Parenthetically Speaking (Before We Are Saved From the Wrath To Come)

A Rood Awakening Tv ^ | 7 February 2014 | Michael Rood

[Errant]

Parenthetical clauses are used throughout scripture to explain how, why, when and where in close proximity to the main subject and verb.

Parentheses in the book of The Revelation explain cause and effect. They tie together the events that happen previously, to the events that transpire subsequently on the prophetic timeline. Unfortunately, parentheses, as a literary devise, come centuries after the actual parenthetical clauses so prevalent in both Hebrew and Greek linguistic constructions. Because of their late arrival into the English language, the parentheticals in the book of The Revelation have never been either deservedly researched or accurately articulated. Now, after more than 40 years in the making, The Chronological Gospels is complete with all of the extensive parenthetical clauses accurately assigned throughout the book of The Revelation.

Now, with its impending fulfillment looming large on the horizon, The Revelation can finally be understood with clarity and lived with integrity. This one feature (the parenthetical clauses in The Revelation) in The Chronological Gospels is worth one thousand times the price of the book itself.

Join Michael Rood for the first of the last four teachings on the very last book of the Bible, “Parenthetically Speaking (Before We Are Saved From the Wrath To Come)”.

[Errant]

Jesus did not come to die to set us free from something that did not hold us in bondage to death, as His Law handed down at Sinai does.

Let me suggest something to you that you may not realize. Yeshua, except for perhaps a few elders (i.e, the "first fruits"), came to save everyone who ever lived on the face of the earth, including perhaps the prophets. For even Daniel was told to rest until the end of days:

Daniel 12:13 “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.”

Need I tell you who will be sitting on the throne of judgement? Hence, no one comes to the Father except through our Messiah Yeshua.

Pretty powerful stuff this knowledge of the truth is...

[roamer_1]

Hi again boatbums,

I've said this before that we have agreed on many things over the years and I respect your stand for Christ. If you look back at some of the things a few others have been saying on this thread, they are not in agreement with us about grace and how we are saved. Some HAVE been contending salvation comes through obedience to the law/Torah.

Well, there is a bit of a distinction. Messianics put a very strong emphasis upon discipleship. Inherent in Hebrew discipleship is obedience to the Master (to a degree that others may find uncomfortable). Likewise, there is a very strong emphasis toward obedience in Torah too. They, like Evangelicals, seek relationship with YHWH through Yeshua, but understand that relationship to be that of a wife to her husband - Again, the Hebrew sense of the love of a wife for her husband has a strong aspect of service... obedience...

Consequently, Messianics find the expression of their love of YHWH in their obedience to Yeshua as their Master or Rabbi, and by way of his commandment to do and teach Torah, their obedience to Torah. In that, they find liberty and right living. In the same sort of flavor as... say perhaps, the fire-and-brimstone style of the Southern Baptists of old, that obedience is the hallmark of being saved - not the efficacy thereof, but rather the proof... 'Bearing the fruit thereof'... That isn't to say that the Beatitudes are not there also, but for the purpose of this conversation, that is the sticky wicket.

The Evangelical claims of liberty without Torah, is translated naturally in the Messianic's mind quite literally as 'liberty in iniquity' as 'without Torah' IS 'iniquity', 'lawlessness' by literal definition. Likewise, to the Evangelical, without the knowledge to differentiate between Torah and Halakha (Jewish Law), see Messianics as 'Judaizers' or proponents of legalism (when Jewish Law, if one understands the difference, is the legalism).

The catcalling exhibited hereon does exacerbate the situation. And it IS catcalling... Only one of the opponents here actually attested to perusing the OP, and there has been no (or very little) argument lofted against the actual presentation. And the arguments that have been offered show not only a profound ignorance of Messianics, but a profound - almost laughable ignorance of Michael Rood, or at least what he presents and represents...

There are also disputes against the triune nature of Almighty God - that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE God. Do you accept the “Trinity”? That Jesus is God incarnate?

I can't speak for my fellows, but I have a long history here on this subject. I think the 'trinity' is a construction without purpose. I think it is an attempt to define YHWH in human terms, to put him in a box that he simply won't fit into. I think it is singly the most divisive thing ever produced by Christianity, propagated and demanded with a sword to the neck, and it is used as a litmus test in Christian modernity, while there is no evidence of it's requirement in the ancient Church, or in the discipleship of Yeshua... And since it was born in Catholicism, I find it suspect (as I do everything they have ever done).

I know that YHWH is the only GOD, Creator of everything. I know that Yeshua is YHWH, born in the flesh. I know that the Ruach HaKodesh is YHWH. I know that our Elohim is one God. I don't try to go any further than that, as to the mechanics and hierarchy involved, because it simply isn't there - As to those who insist on trinity or duality, or one hierarchy over another, a pox on all their houses. He is YHWH! Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient! He can do *anything*. How can He be defined? Who knows His limits? He holds the universe in the palm of His hand. Who would dare to define Him? And who could comprehend? .

If that is not 'trinitarian' enough for you, then so be it... But don't act like you understand it any better than anyone else, because WE DON'T KNOW, and I am OK with that.

Do you accept the teachings of Michael Rood on this or know what he teaches?

Now we come to Rood. One can not travel far in Messianic circles without running into Rood. He is bombastic, abrasive, and his theatrics at times would put William Shatner to shame. He is a shock jock, and that makes him a lightning rod. I will admit that one criticism hereon, that he sometimes blurs the line between speculation and proof, is a fair statement. But that is most probably more a matter of exuberance than nefariousness.

But one cannot watch him for long without understanding that he believes what he is saying. And he has a message. His work is ordered, and usually pretty well researched. It follows a pattern, and while it has grown over time, it has been pretty consistent in direction. Most of the crap flung here about him isn't true, or is defensible - For instance, on the false prophet front, I have only heard him say 'Thus Sayeth the Lord' over one thing (that being an adamant denial of a pre-trib rapture). And on the 'preaching for money' front, usually his presentations are offered up for free - sometimes the free comes later, but normally, it becomes available. I have never bought a single thing from him. It is readily available on Youtube.

As to trinity, I DON'T KNOW his predilections, but I can predict that he is labeled as anti-trinitarian, because no doubt he rejects the Roman model.

Now, whether I accept Michael Rood's teachings... on the whole, what I have heard of them, I would say yes - but that with a grain of salt. In part that is because his knowledge of Hebrew means and customs, and his knowledge in the Jewish Traditions far outstrips my meager fare, and I cannot , with my insufficient knowledge, PROVE what he says. So I listen to him, and I actually find him entertaining - but until I can fully grasp what he is saying, I have to reserve judgement. That which I can prove, I have normally found to be reliable.

[Elsie]

Acts 13:39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you

could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

[Elsie]

Is THAT a law given to moses?

[Elsie]

This isn't the first time we've seen your boastfulness CB...

Now this is RICH; coming from YOU!

[Elsie]

ALL?

[Elsie]

It came later coming from an English transliteration of a Greek transliteration of an acronym that the Pharisees called him to curse him.

Which was WHAT?

[Elsie]

NOW we’re getting somewhere!

[Elsie]

Do you REALLY need me to list the FREE teachings again???

I do!!!

[Elsie]

Can't we cease this endless weigh-in mouth jawing and get on with the FIGHT???

[CynicalBear]

>>Interesting that you should pick one of the verses that strongly disprove your pre-trib rapture.<<

That verse in no way disproves the pre-trib rapture. That man cannot be revealed until the bride of Christ is taken from this earth.

>>This is the true work of the Holy Spirit, while your gang are the engine of Satan’s falling away.<<

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Michael Doony, and a host of others have come along with an enlightened revelation.

>> Hislop and Totten nailed this back in the early 19th century, when Bibles began to become available to the masses and the remnant began to solidify.<<

We know who the “remnant” will be and unless you are a genetic descendant of one of the 12 tribes of Israel and chosen to be part of the 144,000 you ain’t it.

Romans 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

This is the dispensation of grace while the nation of Israel has been set aside because of unbelief. Rood has duped some into believing they are somehow descendents of Israel but they will be sadly disappointed to find it’s a lie.

The body of Christ will be taken from this earth before the last seven years God will again deal with the nation of Israel out of which He will take 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes as a remnant. We find that remnant being protected in John’s Revelation.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rood is a fraud and a shyster and those who follow him will be sorely disappointed.

[CynicalBear]

>> Paul tells us that “doers of the Law will be justified,”<<

That entire passage is concerning those who think they are following the whole law but are not and those who preach the law but don’t follow it perfectly. It’s talking to those who would judge according to the law. He goes on from that verse in Romans 2 and describes those who teach the law but don’t keep it. That does describe those who follow Rood also.

Paul follows that chapter with this.

Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

Cherry picking verses like you do won’t bode well for you.

[CynicalBear]

>>Yeshua, Paul, James, and Peter all say that doers of the Torah will be justified.<<

Not in the way you try to portray. One only needs to continue reading in the letter to the Romans to understand that he was talking about the hypocrites who preach the law but don’t keep it perfectly. I showed that in my last post to you.

Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

And continue reading in that letter to the Romans.

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Note that verse 31. You who are claiming we need to go back under the law stumble.

Paul actually rebukes you as he does Peter.

Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Rood lies to his followers and his followers attempt to deceive us.

[CynicalBear]

>>We do so that others may have the time to wash their garments clean.<<

There you go again trying to give credit to man efforts to keep the law. Man does NOT wash the garments we will wear by keeping the law. He washes them in the blood of the lamb through faith in Christ. You and the Catholics will be sorely disappointed.

Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."

[CynicalBear]

>>Pretty powerful stuff this knowledge of the truth is...<<

And once you grasp it you will turn on Rood as the fake and fraud he is.

[CynicalBear]

Amen and Amen! Those followers of Rood have a rude awakening coming.

[Errant]

Well said, and it pretty much reflects my stance as well.

Thanks,

[Errant]

Is THAT a law given to moses?

I can't be sure, but I don't think so:

The Definition of That:

a : the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation
b : the time, action, or event specified
c : the kind or thing specified as follows
d : one or a group of the indicated kind

Maybe NOT:

Origin of THAT

Middle English, from Old English thæt, neuter demonstrative pron. & definite article; akin to Old High German daz, neuter demonstrative pron. & definite article, Greek to, Latin istud, neuter demonstrative pron. First Known Use: before 12th century

[Errant]

Now this is RICH; coming from YOU!

That didn't come from me, it came from a parable told by Yeshua.

[Errant]

Those followers of Rood have a rude awakening coming.

I nor, I suspect, any of my fellows here follow Rood. We follow the path of truth, wherever it leads us. We don't have a rude awakening coming, we've already had a Rood awakening; each to his own decree.