Testing the 119 Ministries’ book: The Pauline Paradox

[@MattHaydon1986]

I just looked up all the verses you cite for your critique on the eating unclean meats portion, the 1st argument you make, but none of them say anything in support of your claim.. ? Can you explain this?

[@shearronperkins4651]

I can see there is some merit in some of your parsing of the Greek and just as 119 ministries states, all ministries are prone to some error. Regardless, I don’t see anything Paul, Peter, James, or Christ says that abolishes the law of the most high. The new covenant is a new opportunity to keep his law because Israel failed the first time. Eating animals is not forbidden but eating unclean animals is and there is no record in scripture of any righteous person eating unclean carcasses. We see in Acts that Paul was zealous to attend the holy feast days and taught in the temple on the fathers sabbath day repeatedly. The materials that Christ and the early church apostles taught from was the law and the prophets. We must consider this when Christ told us don’t even think he came to abolish the law. He came to fulfill it in obedience. If we claim to follow Christ then we must walk as he walked, upright in the law of The Most High as delivered by Moses, as Christ & the apostles did. Our God is not a god of confusion and he stated that his law is perfect. We endeavor to journey toward that perfection, not to downplay its perfection to appease modern Christianity.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Shearron. Good stuff! I agree with you that Jesus and the apostles taught from the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible). That's how they proved that Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Jewish Scripture. And I also agree with you that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it in obedience. Amen! You also mentioned that "there is no record in scripture of any righteous person eating unclean carcasses." That might be true. But I think it's more important that we have teachings about what we should and should not eat. And it's interesting to consider how God's eating restrictions changed over time. At first, the only thing mankind was prohibited from eating was the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2:16-17). Later, after the great flood, God said, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything" (Gen 9:3). We were free to eat all food. Many centuries after that God gave the kosher food laws as part of the Law of Moses. These laws, given in Leviticus 11, established certain foods as "unclean" for Israel to eat. And, 1,500 or so years after that, under the New Covenant, we are told that all foods have now been declared clean (Mark 7:19. See also Acts 10:9-16; Romans 14; 1 Cor 10:23-33; Col 2:16-17, etc.). Paul was "persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean" (Rom 14:14). Why? Because "the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 14:17). And as far as walking like Christ walked, here's a video I made on that topic that you might find interesting. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJ61qKehh9mWhJY God bless! Rob

[@shearronperkins4651]

The reason I brought up that no righteous man in Scripture eats unclean animals is because we can see, by the witness of their actions, the clarity and real application in order to clear up any possible misinterpretation of seemingly contrary statements. When Peter received the vision of the sheet with the animals notice he refused to eat it (even in a vision). He knew better. We come to find out later in the chapter that The father wasn’t trying to get him to actually eat the stuff but to accept council with a gentile. Nobody was eating unclean animals here. When Christ rebuked the Pharisees and made the statement about what defileth a man being what comes out of his mouth, he wasn’t suddenly justifying the eating of unclean animals. They all knew better than that. He was addressing the hand washing tradition which was an unscriptural mandate from the Pharisees traditions. In Romans 14 again, he never mentioned unclean animals. That was about being a strict vegetarian or not. Paul was never shown to eat any unclean animals. And again, in 1 Cor 10, he never specifically mentions unclean animals either. Seriously, for there to be a change on the level of actually defying the laws of the most high that would be a huge deal and must be stated definitively in no uncertain terms, such as…. “We officially reject or change the laws of our father and want you all to eat all manner of unclean animals now.” Never happened. If you can show this in scripture, please do.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

@@shearronperkins4651 Thanks, Shearron! I appreciate you engaging with me on this topic. You set the standard that there must be an official statement "in no uncertain terms," but respectfully that is not biblical. We accept God's omnipotence and omniscience without any such direct statement. We accept Christ as divine and the existence of the Holy Trinity without any direct statement. Those _ideas_ are found in Scripture, of course, but they are not taught in a single statement. The same is true regarding the change in the food laws. In Mark 7, the discussion _begins_ by talking about bread and hand-washing. But, as He so often does, Jesus replies to a specific question with a universal principle. He "declares all foods clean" (Mark 7:19). Here's an article of mine that discusses this issue in more detail: rlsolberg.com/from-the-inside-out/ Acts 10: In Scripture we never see God use an entirely false vision to teach a true lesson. But that's what we would have if Peter's vision was solely about the Gentiles. I believe we're missing something important if we suggest that God told Peter to eat all the unclean animals in the vision, but that we can ignore all that "kill and eat" stuff because He was just making a point. Here's a video I made that discusses the issue further: kzbin.info/www/bejne/an25ZXyHacpkrK8 Romans 14, Paul explicitly says, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died." In other words, no food is unclean in itself. We are free to be guided by our conscience in what we eat. Here's a video I made that discusses Rom 14 in more detail: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fl7Kindte7pjras 1 Cor 10 teaches, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience . . . If one of the *unbelievers* invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience" (1 Cor 10:25, 27). Unbelievers are Gentiles who are not bound by the kosher food laws. And Paul teaches us we can eat whatever they put before us. Why? "For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" (1 Cor 10:26). Blessings, Rob

[@shearronperkins4651]

As you have shown, scripture does not directly declare permission for the righteous to suddenly defy the father and his laws/instructions. There are people who choose to find a way to use Pauls words this way and Peter warned us against that resultant lawlessness. Any human interpretation or reasoning over the scriptures which takes me away from the fathers holy instructions which were followed by all of the righteous people, especially in the “New Testament”, must be in error. As such, I understand that any NT teaching must line up with the law and the prophets. In the end we must decide what we are about… following the fathers laws (which scripture says is how we know we have love), or finding a way to get around obeying his laws (which is what I saw too much of in christianity). Matt 7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Thank you for this direct and civil conversation. I believe more could be accomplished if more people could engage this way. Shalom

[@jeremiahmcquiston7401]

@@TheBiblicalRoots I don't see God changing is dietary restrictions in the sense of laws. I. The garden there was NO death from our understanding and potentially only fruits, vegetables, and nuts were eaten. But animals were not prohibited. After the flood the phrase "all moving things" was given to him for food just ass the green plants. We know two things. 1. NOT all green plants were given, there was an exception. So there leaves a window of exception still. 2 the Hebrew word is remes. And although I trust the Hebrew and Greek lexicon so much 5here is also room for potential mistake. Think about where else this word is use and how it was used. It is a hard word to translate. Then look for other time the Bible uses a word for all animals. Just do a study on it and share what you find.

[@Truth2ber]

Hi, Rob! I think that a very simple question is in order: Did Jesus ever break the Commands regarding Sabbath and eating bacon wrapped shrimp? The answer to that is abundantly clear to me…and conforming to Him as a faithful Bride is my highest goal. But, this is tempered by eating the out-of-this-world Shrimp Gumbo that was served by the Church my Dad was an Elder of after his funeral celebration. “) Do you see God ever laying a stumbling block for sinners who seek Heaven, more than to honor the King of Heaven? Does He not test us? Did He not delay, to the point that the 10 virgins ALL fell asleep, and only half had enough Light (transformation by obedience-Psalm19:7) to go into the Wedding Supper with the Bridegroom (who represents Christian Ephraim-my-firstborn of the Spirit/the 10 tribes of Israel who KNOW MESSIAH when He returns (Zech10:7) vs Judah who does not (Zech12:10)? Sometimes I have to wonder if His total rejection of those who practice lawlessness (Mt7:23 anomia/rejection of Torah) is being obfuscated by Paul because God desires only those who LOVE TRUTH AND CONFORM TO HIM to share in His Wedding as Brides! Remember the virgins who we are told will follow Him wherever He goes? Why would His Kingdom not be further divided into various degrees of fellowship…considering His special fellowship with only these specific virgin men in Rev14:4? Further down that rabbit hole…I think we can agree that we are living in “the time of the Gentiles,” and that it is very clear there will be different levels of fellowship with Him in Heaven than the 144,000 virgin men who follow Him wherever He goes. So Why would there not be OTHER GROUPS, such as those who conform to the Word who became flesh in all their ways like a faithful Bride? Is it not also clear that at the Wedding Supper of the Lamb there are guests who were called and invited from every part of the world down to the hedgerows, and some will be thrown out because they are not wearing the proper wedding clothes that Jesus provided (put on righteousness like a garment), much less others who are seated WITH Jesus, as the Bride of Christ? Not dogmatic about this…just mindful that God’s promise to give us the desires of our heart will determine more than we may yet realize. Selah 🕎Rev14:12 Saints✝️

[@velomir11]

At about the 6:00 mark, it is said that the book is "completely wrong" in saying that eating meat sacrificed to idols is NOT prohibited in Torah. As evidence, three passages are offered. Deut 32:38, 14:21 Lev 7:18. I'm not sure if the speaker was assuming these verses would not be checked, but in fact he is the one who is completely wrong. Deuteronomy 3238 is the only one of the three that even comes close to mention food sacrificed idols and in that case it was specific to participation in the actual sacrifice, not merely eating the meat after the fact

[@FormerTrucker]

I know this is not about the subject above but. I had this encounter with a Hebrew roots person, and he was trying to argue that the letter in Colossians 2 was actually Paul writing Jews and not gentiles, and I responded and I said well there's no evidence in the Bible that gentiles were judging Jews about Sabbath keeping and what they observed about the Mosaic law. I said but there's plenty of evidence of Jewish believers and of course unbelievers doing that. In fact Paul the apostle had several confrontations with them. Am I right?

[@heidiranger6106]

Bro Steve, The Hebrew roots movement and 119 Ministries is a Modern day Judiasing Cult Group! Run from them as far away as you can! They are trying to Convert Christians AWAY FROM CHRIST and draw out disciples for themselves. Read the Book of Galatians, Hebrews and Roman, and that should be enough to prove their Twisted scriptures! They are Prooftexting, Cherry picking Experts but they take verses out of their context in order to prove their FALSE TEACHINGS! They Would Argue with God Himself! But God Inspired The Whole Bible, Both Old and New Testaments! So you just stick to The Word of God and Prayer, and you will never be Brought to Confusion by these DECEIVERS! 🙏🙏🙏

[@steveleung855]

Unclean meats are listed in Leviticus 11, Common meats are the Clean meats listed in Leviticus 11 that has been made Unclean based on strangling, died by itself, being sacrificed to idols, etc.

[@creativeeverydaylife]

Thank you - very helpful, I could have used videos like this 6 years ago - but thank God his work in me is not over. God bless

[@cameronstolhand7149]

Read 1st Corinthians 8 and then tell me if you still think so highly of his interpretation of Romans 14.

[@creativeeverydaylife]

@@cameronstolhand7149 Hey, thanks for the reply. I am still grateful to hear more than one meaning of the mention of meat, unclean or not. I still don't eat pork etc. but thought it was nice to hear biblical arguments coming from other places. And wish I had a broad view before I became part of Hebrew roots / torah observant 6 years ago, since being part of this movement has led to loneliness, anger, doubt and great frustrations for me. But my story is long, and I don't want to share it all. I hope you understand. God bless

[@cameronstolhand7149]

@@creativeeverydaylife I would advise to stay away from this guy. I have read through enough of his comments to believe that he is being purposely deceitful. You might have a glance at those empty whiskey bottles on top of his Shelf. I think this tells us where his doctrines will lead you. Not everyone knows the Bible well enough to see through his twisting of scriptures and in several videos of his I have seen he certainly twists them.

[@cameronstolhand7149]

@@creativeeverydaylife I'd suggest cmilkhecking out David Wilbur, the channel unlearn the lies and sour milk Ministries.

[@cameronstolhand7149]

@@creativeeverydaylife oh yeah and read through the comments when you watch videos like this. There's much you can learn from people who challenge his position going back and forth with the people who support his position.

[@petromostert7957]

Dear Brother Rob! Praise GOD our FATHER and YAHSHUA and Our RUACH HAKODESH for You!!!! May you Always have the Wisdom from our FATHER, To Help GOD'S FAMILY, Through the Power of The HOLY SPIRIT, in YAHSHUA'S NAME!! SO BE IT!!

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thank you, Petro! Blessings, Rob

[@cameronstolhand7149]

He's wrong about Romans 14. If you read 1st Corinthians 8 it will give you the Biblical context

[@EsanBeauty]

What is up with the liquor bottles?

[@matthewbaker8039]

doesnt believe that part of the bible either ?

[@matthewbaker8039]

@@brandonahrens I don't drink or have bottles for decoration. So clearly no log in my eye here.

[@quesostuff1009]

Is liquor forbidden ? Idk kosher meant Halal

[@rockovanzetti3803]

Bottle collection. What is up with you?

[@rockovanzetti3803]

Deuteronomy 14:26 King James Version 26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

[@nvdxn]

Do you understand the difference between; *obeying God's Law to be justified and *Obeying God's Law because you are justified

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Yes.

[@nvdxn]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Do you understand that circumcision was never required by the Law for justification. Abraham was justified by grace through faith in Gen 15, his circumcision of the flesh in Gen 17 was just a SIGN of his faith he had while uncircumcised (Rom 4:1-12), this is the example Paul uses -Abraham from BEFORE Mt Sinai and David from AFTER Mt Sinai to explain to us that in the Law God Did not require obedience to the Law and circumcision of the flesh TO BE JUSTIFIED. Justification was ALWAYS by faith through Gods grace. We are justified by the same Covenant that YHVH made with Abraham that Abraham and David were justified by - according to Paul nothing changed 'at the cross' with Yeshua's death - we are saved just as they were. So, does being justified by faith in Yeshua through Gods grace mean we don't need to keep the Law? Not at all - thats not what Paul taught. Rom 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish/confirm the law." What does it mean to 'establish/confirm' the Law? In the Torah God says that those who do not obey His Law are NOT 'establishing/confirming' the Law therefore they are cursed, so to 'establish/confirm' the Law means to obey God's Law, when Paul used this phrase he was quoting from the Torah to explain to his audience that grace does not mean we disobey the Torah Deu 27:26 "'Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law.' "And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' "" It is not for no reason that Paul uses David in Rom 4 to teach us about justification by faith, King David was justified by faith through Gods grace AND he then obeyed Gods Law BECAUSE he was justified by faith through grace. So If you understand the difference between obeying to be justified and obeying because you are justified, then I presume you must also understand that in Acts 15:1&5 the context is obeying Gods Law and getting circumcised to be justified, the context is not whether a justified believer should walk in obedience If you understand the difference, do you understand Paul consistently teaches against the false gospel of having to earn your justification by obeying the Law. Paul did not teach justified believers to not obey God - and to prove it he even circumcised Timothy who was considered a Gentile, a man with a Jewish mother and Greek father. As per the ruling in Acts 15 regarding circumcision not being required for justification, Timothy was the perfect example. Timothy was not a new believer, he was a mature believer: 2Ti 3:15 'that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.' Timothy was circumcised in obedience to the Torah, as a sign of his faith: Rom 4:11 'he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised.' Timothy was not circumcised in an effort to earn his justification.

[@matthewbaker8039]

or obeying Gods laws because we love God

[@nvdxn]

@@matthewbaker8039 amen, only those who are justified actually love God, we demonstrate our love by obeying His Commandments - there is literally no other way we can love Him except we obey His Torah.

[@AndreColon]

at 7:46 he says that Paul is talking to Jewish Christian believers ... in the same breath he says in 9:25 that all foods are inherently clean? My question: Is Paul then teaching to Jewish Christian believers that eating "unclean" foods is now ok? What do you do with Acts 21 - what was told to Paul re: false accusation of not teaching the customs of Moses?

[@rayray4192]

The answer to your question is yes. Paul was persecuted and executed because he considered hid former Mosaic law keeping to have the value of rubbish. Some translations use the word fecal matter. I would say dog shit but it’s offensive to some.

[@coreybray9834]

@AndreColon 6 months ago (edited) at 7:46 he says that Paul is talking to Jewish Christian believers ... in the same breath he says in 9:25 that all foods are inherently clean? My question: Is Paul then teaching to Jewish Christian believers that eating "unclean" foods is now ok? What do you do with Acts 21 - what was told to Paul re: false accusation of not teaching the customs of Moses? *I don’t think those Jewish converts were falsely accusing Paul at all. A quick read through of Galatians will make that evident. Because Paul had a habit of suggesting all were the same under the Spirit and that there is no difference between Jew and Greek and so on, And by Galatians 5 Paul argues that if anyone is circumcised Christ profits them nothing. Well, Paul was circumcised, so Christ must have profited Paul nothing according to Paul. Paul doesn’t stop to filter his own ideas very well, and so he drug Jew, Gentile and who ever else he could confuse into his spiritual anarchy. What do you expect from a man who admits he has a “messenger of Satan” in 2corrinthians 12:7???

[@kevinwells7080]

Is it just me but does Paul’s suggestion that some choose to only eat vegetables seem to be an allusion to Daniel 1:12?

[@nickylouse2]

I thought that may have been what the discussion was about, but the Daniel passage is not a proclamation about what is lawful.

[@yeshuaislord3058]

Not necessarily. The context was regarding not eating meat as some were doing in fear it was sacrificed to idols. It may be similar but It seems Paul was addressing a specific issue going on in the church at that time

[@Grindup560]

Do you collect alcohol? I see the bottles on the shelves

[@quesostuff1009]

Perhaps he likes cooking with them Maybe he’s a bottle collector Or maybe he enjoys a drink or two How ever shall we respond to this

[@LarryCulp-oe8td]

" SOME became Fools through their rebellious ways and suffered because of their iniquities. They loathed all meats and drew near the gates of death." Psalm 107:17,18; " THE SPIRIT clearly says that in the end of the days SOME will abandon Faithfullness and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seered as with a branding iron. They FORBID PEOPLE TO MARRY AND ORDER THEM TO ABSTAIN FROM. CERTAIN MEATS, which GOD Created to Be Received with thanksgiving by Those Who BELIEVE And Who Know THE TRUTH, For EVERYTHING GOD CREAYED IS GOOD AND NOTHING IS TO BE REJECTED if It Is Received With Thanksgiving, Because It Is CONSECRATED BY THE WORD OF GOD and By Prayer." 1 Timothy 4:1-5

[@matthewbaker8039]

unclean things arent consecrated by the WORD ....Gods WORD calls them an abomination! and its the FATHER who said not to eat unclean things .... if you think this verse allows one to eat whagt the FATHER has ALREADY said not to then you calling the FATHER HIMESELF a DEMON!

[@kayjewelers9999]

@@LarryCulp-oe8td so is abstaining from something Yahuah said is unclean is doctrine of demons? Break the passage all the way down. Pork isn't food. Never had been so it can't be talking about that.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

it strikes me that the verse you end the video with suggests the matter of days must relate to eating because he concludes the matter with "a matter of eating and drinking"

[@PUSH2Tim]

My HR friend brings up this verse as a way of supporting the idea that we should be following the Law. Matthew 5:19. I'd love to hear your thoughts of this in light of the HRM mindset vs how the Christian should understand this verse.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hi, Rosemary. I'm working on a teaching about that passage in Matt 5:17-20. It's more complex and profound than most people, especially the HRM, give it credit for. Stay tuned!

[@PUSH2Tim]

@@TheBiblicalRoots will do, thanks! Now following you on Facebook as well. Love what your doing, all glory to God!

[@cameronstolhand7149]

@@PUSH2Tim you would have a much different opinion of his teachings if you read 1 Corinthians 8 which gives you the Biblical context for Romans 14. Anyone familiar with the Bible can see his blatant deception. You can't be that ignorant.

[@statutesofthelord]

Rosy, Jesus kept the law perfectly. Is he our perfect example, or not?

[@bugslayerprime7674]

Yes, Jesus perfectly kept the laws of the covenant He then made obsolete by His blood of the New Covenant. It is in the New Covenant that we walk, abiding in Him by obeying His commands, as 1 John 3 says, and the commands are these: believe on Jesus' name and love one another.

[@loidagimena1556]

I prefer the explanation of 119 ministries, no biases and consistent with the verses of the bible.

[@mirandaweaver2898]

First we must define the word food as God defines it. He does that in lev 11. After that you can start debating

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

I agree that God alone determines what is food for us, Miranda! And in Scripture, we see His definition of food change over time as His people evolve. For example, in the Garden, Yahweh prescribed a vegetarian diet (Gen 1:29-30). Then after the flood, Yahweh told Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (Gen 9:3). And centuries after that, under the Sinai Covenant, Yahweh’s list of allowed food changed from “everything” to a specific list of prohibited items (Lev 11). And finally, under the New Covenant, that list changed back to “everything” (Mark 7, Acts 10, Romans 14, etc.). Blessings, Rob

[@mirandaweaver2898]

Thank you for your response. I would like to offer a response to your response, if I may. I personally do not see a "change" in God 's definition but rather an ADDITION to the original grocery list of the garden. After the flood, the lord ADDED More food to man 's menu Gen 6, 7. Then during the time of Moses, He defined what he considered food by making a distinction between clean and unclean in reference to eating of flesh- beasts, sea creatures, fowls and the creeps. Now the New Testament: Let's take paul's vision. The Lord was not telling him that he can now eat all sorts of creatures since he has become a"Christian". No, not so. While Paul pondered over the meaning of the vision, men came from Cornelius' house and conveyed to him the purpose of their visit. Paul then perceived the meaning of the visit, went along with the men , and at Conelius' house he presented the gospel message . Paul said, " ye know how that it is unlawful for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation; but God had shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean..... Back in verse 14 of Acts 10, Paul used the word, "common" or "unclean" when referring to the unclean foods. Then in vs 28 of Acts 10, he used the same words to refer to gentiles. It is obvious to me that the context of Acts 10 is not about God giving permission to eat all types of creepy animals but that gentiles no longer are to be considered common or unclean I can just imagine what kind of animals were included in the vision. Mind you, they were not a mixture of clean and unclean for Paul to pick and choose what to eat but rather they were probably unclean foods such as rats, pigs, vultures, roaches, etc., for Paul said , Not so lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." Now, we come to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Because James declared that gentiles should no longer be troubled but that they only abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood, it is assumed that Christians can eat anything they desire including unclean foods. Not so! We need to take into consideration the next verse. What James said was that new gentile believers should not shoulder so many things right away because they will have Moses to teach them as they attend the synagogue every Sabbath. Another words, don t pile so much on them; they will learn. I did not see anywhere in the New Testament where Paul or any apostle sent a post scriptor addendum to alert believers that we can eat any unclean meats under the new covenant. We must all go before the Lord and allow the Holy to teach us and guide us into all truth. I am not coming against any brethren who wants to eat unclean foods. That is between them and the Lord. I desire to eat clean foods because the clean foods have a higher vibration and therefore condusive to good health whereas unclean foods have low vibrations. I believe God knows what he was doing when he prohibited the unclean foods although that was not the reason for the prohibition.

[@matthewbaker8039]

@@TheBiblicalRootshow many pairs of animals went into the ark ? ...context .... did noah go and eat posions berrys etc as well ? .... context

[@jorgeespinoza3150]

People want to receive the benefits of being a citizen without committing to renouncing to their foreigner status. The church wants to remain gentile, but yet claim the benefits of being grafted into the commonwealth of Israel and following the covenants without having to do it.

[@kimartist]

Gentiles are "grafted in" under the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic.

[@jorgeespinoza3150]

@@kimartist what you state is not scriptural.

[@jeremiahmcquiston7401]

Before using Orthodox Jewish beliefs to discredit 119 Ministries check to see if the passages these you referenced are correct. I just read both Deut. 32:34 and Deut. 14:21 and they are not prohibiting eating animals sacrificed to false god nor animals not sacrificed. In D.32 it's God asking what has come to these people who served false gods with no foundation. And in D.14 it's about not eating an animal which has died naturally. (Presumably from old age or sickness). Hebrew roots does not mean Orthodox Jewish beliefs.

[@timothyhentschel3029]

you play fast and loose with words. and Jesus said " anyone who teaches someone to disobey the least of the commands will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven" ..A warning from watchman on the wall. Shalom

[@rayray4192]

Hebrew roots heretics have their own dictionary for Bible terms. The heretics water board torture scripture

[@iansmith9474]

Feel free to disagree. Just a few things that I would like to report. Under all things that are clean there are two categories: Holy and common. Sanctified meat, is meat from an animal that was prepared as a sacrifice at the temple. Common meat, is meat from an animal that was not offered at the temple - just a "common" animal and slaughter. "The sin offering is to be slaughtered before the Lord in the place the burnt offering is slaughtered; IT [THE MEAT] IS MOST HOLY. 26 The priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in the sanctuary area, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. Whatever touches any of the flesh will become holy, and if any of the blood is spattered on a garment, you must wash it in the sanctuary area." - Leviticus 6:25-26 The Pharisees wanted to remain holy at all times by only eating holy meats. However, Holy meat cannot be consumed while in a state of ritual uncleanness. This is why the Pharisees resolved to separate themselves from society. In fact, the term Pharisees means separated ones. They remained separate for the purpose of remaining ritually clean to perpetually eat sanctified meat and therefore in their minds, remain Holy. They believed this Holiness could be lost by eating common meat or eating bread with hands made common - through contact with dirt. This is why they would wash their hands before eating bread. When reading the encounter Jesus had over a the issue, the Greek word used is Koinos. The matter was regarding being made common, and falling from a state of holiness. Peter claimed to have never eaten anything common (unsanctified meat) or unclean. Paul is indeed talking about foods under the clean category that some believers are against, teaching that they are common or unholy to eat. Their contention was that eating common (unsanctified) meat will make a person unholy. According to Paul, clean food is made unholy or common if we make it. Otherwise, all clean foods such as meat from a clean animal are perfectly fine to eat. Nothing is common/unholy in of itself. "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is common (Koinos) in itself. But if anyone regards something as common (Koinos), then for that person it is common (Koinos)." - Romans 14:14 The Greek words Akathartos (unclean) and Akatharsia is used around 201 times in the Septuagint, and 40 times in the New Testament. The Greek word Koinos (common) is used only 5 times in the LXX, and Koinoo (to make common) is not used at all in the LXX. In the LXX Koinos is never associated with "unclean" or "uncleanness." It can be inferred that Luke would have not used these words interchangeably. They would have represented distinct concepts in the minds of 1st Century Jews, and the Greek speaking audience. I submit, that during the 1st Century the Greek word "Koinos" became associated with the Hebrew concept of "Chilul" - of "Profaning" what is Holy, treating Holy objects, or God's name as ordinary/common. It is a process of dragging, and spiritually bringing down into the dirt.

[@iansmith9474]

Here is approach written by the ministry FFOZ, in "Biblically Kosher" page 63 and 64: "By saying that nothing is Koinos in itself, he does not mean that nothing is koinos period, as if "uncleanness" is imaginary. Rather, he simply acknowledges that it is legally defined, and rightly so. Some communities will hold to a position that prohibits a specific item, and others will hold to a position that permits it. Both positions are arrived at through careful study and application of the Scriptures. Since God affirms the halachic process of both, they should mutually respect one another's opinions. The idea of ritual purity is not intrinsic is reflected in the midrashic text, Pesikta DeRav Kahana: 'A certain Gentile objected to Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai: The things you do seem to be a type of magic. You bring a cow and slaughter it and burn it, and pound it, and take its ashes. Then when one of you becomes tamei [unclean] from a corpse, you sprinkle it on them two or three times and you say to him 'You are tahor.' Yochanenen Ben zAkkai meets his objection by explaining that it is not much different from the Gentiles' own exorcism practices. But his disciples seek a better answer: 'By your lives, a corpse does not actually contaminate, nor does water actually purify. Rather, it is simply a ruling of the King of kings of kings. The blessed Holy One said, 'I have made a decree; I have made a ruling. No man has the authority to transgress my ruling, as it says, 'This is the decree of the Torah' Numbers 19:2.' Thus Yochanan ben Zakkai upholds that ritual purity is a legal matter rather than something natural or intrinsic."

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks, Ian. I disagree with you, but I very much appreciate your comments! You offered the following interpretation of Rom 14:14: "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is common (Koinos) in itself. But if anyone regards something as common (Koinos), then for that person it is common (Koinos)." This is a highly unorthodox interpretation. How did you arrive at it? Are you fluent in koine Greek? I ask because I can't find any bible translators from any era who agree with you. Every translation I've seen renders the word koinos in that verse into the English word "unclean" or "profane." This includes the AMP, NIV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, CSB, HCSB, RSV, NRSV, WEB, (OJB) Orthodox Jewish Bible, and CJB (Complete Jewish Bible) versions. Also, you suggested that common meat "is meat from an animal that was not offered at the temple." So when Paul wrote in verse 14 that "nothing is common in itself," what did he mean? That there is no food that was not offered at the temple?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

@@iansmith9474 Thanks for this quote. Very interesting! I notice that FFOZ, too, interprets koinos to mean "unclean," rather than "common." You can see that in the first line of the quote you shared. And also in the fact that the story discusses purity, rather than "commonness."

[@iansmith9474]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Yes, you are right FFOZ does not emphasize the distinction.

[@iansmith9474]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Well if you wish for me to make an appeal to an authority, I would reference the 1611 Kings James. I have a 1611 Edition King James version, copied to appear like the original. There is a note printed to the side of Romans 14:14 with a point placed on every translation of "unclean". When the note is referenced, it reads: in GRK "common." While the translators translated the Greek word Koinos as if it were Akathartos (unclean), they knew a distinction did exist, and were honest enough to place a Note. It seems the 1611 King James translation set the precedent for all other translations translating Romans 14:14 this way. It's a small change, but with big consequences. As I've posted already, many Jews during the 1st century were avoiding even clean meats because they regarded meat as unholy (although clean). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies is interesting, and makes some radical claims regarding meat. Essentially that meat is evil, the Nephilim giants ate meat, that demonic possession will result from meat, and that meat leads to illness. The Pharisees took on the title, because they wished to "separate" from the masses, and take upon themselves the standard required of the Levitical Priests. This is commonly accepted by historians, theologians and religious Jews. This was for the purpose of eating sanctified meats (like the Levitical priests). For the sake of zeal and piousness, its not a stretch to see how eventually they would conclude that eating non-sanctified meat is less ideal, or spiritually degrading. Both sects over time seemed to regard un-sanctified clean meat as unfit, unholy in some way. This concept of the possibility of something causing a fall from grace so to speak, dragging one's spiritual potential, lowering as if to profane, comes from the Hebrew word "chilul". I suspect that since there is absolutely no historical, linguistic connection between Koinos and unclean, that Koinos eventually evolved to take on the concept of something similar to Chilul. The concept of something degraded, not holy, that can also degrade ones holiness through association. Paul's sentiment is this: Nothing is common/unholy (in the context of clean meat). However if you violate your conscious by eating meat when you consider it common/unholy, you make it common/unholy. In this case, you have defiled yourself by acting against your conscience. Well this is the best I can do, sir! I hope it at the very least, opens your mind to allow for the possibility that better explanation exists.

[@freddyphillips1810]

what's with all those liquor bottles in the back?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hi, Freddie! Those are just momentos of the fine bourbons and whiskeys I have enjoyed over the years. Shalom, Rob

[@cameronstolhand7149]

That's how he gets his inspiration to interpret scripture LOL. Very similar to Rasputin I believe.

[@matthewbaker8039]

@@cameronstolhand7149 lol right ...they are called spirits for a reason

[@SG-jv5zi]

There is a difference: some people didn't know IF that meat was sacrificed to pagan gods at all, but since it was purchased from "gentiles" they would not eat of it

[@shinewithjoy2865]

Thank you!!! I have family who shares 119 ministries videos, so I’m grateful for your videos to know how to answer.

[@cameronstolhand7149]

Read 1st Corinthians 8 and then tell me if you still think so highly of his interpretation of Romans 14.

[@heidiranger6106]

He is such a great Theologian isn’t he? He knocked it out of the park in that debate with David Wilbur. That guy was nice but not prepared for Rob, that’s for sure!

[@cameronstolhand7149]

@@heidiranger6106 A theologian???? Are you joking😂 ha ha ha ha. I hope you're not serious because what kind of a theologian hasn't read 1st Corinthians? If you are being serious you obviously did not read 1st Corinthians 8 I'm guessing because you don't have a Bible. Let me copy and paste it for you and then you, read it and then watch Rob's video again. I don't even have to comment as to why he's wrong even a child could read First Corinthians 8 and tell Rob does not know what he's talking about. Robs video is an excellent example of eisegesis. 1 Corinthians 8 New Living Translation Food Sacrificed to Idols 8 Now regarding your question about food that has been offered to idols. Yes, we know that “we all have knowledge” about this issue. But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church. 2 Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. 3 But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.[a] 4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God. 5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. 6 But for us, There is one God, the Father, by whom all things were created, and for whom we live. And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created, and through whom we live. 7 However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated. 8 It’s true that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat. We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do. 9 But you must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble. 10 For if others see you-with your “superior knowledge”-eating in the temple of an idol, won’t they be encouraged to violate their conscience by eating food that has been offered to an idol? 11 So because of your superior knowledge, a weak believer[b] for whom Christ died will be destroyed. 12 And when you sin against other believers[c] by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ. 13 So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live-for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble.

[@heidiranger6106]

@@cameronstolhand7149 YOU are the one Claiming to have all the Answers, so by your own Statement you just Exposed your own Lack of Knowledge. What Does 1 Cor Ch 10:25-33 say? Here’s verse 25 and YOU CAN READ THE REST YOURSELF TO VERSE 33, OR BETTER YET, HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS THE READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS, THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY LACK, READ IT AND TEACH YOU! It Says: Verse 25: “EAT WHATEVER IS SOLD IN THE MEAT MARKET ASKING NO QUESTION FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE” vs 26: “FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORDS AND ALL ITS FULLNESS.” HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TEACH YOU “THE CONTEXT”, BETTER YET, ASK R.L. SOLBERG! Also, you Said EARLIER , in a Previous response to me, that THE NEW COVENANT would not be fulfilled until AFTER THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT! THAT STATEMENT ONLY “PROVES” YOU DON’T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! READ YOUR OWN RESPONSES! YOU are the One not using Proper Exegetical Interpretation but are “Prooftexting” the Scriptures to suit your “Satanic” and “Delusional” Self-Imposed Worship! YOU claiming YOU KEEP THE TORAH WHEN “NO MAN” EVER KEPT IT, INCLUDING KING DAVID, which was, another one of your “FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS”! King David, Having Uriah The Hittite Murdered, because he had impregnated Bathsheba, (Uriah’s Wife), I believe, DISQUALIFIES HIM AS BEING A PERFECT TORAH KEEPER, BECAUSE, ONLY JESUS FULFILLED THE TORAH. RL Solberg Is A “Humble” Servant of the Lord and YOU NEED TO GO CHECK YOUR EGO AT THE DOOR! YOU ARE JUST “JEALOUS” OF THE GIFT HE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, WHICH IS WHY YOU, LIKE ALL TORAHISTS “NARCISSIST” DO, TRY TO “DEVALUE” HIS TEACHINGS AND “GASLIGHT” HIM! If you don’t like ROB’S Teachings, then GO BACK TO YOUR HERETICAL CHANNEL LIKE 119 MINISTRIES! YOUR MODERN DAY JUDAISER’S CHANNEL, BECAUSE, EVEN THEY DON’T KEEP THE LAW!( Strongs3551) READ THE ENTIRE BOOK OF GALATIANS! IT IS CLEAR! LEARN TO EXEGETE! STOP BEING AN EGOTISTICAL HYPOCRITE! YOU ARE NOT KEEPING THE TORAH! YOUR VERY THOUGHTS CONDEMN YOU! SO JUST ADMIT YOU ARE A SINNER WHO CAN ONLY BE SAVED THROUGH JESUS CHRIST AND HIS FINISHED WORK IN YOUR BEHALF AND WALK IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.(GALATIANS CH 5:16-18 AND GALATIANS CH 5:1-6) THIS IS “RIGHTEOUSNESS ANGER” AND REBUKE! BECAUSE THE DEVIL IS A LIAR AND STANDS CONDEMNED! I REBUKE YOU SATAN! IN THE NAME OF JESUS! LEAVE!

[@roostermauldin]

I don't think you read the book. They never dispute that common means unclean. It is used to denote unclean according to the traditions of men, not according to God.

[@nvdxn]

amen, learning the difference between common and unclean is very important when trying to understand Paul's letters 2 Pet 3:16 Peter warns us that untaught people will twist Pauls letters COMMON is not the same as UNCLEAN Act 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything COMMON[KOINOS] or UNCLEAN[AKATHARTOS]." In the vision Peter saw a sheet full of all sorts of animals - both CLEAN animals and UNCLEAN animals. But Peter only refers to COMMON and UNCLEAN animals. When God said "rise Peter, kill and eat", Peter efused to eat the CLEAN animals that he saw in the sheet because of a Rabbinic man-made tradition. NOTE: God does NOT say He has cleansed the UNCLEAN animals in Acts 10:15, God ONLY refers to the COMMON animals which we know are actually CLEAN animals. So if you are untaught regarding what a COMMON animal is you can make the mistake of not understanding that Peter refused to eat CLEAN animals becuase of a Rabbinic tradition which declared that a CLEAN animal kept in close proximity to an UNCLEAN animal was now COMMON and INEDIBLE. Paul says for us in Rom 14:14 NKJV "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing UNCLEAN[KOINOS=COMMON] of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is UNCLEAN[KOINOS=COMMON]. " People who followed Rabbinic tradition thought a COMMON animal (which is actually a CLEAN animal) was inedible and UNCLEAN, for them to eat an animal that had been handled by a Gentile and sacrficed to an idol it was an inedible COMMON animal - and if they ate it - going against their 'weak' understanding of the Torah, then they would have been sinning against their own conscience. Eating an animal declared COMMON by Rabbinic Judaism is not the same as eating an UNCLEAN animal. God says clearly in Act 10:15 "And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call COMMON[KOINOS]." Before I was taught about COMMON animals I was unlearned and ignorant of what the NT letters were teaching me, I thought God said He had cleansed the UNCLEAN animals in Acts 10 - I now realise this was a misunderstanding and twisting of Pauls lettes which had led me - the ignorant and unlearned person - to the error of the lawless/wicked, believing that God had 'changed' His Law and it was no longer an abomination to YHVH for me to eat unclean animals

[@gregmahler9506]

How sad that you swerved from the freedom found in Christ and yoked yourself back to the Ministry of Death and Condemnation! (Hebrews 7:12). The law changed, and it had to since Jesus is in the line of Judah and not Levi. This does not contradict Matthew 5:17-21 because “all was accomplished” when Jesus said “it is finished” on the Cross. We died in Christ and thus the Law has no power over us. It has power over you though since you are still yoked to it and no doubt, you have all sorts of sin that the Law produces in you by the commands.

[@68M35A2]

@@nvdxn I think the vision was about eating with gentiles, not about unclean food. Read the whole chapter, Romans 11.

[@jenkinssahayam3872]

Keep eating pork sir with all the misinformed excuses Isaiah 65 is a warning for people like you.

[@brettpenny7893]

The New covenant is all God giving us his Holy Spirit and writing His laws on our hearts and in our minds, therefore giving us the will, motivation and power to follow his laws. Can you explain to me why you think God would write his laws on our hearts and put them in our mind if he didn't want us to follow them? Do you think God's trying to create a stumbling block for us? You're teaching sounds like someone who has never received His Holy Spirit, and have no firsthand knowledge of his power. Someone teaching without the Holy Spirit is the blind leading the blind, you'll both end up in the ditch. Beware of this one you guys.

[@sergloera]

Brother what you said is being asserted on page 70 is simply not what it is saying. Did you actually read the book or were you looking for gotcha opportunities. These folks have some things they at times may not get exactly right, but this particular matter isn’t one of them. To insist this passage in Romans is clear scriptural indication that the sabbath and food instructions are irrelevant is simply not true. You have to admit that it is at the very least, possibly implied, not definitely expressed.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks, Sergio. I admit that Romans 14 does not explicitly name Sabbath and the kosher food laws. However, I do believe that implication is clear. Paul does specifically name those Mosaic rituals (and others) and teach they are no longer required in Colossians 2:16-17. So to interpret Romans 14 as teaching the same would be consistent with Paul's position. Best, Rob

[@lansan3430]

119 Ministries encourages us to follow all the commandments of God lawfully and carefully! Great guys, truly inspired by the Holy Spirit!

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hello, A. I am sure they are great guys! I, too, teach and believe that obedience to God is of utmost importance for believers. We are to submit to His authority over our lives. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). And I’m sure you would agree that not every command God has given applies to every person at all times. Some only apply to certain people (i.e., men, women, parents, Levitical priests) or at certain times (i.e., building an ark, gathering manna, while in exile). And I’m sure you would also agree that we are each only expected to keep the commands of God that apply to us. The NT expressly teaches that many of the commands given under the Old Covenant Law do not apply to Christians today. (ex. Repeated blood sacrifices for sin are no longer required (Heb 10:18).) We still serve God and obey His commands, “But now we are released from the law, having died with Christ to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code” (Rom 7:6). “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law: (Gal. 5:18).. Blessings, RLS

[@quesostuff1009]

@@TheBiblicalRootshello, I would like your insight on this matter I have been pondering It seems that the laws in the OT can be broadly broken down into - ceremonial laws (how the saints/priests ought to hold conduct, substitutional sacrifice ) - civic law (How the Hebrew people ought to conduct themselves in day to day matters - the moral law (The 10 commandments come to mind but I know there’s more out there) Clearly with Jesus coming to the scene. There is no need for further animal sacrifices. The civic laws could be upheld but I always felt like it’s more of a cultural way of doing things or had a time and place but isn’t timeless (please correct me if I’m wrong) Leaving us with the Moral law, that seems never changing So as a gentile Christian while I can value the Old Testament laws as a whole and find great spiritual value or insight it almost feels to me that outside the moral law, outside of pondering how to apply some of these principles in our day to day lives. I’m not actively grieving the lord by not following the diet laws for example Am I in any way getting close?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

@@quesostuff1009 Hi Queso! Yes, that's a reasonable and popular way to break it down. Blessings, RLS

[@chuckdeuces911]

1:27 it's funny I came here to point out the conflating tactics on another video and this one popped up first so I thought I'd listen. You said they don't have the name of the author or teachers on the book? You said it was by 119 ministries, what else do you need? Maybe they're not seeking idolaters or trying to put any individual above another. 119 ministries is a very public ministry. You can find out whatever you want if you just look or ask. Who calls themselve by their initials? That's just as 'shaky' as just putting your orgs name. I'm not even a full Torah roots type of person. I think there are things clearly delineated for Hebrews when they inherit the land. When 'Jesus' gave up the ghost the veil on the temple rent and twain which makes all temple worship invalid but 99% of Torah roots people I know don't participate in temple worship so.... what's the issue? This guy reminds me of an atheist or a leftist. Every one of his videos is about Torah. Are you sure you're not the one with a Torah problem? 😂😂😂 If we're following 'Jesus' then 'Jesus' followed the prophets and Moses. I'm not going to even point to the 100s of verses because it's a waste of time. Anyone who can read the bible and understand what people are saying about mainstream Christianity and it's issues then you're just not being honest with yourself and you're following 'Jesus' on your terms. Grow up, make a video about what your beliefs and point of view is and stop worrying about what others are doing.

[@rayray4192]

God has instructed his Body to be on the lookout for Hebrew root heretics. Your childish demand that Professor Solberg grow up and stop worrying about Hebrew roots heretics is not only useless and inappropriate, it’s unbiblical. When will you make a quality decision to grow up little boy.

[@charitybrook6279]

Considering that Jesus rebuked Peter once already for considering man's ways over God's ways, and the vision in Acts 15 seems to be another rebuke, we should take that into careful consideration. Mark 8:33 Jesus turned around and looked at his disciples, then reprimanded Peter. “Get away from me, Satan!” he said. “You are seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God’s.” Also, the phrase is "common *OR* unclean". As an English speaker, who English translators are trying to cater to... I would never place an "or" in between two words unless I was comparing and/or contrasting the concepts. It seems from the context that there are all kinds of animals present. This presents two issues for a religious Jew of his day... Which Peter certainly was a religious Jew. The first issue is that, (as Peter points out) there are unclean animals among this bunch. He certainly can't eat anything unclean according to God's Law, so this troubles him. And the second issue is that, (because of Jewish tradition of the day) if clean animals were among unclean animals, they were made unclean through being "common". This Greek word for common, (as you point out) is the word "koinos" and it is used in other places in scripture to denote things being "shared", (it's often used in a positive context in verses talking about our shared or common faith as believers). Because of this manmade belief that Peter holds about things being "common", Peter in his mind has made everything on the sheet unclean. Therefore, God corrects Peter telling him not to make unclean what God has made clean. Or, "do not call common what I have made clean". Because in Peters mind it is made unclean by *being* common. Peter is extremely puzzled by this! Because in his mind, everything on the sheet is unclean; God couldn't possibly mean to eat pig and reptile could He? Then the Holy Spirit brings Peter into understanding that he had been holding on to beliefs that were in error. How many times in our own lives are we convicted of things we believed that were wrong? This is part of the sanctification process. So now that Peter has been brought into revelation that manmade traditions are nullifying God's plans, he goes on to repeat what he has learned multiple times. And he doesn't say that it means we can eat whatever... He says that it means we can associate with gentiles. We can't use other verses to help back up claims about acts 15 referring to food if our premise on the context is false to begin with. It's clearly about manmade traditions that Peter is holding on to, this is why the Holy Spirit has to correct him in the first place. Respectfully, then you are just using circular reasoning.

[@kimartist]

The word translated "or" in Acts 10 : 14 is actually "kai," which means "and," "both," "also," "too." In Acts 10 : 28 and 11 : 8 the word "e" is used, which can be translated as "or," or "either," but it should be noted that these 2 verses are Peter recalling the event that took place in 10 : 14. If it meant "both" in 10 : 14, then Peter wouldn't change his testimony in 10 : 28 and 11 : 8 to mean something else.

[@matthewbaker8039]

and the vision was about people not food anyways as peter points out just a few verses latter

[@gospelcentered101]

Amazing video

[@kevinwells7080]

It seems to me at any claim about God’s immutable nature are misplaced and miss the point. No one is asserting that God’s nature has changed. What is in question is whether God‘s temporal requirements have been changed by him as his working out of His plan for humanity progresses through the ages. Paul describes the working out of this plan, partially in the first three chapters of Ephesians, and in Romans as well clearly what God requires of each person is determined by where and when in God’s ultimate plan the individual finds himself. Why do imagine that this process stopped at Sinai, Especially when the apostle to the gentiles so very clearly teaches otherwise? It is not obedience to follow the law - - it is not even honoring God to follow the Torah - - if God has, in fact, declared that the Torah has been fulfilled and that men are not to attempt to observe it any longer. That is the question: not how much one loves God, but rather what does God actually teach through his word about the Torah and it’s place in His plan.

[@matthewbaker8039]

He and His messiah all all those who followed HIm all teach obedience to His torah through out the scriptures

[@marksr49341]

WOW another great vid keep up the good work.

[@coreybray9834]

Gee, so Paul back in Romans 6:14 told his followers that they are no longer under God’s law, but under paul’s lawless ideas of grace. Then by Romans14, we find that serious divisions are arising among people who are no longer on the same page, surprise surprise. And Paul didn’t see that obvious outcome emerging long before he recommended that people come out from under God’s law to embrace Paul’s ideas of Spiritual anarchy? Or, did Paul intentionally create this mess so he could position himself and his advice, not God and God’s advice, as the solution? So, instead of admitting he made a huge mistake and telling them to return back to God’s law, Paul decided that he would try to limit the freedom he gives to some individuals to prevent his brand of spiritual anarchy from doing damage and harming weaker believers, essentially suggesting his idea in Romans 6:14 was a flop, hoping no one would notice. So, he has removed people out from under God’s rule, and is now imposing his own rules on people in hopes of trying to desperately fix a mess he created. It’s a lot like when Jews introduce arbitrary, man made hedge laws, instead of respecting the law God actually gave them. Jews like Paulhave always sought to replace what God actually commands with their own self derived ideas, and then tighten the noose of control over their victims more and more to manage the mess they create in the process when their plans go south. But, there is a deeper flaw with Paul’s scenario here. The deeper flaw is why should anyone bow to Paul’s advice, if Paul has taught them to give God and his law the middle finger? If a person does not respect God’s law and authority, why should they respect Paul’s replacement rules/law and authority???

[@titosantiago3694]

Great series. Thank you!!! I'm receiving your book today and can't wait to dive in. This "Toraism" as you call it is indeed making a Trojan Horse entry into the church.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks, Tito!

[@jeremiahmcquiston7401]

Do bad they use Orthodox Jewish doctrine which is not biblical to discredit this book. I personally see SO much benefit and truth in "Hebrew roots" (although there are many devitions within that also). I always look for error in this theology. This video only shows the lack of research in his testing. Read the verses this user reference from the Orthodox Jewish beliefs which are not biblical.

[@titosantiago3694]

@Jeremiah McQuiston If you choose to follow the Law, that's your prerogative. I choose to follow Christ Who fulfilled the Law.

[@jeremiahmcquiston7401]

@@titosantiago3694 I follow Christ who followed the law and was my perfection. To fulfill means to full up. Accomplish. Just like you would agree Jesus fulfilled, "you shall not murder" do we now get to murder? By no means! We uphold the law as Paul said. Jesus said I have NOT come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. In your opinion what does abolish mean? And what would you do differently if Jesus said the law IS abolished? Abolish means to destroy, get ride of. Where fulfill means to DO, or Do correctly. This KZbinr although may have good intentions does not accurately make his case. The verses he gives about the old testament about the eating animals is not what the Bible says. It was lawful to eat a clean animal killed by in a normal slaughter way and even if it was sacrificed to a false god as long as you yourself were not serving in false god worship.

[@MinisterRedPill]

@@titosantiago3694 Follow Christ how exactly? How do you do this? By going to church? Show me that in scripture.

[@harryabrahams2770]

I do not see anywhere in Romans 14 that it’s talking about food offered to idols..If you or 119 can show me a verse or verses where chapter 14 is referring to food offered to idols please show me, otherwise consider your understanding as invalid as it is not in context of the situation. Got Torah Got Truth

[@cameronstolhand7149]

Yes sir I can, or should I say the Bible can. Read 1 Corinthians 8, it gives the clear and obvious context for Romans 14.

[@harryabrahams2770]

@@cameronstolhand7149 I’m impressed by your ability to take 2 different letters to 2 different peoples in 2 different contexts in 2 different time periods and come up a clear and obvious context for Romans 14. There is a talent I don’t have. Could you please show me the verse in Romans 14 where it talks about food offered to idols which is the context for 1 Corinthians 8. Got Torah Got Truth

[@cameronstolhand7149]

@@harryabrahams2770 1 Corinthians and Romans was both written by Apostle Paul. At least I'm using the Bible to interpret the Bible You are using an alcoholic to interpret the Bible. Let me throw that question right back to you and ask you the obvious. Could you please show me the verse in Romans 14 where it talks about the meats mentioned in Leviticus 11 that were forbidden by God? By the way your interpretation contradicts the Bible mine doesn't. I would recommend reading 1st Corinthians 8 before you embarrass yourself any further.

[@matthewbaker8039]

yip

[@matthewbaker8039]

@@cameronstolhand7149dude thats called cherry picking

[@allendagnel1341]

Please can you address this please "Before using Orthodox Jewish beliefs to discredit 119 Ministries check to see if the passages these you referenced are correct. I just read both Deut. 32:34 and Deut. 14:21 and they are not prohibiting eating animals sacrificed to false god nor animals not sacrificed. In D.32 it's God asking what has come to these people who served false gods with no foundation. And in D.14 it's about not eating an animal which has died naturally. (Presumably from old age or sickness). Hebrew roots does not mean Orthodox Jewish beliefs.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks, Allen. You make a good point that Hebrew Roots does not mean Orthodox Jewish beliefs. And the two verses you looked up are interpreted in Jewish theology in the way I mentioned. Torah-keeping Christians lean on Jewish interpretations more than you perhaps realize. (And sometimes more than even they realize.) But your point is well made. Thank you! Shalom, Rob

[@AndreColon]

re: Foods sacrificed to Idols ... and now you just discovered why Peter said that Paul is confusing.

[@AndreColon]

and wait till you find out James may have been a vegetarian because of the corruption in all temples [ James was universally acknowledged to be a strict vegetarian and in fact was raised as a vegetarian (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23. 5-6)]

[@rayray4192]

Christianity is not about the lunch menu. Christians don’t allow Hebrew roots mongrel dogs to judge them in regard to food or drink or a festival or a new moon or Sabbath. Sabbaton was a mere shadow of the good things to come. Hebrew roots fools are asinine shadow dancers

[@richardmason7840]

It's not Moses law( Torah) It's YAHWEH law.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Totally agree, Richard! It’s not Moses’ law. He’s just the one who set it before the people of Israel (Deut 4:44). Which is why it’s referred to in Scripture as the Law of Moses (tovrat Moshe). “Therefore, be very strong to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, turning aside from it neither to the right hand nor to the left” (Joshua 23:6). See also 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Chron 23:18; Ezra 3:2, etc.

[@richardmason7840]

The. "People" were not just Israel.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

​@@richardmason7840 Hey, Richard! I'm not sure which era you're talking about. Under the Sinai Covenant, the "people of God" were just Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham through Jacob (who was also called Israel), aka the Jews. God called only that nation (out of all the nations in the world) to be His people. As King David said, "And who is like your people Israel, *the one nation on earth* whom God went to redeem to be his people, making himself a name and doing for them great and awesome things by driving out before your people, whom you redeemed for yourself from Egypt, a nation and its gods?" (2 Sam 7:23) And all throughout the Torah, we see that the law was given only to the "people of Israel" or the "house of Israel." (ex. Exodus 19:1-6) God did not command Egypt, or Babylon, or Assyria, or any other Gentile nation to obey His law. They were not His people. Only Israel. That all changed, of course, under the New Covenant. Ever since Jesus arrived, anyone who believes in Him is considered a descendant of Abraham and a member of the people of God: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And *if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring,* heirs according to promise." (Gal 3:28-29) Blessings, Rob

[@richardmason7840]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Do you really believe that just Hebrews left Egypt? Just after YAHWEH ELOHIM destroyed it. Leaving only Goshen unharmed. Ex. 12:49 Abram was adopted by YAHWEH ( Spirit) because he obeyed . just like us gentiles Rom. 9:6. / 11:17-36. Where in the Books of Moshe did you find the word "jew/ Jewish" They aren't proper names just slang terms used by nations to describe those living in Judea/Juda tibe of. Matt5:7-22 Heaven & earth are still here. Jn. 14:15 Sir have you actually tried to contact 119 ministry by e-mail? I came upon them just before the pandemic. I first did not like or understand what they were teaching. However wanting the Truth I took the time to listen too them ( it was months of study). I still continue to seek a deeper understanding of our Great Creator. Working on Dr. Mike Heiser's book Unseen Realm, changed the way I study ! Look you Enjoy YAHWEH ELOHIM with unbounding Joy because it just makes sense. Praise the FATHER.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

@@richardmason7840 Unseen Realm is a fantastic. I think you’ll really like it! As far as leaving Israel, there was certainly a mixed multitude that traveled with the Israelites. But the Sinai Covenant was made solely with the house (family/descendants) of Jacob. (Ex 19:3-6) And I have actually been in contact with David Wilbur of 119. He’s a truly kind man.

[@Eric-fq5wx]

Can you explain why they told the new believers to abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood in Acts 15: 20

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Sure, Eric. I discuss that very issue in this video: Why were only four restrictions given in Acts 15? kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXWmoKqIibR6gJY

[@baleu42]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Those were the prerequisites sir, for new believers coming into the faith. The apostles knew and understood that the yoke/ burden of the entire message could not be learned overnight by gentiles and which Jews were taught from birth. Milk first, meat later was the method. As new converts faith grew, so did their understanding of the scriptures. And of course, with the help of the spirit which teaches us all things.

[@matthewbaker8039]

yip all laws straight out of "moses" and the passage is summed up with the FACT moses (the Fathers laws( are taught every sabbath) those few of the Fathers laws were clearly what thhose people of that time were directly dealing with and was the bare minium they had to get right (showing they loved the Father and followed Christ) before they could be part of the church ......but they werent ment to stop there ! those who love the FATHER love HIS laws .... those who dont ...dont

[@Eric-fq5wx]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Thanks for clearing that up. Im glad to know that i can fornicate, eat strangled meat and drink blood. As long as the jews dont see me do it. Thanks to freedom in christ.

[@Eric-fq5wx]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Thanks for clearing that up in your video. Im glad to know that i can fornicate, eat strangled meat and drink blood. As long as the jews dont see me do it. All thanks to freedom in christ.

[@wendyshine8548]

I’m sorry. I think You miss much trying to be technical. Even the codexes must be tested. I prefer the simple reading. Before the “laws” of Moses God put aside animals to be considered clean-set apart. Noah was told to take 7 pair of “clean animals” (Sacrifices as well took place btw Cain and Abel). Hermeneutics are important. If you use the biblical meaning of the word “food” rather than out modern meaning then when Paul says all FOOD is clean 119 is correct. Can’t wait to read that book. Thanks for that info. I appreciate that you are teaching ppl how to test scriptures but you can prove any doctrine by limiting the focus of the testing. I would love a full blown lesson on hermeneutics that I could understand. I’ll keep checking here as well as getting 119’s book. Thank you brother. For now I believe the best thing is to follow my Master who ate what God set aside for Him. How wonderful of Our Father to do that. Why isn’t that enough? He is enough for me.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks, Wendy! You are correct that God told Noah to bring seven pairs of "clean animals" with him on the ark. But did you know that later, after the flood waters receded and God made His covenant with Noah, He allowed the eating of *all* foods? "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. *Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you.* Just as I gave you the green plants, *I now give you everything.* (Gen 9:1-3) Also, if we understand the word "food" to mean only foods that are clean to eat for Israel, then it makes those statements in the New Testament meaningless, doesn't it?. Why would anyone need to declare all *clean* food clean? It's already clean! Blessings, Rob

[@wendyshine8548]

@@TheBiblicalRoots thank you for responding . It does make sense but then why did Jesus keep Moses instructions as you said ? If he had eaten pork for instance the Pharisees would have condemned him?

[@wendyshine8548]

@@TheBiblicalRoots so i would like to test this and get back to you but i am relatively new to this form of texting. How do i find you again? It took a long time to find this ?

[@wendyshine8548]

Never mind. I figured it out lol

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

@@wendyshine8548 Hi Wendy! Jesus kept the Torah because He was a Jew living under the Mosaic Covenant. And His many of Jewish apostles and disciples kept the Torah traditions because they were never forbidden or prohibited from doing so. Here's a video I made that talks about this issue: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHfOm6Fpl9CGZqc Blessings, Rob

[@johnlim5595]

Psalm 119: 2 Blessed are those who keep his statutes, Who seek him with their whole heart Psalm 119: 4 You have commanded your precepts, That we should fully obey them. Proverbs 28: 9 He who turns away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination. Ezekiel 36: 26-27 I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my ordinances, and do them.

[@ilovegod7539]

Btw it's not one author but a group of very dedicated servants of God.

[@matthew2596]

I dont know...how about we do what Jesus did. Any body with me???

[@quesostuff1009]

Jesus is the role model for us all to aspire by

[@ChrisC-sv3rl]

The problem is us, none of do. Let us know when you've sold all earthly possessions and have your entire life to ministry until you die, not even having a house. Like Jesus did. We need his grace and mercy, not law.

[@MinisterRedPill]

I'll never understand why Christians quote Paul so frequently and ignore everything else. Very strange.

[@cameronstolhand7149]

2 Peter 3:16 "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

[@donaldmonzon1774]

👍👍

[@tonyhatfield6527]

What’s up with the liquor bottles

[@cynthia-ray]

So glad to have found your channel.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thank you, Cynthia! I'm so glad you find it helpful. ~Rob

[@cameronstolhand7149]

He's wrong. Read 1 Corinthians 8 and that will give you the Biblical context for Romans 14 and show you how he is misleading you.

[@huskermmc]

As Peter said, people will misunderstand Paul and twist his words to their demise. When Paul wrote Timothy and said that all scripture was profitable for correction and teaching in teaching what scriptures existed?? Here's a hint, the New Testament wasn't in existence and therefore those scriptures would be what other people called the Old Testament. What part about Jesus saying he didn't come to abolish the law have you forgotten? By the way what was Paul accused of when he was sent to Rome? And did Paul say that we ignore the law or do we uphold the Law in Romans? And I imagine we should probably ignore those pesky passages where Paul says he is hoping to get to Jerusalem to observe one of the feasts. By definition you fail the Deuteronomy 13 test and would be called a false prophet or teacher according to God's word. You preach a double minded God and that is contrary to the scripture He inspired and breathed. A coupke of questions to consider. If God is not a respector of persons why would he give a set of commandments to one group and not have another group observe them? Why will Jesus upon his return destroy those with swineflesh on their breath? If the dietary laws went away then why was Peter still eating according to the instructions God gave if they had passed away? But then again if you do not understand what the new covenant is then it's easy to be misled by teaching such as this video. I would recommend going and reading what the new government is and then reading what the old covenant was and then maybe begin with observing the covenant.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hey, Carter! Thanks for watching. You asked a lot of questions. I'll do my best to reply! *As Peter said, people will misunderstand Paul and twist his words to their demise.* Do you know which of Paul's specific teachings Peter was referring to when he wrote, "There are some things in them that are hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16)? *When Paul wrote Timothy and said that all scripture was profitable for correction and teaching, what scriptures existed??* Paul was referring to the Tanakh! *What part about Jesus saying he didn't come to abolish the law have you forgotten?* I remember all of it. I even made a couple videos about it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j3KUY6Wep6l1hrc kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYaxdoaQnsR_fLs *By the way what was Paul accused of when he was sent to Rome? And did Paul say that we ignore the law or do we uphold the Law in Romans?* In Romans 3:31, Paul said we uphold the Law! I made a video about that, too: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmnSn2iwiL2pZrM *And I imagine we should probably ignore those pesky passages where Paul says he is hoping to get to Jerusalem to observe one of the feasts.* Why ignore them? Paul was free to keep whatever feasts he wanted. They were never prohibited. (See 1 Cor 9:19-23 for Paul's view on keeping the Law.) *If God is not a respecter of persons why would he give a set of commandments to one group and not have another group observe them?* He wouldn't. And He hasn't. All believers are equally under the Law of Christ. *Why will Jesus upon his return destroy those with swineflesh on their breath?* I assume you're referring to Isaiah 66:17? Hebrew Prophecies are a tricky thing, to be sure. They were written under the Law of Moses and Isaiah was using phrases he knew to describe lawlessness. Just like if you wrote a prophecy today about something that is going to happen in the year 2755. You would write it using 2022 language and concepts. *If the dietary laws went away, why was Peter still eating according to the instructions God gave?* Peter was free to eat (or not eat) whatever he wanted. The NT doesn't _require_ anyone to eat pork or shellfish. We are all free in Christ to choose for ourselves. Blessings, Rob

[@cweatherly100]

Commenting as I listen. At 7:32 it seems that there was a determination that the food from market was in fact sacrificed to idols which was not clear. It seems that they were concerned about the possibility of food being sacrificed to idols.

[@kimartist]

"For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols?" ~ Hebrews 8 : 10

[@nickylouse2]

@@kimartist ... although there is no such thing as an idol. 1 Corinthians 8:4

[@anthonjohnson7245]

You didn't show the law that says don't eat meat offered to idols. Also the scripture says out of 2 or more witnesses, every word shall be establish. Paul is just one witness so can you provide another that says your view of what Paul says? And which is it? The law has been done away with, it's only for jews, keeping the law is optional, or we are not under it? One of the bases of all lies is inconsistancies which all who apose law keeping has.

[@IglesiaMaranathaChapel]

Yes I can provide the second witness although it is not necessary because this was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. However just to answer your question. The other witness is Jesus! Romans 14:14.

[@wadestrickland3372]

119 Ministries is a good beginner's avenue for seeing through the lies taught in Christianity (such as replacement theology), but they shoot themselves in the foot by claiming to be Christian. There are no Hebrew Roots in Christianity (it's all sun worship/syncretism). YHVH's instructions are for His people (whom He calls Israel). I am so relieved to be freed from man made religion , and grafted into (like Ruth) the family of Yah. The Covenant has been renewed through the blood of Yah's son, Yeshua, and I have the hope of salvation through his resurrection! Shalom

[@sundownsam3369]

Let’s first discuss Romans 14, the main point in this chapter is about not indulging in judgement against each other, for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Which is why the Apostle Paul follows with… let us not therefore judge one another anymore: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. It is important to put one teachings or convictions on the table and let the Spirit of God give one the understanding of the truth of God’s word, what God made clear when he first spoke. Yes, the Apostle Paul stated that he was persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but if God called it unclean it is unclean and according to Psalms 89:34 God does not alters the words that is brought forth of his lips, unless you believe he does. My question to you, does God alters the words that comes out of his lips? Will Jesus alter the words of his Father? (Please respond) I do not believe this chapter is talking about unclean and clean animals, but more about the weak and strong. There are many people who do not eat meat and they will call it unclean and for this reason they abstain from meat, but we now God spoke about the clean and unclean meats (referring to animal) prior to him giving these laws to Israel and God will not alter the words that it brought forth from his lips, or does he? (Please respond) With the above being said, do the law apply to Christian believers? It is clear from the Scriptures that it was fine with the Spirit of God for them to abstain from four things, but remember that one was abstaining from blood and one from strangled animals, isn’t this part of the law? If you do not eat blood sausages then this law is implies to you, isn’t it? (Please Respond) What was fulfilled was that which was spoken of Christ and that is all, and because the law had nothing to do with making on righteous Yeshua was the end of the law for righteousness. Obedience to the law was all about walking a righteous walk and still does but has nothing to do with making one God’s righteousness. I will not judge my Christian brethren, and though it is important for them to abstain from four things trusting that God will teach them down the road. God is teaching man Christian brethren the truth about the law, and they are now understanding that it has nothing to do with working for salvation, nothing to do with making on God’s righteousness, but all to do with obedience to God’s laws. Let me make this clear there were some commandments that God told Israel to hold throughout generation which do not apply to the Christian Gentiles like hold the Passover them being delivered from Egypt, but if Christians brethren want to participate it will be no problem, but God clearly tells one how. You need to get away from using the phrase the law of Moses, it is God’s law, he spoke it and told Moses to speak it unto the children of Israel. Wouldn’t you agree? I would agree that one needs to be careful with the hebrew root movement and the 119, they appear to be teaching the law as if one is made God's righteousness through them. I will respond to Acts 10, which I did in the past, but reading it again, I saw something I did not see before.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hi, Sam. You twice asked, "Does God alter the words that comes out of his lips? Will Jesus alter the words of his Father?" Here's my response: God is unchanging, but the commandments He gives to mankind do change over time. Not because God has changed but because mankind has. Our knowledge and understanding of YHWH has grown over time, and our circumstances have changed dramatically, as well. For example, at one time God commanded animal sacrifices at the tabernacle/temple for sin. That was His Law! But later, because of the work of Christ, it changed. Those temple sacrifices were replaced by the "once for all" eternal sacrifice of Christ (Heb 10). Another example is Acts 10 where God told Peter that all food is now clean. Both God and Jesus have the divine authority to change things. You also asked, "one was abstaining from blood and one from strangled animals, isn’t this part of the law?" Those four restrictions were not issued as a commandment or law by the Jerusalem Council. They merely said to the new Gentile believers "If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well" (Acts 15:29). They did not require the Gentiles to keep the Law of Moses. Here's a video where I dig deeper into that issue: *Why were only four restrictions given in Acts 15?* kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXWmoKqIibR6gJY Blessings, Rob

[@sundownsam3369]

Rob, you are not truthfully responding to Psalms 89:34, but giving an opinion on the way you see it, which is literally going against Psalms 89:34, and how can man change what God has commanded, who is man to put himself in the place of God? Tell me, do you allow your children to change the rules you placed before them? Regardless if our circumstances have changed dramatically, our knowledge does not replace what God commands of us! The sacrifices were a shadow of what one day would be fulfilled in a person, it was not a change as replacing an apple with a banana. The law of sacrifices of animals was a law that would be fulfilled in a person, Yeshua, who did it once and for all. I have explained the vision that Peter had, and in the beginning of your post you said God is unchanging, but then you state that both God and Jesus have the divine authority to change things. God can do anything, but he would not break his commandment, nor will he alter the words that comes out of his lips. As I stated, you are not truthfully responding to Psalms 89:34, and according to you the unchanging God can change what came out of his lips. As for the abstaining of four things, yesterday you made a statement that it was given to the Gentiles to not offend the Jews, do you really believe that, and that it was not really giving to the Gentiles to practice? You also went against the law of abstaining from blood, when the Scriptures is clear to abstain from. If the four laws were not issue as a commandment the why was it fine with the Holy Spirit to give them those four things? You continue to say the law of Moses when it is God’s law, but I guess it is easier for you to rejects Moses law than God’s law, which is why you continue to call it the law of Moses. I do not think you really believe in your heart that it is God’s law. you do not believe in your heart that it is God’s law.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

@@sundownsam3369 Hi, Sam. I would respectfully ask that you read my comments carefully and hear what I am saying. You asked, "how can man change what God has commanded?" But I have not suggested that man changed anything. I said it was _YHWH_ who changed the way He expresses His commandments to mankind. That does not mean that He breaks His promises or covenants. He does no such thing! It simply means that the way God interacts with His people over time has changed. We see this all over Scripture. And you actually agree with me! You said: "The law of sacrifices of animals was a law that would be fulfilled in a person, Yeshua, who did it once and for all." That is a change. The "words that came out of YHWH's lips" (as you put it) were that His people were to atone for their sin by sacrificing animals at the tabernacle/temple (Lev 16). But because of the work of Christ, that has changed. Shalom, Rob

[@ShaulTzuar]

Aren’t His words attached to His character?

[@indo3052]

@@TheBiblicalRoots you mentioned they gave the four Commandments and they said you shall do good keeping these. As if they weren’t requirements. But that seems to contradict the text. Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; Necessary.

[@nicoarnold2200]

This video has 118 likes, we need one more!

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Ha! Yes!

[@jimhuskins8506]

I agree that both of the Koiné adjectives attributed to Peter in Acts 10:14 are references to unclean meat. That is, however, my only point of agreement with your teaching. You fail to recognize that Peter’s vision gives lie to your claim that Christians have no obligation to keep Torah and its dietary requirements. This vision likely took place ten to fifteen years after the resurrection. If Jesus had thrown Torah out the window, Peter would have known. Even if he had chosen to keep Levitical dietary requirements all that time through some sense of cultural obligation or because of personal preference, he would not have been shocked by the suggestion that he kill and eat animals which he knew are not food. But shocked he was. He had devoted his life to righteousness. Peter’s vision was never about food. It was about God employing a powerful metaphor to teach an unimaginable truth. That truth is that gentiles are eligible to be grafted into God’s people, Israel. We have no doubt that this is the point of the vision, because Peter interprets it for us. “God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.” (Acts 10:28b) You refer frequently to something you call “unclean food.” This is not a Biblical category. Meat that the Bible defines as “clean” is acceptable for food. ALL OTHER MEAT IS NOT FOOD! The debate in Romans 14 has nothing to do with eating unclean meat. That practice is labeled by Scripture as abomination. That’s the same word used to describe gross sexual perversion. If God has not changed His attitude toward sexual perversion, then He has certainly not changed His attitude toward other abominations. If He has changed His mind about any truth stated in Torah, then He is a liar, and our hope of salvation is in vain. The debate in Romans 14 is about whether believers can eat clean meat which was slaughtered in a pagan worship ritual. It has nothing to do with ham sandwiches or shrimp cocktail or mouse fritters. You state several times that you are supporting you argument by referencing scripture. Then you make it clear that your understanding of the “commandments” came from Rabbinic Judaism. You go on to make several false claims regarding Deuteronomy 32:38 and Deuteronomy 14:21. Neither verse says that some ritual slaughter is required before Israelites can eat meat. The requirements for slaughter given in Leviticus are that the blood must be drained and poured on the ground and that Israelites should not eat the layer of fat which covers most vital organs. Deuteronomy 14:21 says that Israelites should not eat an animal that dies on its own. Neither verse you reference prohibits eating meat slaughtered with “improper intentions.” Requirements you claim are scriptural are instead taken from the Mishna or the Talmud. If you are going to claim that you are quoting scripture, you should probably read the referenced passage. Your entire presentation is “fishy.” Do you really think that Paul taught the Noble Bereans that they were to start eating cat and rat and skunk? Do you think he taught that Sabbath had become optional? Exodus 31:13 says, “Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths.” Jesus expects His followers to be keeping Sabbath when end time events are in full swing. “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.” (Matthew 24:20) Do you think the Bereans gave Paul a pass on these matters because they were reading with modern misunderstanding the Book of Galatians? How could they since it did not exist? They were testing his teaching against Torah. If he had been leading them astray from Torah, they would have cited Deuteronomy 13 while they stoned him. Unlike the Church, the Bereans were familiar with the glorious series of Messianic prophesies which make up Isaiah 65 and 66. These chapters are about the second coming. Isaiah 65:1-7 tells what will happen to people whom Messiah returns to find “eat(ing) pig’s flesh, and broth of tainted meat is in their vessels.” Isaiah 66:17 says, “(Those) eating pig’s flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD.” Your “replacement theology” myth ignores the fact that God never promises to redeem anyone other than His people Israel. Since Moses, Israel has always been required to keep torah. This requirement has nothing to do with earning salvation. It has everything to do with demonstrating to God that we understand what it means to accept salvation by grace through faith. “If you love me, keep my commandments.” says Jesus. (John 14:15) “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:3-4) Torah defines sin and it defines righteousness. Those two practices are incompatible. Torah is God’s instructions for how “saved” people should live. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.” Paul claims that he never taught or lived in such a way as to contradict Torah. Acts 28:17 says, “After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them, “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.” Acts 25:8 says, “Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.” In all times and circumstances, in spite of massive modern misunderstanding of his teaching, Paul never contradicted Jesus. “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. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes 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 does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20) You replacement theology people insist that Jesus said, “I did not come to abolish (the law and the prophets) but to do away with them.” That position is absurd. He came to show us how to keep the law and respect the prophets as one should. He did that by always following Torah. “Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.” (1 John 2:6) Like it or not, the Law and the Prophets will be in full force for as long as heaven and earth remain. Some of you folks have told me with a straight face that heaven and earth have already passed away. I never fail to ask those people what planet it is on which they are standing. You believe that God freed His people from slavery in Egypt only to immediately place them under a different form of slavery. Keeping Torah is not a burden. King David said that Torah is joy and light and freedom and protection. It is all those things and more because it is the mechanism God has chosen to show His children how He wants us to live. It is failing to keep Torah that results in burden. That failure is defined by 1 John 3:4 as sin. Through His perfect sacrifice, Jesus grants forgiveness for our sin by grace through faith. Your “doctrine” teaches we are saved so that we can continue to sin but now with impunity. I cannot imagine attempting to justify that teaching while standing before the Great Throne of Judgment. Many modern Christians use Matthew 5:20 to argue that keeping Torah is impossible. “No one could be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees,” they tell me. I argue that being more righteous than those guys is easy as pie. All one has to do is read the Bible and do what it says. God did not view most First Century Jewish leaders as righteous. What they followed so religiously was not Scripture. It was manmade doctrine. Isn’t if fascinating that the bulk of what the Church currently believes and teaches-including this video-is merely a different accumulation of manmade doctrine? I encourage everyone who reads these comments to forget what they have been taught, pick up the Bible, and read it through from page one. That’s the only way to know what God says. Trusting well intended but misinformed teachers of “doctrine” will not prepare anyone to live or to die. In the words of 119 Ministries, I challenge you to test everything. Be especially wary of what I say.

[@rayray4192]

No one reads long posts. You want to be a Jew- I get it. You are going to eternal hell as a wannabe Jew

[@pipinfresh]

I have an issue with the meat sacrificed to idols debate. It seems Paul says it's okay to eat meat offered to idols yet in Revelation 2:20 Jesus says that jezebel deceives others to eat meat sacrificed to idols. But I have this against you: You tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and teaches and deceives my servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Revelation 2:20 Also in Acts 15:29 gentiles are told not to eat meat sacrificed to idols. that you abstain from food offered to idols, from blood, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. You will do well if you keep yourselves from these things. Farewell.” Acts 15:29 So, my issue is how do we reconcile these two verses with what Paul says. Is Paul wrong or am I missing something?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

That's a great question, Pip! I had not considered that tension before. I will have to look into it further. 1 Corinthians 8 is another place where food sacrificed to idols is discussed. It adds some additional data to the topic. Shalom, Rob

[@pipinfresh]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Thanks for replying. This is something that has bugged me for quite some time, so any help would be appreciated. God bless.

[@howardbabcom]

Dangerous stuff indeed! It really reveals that the manner of the Galatian heresy is still alive and well 2,000 years on.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

So true. Thanks, Howard!

[@ToOpen6seven]

Amen!! What I find with this deceptive and false teaching is how it takes away love, intimacy and fellowship with the Father, through His Holy son, Jesus Christ. It takes away the love and power and convicting power of the Word of God (kjv) which ALONE is all we need for sound doctrine, faith and practice. This teaching put more on man's effort, pride and and false spiritual superiority then in trusting the Lord Jesus Christ and His word on the cross to reconcile mankind back unto the father. Your admonition about Christians (around the 11:24 min mark) about spending time in the Holy Word of God as the BEST defense against false teaching is PRICELESS and should be heeded by every single Christian on this planet!! 2 Corinthians 5:19 kjv “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” Galatians 1:6-8 kjv 6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

[@scottandchels6813]

Since when have God's laws been a matter of opinion? Where in the Bible does it say that a person can come along and change God's laws and say "It doesn't matter what you eat or drink or about certain days." Jesus didn't start a new religion and neither did Paul.

[@rayray4192]

Wow, you are dazed and confused. Christianity is a completely different religion than Judaism. Pentecost changed everything. The gift of the Holy Spirit was a revolutionary event. You asked in ignorance where in the Bible is a new religion taught. Here ya go heretic:” If perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood ( for through it the people received the law) [ that would be Hebrew people heretic], what need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed to law is necessarily changed.” That’s from memory so check me. It’s Hebrews 7:11-12. Jesus absolutely established a new and better covenant based upon better promises, and was a better high priest as a king, and established a new and better law. What, are you stupid, or something! You can call it a new religion if you like. Redeemed saints call it the new covenant. You are dazed and confused by a three letter word and the concept the word represents- “ New.”

[@lauratempestini5719]

Problems with Paul: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jIjXZWeFgNyDi8ksi=UB4VRNs5WjKUaYyw

[@Angie-fn8op]

Food was defined 4 times in scripture, the last being John 6:55.

[@beckyfrechette4439]

So, 119 Ministries is who sucked me into Torah observance. It all started with a meme. Yes, a meme. A meme about the “pagan”ness of Easter. I watched their series called “Sunburned”, which they’ve since taken down, and in THAT series, they mentioned their Pauline Paradox series. So guess what I watched next? Yep! I was hooked. Im out of the movement now, thankfully, but 119 was a huge part of my indoctrination. They are VERY manipulative in their style of teaching, I see that now looking back. Looking forward to watching this critique!

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thank you for sharing your story, Becky! I'm happy to hear you're out of the movement now. And, yes, sadly, 119 is a big influencer in this. We have a bunch of videos that address their teachings. Here's a playlist of them: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jobOp55ph9uKp7s Blessings, Rob

[@rayray4192]

May I ask what interested you? My guess is you wanted to be obedient to God. I enjoy Christmas and sunrise Easter service. They are wonderful celebrations of Christ. Paul warns the church to be on the lookout for manipulating dogs and evil doers. I see them- they are evil doers.

[@nickylouse2]

Do you prefer Easter over Firstfruits? Do you prefer manmade traditions over commandments of God? just asking - not condemning. There was already a God-given holiday for memorializing the resurrection. It comes on the first of the week during the Passover week. Was that not when He was resurrected? Was there a need for the Roman Catholic Church to change the moedim (appointed times)? Or was it simply because they detested everything "Jewish"?

[@rayray4192]

@@nickylouse2 The boogie man Catholic Church. New covenant new creations in Christ have never been under Mosaic laws or obligated to honor Jewish feasts. The feasts were shadows of the much better things to come. Why would a Christian play wannabe Jew games?

[@rayray4192]

@@nickylouse2 Jesus is the first fruit. The Body of Christ has Jesus. No need for the shadow ritual feast.

[@stevenvanvuuren8394]

Oh wise man you need so much help But anyone who believes the ten commandments Jesus recited with His own lips is abolished is too far gone into idiocy its near impossible for someone with that level of bad discernment

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

You know what's interesting, Steven? Did Jesus never commanded anyone to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, nor to do no work on the Sabbath. Rob

[@stevenvanvuuren8394]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Rob Jesus is not stupid ok Listen and understand something VERY CLEARLY JESUS WAS TALKING TO JEWS WHO WERE RAISED THIER WHOLE LIFE IN THIS SO WHEN JESUS SAID "THE LAW" THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE JEW WHO ASKED UMM WHICH LAW OK THE LAW HAS ALWAYS BEEN A NO BRAINER TO ANY JEW ITS MOSES LAW ...OFCOARSE ( ITS NOT THE MODERN MADE UP EXCUSES OF NAMING DIFFERANT TYPES OF LAW SO USE THAT BRAIN AND REALISE WHEN JESUS SAID COMMANDMENTS THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF HIS AUDIENCE WHO DIDNT KNOW EXACTLY SO JESUS SAYING KEEP THE LAW WAS JESUS SAYING KEEP ALL THE LAW INCLUDING THE SABBATH THERE WAS NO NEED TO EXPLAIN OR DEVIDE LAWS THE LAW ALWAYS REFERRED TO MOSES WHOLE LAW TO EVERYONE ACCEPT THE FOOLS TODAY WHO NEED EXCUSES FURTHER MORE JESUS SAYING NOT EVEN A LETTER OF LAW PASSES ...NOT EVEN A BRAINLESS JEW WOULD WONDER IF SABBATH WAS INCLUDED ....THIS WHOLE THINKING IS SUPER STUPID TO ASSUME THE JEWS BRAUGHT UP IN THE LAW DIDNT HAVE A CLUE WHICH JESUS WAS REFERING TO SO WAKE UP THERE WAS ONLY ONE LAW SO THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT WHICH JESUS WAS REFERING IF YOU STILL WANT GOD TO KEEP MAKING THE LEARNED IDIOTS ...THEN TAKE ALL YOUR MADE UP NAMES OF DIFFERANT TYPES OF LAW AND READ PSALM 119 WHICH STILL WILL TELL YOU FOLLOW EVERY KIND OF LAW ! FURTHER MORE JESUS ACTUALLY GOT SPECIFIC BY RECITING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ....AND OFCOARSE SABBATH IS PART OF THOSE SO YES EVEN HALF A BRAIN WOULD KNOW JESUS DID SAY KEEP SABBATH AND KNOW THAT JESUS SAID FOLLOW THE LAW COS THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW OF GOD FOR THE LAST 5000 YRS STOP BEING STUPID OK NO JEW WOULD NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD WHICH LAW !!!!! ITS RIDICULOUS ! JESUS KNEW WHICH LAWS HE WAS REFERRING TO AND SO DID EVERY SINGLE JEW ONLY TODAYS FOOLS CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS OBVIOUS FACT ! COS THEY SO NEED EXCUSES

[@stevenvanvuuren8394]

@@TheBiblicalRoots so short answer yes Jesus said to see eternal life AND JUST FOR IDIOTS WHO MIGHT GET IT WRONG HE STARTED RECITING WHICH OK .... GOT IT ? THINKING ANY JEW WAS CONFUSED ABOUT WHICH JESUS WAS RECITING IS PLAIN STUPID IGNORANCE !

[@stevenvanvuuren8394]

@@TheBiblicalRoots honestly rob Please your own sake come and have a little chat with me You are smart and we need you but you have been totally deceived to utter madness and stupidity I can.help you if you willing to obey Jesus and check Your doctrine is opposite of what God and Jesus said and taught ...and how you got there was by believing paul who says he found Jesus in the desert .....thats the moment when you denied Jesus as truth and were left to fully believe the delusion It happened to you because in that moment you did not believe in Jesus Humble yourself and there is a way back ok .....its still all the truth right there The truth has not vanished cos a lie was accepted ...truth is still there for any who seek

[@stevenvanvuuren8394]

@@TheBiblicalRoots tell me if i disprove and crush one of your main core beliefs in mere seconds and by scripture and multiple reliable witnesses ...would you accept it ? Atleast enough to humble yourself and check ? Consider how smart you are actually being Rob For thousands of years every single holy man prophet and disciple preached and held to the 10 commandments You sir believe the ONLY ONE EVER TO TRY ABOLISH THEM. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE WISE FOR DISREGARDING HUNDREDS OF RELIABLE WITNESSES AND FOLLOWING A SINGLE PHARISEE ? DO YOU THINK.THATS A GOOD JUDGE OR WISDOM ?. 1000s said keep 1 said dont Guess how good your judgement is wise man Which did you pick and which did you disregard ? 1000s must be wrong so that you can believe 1 ? Reconsider the stupidity of that

[@SG-jv5zi]

Would you rather error on people keeping too much of God's LAw or teaching people to disregard too much of God's Law??? The lawless will be destroyed

[@cbonhomme1]

Thanks. This clarifies a lot of these concepts.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks, Clara! I'm glad the video was helpful for you.

[@jeremiahmcquiston7401]

Check there verses he provides saying it is unlawful to eat meat not sacrificed correctly or to a false god. Read the verses then ask yourself, did God command is NOT to eat animals as the KZbinr claims.

[@cameronstolhand7149]

No, it doesn't. If you were to read 1st Corinthians 8 you would see his clear error in his interpretation of Romans 14 and that's just the iceberg. But if you were to use the Biblical context of 1 Corinthians 8 to understand the context of Romans 14 that would be using the Bible to interpret itself and if we did that none of us would be able to eat pork LOL.

[@othnielbendavid9777]

Great exposure of false teaching. Thank you.

[@Kozmo-Kamuy]

Did you test it yourself or are going to just believe what everyone tells you

[@timbeauxclary]

Love it, Rob! Excellent job as always. Still want you to do a video on 119's parable of the wineskins teaching...

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks, Timbeaux! I have actually downloaded their Garments and Wineskins teaching and have it on my to-do list.

[@pjoshboyd]

Keep on keepin' on, bro. This is all great stuff and super important. Grace & Peace

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thank you, Josh!

[@cameronstolhand7149]

Read 1 Corinthians 8 and then tell me if you still think so highly of his interpretation of Romans 14

[@torahtimes5380]

The context for fasting is in vs 6, which explains what is happening on the days mentioned in vs. 5, and not in vs. 3 as you stated in this video. Vs. 6 is clearly interpreting the nature of the days in vs. 5.

[@ChrisC-sv3rl]

I've watched several Psalm 119 videos. You're right and keep up the good work. Don't let the angry weaker brothers shout you down. People pointing out the drinks are desperate to try and hurt you. You are doing a great work against deceit.

[@energizer7354]

This interpretation of romans 14 is certainly distressing… here is one thing I just thought of, Jesus gave us the great commission. Go into all the world, Paul and the apostles wrote letters to new believers both Jewish and Gentiles as well as a mix of both. Why would the Holy Spirit not be clear when inspiring these works for new believers to understand. I highly doubt a new believer who only has the bible and not anyone else to coach them would come to the conclusion that the passage is talking about fasting. Its almost as if the Hebrew roots (and perhaps unawares) don’t believe that scripture was written in a way that would be for people 2000 year later but only for those of that time that only those people would fully get. As i have met and discussed at length with some one who shares many of the beliefs with Hebrews roots the biggest take away I have is that there is a reliance on their own wisdom and intellectual reason

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks, Energizer! I, too, highly doubt a new believer who read this passage would come to the conclusion it's talking about fasting. Shalom, Rob

[@cameronstolhand7149]

But doesn't 1st Corinthians 8 which was also written by Apostle Paul set the context for Romans 14 which is also written by Apostle Paul and prove that 119 Ministries interpretation of Romans 14 is correct?

[@steve-in-georgia]

I appreciate your knowledge and insightful presentations. However, I respectfully disagree with one point. In Romans 14, Paul does not expect Christians to remain weak in the faith and beholden to any aspect of the law, which he has stated they are dead to in Romans 7. It is incompatible with the true Gospel to be dead to the law and yet remain forever joined to it. To illustrate, it's like a person who marries again after the death of their spouse but remains perpetually in mourning over their former spouse. Such behavior would be inappropriate. Similarly, Christians who have entered into a new covenant with Christ should not mourn over the old covenant and its laws, but instead embrace the new life they have received in Christ. Although there may be a transitional period where they are weak, like a reasonable mourning period, it should not be permanent. They should not always cling to the old ways of the law that they are dead to and that are dead to them, but live in the freedom that Christ has given them. Paul's ultimate goal is to help all believers grow in their faith to be strong, becoming fully convinced of the truth of the Gospel, which sets them free from the requirements of the law, such as dietary laws and the observance of festivals, new moons or Sabbath days that they are now dead to. Therefore, the phrase "permitted but not required" without qualification does not convey the proper sense, and is misleading.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Well said, Steve! That's a great point. It brings to mind Paul's letter to the Corinthians where he says, "But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh" (1 Cor 3:1-3). Paul's ultimate goal was to grow believers to the point that they were ready for "solid food." Blessings, Rob

[@steve-in-georgia]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Hello Rob, I appreciate your acknowledgement and agreement. Yes, the passage you cite is a good one that is conveying a similar sense. I have begun to encounter some of this, apparently ‘Hebrew Roots’ ideology that entails believers engaging in observance of festival days, etc. You are a very knowledgeable and gifted speaker and I think you have and will continue to play a big role in combating these errors. I believe this is a major point in the discussion that needs to be precise. If you will indulge me, I’ve revised and written out a few more thoughts in expressing this: The Necessity of Dying to the Law in order to be Joined to Christ's New Covenant In Romans 14, Paul does not expect or encourage Christians to remain weak in the faith by feeling obligated to the law, as he has stated in Romans 7 that they are dead to it. It goes against the essence of the Gospel message to consider oneself dead to the law, yet still bound to it indefinitely. Attempting to be partially dead to the law, while remaining alive to it in certain aspects and being united with Christ, is not a viable, sustainable or tenable approach. To illustrate, it's like a person who marries again after the death of their spouse but remains perpetually in mourning over their former spouse. Such behavior would not be appropriate. Similarly, believers who have entered into a new covenant with Christ should not forever mourn over the old covenant and its laws, but instead embrace the new life they have received in Christ. Although there may be a transitional period where they are weak, like a reasonable mourning period, it should not be permanent. They should not always cling to the old ways of the law that they are now dead to and that are dead to them, but live in the freedom that Christ has given them. It has been said keeping the law of Moses is "permitted but not required," but without qualification that does not convey the proper sense. Paul's ultimate goal is that all believers grow strong in their faith, becoming fully convinced (like himself) of the truth of the Gospel, which sets them free from the requirements and practices of the Mosaic law, such as dietary laws and the observance of festivals, new moons and Sabbath days. Gentiles as a people were never obligated to the tenets of the covenant between God and Israel and for Gentile believers to attempt to observe the law of Moses as to obedience or otherwise is definitely misguided. Any movements promoting such observance must be met with a firm rejection. All believers (Jews and Gentiles) are now under the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21, Galatians 6:2), which includes the principles of the moral law that predates the covenant with Israel, as well as the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament. The Law, which purpose was fulfilled in Christ, no longer binds believers. As inheritors of the promises of Abraham, they are justified by faith. The Law was a temporary measure for Israel that pointed to Christ and serves as an example, but it is no longer necessary or in effect in its judicial form. As a result, It is of utmost importance and in accordance with God's will for all believers to mature and let go of all forms of Mosaic Law observance, as they are now under a new and better covenant (Hebrews 8:6). God Bless, Steve

[@steve-in-georgia]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Accept the man, not the movement “..the one who is weak in faith, welcome him..” (Romans 14:1) In Romans 14, Paul advocates for acceptance, patience, and understanding towards believers (i.e., "the one") whom he recognizes as struggling in faith to fully grasp the freedom and grace of the new covenant in Christ. However, he does not suggest continued adherence to the Mosaic Law as a way of life, nor does he imagine the formation or acceptance of a movement within the church that advocates such practices. This would result in a split-path (divided) church with one group observing the law and the other not, causing confusion and going against the purpose of the Gospel message of Christ, wherein one is no longer under the law. In other words, there is nothing beyond a temporal forbearance toward those weak in the faith intended in the text of Romans 14. Paul is not providing that believers at their own discretion can mingle the old and new covenants as a permanent path forward. That would go against the very principles of the new covenant and undermine its necessity. As with the situation he addresses in 1 Corinthians 3, Paul expects maturity to come. Christ taught that God's law should focus on the inner attitudes and motivations, such as love, fulfilling the spirit of the law (or the law of Christ), rather than on outward rituals. The shadow gives way to the substance (Colossians 2:16-17). Paul desires that all believers come to this realization.

[@steve-in-georgia]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Rob please consider: The Incompatibility of Being "Permitted to Keep the Law" but "Not Required to Keep the Law" The idea that believers are "permitted but not required" to adhere to the Law of Moses contradicts the fundamental nature and objective of law. A law, by definition, is a rule or principle that carries with it the weight of obligation and consequence, and being subject to it means that one is required to follow it, rather than simply being permitted to do so. In other words, to be subject to a law is to be required to follow it, while the idea of being permitted to follow it implies that it is optional or discretionary, which undermines the purpose and essence of law. Furthermore, the Law of Moses, as given in the Old Testament, was specifically given to the Israelites as a covenant between them and God, it was never intended as a universal set of laws that all people must follow. So while one might correctly argue that Christians are not required to follow the specific prescriptions of the Law of Moses, it is not accurate to say that they are "permitted" to do so, as though it were solely a matter of personal choice. Rather, the Law of Moses has been fulfilled and superseded by the new covenant in Christ, and Christians are called to follow the teachings and example of Jesus and the apostles, as guided by the Holy Spirit, and are not to be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

[@eddykopay397]

i think this guy is still tipsy from drinking all those bottles behind him. The errors are all on you brother

[@torahtimes5380]

By deductive reasoning "shared defilement OR unclean" is two categories. Yes OR can give a synonym, but that is an assumption. It may also separate alternatives.

[@brandonlake9754]

The idea of 613 commandments is based of a gematria in the Talmud. Further more it seems you’re taking rabbinic Judaism’s view of scripture verses to come up with what is prohibited rather than what the text actually says in context is prohibited. The law of Moses in context is not interchangeable with the Rabbis interpretation there of.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Distinction noted. Rob

[@idalyhidalgo3087]

Brother Rob, again Ishmael aka Ish here. Good stuff man. Just a few min ago my friend asked me in my FB page, (("Question? Does the Bible tell us what God considers food?)) Is it a trivia question? Cause I know when this people ask questions they already have an answer in their heart.. Should I just sent them this? Tnks again my brother.. Blessings

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hi, Ishmael. The Bible does not tell us what God's definition of "food" is, but it does tell what things He says we should eat. And that changes over time. * In the Garden, it was a vegetarian diet. “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food" (Gen 1:9). * With Noah, it was all food. God said, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything" (Gen 9:3). * With Moses, there were many restrictions given in the kosher food laws (Lev 11). * Under Jesus, all foods are now approved to eat (Mark 7:19). This is another great example of how the Law of God does not change, yet He expresses it to us differently at different times. This is the idea I talk about in this video: *Understanding the Law of God through the P&E Framework* kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6LTlIlmdqyDhq8

[@cameronstolhand7149]

God's definition of food is found in Leviticus 11. If you follow this guy's teachings the top of your shelf will end up looking like his.

[@andreabarboza4167]

@@cameronstolhand7149 Sorry, I did not see any definition of food in Lev 11 😑

[@cameronstolhand7149]

@@andreabarboza4167 New Living Translation Leviticus 11:2 “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel. “Of all the land animals, these are the ones you may use for food." Leviticus 11:9 "Of all the marine animals, these are ones you may use for food."

[@robe.1084]

I love how this guy throws on a tie and a sweater to give perception of some level of scholarship, but leaves the plethora of empty alcohol bottles above his book shelf. The idea that Paul is somehow greater than God or what he stated in the Old Testament is more dangerous than not eating the things YHWH himself described as unclean. Even if Paul did make these claims in the way you are interpreting them, they don’t trump YHWHs. They were men, Judas betrayed God, Peter denied him, and in Acts they clearly argued about the way ahead of the church I.e. circumcision, drinking blood, etc. There is no account that Jesus or his Apostles broke Torah, or ate unclean food. Folks that do it are doing so because they want to. Which I don’t have an issue with, just stop trying to use the Bible to justify it when it is clearly stated otherwise. Either way, whether you keep Torah or don’t, it’s not an issue of salvation, which is free through Christ, just an issue of obedience and the outward expression of love for YHWH.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks, Rob! I appreciate you weighing in on this video. I actually don't view Paul (or any mortal) as greater than God. But I do believe Paul was writing under the _inspiration_ of God. So the epistles he wrote are every bit as much Holy Scripture as the Torah. The Law of Moses is absolutely holy, righteous, and good (Rom 7:12), but it was never intended to last forever (Gal 3:24-25).

[@robe.1084]

@@TheBiblicalRoots I agree. It is not intended to last forever. Deuteronomy 30:19, God calls heaven and earth as witnesses to the covenant. Which is why Yeshua states what he does in Matthew 5:18, says nothing will perish from the law until heaven and earth pass away. Then read revelation 21:1-3. Heaven and earth pass away and at that time the covenant is done and all is accomplished. This hasn’t happened yet, therefore the Law is still in place. You seem educated and I assume you love God, why would you lead folks away from the truth? Jesus says that those who teach against the law will be called the least in heaven Matthew 5:9. Clear as day and would have been the perfect opportunity for God to say the law was old news, but he states the opposite. It baffles me how Christians can’t figure this out. Is bacon really that good?? Lol

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

@@robe.1084 Hey, Rob. That’s a pretty interesting perspective. I’m curious what you make of Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25, which say that the New Covenant was in Jesus’ blood. And Heb 8:13, which indicates that the Old Covenant has ended.

[@robe.1084]

Luke 22:20 mentions nothing about the Law, he simply giving them a new command on how to do Passover in remembrance of him. Hebrews is Not doing away with the Law, only the ritual sacrifices that were done to take away sins, as Christ became the perfect sacrifice. We no longer require the annual animal sacrifices to cleanse sin. Sin- still exists, which by definition is transgression of the law. Also, God states that he will put his laws in our minds and write them on our hearts. This means that when we accept Christ, we have the ability to learn from the Holy Spirit and should have a heart and mind that leans toward doing the will of God to include following Torah. One thing people seem to not understand is that most of Paul’s writings were letters. He was addressing specific situations that were occurring in the early churches he established. Without knowing what he knew, trying to apply context is almost impossible because we only have the response, not the whole issue he is addressing. This leads to a lot of conjecture, that is baseless and often self serving. I challenge you to find any other writer in scripture that makes your case for Torah being done away with. There is a reason Peter gave his warning in 2 Peter 3:16-17. But I digress, I’ve had these conversations many times and always ends with folks choosing to interpret scripture in whatever manner pleases them the most. Hosea 4:6

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

@@robe.1084 Thanks, Rob! I appreciate you dialoguing with me on this. I actually do not believe or teach that the Torah was done away with. Rather, I believe the Law of Moses (as distinct from the Torah) was only given for a time and has been fulfilled by Jesus. However, in my previous comment, I wasn’t asking you about the Law, but rather the New Covenant. You indicated you believe that the Sinai covenant will not end until heaven and earth pass away (Rev 21:1-3). And I was wondering what you make of Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, and Heb 8:13 with respect to the Sinai Covenant ending and the New Covenant beginning. Do you believe we are under the New Covenant now?

[@nickylouse2]

Why does verse 2 mention vegetables at all? There was never any prohibition on the eating of any vegetables. In Romans 14:21, it says that it is good not to eat meat FOR THE SAKE OF THE WEAKER BROTHER who deems meat as that which should not be eaten. There is no prohibition against eating meat. Since there is no prohibition in the Bible about eating meat, this is a matter of being humble towards the person who mistakenly thinks there is. It also refers to the drinking of wine. There is no prohibition about drinking wine (except to drunkenness), but apparently there were those who thought that drinking wine was wrong. This is not an argument about which animals may be eaten. Your argument uses eisegesis because you have a bias about being able to eat whatever you want.

[@randommedia2787]

Bob you need to dig deeper in your study. The argument was between eating vegetables ONLY vs eating meat. Paul is addressing the problem of Jewish Kabbalist. Study more.

[@faustinodejesuszamoravarga1002]

Read the book again. I doubt that you've read it.

[@kandacarr1776]

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Y’all need to stop listening to the opinions of this man who is getting his opinions from Jewish traditions, do you want to be taught by Jewish opinion or by the Word of God? Remember Jesus rebuked the Jewish religion(made up by pharasees) Stop placing your faith in man! Read the scripture for yourself if you want to know the truth! Start in Genesis! The law of God is all about respecting other people and God and how to love other people and God!!!!! It also teaches how to reconcile through restitution when you accidentally or ignorantly trespass against others. What is so hard about giving up pork and shellfish. I don’t get it? Is your God your belly? Do you guys love disgusting animals filled with toxins more than the creator?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hi, Kanda. You said, "Stop placing your faith in man! Read the scripture for yourself if you want to know the truth!" And to that, I say "Amen!" ~Rob

[@cameronstolhand7149]

Excellent point. If we were to use the Bible to interpret Romans 14 I would use 1 Corinthians 8 which completely demolishes his eisegesis interpretation.

[@cameronstolhand7149]

@@TheBiblicalRoots why don't you go read 1 Corinthians 8 and then publicly apologize to 119 Ministries for slandering them and admit your error.

[@torahtimes5380]

The line between weak and strong does not divide on racial lines. Both Jews and non-Jews were found in both categories, and that is still the case today, because conscience does not stay in racial boundaries. So the argument that the weak were Jews who still wanted to follow Torah is nonsense.

[@torahtimes5380]

Rom 14.14 "nothing shares defilement of itself" meaning that accidental consumption does not defile the heart, but only the heart of the person who takes note that something is defiling. Paul did not say "nothing is unclean" akatharos. The Greek word is different and also qualified by "of itself" meaning unintentional.

[@mpdebate6239]

Can you make videos on Unlearn the Lies next?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Here’s one I made recently on an Unlearn The Lies teaching: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnnYnJSto8mlfZY

[@mpdebate6239]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Yes I watched it last night and liked it but id like to see many more because the hebrew roots says a lot of stuff that leaves me torn... Also, can you do a video in Matthew 5:17-20? Hebrew roots teachers use this a lot and it does seem pretty cut throat. Jesus saying the law is still in effect until heaven and earth pass away not until he dies on the cross like most Christians argue... Also he even said whoever teaches and keeps the commandments will be called the greatest im heaven... Id love a video in this passage brother, thank you for your videos, very helpful and the first person to give me satisfying answers on the topic of whether or not observing Torah and mosaic law is required

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

@@mpdebate6239 Thanks, MP! I am actually doing some deep-dive research on Matt 5:17-20. It's a complex passage! In the meantime, remember that whatever Jesus meant in that passage will not contradict what the rest of the NT teaches. So other more clear teachings regarding the Law and Jesus being our new high priest and things being done away with (such as the old covenant (Heb 8:13)) will still stand. Blessings, Rob

[@mpdebate6239]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Wonderful, I subscribed and I cant wait to see your findings. You're a blessing brother, may the Father bless you💕✝️

[@MinisterRedPill]

@@mpdebate6239 Why are you seeking to find information that goes contrary to the scriptures? Why are you seeking validation within the lies of the broad path that leads to destruction?

[@080566fm]

The question is, what is considered food, is lion meat food?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

I agree that God alone determines what is food for man, Farai! And in Scripture, we see His definition of food change over time as His people evolve. For example, in the Garden, Yahweh prescribed a vegetarian diet (Gen 1:29-30). Then after the flood, Yahweh told Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (Gen 9:3). And centuries after that, under the Sinai Covenant, Yahweh’s list of allowed food changed from “everything” to a specific list of prohibited items (Lev 11). And finally, under the New Covenant, that list changed back to “everything” (Mark 7, Acts 10, Romans 14, etc.). Shalom, Rob

[@danielh4621]

What does Paul consider food? That would be the laws he followed. What is clean and unclean. The topic say what is food is not unclean. We have to define what he means by food.

[@mrbatmancom]

Once again I learned man so-called gets it wrong. Yah's laws are not a matter of opinion of man. The opinion being levied here is about fast days. Not Sabbath not clean or unclean but fasting days which the rabbis during this time dictated should be kept. Unfortunately different rabbis dictated different days. This is why it's a matter of opinion. Not that you fast we should do that, but what day you fast is up to you because that is the matter of opinion. The Perfect law of Yah is not open to us to say well in my opinion we don't need to do this. I call this being a buffet Christian, when you think you can pick and choose what laws you want to keep and throw out the ones you don't want to. Yah gives us specific instruction for our benefit. Y'all calls them blessings.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

"God's laws are not a matter of man's opinion"...Amen, Mr. Batman! Here are two interesting facts for you: 1. Fasting is not mentioned anywhere in the book of Romans. 2. The only fast day mentioned in the Torah is Yom Kippur (Lev 23:26-32). (It uses the phrase "afflict" or "deny" yourselves to refer to abstaining from food.) So even IF the discussion in Romans 14 was about which days of the week one should fast, they were not discussions about God's law but rather traditions. While I understand it is your opinion that Paul is discussing fast days, regular fasting was a tradition, not a matter of law, and the text of Romans does not agree with your opinion. Blessings, Rob

[@JoseGarza-n5b]

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. Although GOD says you can eat all things, I wouldn't recommend eating a poison dart frog or a ringed octopus (moving things), etc. I also believe that their is a blessing when you eat kosher.

[@johnbottonejr1483]

Hey Rob, my only question now is then why would there be such a craze in the Roman church about people only wanting to eat vegetables if there were no food restrictions? Does food sacrificed to idols at least play any part of what’s going on here?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hey, John! Those Paul referred to as the "weak in faith" did not believe or trust that all food was now allowed. They probably wanted to hedge their bets and only eat vegetables to make sure they were not breaking any laws, whether those were kosher laws or have to do with meat sacrificed to idols. (Although Paul does not discuss idols anywhere in this passage.) But if the week in faith stuck with vegetables, they would be safe either way. ~Rob

[@mandy7833]

My sister was taught by this movement to read the Jewish Bible translation. She always refers to it. They change every scripture that says law to Torah and it doesn’t compute. Do you have any education about this Jewish translation?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Do you know which Jewish translation she uses? Rob

[@cheryll137]

There's only two I'm aware of that I read from when I was in this movement, The Scriptures and The Complete Jewish Bible.

[@mandy7833]

Yes you are correct, it is the complete Jewish Bible

[@matthewbaker8039]

all bibles say the same .... and changing that word to law is no worse than the english word law anyways .....and its called the jewish bible so why wouldnt that ...its not a dishonest thing to do as translations dont realy work that way ... its about context ....and any one who wants to serve the Father over self and wants to follow Jesus of their flesh can read and study any translations and come to the same conclusion as your sister ..... love God ....Love HIS laws ....and biblical LOVE is doing !

[@dancingzolins6782]

​@matthewbaker8039 The CJB (Complete Jewish Bible) was the work of an individual, Dr. David Stern, a Jewish follower of Messiah Yeshua. Though I respect his version, it seems to often be more of a paraphrase than a translation. For example, Stern's 1 Cor 9:20 reads "That is, with Jews, what I did was put myself in the position of a Jew, in order to win Jews. With people in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah, I put myself in the position of someone under such legalism, in order to win those under this legalism, even though I myself am not in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah." Where many other versions say 'under the law', Stern's CJB says 'in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah'. IMHO, that changes the meaning too much.

[@StephenDowdy-y4g]

Peter was present when Jesus multiplied the fish and the bread..."common" food!

[@dianasaur2131]

I would love you to invite 119 ministries to a cordial examination of these passages together, in true biblical sense of coming to REASON together with in the scriptures. We're to follow Christ and what HE did and says...now He kept Kosher and Sabbaths and feasts etc. this isn't opinion this is God's way.

[@cameronstolhand7149]

It's quite obvious this guy has either never read First Corinthians 8 or he is purposely trying to deceive people. He has to be purposely trying to deceive people how can he be so daft?

[@heidiranger6106]

Jesus was born of a woman, born under the Law. To redeem those who were under the Law, why? Because Only HE could keep the righteousness of the Law because he is the Lawgiver. He Then DIED TO IT bringing what it had Prophecied concerning a Comming NEW Covenant (Jer 31:31-34) to Completion( Fulfillment) So he fulfilled the Old, Died to it, and Brought in the New, as the Old had given Witness. He allowed a time period of about 40 years for the Jews to receive the Apostle’s Testimony about The Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Book of Hebrews Explains that Jesus’s Priesthood(Order of Melchizedek) is according to another Tribe(Judah) which Moses spoke No law regarding a Priesthood or Laws under that tribe! Under that tribe NO MAN gave attendance at the Altar. So with the Change of the Priesthood the Law had to Change and it did. To the NEW COVENANT (Brit Hadasha) the old one Waxed old and Vanished away, (Hebrews Ch 8:10-13) when the Temple was destroyed by Titus and the 10th Roman Legion( Auxiliary troops) To go back to the Levitical law and Priesthood is to reject Christ and HIS SUPERIOR ONE! The Old Levitical Priesthood Requires Blood of Animals but Read ISAIAH Ch 66:3-4 This is the Very reason why the Antichrist will destroy their 3rd Temple that the Jews are planning to Rebuild and reinstitute the Levitical Priesthood BECAUSE THEY REJECT CHRIST and HIS PRIESTHOOD (Caps for emphasis not yelling) Jesus will only deliver them when they(The Jews) CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD YESHUA (JESUS THE MESSIAH AND LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD.) He already Did this! There is No longer ANY NEED FOR A LEVITICAL PRIEST TO OFFER SACRIFICES THAT CAN NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS) Therefore, they are no longer needed! Jesus is Lord, Priest and King, the Lion and the Lamb! I hope you will understand this. 🙏🙏🙏

[@tomteague4533]

KOINOS VS AKATHARTOS. BRO DID NOT PAY ATTENTION IN CLASS. BRO DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE ASSIGNMENT. PLEASE GO BACK AND TRY AGAIN.

[@karlcooke3197]

After listening to this, I stick to reading my Hebriac Roots Bible, Aramaic English new testament and the Scriptures.

[@cameronstolhand7149]

Read 1 Corinthians 8 and that will give you the Biblical context for Romans 14.

[@dahokage1043]

Lol

[@anthonymiller6081]

Maybe you could also go live in the Judean wilderness, collect some manna, and live like the Nation of Israel did while wandering in the wilderness then you'll really be in touch with the Hebrew Roots movement 😂

[@t-time1]

You tell your listeners to reference the Bible, but then you reference the Jewish virtual Library. Having a cursory glance at the list of Laws on the Jewish virtual library, this list is simply an interpretation of laws contained in Torah. If you are an honest scholar, you would reference Torah in it's intended context. I think you have some strong arguments, but you are displaying hypocrisy by doing exactly that which you accuse others of doing.

[@cameronstolhand7149]

A better word for his arguments is eisegesis. 1 Corinthians 8 gives the Biblical context for Romans 14 which is miles away from his context.

[@cornelisdevilliers4177]

When i listen to this review - it seems so credible - but searching scripture further , may bring some questions to this video presentation . Firstly - about eating meat offered to idols . Let's look what Yahusha ( Christ ) has to say about this matter . For context , He is not speaking to Jews - but the " church " But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality Revelation 2 : 14 For me this case is done and dusted - as confirmed by the Jerusalem council , which confirmed that not to eat meat sacrificed to idols . Acts 15 : 29 Secondly - where do we find , anywhere biblically , that the Sabbath has been replaced by Sunday . Nowhere ! This is the teaching of some new testament bishops like Ignatius of Antioch ( by the way - where believers were first called Christians .) Read some of his letters to the Magnesians , and see how they wanted to change the days of worship and that your bishop is the representitive between God and you - not Yahusha ( Christ ) . Only the RCC openly admits that they changed this observance day - not Paul as suggested by this video . When one futher investigates the believers Paul influenced , as mentioned in Acts For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. Acts 24:5 ESV Now search what the " church fathers " wrote about the Nazarenes - and see if you find them not observing the Sabbath or laws of God - through Moses . ( There were no laws of Moses anyway , or feastdays of the Jews - these were ALL from God - so God's laws .) They all were following God's laws - and if this was Paul's followers - how could he propogated liberty ?? Well maybe you want to show errors , or convince people that Paul gave Christians permission not to follow what God has ordained , but further study might give you new insight . In my humble view , Paul's teaching gets confused in that he was never against God's law - but rather that he wanted to emphasise that justification was no longer achieved by observance of the law , but through believe in Yahusha ( Christ ) alone . But does that mean i don't observe how God wants me to live ? Let's hear what Paul thought about it . What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Romans 6:15 ESV Shalom and God bless

[@Kozmo-Kamuy]

Test it yourself

[@TheBeginningOfWisdom]

Good stuff as always, Rob. The second and third errors are pretty glaring. I think the first error wasn’t the one you think, though I think there’s a related error there that you didn’t mention. I’ll talk about that at the end. You said that eating meat sacrificed to idols was forbidden in the law based on Deut. 32:38, Deut. 14:21, and Lev. 7:18. But these passages don’t teach that in context. “And He will say, ‘ Where are their gods, The rock in which they sought refuge? ‘ Who ate the fat of their sacrifices, And drank the wine of their drink offering? Let them rise up and help you, Let them be your hiding place! Deuteronomy 32:37-38 You can see, first, that there is no clear prohibition against eating the sacrifices, rather it is a question of who will do so. But if you read carefully, you can see God is talking about the false gods themselves. “Who are the fat of their sacrifices” is mocking the gods because they do nothing. They don’t eat. They don’t drink, they don’t help, they can’t hide you. This is then contrasted in the next few verses by talking about the power and active sovereignty of God. This is the only one of the three verses you mentioned that actually mentions idolatrous sacrifices, but let’s look at the others. “You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the alien who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to the Lord your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk. Deuteronomy 14:21 This you cited as forbidding eating any animal not ritually slaughtered, but it doesn’t mention that. The chapter as a whole is devoted to dietary, not sacrificial laws. All this is saying is that Israelites can only eat animals they actually slaughtered themselves, not what is found dead. Nothing here necessarily relates to sacrifices. Whether for sacrifice or not, they could only eat what they killed, not what they found. This verse does another job, though. It proves false the argument that Hebrew Roots folks use from texts that say there is “one law for the native born and the foreigner among you” to the conclusion that all the law applies to everyone in and out of Israel. This law flatly contradicts that argument. The foreigner in Israel was allowed to eat the carcass found dead, while the Israelite was not. No way around that. ‘Now as for the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offerings, it shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it over until morning. But if the sacrifice of his offering is a votive or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice, and on the next day what is left of it may be eaten; but what is left over from the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burned with fire. So if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings should ever be eaten on the third day, he who offers it will not be accepted, and it will not be reckoned to his benefit. It shall be an offensive thing, and the person who eats of it will bear his own iniquity. Leviticus 7:15-18 I added some context for this one as well. You mentioned this being about improper intentions, but I don’t see that in the text. It only speaks of some offerings being able to be eaten only the day of the sacrifice, while the freewill offering may be eaten the second day, but not on the third. Violation of that is what verse 18 is about. And of course, this text concerns Levitical, not idolatrous, sacrifices, so it doesn’t establish anything related to eating what was sacrificed to idols. What you’ve definitely got right is that Paul is certainly talking about eating or not eating being related to the Law. He makes that clear when he says later in the passage that “all things are clean”. And I think 119 is probably right to think that the reference to eating “only vegetables” was probably because they were concerned in their conscience with possibly eating something unclean because unclean animals might be part of pagan sacrifices, or that something about the sacrifices themselves might have rendered the meat unclean. But here’s where they have messed up. Really, eating meat that was at some point part of idol worship is not forbidden in the Torah, just the worship itself. It seems that 119’s argument depends on this. It has to be something not forbidden in the Law to be a simple matter of conscience for them. But if they say that… Then they cannot argue that the four recommendations in Acts 15 are “starter law”. Avoiding eating meat sacrificed to idols is not found specifically commanded in the Law. Something not commanded in the Law cannot serve as the starting point for keeping the whole Law. Incidentally, avoiding what is strangled, though likely a way to avoid blood, is also not found in the Law specifically. So 119 is caught in a dilemma. Either they’re right that Romans 14 is about meat sacrificed to idols and therefore they’re wrong about Acts 15, or they’re wrong about Romans 14 and it’s really about being able to eat any meat. And of course, they could be wrong about both. But best case is if they win, they lose. That’s what happens when you adopt a self-contradictory position.

[@iansmith9474]

I agree with you and Mr. Solberg that Romans 14 is not addressing meat sacrificed to Idols. However, you are incorrect about the issue not legitimately existing as a command in the Torah. The two most prominent Jewish approaches to codifying the 613 is the "Sefer HaMitzvos" by the Rambam (1138 - 1204), and the "Sefer HaMitzvos Hakatzar" by Chafetz Hayim (1838-1903). In both systems, Exodus 34 is used to justify making the the prohibition against eating meats sacrificed to idols a commandment: "Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst. You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, YOU EAT of his sacrifice, and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods." - Exodus 34:12-16 This commandment is discussed in the Talmudic tractate of Avodah Zarah (Idolatry) 29b-32a (500AD). It is also codified in the Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Deah 133. This is to say, there is absolute agreement - no question, among Jewish tradition/literature that Exodus 34:15 is listing a command. The understanding is that a command can be a command, even if the text does not explicitly preface the command with: "This is a command..." or "I command you to..." According to the text, it is obvious that God is implying the practice is wrong, and wanting Israel to avoid it. In addition, Deuteronomy 7:26 forbids deriving any benefit associated with idolatry and that Israel should utterly "detest" and abhor such things. Logically, this would apply to meat sacrificed as an act of worship to an idol.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

You are a brilliant man, Andrew! Thanks for these in-depth comments. Great point about how Rom 14 and Acts 15 together present a big problem for HRM. What's interesting about the Law of Moses is that Jews don't read the Torah the same way Christians do today. They see things in the text that we don't see. For example, the reason you can't get a cheeseburger in Israel is because Exodus 34:26 says, "You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.” Somehow the Jewish people understood that command to mean they shouldn't eat meat and cheese together. So first-century Jewish Christians in Rome would have considered meat sacrificed to an idol biblically unclean. (Modern Jews do to this day.) Jewish sources on the 613 show us how they're viewed. In what is today #203 of the 613, a law is derived from Deut. 32:38 that the Jews were "not to drink wine poured in service to idols" or in some Jewish sources it's expanded to "not to eat or drink anything offered as sacrifice to an idol." (More on that below.) And Deut 14:21 is interpreted as law #188, which is typically codified as "not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual slaughter." And law #393 is derived from Lev 7:18 as: "Not to eat from sacrifices offered with improper intentions." Rabbi Jack Abramowitz offers some modern Jewish insight on meat sacrificed to idols in an article at outorah.org/p/6012. He says: "The Torah cautions us in several places not to forge treaties with the idolatrous inhabitants of Canaan. One such warning is in verse 34:12-15. Here it gives a reason for this ban: if we get complacent with them, we’ll end up eating from their sacrifices, which we are not to do. We’ve already seen, in Mitzvah #26, that idolatry is prohibited. That’s a serious sin. Nothing could be a bigger metaphorical “slap in the face” to God than serving a false “god.” This is one more way in which we are warned off from getting anywhere near that trap. Accordingly, anything used in the worship of an idol, even something seemingly insignificant like water or salt, is prohibited for use. This mitzvah is elaborated upon in parshas Haazinu. Speaking of idols, the Torah says, “the fat of whose offerings they ate, they drank the wine of whose libations” (Deut. 32:38). We see that the Torah equates the meat of idolatrous offerings and the wine of idolatrous libations in this regard."

[@TheBeginningOfWisdom]

@@TheBiblicalRoots I figured that the interpretation of those texts came from the Jewish source you mentioned in the video. The thing is, as you know, modern Judaism often doesn’t reflect ancient Judaism. This is especially true when you look at messianic texts, where Jews up to the time of Christ saw them as messianic, but later Jews, wanting to distance from Christianity, attempted to reinterpret them. So we should be careful about leaning on the interpretation of Jews who reject Jesus and so have evolved interpretations apart from the guidance of the Spirit of truth. I don’t really think my interpretation of the texts is a “Christian” one as opposed to “Jewish” in any sense that we can derive from the texts themselves. I still hold that any genuine reference to eating pagan sacrifices in the OT always include participation in the rest of the idolatry. That wasn’t the issue in the NT church. There, it was clearly taught not to engage in idolatry, but eating the meat others used in idolatry was a matter of conscience, not a command. And of course, the dilemma for Hebrew Roots stands. If eating meat really was forbidden by the Torah, then they cannot get out of the Romans 14 teaching that it is no longer forbidden, as you said, and they are refuted. If I’m right and it really was always a matter of conscience, as 119 ministries is arguing, then it cannot function as the part of the law to start with in Acts 15, since it isn’t part of the law, and cannot function as a starting place to keep the Law.

[@indo3052]

Duet 14:21 is in reference to non believers. Not believers that are strangers solgourning with you serving god.

[@indo3052]

Yes not drinking blood is specifically talked about in the law it clearly states you are not to drink the blood for the life is in the blood. How can you say this instruction is not clearly in the law

[@torahtimes5380]

If 119 claimed that koinos only means "shared", then they are incorrect. The word means "sharing defilement" In Jewish traditional law, a meat normally regarded as clean, become common because it was prepared by a non-Jew or was associated with something that was actually unclean. Since the koinos food was clean food, its status as sharing defilement might be unrealized, in which case it does not of itself defile the consumer, because he does not intend it. But only the one who takes into account that defilement was shared with the clean food is sinning.

[@Benmelech]

“ no food that is unclean of itself” references animals that God declared to be clean. And as you well mentioned, animals sold in a pagan market place was not very well accepted, for reasons you mentioned. (Error on the side of righteousness, as well as better safe than sorry come to mind.)

[@julietgrant62]

I agree with 119 ministries. Food in the Bible is what God says it is. Verses 1 and 2 is talking about those who eat meat or vegetarians. 🤷🏽‍♀ I can't even go through the amount of thing you say wrong 🤦

[@jessebryant9233]

Can you give us just one specific example? Solberg addressed some of what you say here in the comment directly above yours...

[@terridickerson5294]

Agreed!!!

[@jessebryant9233]

Not one specific example then? Somehow I'm not surprised...