a reality for us on the first day of the week. We should not look back to the shadow rather than forward in hopes of obtaining the reality. Our focus is serve God everyday, not just one day a week. We keep Sunday in memory and honor of Jesus and of God's work in the resurrection.

 

[TER]

Absolutely wonderful teaching and testimony TER! I haven't had time to read through all of it yet because we're getting ready to leave here shortly, but thanks for posting these! Some of this I have already read from the EOC sites as well. Great reading.

You are very welcome Terry. I think it is important to pass this information to those who seek in finding the Church of God intitated by the Messiah and established by the Apostles. It is good and necessary to look into history and the roots of the Church, but the Hebrew Roots Movement is not the roots of the Christian Church, it is an innovative conglomeration of beliefs at odds with the historical Church. Hopefully, however, this searching into the roots of the Church will lead many into discovering the apostolic Church which is not new, innovative, or ever-changing, but a rock of foundation having survived 2000 years of the greatest persecution in the history of the world.

 

[Matt Collins]