Responding to Drake shelton

Here blogger Drake Shelton responds to 3 of my articles which I suggested he read after he renounced the title christian due to his conversion messianic Judaism.

The following is my response to Baptist Pastor Matt Singleton on my renunciation of Christianity.
Matt complains, that my article is irrational because Christianity was not defined.
Though not directly stated as a definition, I said, “What I am attacking is Christianity’s attempts to conform those writings to the Greco-Roman Philosophies of their Gentile Ancestors.”
I define Christianity as the religion that conformed the writings and Theology of the New Testament to the Greco-Roman Philosophies of their Gentile ancestors and away from the Hebraic tradition given to Moses by Yah. Now to respond to Matt’s article:
Yeshua? Or jesus? Responding to the radical fringe of the messianic/Hebrew roots movement

     So here Drake defines christianity as "the religion that conformed the writings and Theology of the New Testament to the Greco-Roman Philosophies of their Gentile ancestors and away from the Hebraic tradition given to Moses by Yah."
I don't think this is historically accurate of the term.  But Drake is trying to define those christians who are gentile and calling them alone "christian", which is evidenced by the fact that he has renounced the title.


Second, I have never stated that we should worship Yashua Hamashia. I have advocated that prayer should be given to the Father Yah alone.
http://drakeshelton.com/2012/07/21/how-then-should-we-pray-case-studies-in-nicene-triadology-vs-thomistic-and-van-tillian-sabellianism/

Revelation 5: ⁸ And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. ⁹ And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; ¹⁰ and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

“While I’ll admit that there are huge groups of apostates that claim the name of Christ yet are apostate… This does not Justify separation from all those who bear his name.”

  I would like to see this demonstrated. I see no reason how any Christian no matter how conservative, could find fault with anyone’s theology or morals when they themselves worship four gods, eat swine, drink blood, teach a pagan view of the soul, the body and sex, reject the Sabbath, and teach eternal torture."
    Demonstration: congregating with anyone called christian.
 This is a very inappropriate argument. First, it has very little if anything to do with my quote. Secondly it is premised at best on conjecture and more commonly ad hominem attack. This is not a godly way of arguing either.
1Corinthians 5: ¹¹ But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
  I don't know of any conservative Christians who would confess or even assume that they worship four gods. This is a railing accusation. I never saw a christian drink blood. This is propaganda. There is a difference between doing something that could be perceived the wrong way and actually doing something wrong.

“This movement of rejecting the gentile languages as pagan, is a form of judaizing.”

"When did I say I rejected Gentile languages?"

   The article that Drake is quoting is not focused solely on Drake, but on a movement withing messianic Judaism. 

“It is a means of by passing the age of grace and accumulating religion by self righteousness…
“4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

Notice what it says Matt. It says Christ is the end of the Law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, or as a means to attain righteousness. I am in no way advocating that we be justified with God on the basis of our Law keeping. I have never said that.

   There are Hebrew Roots people who deny this.  I have observed this from my conversations with Messianic Rabbi T.E. Beckham.

“The universal Gentile language was Greek, at this time. Jesus and the apostles were likely to be completely conversant in this dialogue.”

 This is an assertion not an argument. Where is the Scripture for this? What language did Yahshua speak to Paul? Hebrew!

Acts 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

  Jesus also spoke in Aramaic so he was not against speaking more than one language. Matthew 27:⁴⁶ And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"  So this is a non sequiter.  In fact by saying that Christ said something in Hebrew validates that the text was in Greek.


And I have already shown that it is undisputed that Matthew was written in Hebrew.
   That's false, since there are people that dispute Drake's assertion.

“So it is obvious that Luke wrote in Greek.”

I’ll have to look into that. But even if it was, Christianity has interpreted the scriptures through Greek Philosophy not the Old Testament. That is issue here. It is not merely semantics.

“The Gospels were originally written in Greek, the common lingua franca (common or commercial language among diverse peoples) of the Roman Orient. No original Gospels have been found in Aramaic; the only known Aramaic Gospels are translations from Greek versions. The general consensus is that the Gospel according to Matthew was written particularly for Jews; the Gospel according to Mark was written particularly for Romans; the Gospel according to Luke was written particularly for Greeks; and the Gospel according to John was written for everyone.” conservapedia The gospels”

;Refuse to acknowledge the facts if you like Matt. Your quotation says, “The Gospels were originally written in Greek”. That is flat wrong. Matthew was written in Hebrew. That is undisputed.
   Once again, an irrational assertion. Drake is disputing with me and saying their is no dispute.

http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/10/was-the-new-testament-originally-written-in-hebrew/
   One thing drake should consider is that matthew, who was educated as a tax collector.  Could have written two copies in both languages.  However, the Greek must have been the inspired copy.  Because the inspired Word of God would be preserved. 
matthew 24:³⁵ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
  According to drake, these words were in Hebrew, so they did pass away!

“Are Christians under the law?
Romans7…”

This is talking about a function of the law as a means to attain righteousness per Romans 10, not the law itself. It is not talking about the Law in Substance but in mode.
  It is talking about the Law as a complete covenant
romans 7:² For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
 ³ So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
   We are not in the Old Covenant so we are not bound by it.  If we were bound by it, then we would not be saved under any trangression of it.  This is where Drake misunderstands the nature of the Law.
Romans 7⁷ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
  According to Drake, the law here is to obtain righteousness. So then is self righteousness sin? "nay".
Now Drake holds that he is in "no way advocating that we be justified with God on the basis of our Law keeping. I have never said that."  So then how can self righteousness be good?


So you are seriously suggesting that Christians may now have sex with animals, commit adultery, murder and worship other gods? By no means. The New Testament defines sin by saying:

1 John 3:4 sin is the transgression of the law.

Looks to me like Christians are still under the law as a moral guide.
  Here is a prime example of Drakes error.  My argument is not that the Old testament has no application as a moral guide.  Here is my confessional view of the law.
"V. The Law
We believe that God in his infinite love has provided mankind with a direct revelation of his love, in which may follow Him and not trespass His laws, which would incur his wrath. He has provided mankind with the holy law to point us towards the light. In the Old/Mosaic covenant the Hebrews followed all the OT law in order to be sanctified and draw closer to God. In the New Testament we have a better Covenant. We draw closer to God the same way that we are justified, through faith in the saving work of Christ, living out our lives removing the sins of the flesh and growing the fruits of the spirit. The Holy Law of God is still of great use to us. The Ten Commandments serve as an infallible compass of truth. The Old Testament Law of God serves the believers as a way of wisdom, and the non-believers as a convicting schoolmaster pointing us all towards our need for Christ.
The purist summary of God’s law is that we shall love the Lord with all our heart, soul and might. And that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
Romans 13:10, Deuteronomy 30:11-19, Psalm 119:12, 18, 33-35, John 3:19-20, Galatians 3:10-11, 24-25, Psalm119: 1-3, Exodus 20:1- 17, Deuteronomy 5:1-21, Hebrews 11:39-40, Romans 7:6-25, Galatians 3:1-3, 1Timothy 1:8-11, Matthew 5:16-17"
from My beliefs: (Freedom Baptist Church Confession of faith 3rd edit. ) www.biblesmack.net

So I have been on record for teaching the old testament as a way of wisdom and a compass of truth.  The distinction is then, that I must take the Old testament  In it's proper context.  And I would argue that drake is not using a historical grammatical hermeneutic.

Exodus "20 And God spake all these words, saying,

² I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
¹² Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

Hear we see the connection of the escape from Egypt. and the dwelling in the land given by God.  Obviously this is referring to national Israel.  Unless Drake can prove that his family was in Egypt.  Likely, He will claim this was spiritual Egypt.  But then couldn't we just say that we must only follow a spiritual Sabbath?

“Is Jesus lord of the Gentiles as well?”

;When have I stated that Yahshua is not Lord of the Gentiles?

“The point here is obvious. Jesus name was spoken in many languages and dialects in his life. He was meant for His name to be spoken among all people Jesus is the savior of the World.”

  So where is the J in the Hebrew alphabet?
  Where is the Y in the Hebrew alphabet??
This is all writing in the English language and alphabet.

“The only personal name of God that belongs to Him alone was rendered either Jehovah or in it’s shortened form, Jah. We preferred the transliteration JHWH (thus Jehovah) over YHWH (or Yahweh) because this is established English usage for Bible names beginning with this letter (e.g.Jacob and Joseph).” The Interlinear Bible Jay P. Green Sr. General Editor and Translator
The use of Jeh
Jehaleleel
Jehalelel
Jehdeiah
Jehezekel
Jehiah
Jehiel
Jehieli
Jehizkiah
Jehu
Jehubbah
Jehucal
Jehud
Jehudi
Jehudijah
Jehush

The use of Jeho
Jehoada
Jehoaddan
Jehoahaz
Jehoash
Jehohanan
Jehoiachan
Jehoiada
Jehoiakim
Jehoiarib
Jehonadab
Jehonathan
Jehoram
Jehoshabeath
Jehoshaphat
Jehosheba
Jehoshua
Jehoshuah
Jehozabad
Jehozadak
{Gathered from Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible)
It should be noted that modern Jewish translations typically keep the J’s in these names. It should also be noted that the “o” in “Jeho” is the specific vowel that Yahweh advocates argue to be omitted.  So the Adonai vowel replacement theory makes no sense.




Replying to Pastor Matt Singleton Part 2 Monday, Jul 29 2013

Natsarim and Uncategorizedolivianus7:30 am

The following is taken from: The Audacity of Adventism
The Mark 2 passages speaks only to what may be done on the Sabbath not whether or not there should be a Sabbath. Thus the quotation is a straw man.

“We see in Jesus’ first reaction to the Pharisees that the disciples were not bound to rituals; but to Christ, who was now with them, and it was a time of celebration.”

   So why do they keep observing the feast days later in the New Testament?
http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/08/did-yahshua-and-the-apostles-observe-the-feast-days/

The answer to this is because of religious liberty.  Paul took a a Nazorite vow, not out of necessity but to witness and fellowship with the Jews.
Acts 21: ²⁰ And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
²¹ And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
²² What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
²³ Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
²⁴ Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
²⁵ As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
1 Corinthians 9:⁹ But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak.

“He also declares that there is a new covenant with new rituals about to take place with the new Bottles.”

New Covenants do not abrogate old covenants.

Gal 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

—————
    Here Drake has to isolate and alienate the text. There is a reason that Christ is metaphorically speaking of the  Old and new covenant distinction right before he speaks concerning the sabbath.
Mar 2:21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.
Mar 2:22 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.
Mar 2:23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
Mar 2:24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
   The Old covenant is not being annihilated. However it is a different covenant to a different classification.  This explains why Christ is not under the priesthood of Aaron, but melchisedek.  Which is the reason why the Law is not part of the new covenant.

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
 "vrs.8 with no record of melchisedek's death the subordination to this priesthood is permanent. ..Since the levitical priesthood is inferior it is not perfect and permanent. and if there is a different priest hood there is a different law. ..vrs. 13 this brings a conflict because Israel has not based any longer upon melchisedeck and their performance of the law does not fulfill the dictates of melchisedek Jesus came out of Judah which means that he was not in the order of the priesthood of Aaron. -vrs14 vrs. 15 and there is a prophecy concerning a future priesthood of melchisedek vrs.16 who made not under the law, but of an eternal priesthood. ..vrs. who made not under the law, but of an eternal priesthood. vrs. 17 the prophesy in psalm 110 shows David's Lord as being forever after the order of Melchisedek ..Vrs. 18 So there is a dis annulling of the commandment. The law is made void under the melchisedek priesthood. ..Vrs. 19 Law made nothing perfect. Law NEVER saves! Think about this passage when talking to a Christian who tries to live according to the law. ..But bringing a better hope draws us closer to God. .."  Hebrews: the sinful heart of unbelief [This author]

“The Pharisees try again to bind the apostles with tradition, yet Jesus shows David “the man after God’s Own heart” not being enslaved by religion and therefore Christ would not let his followers be enslaved either. The purpose of Sabbath Keeping is not to be burdened, but to in fact set the follower free. That’s why you are not supposed to work on the Sabbath.”

Wrong. The Scriptures tell us why we observe the Sabbath.

Exo 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

———————-
While this explains why the Jews are to observe the Sabbath.  But it does not explain the purpose for it as it applies to us today. 

“Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.”

   This is talking about fast days, not Sabbath days. The word Sabbath appears nowhere I the text.

“Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

>>>It says “are a shadow of things to come” not WERE shadows of things in the past.

 Simply remember that the temple worship was going on at the time.

“Heb 4:2-11 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”

>>>Sorry Matt but that is a bad translation. It says in verse 9, “So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God”. The word there is σαββατισμός.

“The Sabbath was looking forward to a future rest.”

>>>That is not what it says. It says, “there remains a Sabbath”. The word remains is ἀπολείπω. The word denotes either a present or past action. Never future.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G620&t=NASB
  Let's assume Drake is correct, the temple was still active, which explains present tense.  However, let us observe the context.
[ ^{hebrews 4:10} For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.]
Christ entered the Rest when He was dead on the sabbath, which is why when he was on the cross he said. 'It is finished'.

“The People of God rested on the seventh Day in order to better understand the hope of salvation. They would labor six days a week illustrating the toils of this life. But the world would under go a seventh dispensation in which we will enter the rest of God.”

>>>If you are speaking of eschatological events, I agree with you which is exactly why your interpretation of Colosians 2 is wrong.
    I have no idea why my interpretation is wrong.

“VII. Burn baby burn! Is there an everlasting fire?
Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

>>>I refuted this in my recent post:

Mat. 10:28 Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
And with reference to Mark 9:43-48, which is used to defend eternal torture, the original reference in Isa. 66:24 reads,
“Then they will go forth and look
On the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm will not die
And their fire will not be quenched;
And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.”
We see that those in Hell are corpses not living bodies being tortured forever.

————
Here drake is ignorant of the nature of man.  The spirit of man is not the same as the soul of man.
Genesis 2:⁷ And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
zechariah12 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
  We see that God inserts the spirit within man.  Yet the souls is the fully formed identity of the man.
 Colossians 1:²⁰ and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
²¹ And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled ²² in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight



    The corpses(isaiah 66:24) are those of the men dead from the great tribulation.  This indicated by the fact that they are open to the world to be seen on the earth.

“Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

>>>The punishment is eternal in the sense that it is final. No second chance.

“Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

How could you be tormented if you are destroyed?  Drake would have a hard time preach to Buddhist.  there concept of Nirvana is also annihilation.  many Heathen are looking forward to annihilation.  So Hell in this view, is not such a great torment.

This is taken from Daniel 7 which clearly shows that they are destroyed:

10 “A river of fire was flowing
And coming out from before Him;
Thousands upon thousands were attending Him,
And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;
The court sat,
And the books were opened.
11 Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.
The overwhelming consensus of scripture is annihilation. http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/04/conditional-immortality-and-eternal-punishment/

It is quite obvious that the Beast is not one individual human. Instead it is a people group. Daniel 7:12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. 

“Many might argue that the annihilation hell would fulfill the action of burning. However scripture teaches that the unsaved are resurrected.
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Therefore they will not perish as they are in a permanent state of destruction.
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”

>>>Yes. They are totally destroyed after the resurrection.

If they were totally destroyed then there would not be corpses to gaze at; would there?

In your article What do Jew mean? A biblical analysis of Judaism I did not see much to respond to relevant to our discussion.

“True Church Christians are those who adhere strictly to the New Covenant.”

              So having sex with an animal is no longer an immoral action?]
     Here again, a covenant is not equivalent to morality.  You can commit adultery through fornication even if you are unmarried yourself.
 Also the New Testament teaches that the OT is authoritative in it's teaching.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

So being strict to the New Covenant dos not leave Old Testament instruction in righteousness impotent.  Just simply not binding to attain self righteousness.

“They do depend on the Old Testament to provide their worldview. Fundamental beliefs such as Monotheism, the Name of God (Jehovah), morality (Ten Commandments)”

>>>You stated before Christians are not under the law and now your ethics is the ten commandment? I blush for you and Christianity alike when I read things like this. How could you with a straight face tell people you believe in the Ten Commandments when both of us know you don’t believe number 4? I have seen liberal political heads absolutely humiliate Christians on this point on national TV so many times. This is why Christianity is losing power.
                   Just because I don't interpret the Sabbath the same way does not mean I do not believe in it.  I believe if I was a Jew I would be restricted to it.  I believe it teaches me about creation.  I believe it is healthy to rest one day a week and work six.  I believe it shows me to be a sinner in need of God's grace for not fulfilling it to the letter, which teaches me to live by grace and not works.   All these things I believe because I believe in the Sabbath.
         Drake here is displaying an ignorance as to the nature of the law.  The Old Testament law code was not set up for Gentiles 3,000 years in the future.
hebrews 7:¹² For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
¹⁵ And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, ¹⁶ who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. ¹⁷ For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. ¹⁸ For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. ¹⁹ For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

        Recently Drake has defended the institution of slavery.  He also defends the confederates as being justified in their possession of slaves.  And yet, Drake believes the solution would be to give reparations to African Americans.  If the South wasn't guilty, then shouldn't drake demand that the African slaves his descendants owned either pay him for his families financial or en-denture themselves as his slaves?
    Drake has committed a logical fallacy of "bait and switch".  He is redefining the term "law"

“True church Christians recognize the authority of the Old Testament and take it literally. They are grateful to the Jewish people and the Jew who saved their souls. (Jesus Christ) New Testament Christians are included in the line of Abraham spiritually. Though they recognize that they have not replaced Israel.”

>>>If you mean that Yah is done with Israel then I disagree with that definition of Replacement but there is a biblical sense:

Romans 11: 17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

Notice the Gentiles do not get their own tree. They are grafted into the old one. Same Covenant, same religion, same God, same moral law.

   This is complete hokum.    The covenant with Abraham is not the covenant with Moses.  It's almost as if the book of Genesis was never read.  Abraham started off the covenant as a gentile!
 Romans 4: ¹⁰ How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. ¹¹ And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: ¹² and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. ¹³ For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

“They desire offer Jews the New Covenant by which they may have access to the future resurrection of the dead and have the eternally secure hope of Heaven.”

>>>Translated: Christianity demands that Jews abandon most everything Yah told them and become polytheists, Sabbath breakers, swine eaters, blood drinkers, pagan holiday observers, and all around apostates.
   Let me be clear. I do not prescribe any christian demand, a Jew not be allowed to practice the law. I teach the doctrine of religious liberty.  Drake should know this by the fact that when he privately told me he had been practicing the seventh day Sabbath, I never criticized it.  The rest is immature ad hominem attacks.
   

“True Church Christianity is Hebrew in their respect for the Old Covenant.”

       Respect? Is that what you call abrogating most of what it says?

“H. Messianic Jews) Jewish Christians who are faithful to Hebrew culture and followers of Christ.”

>>>I already answered Col 2 and Rom 14. See also here:
Excursus on Romans 14:14, 20
Does Romans 14 Abrogate the Kosher Laws?
Refuting the Reformed Christian Interpretation of the “Jewish Feasts”; Col 2:16-17; Gal 4:10; Acts 15:1,5,10
Does Ephesians 2:14-15 Abrogate the Law of Moses?; Eph 2:11-16; Col 2:13-15

    Christians have published more copies of the Old Testament than any organization representing the Jewish faith.  And Christians have posted copies of the Ten commandments in public places and fought for those rights. That sounds respectful to me.

“One of the problems is that we have forgotten that the Old and New Covenant are two separate covenant.”

>>>There is no such thing. I just showed from Romans 11 that Gentiles are grafted into the same Covenant the Jews were in. Also, Gal 3: 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 

“The New Covenant not promise a blessed earthly life, neither does the Old Covenant promise eternal salvation.”

>>>Heb 11 says that Abraham looked for a city whose builder and maker was God. I am still working on my understanding of eschatology so I will pass by this for now.

“The body of Christ is both Jew and Gentile. But a Jew must follow the law. While a gentile does not need to. Therefore it is a separate covenant.”

>>>Circumcision is not the entirety of the law.

“Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.”

>>>I have never advocated justification through our law keeping.

  It is my earnest prayer that maintains his faith in imputed Righteousness. I believe that if he is a believer, then he will not abandon Christ Jesus.
The Messianic Jewish denial of Christ name over linguistic debate in my eyes is fleshly.
1 corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Drake has a huge job trying to reconcile the Old Covenant with the New.
2Corinthians 3 forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;6 who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
  What is Paul's antagonism against the Word?  Moderates argue that this a declaration that mystical spirituality is more important the inspired Word.(if it is inspired they might add).  I think we would both reject such a conclusion.The only option I see would be that we are not in the same covenantal relationship as the Old Covenant.
This is due to the fact that Paul being the Apostle of the gentiles has been given new revelation concerning the dispensation of grace.
Galatians 2: 7 but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 
8 (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Ephesians 3 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,


   The heart of his error is the relationship of Israel and the church.  This doctrine has caused multitudes of cults. Drake seems to have been raised most of his Christian walk in denial of the status of literal Israel.
His diatribes against the baptists and dispensationalists are all political in nature. Where the reformers blame the baptist for their downfall and weakening of their political strength.   However, Drake has now abandoned the reformed tradition. could this be a time where His mind would be opened to understanding the OT literally?
psalms 105:7 He is the Lord our God:

his judgments are in all the earth.
8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever,
the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
9 Which covenant he made with Abraham,
and his oath unto Isaac;
10 and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law,
and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
11 saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan,
the lot of your inheritance:
12 when they were but a few men in number;
yea, very few, and strangers in it.

13 When they went from one nation to another,
from one kingdom to another people;

Romans 9 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2 that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
     Since encountering Drake, I have gotten to know him personally.  I believe that he is a believer.  He seems quite earnest in His faith in the messiah and joyful when people come to accept the Lord.
Now I say this as a minister. Although I am speculating and mean no disrespect to him.  But he seems to been eaten up in turmoil over certain issues in the last few years.  Not just theological turmoil, though there is plenty.  But a certain bitterness and pain.
    Drake has a huge amount of potential as an intellectual/philosopher/academic.  I have come to admire the depth of his research and his intellectual honesty even in the face rejection and persecution. ( I can truly relate to his plight).  He has written a great deal of material destroying the foundations of communism and Roman Catholicism; some of the greatest threats to protestant evangelical Christianity today.  Yet on the opposite end  I see just how destructive his conclusions can be. His views on race and religious liberty are not only repugnant to me, but can threaten the reputation of any christian associated with him.
   I have seen many apostates in academia,  Drake has some similarities; yet also some differences.  Drake on his website denied himself a teacher and said he was just trying to figure things out.  This shows a certain commendable humility. I hope that in his current state that he is fellow-shipping with other believers and I pray that he follows the right path.