The fact that I call myself a Hebrew roots Christian does not mean I agree with characterizations of some "Hebrew Roots Movement" defined from outside; I've admitted the movement contains contradictory views. There is no proof I teach syncretism, dual covenant, legalism, Judaizing, or any such teaching simply because I believe the term "Hebrew roots Christianity" is an accurate representation of Romans 11.
In the link above, the commenter was given opportunity to defend charges of gaslighting, and ran away from the opportunity, instead deciding to use a nickname repeatedly that the mods regard as ad hominem, and to commit other factual and logical errors.
Since you now seem to have unblocked me, it merely suffices to repeat, 8 times, that my argument began by rejecting dual covenant, "Dual covenant theology wrongly teaches the Old Covenant is salvific"; and then to repeat that you contradict Jesus to say "The law was ... abolished", and your supersessionism is tantamount to teaching a past dual covenant because you imply the Old Testament had some valid "life" and "place" that was "replaced" and "superseded" by the New when you believe "the Old Law died" as if words of God could die forever.
The commenter above spammed this to nine communities after blocking me, so my response will be identical in each case.
There is no proof I ever said the Old Covenant is or was binding, so I am not a Judaizer by the definition quoted.
The fact that I call myself a Hebrew roots Christian does not mean I agree with characterizations of some "Hebrew Roots Movement" defined from outside; I've admitted the movement contains contradictory views. There is no proof I teach syncretism, dual covenant, legalism, Judaizing, or any such teaching simply because I believe the term "Hebrew roots Christianity" is an accurate representation of Romans 11.
In the link above, the commenter was given opportunity to defend charges of gaslighting, and ran away from the opportunity, instead deciding to use a nickname repeatedly that the mods regard as ad hominem, and to commit other factual and logical errors.
I'm happy as always to answer questions.
Read this if you want to see Swamp Jew defend Dual Covenant theology:
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/17txVyUe1f/the-old-covenant-is-fulfilled-su/c
Since you now seem to have unblocked me, it merely suffices to repeat, 8 times, that my argument began by rejecting dual covenant, "Dual covenant theology wrongly teaches the Old Covenant is salvific"; and then to repeat that you contradict Jesus to say "The law was ... abolished", and your supersessionism is tantamount to teaching a past dual covenant because you imply the Old Testament had some valid "life" and "place" that was "replaced" and "superseded" by the New when you believe "the Old Law died" as if words of God could die forever.