Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rosh Hashanah and the Second Coming
The B'rit Chadasha Pages | 9/20/06 | Michael D. Bugg

Posted on 09/20/2006 10:14:32 AM PDT by Buggman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 501-541 next last
To: Buggman

Please add me to your ping list.


151 posted on 09/24/2006 6:33:25 PM PDT by OKSooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Of course it does. Hebrews does not indicate the day was merely changed. It indicates the day was abolished with the passing away of the old covenant with the priesthood and sacrificial rituals.
"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:12,13)
All of the pold covenant ritual days passed away. There is no other way to read the words written in Hebrews.

There is another way to read Hebrews, the proper way. You're passing away things that Hebrews does not.

The Levitical priesthood is changed. Animal sacrifices are changed. These are LISTED in Hebrews. For whatver reason, you wish to add God's holy days to this list without any biblical justification.

The fault of the "old covenant" wasn't with God's end of the deal. A perfect God does nothing wrong. The fault was with the people who were part of God's covenant:

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 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:
Heb 8:9 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.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Under the new covenant, with the sacrifice of Christ, man becomes able to obey the laws of God by relying on the spirit of God.

For more info: God's Holy Day Plan

BTW, do you celebrate Christmas and Easter? If so, wny? If not, why not?

152 posted on 09/24/2006 6:39:01 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; DouglasKC
I read the New Covenant to mean that Christ, the true perfect, spotless Lamb of God, allowed Himself to be sacrificed for the sins of the world, thus ending animal sacrifice. This was illustrated when the Temple curtain was rent in two. I do not hold to the doctrine that sin ended at the cross. Sin continues and is defined as the transgression of the law.

I also understand, through the letters of Paul, that those who confess the name of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are thus adopted into the promise made to Abraham. Abraham was saved by faith. He demonstrated his faith through works. This is a good pattern to live by.

Once I came to the truth about the man made, Rome decreed holidays of this world, I could no longer keep them. It is not lineear to me to "protest" Rome's authority, yet keep to its practices.

153 posted on 09/24/2006 8:25:09 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; DouglasKC
kerryusama04: Once I came to the truth about the man made, Rome decreed holidays of this world, I could no longer keep them.

DouglasKC: The Levitical priesthood is changed. Animal sacrifices are changed.

What you have failed to address is how one goes about keeping the old covenant feast days without all the cultic trappings of the old covenant, in particular the animal sacrifices and the levitical priesthood.

There is no instruction on how to keep Rosh Hashanah in a fashion pleasing to God without animal sacrifices, a levitical priesthood and a temple in which to bring the sacrifice before God. You need to invent an extra-biblical tradition just as the apostate Jewish rabbis have invented a tradition to celebrate these days without all the physical trappings outlined in the Mosaic ceremonial code.

Hebrews doesn't just say that the sacrifices and priesthood have changed. It says they are are decayed and were passing away in the first century along with the rest of the old covenant ceremonial laws.

"Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. For a tabernacle was prepared: ..." (Heb. 9:1,2)

"For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." (Heb. 10:1-4)

Unlike the animals that could not take away sin, that is precisely what Jesus same to do, to take away our sin.

Those who continue to follow after the old covenant ordinances are fundamentally denying what Hebrews says about the effectiveness of the sacrifice of Christ once for all. You are living under the shadow rather then according to the substance.

DouglasKC: BTW, do you celebrate Christmas and Easter? If so, wny? If not, why not?

Christmas and Easter and just as inappropriate for the new covenant as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. All of these feast days are a denial of the simplicity of new covenant worship as given to us in the Bible. Both sets are based on the traditions of men; one group is Roman syncretistic traditionalists and the other is Judaizing traditionalists who have not quite made it all the way into the freedom of the new covenant.

154 posted on 09/25/2006 6:10:44 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; DouglasKC
"And you made an offering by fire to celebrate this day as it was commanded to be kept thousands of years ago?"

Nope.

Then obviously you did not celebrate a biblical Rosh Hashanah. The commandments for how that day was to be observed are carefully set down in Leviticus and Numbers.

There are no apostolic new covenant rites for celebrating these old covenant feast days. You cannont find a NT verses that says, "Once the temple is destroyed and the levites are no more, keep the old covenant feast days in this fashion." Of course the reason being that the apostles never envisioned Christians following old covenant rituals. They were only a shadow to point people to Christ in the flesh. Once He appeared the shadows serve no useful purpose.

The apostate rabbis after the time of Jesus had to invent new forms for celebrating these days after God destroyed the temple and ended the sacrifices and levitical priesthood once and for all time. Sad to see Christians falling in the same judaizing trap.

Whatever you did was according to the traditions of men. It was an ersatz celebration of your own devising.

155 posted on 09/25/2006 6:33:31 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; ladyinred; Alex Murphy; ...
Yom Teruah is a day which ultimately calls all of God’s people together in repentance in anticipation of the glorious Second Coming, in which He will once again visit His people in the Person of the Messiah Yeshua to Resurrect the dead, awaken the living, and judge all mankind together.

Apart from the fact that none of the apostles or New testament writers ever authorized the celebration of "Rosh Hashanah" or any of the other cultic Judaic feast days in the context of the new testament assembly, this analysis fails to deal with the substance of the book of Hebrews esp. as it proclaims the end of the old covenant. It also does not treat the only authentic feast day we have in the New Testament, that is the celebration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper every week as the church come together to worship Him.

Regarding the celebration of the Lord' Supper, the (ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian) apostle Paul tells us:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. (1 Cor. 11:23-26)
How did Paul tell Christ's followers to think of Christ's coming? We do it by looking back on His sacrifice of broken body and shed blood we remember in the Lord's Supper. By looking back we look forward. Paul never told anyone to blow horns annually, or invent annual worship practices based (loosely) on the cultic observances of old Israel.

The sin of Nadab and Abihu was to presume to worship God in a way that He had not commanded them. They did this not be inventing never before seen forms of worship, but by subtly changing the legitimate forms of worship that God had given to the children of Israel. "Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them." (Lev. 10:10) No doubt they had good intentions when they did this, although the text does not speak to their motives, only to their actions. They sinned a great sin before the Lord and they suffered the ultimate punishment.

This same cavalier attitude is common in the church today. All sorts of unique forms of worship are introduced under the guise of being faithful. But in reality God has not called for these worship patterns.

When faced with the traditionalists of his day, John Calvin put it this way:

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate. (The Necessity of Reforming the Church)
Any worship form not explicitly approved by God in His word -- such as post-temple/extra-levitical Rosh Hashanah services -- amounts to the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu.
156 posted on 09/25/2006 9:14:57 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Meant to include you in the ping to #156


157 posted on 09/25/2006 9:17:11 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; ET(end tyranny); DouglasKC
This post by ET explains the animal sacrifice thing better than I can

TC, we've been over this so many times now that you already know what I am going to say. Nevertheless:

My faith is linear. Genesis to Revelation - it is the same God. The plan of salvation was laid out at the foundation of the Lord. I believe that everything from Genesis to Revelation is meant to bring us all to God. If the New Covenant basically erases the OT, then was God just messing with the Hebrews, teaching them poppycock and laughing at them from on high? Was all that just so that we can look down our noses at those stupid Hebrews since we are fortunate enough to have the Testimony of Jesus Christ? I don't buy it.

The volume of information that parallels the OT with Jesus with the Second Advent is huge. Gentiles who believe in Jesus are adopted into Israel, not the other way around.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

If faith does not lead to obedience, what good is it?

Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, Heb 10:27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.

I don't know about you, but this verse scares the crap out of me.

TC, what was the very first sin?

Gen 3:5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Yes, sir, Eve ate that fruit so that she would be like a God. She put her lust and curiosity ahead of God, and she wanted to be God. Running around making up phony holidays like we know better than God is the same thing. Making up our own rules because we think the New Covenant obsoletes the Law of God is not rational, IMO. God wants obedience because obedience is a sign of love. You can make fun of us who try to worship as close to the Word as possible, but I will pray that you can at least see our reasoning in doing so.

158 posted on 09/25/2006 9:33:16 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
This is more contextual on what you were quoting above:

Mat 26:17 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"

Regarding the sins of Nadab and Abihu - this is precisely what mainline Christianity does with Sunday, Christmas, Easter, and any other number of manufactured "holy days of obligation". It is preposterous of you to compare celebrating Biblical Holy Days with burning of strange incense.

159 posted on 09/25/2006 10:07:04 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; ladyinred; Alex Murphy; ...
Well, at least you're actually answering the article now instead of going off on tangents.

Apart from the fact that none of the apostles or New testament writers ever authorized the celebration of "Rosh Hashanah" or any of the other cultic Judaic feast days in the context of the new testament assembly . . .

First of all, even if it were true that none of the Apostles "authorized" the celebration of any "cultic Judaic feast days in the context of the new testament assembly," that's simply an argument from silence. Did they "de-authorize" the Appointed Times of the Lord? These days were commanded by the Word of the Lord Himself from Mt. Sinai, and confirmed by that same Word's command that even the least of the commands of the Torah be kept (Mat. 5:17-19). Why shouldn't we assume that lacking any command to the contrary that we shouldn't keep on following the previous command already given?

Secondly, it's blatantly untrue that the Apostles did not "authorize" the keeping of the Feasts, and indeed, the whole Torah. The Lord's Supper was part and parcel of the Passover. Moreover, Sha'ul (Paul) writes, "For even Messiah our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Co. 5:7-8). He tried to return to Jerusalem in time for Shavuot (Pentecost; Acts 20:16), one of the three pilgrimage Feasts. And as this article has shown, he directly linked the Second Coming to the advent of the Feast of Trumpets.

Thirdly, as usual, you are guilty of a double-standard: You demand specific Apostolic authorization to observe Rosh Hashanah, but can provide none for observing Sunday, Christmas, or Easter. If you can observe days about which nothing is said in Scripture, according to traditions that have nothing to do with the Bible, you certainly cannot complain that some might wish to actually observe the times that God Himself commanded.

. . . this analysis fails to deal with the substance of the book of Hebrews esp. as it proclaims the end of the old covenant.

As usual, you confuse the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New with the replacement of the Torah. Again, what are the terms of the New Covenant?

Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD; but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.
--Jeremiah 31:31-34
Since I've already dealt with this issue at length, I'm not going to rehash it here. Those who are interested can see my explanation as to why the New Covenant doesn't do away with the Torah on my blog here.

Regarding the celebration of the Lord' Supper, the (ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian) apostle Paul tells us:

Actually, he was religiously Jewish too. Christianity did not yet exist as a separate religion, but as a sect within first-century Judaism (Acts 28:22).

But in any case, I would argue that "this bread" and "this cup" speak specifically of the matzah (unleavened bread) and wine of the Passover Seder, not of what we now refer to as "the Lord's Supper," ripped from its original historical and ceremonial context. It is possible that the elements of the Supper were included in the regular communal "breaking of bread" that the early Church celebrated together, and that Sha'ul was referring to that, but the context of 1 Co. 11 does not demand it.

Paul never told anyone to blow horns annually, or invent annual worship practices based (loosely) on the cultic observances of old Israel.

Since when does Sha'ul's authority supercede that of YHVH Himself?

The sin of Nadab and Abihu was to presume to worship God in a way that He had not commanded them.

Yep. And those who gather together in "a holy convocation" on Yom Teruah to hear the sound of the trumpet blast together are those who are are worshipping YHVH according to the manner in which He personally commanded them and never recinded in the Person of Yeshua.

This same cavalier attitude is common in the church today. All sorts of unique forms of worship are introduced under the guise of being faithful. But in reality God has not called for these worship patterns.

You are correct. God never called for the Sabbath to be either ignored or removed to Sunday. He never commanded the observance of His Son's birth at the Winter's Solstice. He never commanded the change of any of His Appointed Times. He never commanded us to tell Jewish believers to stop keeping the Torah or even Jewish customs.

If you want to get picky about it, He never commanded us to play any musical instruments in the NT (a fact which the Church of Christ uses to disallow it). He never commanded us to tithe in the NT. He specifically commanded us through the Apostles not to succumb to factionalism, to calling ourselves by the name of Sha'ul, Apollos . . . or John Calvin, for that matter.

Once again, we see you succumbing to a kind of practical Marcionism: You admit the canonicity of the Tanakh in the sense that you keep it in your Bible, but you refuse to obey anything to the left of the book of Matthew, ignoring Sha'ul's exhortation that, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Ti. 3:16-17).

The fact is that all churches have their own traditional observances. If you are not calling for your own church to abandon its yearly Christmas pagent and anniversery pot-luck or whatever, neither should you call for those of us who observe God's Appointed Times to cease to gather together on Rosh Hashanah to hear the blast of the shofar according to God's command.

160 posted on 09/25/2006 10:27:19 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Buggman; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; Alex Murphy
I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word.

That is an excellent quote from John Calvin. If anything the Tabernacle tells us how exacting God was in His instructions on worshiping Him. Moses was specifically told not to deviate from God's instructions both in the design and in the worshipping ceremonies.

As far as the sin of Nadab and Abihu, I've always thought they offered "strange fire" because they might have been drunk. Shortly after they died, God issues a command not to drink "wine or strong drinks" to the priests (Lev 10). It does not negate what you state but rather support that we are held accountable for our actions when we worship no matter what state we are in. This was a similar situation the Corinthians found themselves in with the Lord's Supper, having parties with lots of eating and drinking. In that case the Lord exacted retribution on the Corinthians according to Paul, for their lack of reverence at the Supper.

161 posted on 09/25/2006 10:28:18 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; ET(end tyranny); DouglasKC
My faith is linear. Genesis to Revelation - it is the same God.

Yes, and God's revelation is progressive. Under the old covenant He used types and shadow to point forward to the Substance, Jesus Christ. He no longer regards those older types and symbols since the thing to which they all pointed has arrived and been revealed to the world in the flesh.

If the New Covenant basically erases the OT, then was God just messing with the Hebrews, teaching them poppycock and laughing at them from on high?

I'm not sure trht you mean by "erases". No one said the NT "erases" the OT. But obviously there have been significant modifications, esp. in the area of the cultic laws that were peculiar to Israel as a national entity under the tutelage of priesthood according to the order of Aaron.

But that priesthood and those rules no longer exist today. The sacrifices have been abolished once and for all because the substance to which he sacrifices pointed, Jesus Christ, has appeared.

All the feast days were in inextricably tied to the sacrificial system. Every feast -- in order to be faithfully observed -- had to have an animal killed and the blood sprinkled about.

No one has been able to point to a single passage in the Bible which teaches the church composed of Jews and gentiles how to observe Rosh Hashanah or any other annual feast day without an animal sacrifice.

Rather, what we have today are mere traditions invented by folks to explain how they think these things ought to be observed. But it just a human invention.

The volume of information that parallels the OT with Jesus with the Second Advent is huge.

Perhaps, but perhaps also it it merely the presuppositions that one brings to the table that makes it seem huge. I'm not convinced to the point that I would try to keep cultic Jewish feast days as a pointer to the Second Coming.

Where does the sin of presumption --the sin of Nadab and Abihu -- come into play?

If faith does not lead to obedience, what good is it?

Yes, but obedience to what? Decayed commands that were a part of the older system specifically tied to Israel in the land?

Which ones do you choose to obey, and which do you choose to ignore? Do you shave around the sides of your head? Do you wear clothing of mixed materials? Do you take your medical problems to a priest? Do you pay all your employees every day, or do you expect to be paid by your employer every day? If you find a dead mouse a your basement do you considered yourself ritually unclean for a day if you touch it? Or if you touch a person with a "discharge"?

Which of the 613 so-called mitzvot to you follow and which do you ignore?

I don't know about you, but this verse scares the crap out of me.

Are you saying that anyone who does not follow your traditions and observe a blood-less, temple-less, priest-less Rosh Hashanah today because they can't find the authority to do so in the Word of God is sinning against almighty God? That's a rather bold position, and one certainly in need of much biblical support.

162 posted on 09/25/2006 10:28:20 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: OKSooner
Sorry, I failed to add you to my ping list before responding to topcat. Go to this post and scroll one up.

Thanks for your understanding, and God bless.

163 posted on 09/25/2006 10:28:52 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
It is preposterous of you to compare celebrating Biblical Holy Days with burning of strange incense.

Correction, I'm comparing one set of human traditions with another set of human traditions.

Those who advocate a set of judazing holy days in this post-temple era are not fixing the problem, they are merely inventing a new set of problems.

Like the apostate rabbis who did not follow after their Messiah, they need to invent their own set of traditions to resolve their theological conflict.

164 posted on 09/25/2006 10:32:22 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Which do you object to?
1) That the Resurrection of the Dead will occur on Rosh Hashanah.
2) That the Messiah will appear to Israel on Rosh Hashanah.
3) That on Rosh Hashanah, the Lord judges the world, inscribing or blotting out all mankind in His Book of Life.
4) That therefore Rosh Hashanah is a time to repent in preparation for Yom Kippur.
5) That Rosh Hashanah is also Yom HaKiseh, the Hidden Day.
All of those are the consistant teaching of Jewish tradition--and since the New Testament was written not by Grecian Mithraists, but by God-fearing Jews, its not at all surprising that we find all of the above encapsulated there as well.

You can object all you want to, but it is what it is.

With respect,

165 posted on 09/25/2006 10:37:21 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Apparently, only Jesus' return will end all of this confusion, once Babylon is fallen, fallen.


166 posted on 09/25/2006 11:26:59 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Thanks for the ping!


167 posted on 09/25/2006 11:40:15 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; Diego1618; DouglasKC
That's awesome, Kerry!

I remember last year, a young man came to our Rosh Hashanah service and afterwards remarked, "You could really feel the Spirit move in there."

"Well," I said, "that's what happens when you meet God on His schedule, instead of trying to make Him meet you on yours."

L'shanah Tova

168 posted on 09/25/2006 11:43:54 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; ladyinred; Alex Murphy; ...
A lot of this is old ground, but just so we are clear on a few points.

Secondly, it's blatantly untrue that the Apostles did not "authorize" the keeping of the Feasts, and indeed, the whole Torah.

The Christian church recognizes that the Lord's Supper has replaced Passover in God's new covenant economy. I don't think this basic fact in dispute.

What is in dispute is the juadizing of the Lord's Supper to that it precisely mimicks something that is more akin to the traditions of the apostate rabbis rather than what we see, for example, in 1 Cor. 11 which is devoid of any uniquely Jewish trappings.

"... Therefore let us keep the feast, ..."

Note, it does not say, "Let us therefore keep all the feast days of the Jews as the Jews", which is apparently what you think it says. You believe gentiles should become religiously Jewish. That is not the NT take on things.

The fact remains that there is no authority in the New Testament for observing all the old covenant feast days according to an arbitrary tradition invented in an era that is post-apostolic and post-temple.

And it not a matter of "practical Marcionism" to suggest judaizing Christians have no authority for doing what they claim to be doing. It's merely pointing out the obvious; the klaw has changed, the cultic shadows have given way to the universal substance under the ruler of all nations, King Jesus.

Indeed, such would be impossible within introducing tradition no different from the traditions of the post-temple apostate rabbis of Judaism.

Since I've already dealt with this issue at length, I'm not going to rehash it here.

That's a rather hollow claim since we all agree that "Torah" has been significantly altered in the new covenant. Any plain reading of the book of Hebrews can make that clear. So the question is how much has God altered the law to fit conditions under the term of the new covenant? Has God written the law on our hearts that we ought to observe the judaistic Passover or feast of trumpets? Has God witten the law on our hearts that we ought not to shave around the sides of our heads, or not to wear clothing of mixed materials?

What "tradition" shall we follow on these things?

It might do well to consider Edersheim's comments of the matter of trumpets:

In the law of God only these two things are enjoined in the observance of the ‘New Moon’—the ‘blowing of trumpets’ (Num 10:10) and special festive sacrifices (Num 28:11-15). Of old the ‘blowing of trumpets’ had been the signal for Israel’s host on their march through the wilderness, as it afterwards summoned them to warfare, and proclaimed or marked days of public rejoicing, and feasts, as well as the ‘beginning of their months’ (Num 10:1-10). The object of it is expressly stated to have been ‘for a memorial,’ that they might ‘be remembered before Jehovah,’ it being specially added: ‘I am Jehovah your God.’ It was, so to speak, the host of God assembled, waiting for their Leader; the people of God united to proclaim their King. At the blast of the priests’ trumpets they ranged themselves, as it were, under His banner and before His throne, and this symbolical confession and proclamation of Him as ‘Jehovah their God,’ brought them before Him to be ‘remembered’ and ‘saved.’ And so every season of ‘blowing the trumpets,’ whether at New Moons, at the Feast of Trumpets or New Year’s Day, at other festivals, in the Sabbatical and Year of Jubilee, or in the time of war, was a public acknowledgment of Jehovah as King. Accordingly we find the same symbols adopted in the figurative language of the New Testament. As of old the sound of the trumpet summoned the congregation before the Lord at the door of the Tabernacle, so ‘His elect’ shall be summoned by the sound of the trumpet in the day of Christ’s coming (Matt 24:31), and not only the living, but those also who had ‘slept’ (1 Cor 15:52)—’the dead in Christ’ (1 Thess 4:16). Similarly, the heavenly hosts are marshalled to the war of successive judgments (Rev 8:2; 10:7), till, as ‘the seventh angel sounded,’ Christ is proclaimed King Universal: ‘The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever’ (Rev 11:15). (Temple—Its Ministry and Services, Chapter 15 The New Moons: The Feast of the Seventh New Moon, or of Trumpets, or New Year’s Day)
Note that (ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian) Edershiem does not go to the excess of suggesting that the Second Coming will be on the old covenant day called "Rosh Hashanah". No one can know that, and there is certainly not enough information in the Scripture to draw such a conclusion, otherwise I'm sure Edershiem would have made that connection.

"Also in the day of your gladness, in your appointed feasts, and at the beginning of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be a memorial for you before your God: I am the Lord your God." (Num. 10:10)

The trumpet sounding was not limited to one day of the year in ancient Israel. But it was indded related to the offering of sacrifices to the Lord. To single out one day, Rosh Hashanah, and try to identify that with the Second Coming is still arbitrary.

BTW, I'm not going to mention Christmas/Easter since that not my schtick and I do not need to defend the practices of others. If someone else wants to argue the biblical basis for observing "Christian holy days" they can do so. Romish Christmas and judaizing Rosh Hashanah are the same in my book.

169 posted on 09/25/2006 12:26:13 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
Apparently, only Jesus' return will end all of this confusion, once Babylon is fallen, fallen.

But "Babylon" has fallen.

"And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. "

"And another angel followed, saying, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

"Babylon" was ancient Jerusalem that committed spiritual idolatry with the nations and was judged by God in AD70.

"Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath."

Josephus tells us:

WHEN therefore Titus had marched over that desert which lies between Egypt and Syria, in the manner forementioned, he came to Cesarea, having resolved to set his forces in order at that place, before he began the war. Nay, indeed, while he was assisting his father at Alexandria, in settling that government which had been newly conferred upon them by God, it so happened that the sedition at Jerusalem was revived, and parted into three factions, and that one faction fought against the other; which partition in such evil cases may be said to be a good thing, and the effect of Divine justice. Now as to the attack the zealots made upon the people, and which I esteem the beginning of the city's destruction, it hath been already explained after an accurate manner; as also whence it arose, and to how great a mischief it was increased. But for the present sedition, one should not mistake if he called it a sedition begotten by another sedition, and to be like a wild beast grown mad, which, for want of food from abroad, fell now upon eating its own flesh.

And now there were three treacherous factions in the city, the one parted from the other. Eleazar and his party, that kept the sacred first-fruits, came against John in their cups. Those that were with John plundered the populace, and went out with zeal against Simon. This Simon had his supply of provisions from the city, in opposition to the seditious. When, therefore, John was assaulted on both sides, he made his men turn about, throwing his darts upon those citizens that came up against him, from the cloisters he had in his possession, while he opposed those that attacked him from the temple by his engines of war.


170 posted on 09/25/2006 1:07:31 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; ladyinred; Alex Murphy; ...
There is the less need for apology for any digression here, that, besides the intrinsic interest of the question, it casts light on two most important subjects, For, first, it illustrates the attempt of the narrowest Judaic party in the Church to force on Gentile believers the yoke of the whole Law; the bearing of St. Paul in this respect; his relation to St. Peter; the conduct of the latter; and the proceedings of the Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem (Acts xv.). St. Paul, in his opposition to that party, stood even on Orthodox Jewish ground. But when he asserted, not only a new ‘law of liberty,’ but the typical and preparatory character of the whole Law, and its fulfillment in Christ, he went far beyond the Jewish standpoint. Further, the favorite modern theory as to fundamental opposition in principle between Pauline and Petrine theology in this respect, has, like many kindred theories, no support in the Jewish views on that subject, unless we suppose that Peter had belonged to the narrowest Jewish school, which his whole history seems to forbid. We can also understand, how the Divinely granted vision of the abrogation of the distinction between clean and unclean animals (Acts x. 9-16) may, though coming as a surprise, have had a natural basis in Jewish expectancy (a), and it explains how the Apostolic Synod, when settling the question,(b) ultimately fell back on the so-called Noachic commandments, though with very wider-reaching principles underlying their decision (Acts xv. 13-21). Lastly, it seems to cast even some light on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel; for, the question about ‘that prophet’ evidently referring to the possible alteration of the Law in Messianic times, which is reported only in the Fourth Gospel, shows such close acquaintance with the details of Jewish ideas on this subject, as seems to us utterly incompatible with its supposed origination as ‘The Ephesian Gospel’ towards the end of the second century, the outcome of Ephesian Church-teaching - an ‘esoteric and eclectic’ book, designed to modify ‘the impressions produced by the tradition previously recorded by the Synoptists.’ (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, APPENDIX XIV. The Law in Messianic Times)

Notes:

(a) The learned reader will find a very curious illustration of this in that strange Haggadah about the envy of the serpent being excited on seeing Adam fed with meat from heaven - where another equally curious Haggadah is related to show that ‘nothing is unclean which cometh down from heaven.’

(b) Yalkut i. 15, p. 4, d , towards the middle. A considerable part of vol. iii. of ‘Supernatural Religion’ is devoted to argumentation on this subject. But here also the information of the writer on the subject is neither accurate nor critical, and hence his reasoning and conclusions are vitiated.

These comments are found in a section dealing with the rabbinic view that during the messianic age the ceremonial law and the feasts were to cease. Edersheim notes, "But the Talmud goes even further, and lays down the two principles, that in the ‘age to come’ [the age of Messiah] the whole ceremonial Law and all the feasts were to cease."
171 posted on 09/25/2006 2:41:13 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

So, I take it you are cool with queer clergy?


172 posted on 09/25/2006 3:07:58 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04

What is that supposed to mean?


173 posted on 09/25/2006 3:19:05 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Buggman; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt
Note, it does not say, "Let us therefore keep all the feast days of the Jews as the Jews", which is apparently what you think it says. You believe gentiles should become religiously Jewish. That is not the NT take on things.

That is an odd statement to make considering the fact that Paul, as a highly trained scholar of "The Law", claimed he had always followed the Law.

Acts 22:2-3

Acts 24:14-16

Acts 25:8

Acts 28:17

If as you say.....Paul is instructing the newly converted Christians to not observe the Laws and Ordinances of The God of Israel.....then Paul is hereby proved to be a liar.

174 posted on 09/25/2006 3:25:01 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
No OT Law means all bets are off, dude. Queer clergy.... come on down, you're the next contestant on IT FEELS RIGHT
175 posted on 09/25/2006 3:52:34 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
That's awesome, Kerry!

My real name is Chris. I'd change the handle, but I don't want to lose the history.

176 posted on 09/25/2006 3:58:07 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Isaiah 66
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before Me, saith YHWH, so shall your seed and your name remain.
And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith YHWH.

The new moon feasts and sabbath are kept in the millenium.

177 posted on 09/25/2006 4:04:24 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny) (John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a MAN that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
what about tis little gem?

Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Once it hit me that the sheep Paul were pastoring had never heard of the Law until Paul taught them of it, all of his letters took on a more coherent meaning. It doesn't make sense for Paul to have taught people what the Law was, and then spend years telling them not to follow it.

178 posted on 09/25/2006 4:05:56 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
for example, in 1 Cor. 11 which is devoid of any uniquely Jewish trappings.

That's one thing you got right. No need to worry about anything Jewish being left in.

From the Council of Nicea (325):(excerpted)

It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded.

In rejecting their custom,(1) we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them?

They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people[the Jews].

That's why the church needed to change the calendar, needed to do away with the Sabbath and started Sun-day worship, in 'honor of the venerable Sun'. Why they needed to distance themselves from Passover and celebrate Easter, a name derived from the pagan godess of fertility, widely known at the time.

The church has done nearly all it could to distance themselves from the root that they 'claim' to be grafted unto. Yet, it resembles nothing of the root anymore.

The part I want to specifically point out is this: for the Saviour has shown us another way;

An actual admission that the church has deviated from 'the way' and gone after 'another way'!! And to top it off, they give credit to Yehoshua for this 'new way'. The church admits that this 'other way' is more CONVENIENT!

179 posted on 09/25/2006 4:14:49 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny) (John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a MAN that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
Once it hit me that the sheep Paul were pastoring had never heard of the Law until Paul taught them of it, all of his letters took on a more coherent meaning. It doesn't make sense for Paul to have taught people what the Law was, and then spend years telling them not to follow it.

True enough. Gentile Godfearers who wanted to become full-fledged believers in God through the ministry of Yehoshua had ALREADY received Moses' instructions concerning how people are to live, as taught in the Noachide and Sinatic covenants since when Moses [Pentateuch-first 5 books of the Bible] is taught, such teaching encompasses both the Laws of Noah and the Mosaic Covenant.

A lot of these Gentile Godfearers already attended synagogue and or attended the Festivals and Holy Days, like Cornelius. All that was needed for a full conversion from Godfearer to Jew was, being cicumcised. And James had already pointed out that cicumcism wasn't necessary to be grafted into the family. So, the big thing that the Godfearers were lacking in was understanding of the dietary guidelines, and fornication like not having relations with ones sisters, aunts, uncles, neices etc.

They already had certain basics, just not the fundamental guidelines in dietary regulations since they didn't eat with Jews nor would they know how to properly prepare their food. (kosher)

You can SEE through the way the Jews lived, some of what was expected. But, without dining with them, or watching them prepare their foods, you wouldn't KNOW how to go about preparing kosher meals. They wouldn't have realized that their was a difference. They needed to be told and then instructed on how to do that.

It wasn't about making Jews more comfortable around Gentiles, it was about making Gentiles acceptable of God. It was about being a part of the family and being able to sit together at the 'wedding feast'.

It is wrong to tempt someone to break God's Law. If the Gentile didn't follow the dietery guidelines, and a Jew were over for dinner, it would be tempting for the Jew to break his dietary guideline. Better for all to be following the same dietary rules that the Jews use, since Gentiles are grafted to the Jews and not the other way around.

These are the various types of people we are dealing with in the first century.


180 posted on 09/25/2006 4:30:38 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny) (John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a MAN that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
No OT Law means all bets are off, dude.

You misunderstand my position.

No OT ceremonial law in the new covenant era, e.g., no slaughtering animal and smearing blood as a token of propiatiation of sins, no keeping of judaic festival days, no dividing of men along racial lines in the covenant community.

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the four first commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.

III. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19)

Texts:

James i. 25; James ii. 8, 10, 11, 12; Rom. xiii. 8, 9; Deut. v. 32; Deut. x. 4; Ex. xxxiv. 1; Matt. xxii. 37, 38, 39, 40.

Heb. ix chapter; Heb. x. 1; Gal. lv. 1, 2, 3; Col. ii. 17; 1 Cor. v. 7; 2 Cor vi. 17; Jude ver. 23; Col. ii. 14, 16, 17; Dan. ix. 27; Eph. ii. 15, 16.

Ex. xxi chap.; Ex. xxii. 1 to 29; Gen. xlix. 10 with 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14; Matt. v. 17 with ver. 38, 39; 1 Cor. ix. 8, 9, 10.

Homosexuality is not a ceremonial issue. It is a moral issue, and the moral law is still in effect for all men regardless of the ethnicity.
181 posted on 09/25/2006 5:07:21 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
"for example, in 1 Cor. 11 which is devoid of any uniquely Jewish trappings."

That's one thing you got right.

Then what is your argument?

182 posted on 09/25/2006 5:09:03 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; ladyinred; ...
Once it hit me that the sheep Paul were pastoring had never heard of the Law until Paul taught them of it, all of his letters took on a more coherent meaning. It doesn't make sense for Paul to have taught people what the Law was, and then spend years telling them not to follow it.

Of course Paul carefully differentiated among the various portions of the law, just as Jesus did.

Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not bear false witness,' 'Do not defraud,' 'Honor your father and your mother.' " And he answered and said to Him, "Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth." Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me." (Mark 10:17-21)
Now the judaizers would read verse 19 this way:
You know the commandments: 'Do not wear a garment of mixed linen and wool,' 'Eat the right type of food,' 'Do not let your livestock breed with another kind,' 'Do not shave around the sides of your head, and do not disfigure the edges of your beard. ,' 'Do not sow your field with mixed seed,' 'You shall kill a goat for a sin offering.' "
But in all the lists of laws that are to govern the people of God mentioned in the New Testament, none of them ... let me repeat ... none of them includes the sort of peculiar ceremonial laws mentioned in the judaic ceremonial code.

E.g.,

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, (Rom. 1:28-32)

For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Rom. 13:9-10)

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:18-21)

For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. (James 2:10-12)

The reason is plain enough, they are not suitable for a racially integrated covenant community.

These lists all parallel the moral code as summarized in the Ten Commandments. None of them mention ceremonial issues.

This is a peculiar thing that modern judaizers cannot seem to account for. They brutally assert that this ceremoninal code is still in effect, but a careful study of the Scripture does not support their theory.

183 posted on 09/25/2006 6:12:13 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; Buggman; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; ...
"And another angel followed, saying, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

"Babylon" was ancient Jerusalem that committed spiritual idolatry with the nations and was judged by God in AD70."

Where do you get this? One of the great results of the second exile was that Israel did not return to idolatry. In fact, even with all of the allure of Grecian culture and Roman power Israel did not succumb to their gods.

Where did Israel cause "nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication"? Israel was just a small pawn used by Rome and Egypt as a buffer. It had no influence or power beyond its own borders and its religion was a source of disdain since it was monotheistic and held by what was seen as a defeated country. The only major party that was friendly with Rome was the aristocratic Sadducees. The Pharisees and the Zealots were both against anything Roman or Greek.

There is no factual evidence in Israel's history to show that this prophecy in Revelation has been fulfilled. It takes gross spiritualizing to the point of fiction to read "spiritual idolatry" into what happened in 70 A.D.
184 posted on 09/25/2006 6:24:13 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
You misunderstand my position.

I understand your position completely and am trying to point out the inconsistency.

In keeping the feast day WITHOUT the ceremony we're actually very close to what you list. I personally do not think anyone is required to "do" anything beyond the two true sacraments in the NT - Adult Baptism and The Lord's Supper and keeping the 10 Commandments. I do know that the Lord's Supper was performed as a Passover meal because the Lord was slaughtered as the Lamb of God. However, I also know that one must not grieve the Holy Spirit. Once I understood what the true Biblical Holy Days were all about, I felt compelled to keep them. I feel that this obedience is a product of my faith.

You wish to pick and choose which Laws of the OT to follow. Homosexuality falls under unclean and immoral. I ask you, do you keep the Sabbath Day Holy? Do you have crosses in your residence or your church?

185 posted on 09/25/2006 6:28:56 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
There is no factual evidence in Israel's history to show that this prophecy in Revelation has been fulfilled. It takes gross spiritualizing to the point of fiction to read "spiritual idolatry" into what happened in 70 A.D.

Is this post to me?

186 posted on 09/25/2006 6:31:46 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04

It was in response to TC's post #170 to you.


187 posted on 09/25/2006 6:39:28 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan

Thank you, I missed that one.


188 posted on 09/25/2006 6:56:30 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; blue-duncan
"Babylon" was ancient Jerusalem that committed spiritual idolatry with the nations and was judged by God in AD70.

Babylon has not fallen yet:

Rev 14:8 And another angel, a second one, followed, saying, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her immorality."

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy. For I have espoused you to one Man, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

Christ's bride is the virgin church that has never allowed pagan practices to enter into it. Babylon is the whore who commits "spiritual adultery" by allowing pagan practices to masquerade as Christianity.

189 posted on 09/25/2006 6:56:41 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Diego1618; Buggman; kerryusama04
What you have failed to address is how one goes about keeping the old covenant feast days without all the cultic trappings of the old covenant, in particular the animal sacrifices and the levitical priesthood.

Are you looking for instruction? If you don't know how to celebrate the days that God ordained then I suggest that you do some research on how various Christians observe them.

There is no instruction on how to keep Rosh Hashanah in a fashion pleasing to God without animal sacrifices, a levitical priesthood and a temple in which to bring the sacrifice before God.

There is plenty of instruction. God tells us exactly when to celebrate the feast of trumpets:

Lev 23:24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation.

He tells us it is a memorial of "blowing of trumpets":

Lev 23:24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation.

He tells us that those who worship Him should gather together on that day:

Lev 23:24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets,a holy convocation.

He tells us that we are to do no servile work on that day:

Lev 23:25 Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

Now we've already discussed the fact that the church of the Lord, our messiah, Jesus Christ, in the book of Hebrews, tells us that the sacrifice of Christ is now sufficient for offerings. What is pleasing to God is that people honor the days he created. He created them for a reason, for our benefit..and that is pleasing to God.

You need to invent an extra-biblical tradition just as the apostate Jewish rabbis have invented a tradition to celebrate these days without all the physical trappings outlined in the Mosaic ceremonial code.

What exactly are you saying I invented? The day? Not working? Blowing a trumpet? What?

Hebrews doesn't just say that the sacrifices and priesthood have changed. It says they are are decayed and were passing away in the first century along with the rest of the old covenant ceremonial laws.

Here again is where you make a major leap and insert topcat54 doctrine into the doctrine of God. The priesthood, according to the word of God, is CHANGED, not done away with:

Heb 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 Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Jesus Christ is now our high priest AND our sacrifice. Therefore, Levitical priesthood functions under the new covenant ARE changed. The creation AND observance of the feast days of the Lord were NOT functions of the priesthood. They were, and are, created through Jesus Christ himself and ARE his feast days:

Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

This is the major stumbling block to your understanding. You can't resist the urge to "do away" with the things that Hebrews doesn't do away with. You invent your own idea of what the "old covenant" is versus the "new covenant" and then proceed to build your theology upon it.

190 posted on 09/25/2006 7:29:10 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; ladyinred; Alex Murphy; ...
The Christian church recognizes that the Lord's Supper has replaced Passover in God's new covenant economy. I don't think this basic fact in dispute.

Ah, once again, lacking any Biblical argument, you fall back on the supposed "unbroken" tradition of the Church (never mind that there has consistantly been a persecuted minority which kept the Feasts). If you're going to constantly choose tradition over Scripture, why don't you just go all the way and convert to Catholicism?

You've still not shown any Biblical argument that any part of the Torah was understood by the Apostles to be done away with along with the Old Covenant in place of the new. Are you ever going to attempt to find one for us?

Note, it does not say, "Let us therefore keep all the feast days of the Jews as the Jews", which is apparently what you think it says.

It says, "Let us therefore keep the (Passover) Feast." In what way do you suppose that they were keeping it other than the way that Yeshua Himself kept it and commanded it to be kept? What Scripture can you cite in support of your view?

You believe gentiles should become religiously Jewish. That is not the NT take on things.

I believe that Gentile believers should keep the Torah on the basis that our Lord kept the Torah, and we are supposed to be emulating Him by the power of His Spirit, and because having the Torah written on our hearts is a specific promise of the New Covenant. I agree with the Apostles, however, that no one is saved on the basis of keeping the Torah, but on the basis of their trust in Yeshua the Messiah. I further agree that no one is saved on the basis of their Jewishness, and that Jewishness and Gentileness is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God (in faith, by the power of His Spirit, not in our own ability) is what matters.

What you refuse to see is that the New Testament commands Jews to stay Jewish and to keep the whole Torah (1 Co. 7:18, Gal. 5:3). There was never any question in their minds that Jewish believers should keep the Torah; in fact, when Sha'ul was charged with teaching otherwise, he took a Nazrite oath and went to sacrifice in the Temple in order to prove the charge false (Acts 21:20ff).

Now, if Yeshua taught His Jewish disciples to keep the whole Torah, which He plainly did and you have not yet even attempted to refute, and if He commanded them to "and teach all nations (i.e. Gentiles) . . . Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Mat. 28:19-20), which you yourself cited, how then are we to suppose that they took that to mean that the Gentiles should be taught to violate the Torah?

The debate of the NT, I believe, is not about whether men should keep the whole Torah in faith, but on two things:

1) Whether a person had to be Jewish (circumcised) to be saved. The answer is a resounding no.

2) The proper relationship between grace, faith, and works. The answer was that salvation was by God's grace alone, received by faith (trusting in the Messiah and His sacrifice), which would in turn result in repentence from sin and keeping God's commands.

Sha'ul claims to keep the whole Torah (ibid., Acts 25:8) and to remain a Pharisee (23:6). Either he was telling the truth, in which case he both kept the Feastdays and taught others to do the same, or he is a liar and his books should not be in the Bible.

It is ludicrous to interpret the letters of Sha'ul to contradict the actions of Sha'ul.

The fact remains that there is no authority in the New Testament for observing all the old covenant feast days according to an arbitrary tradition invented in an era that is post-apostolic and post-temple.

Already answered, and simply repeating yourself doesn't constitute a counter-argument: Show me where in the NT is there any authorization to cease to observe the Sabbath and the other Feastdays.

You keep saying that the "law has changed" as a matter of rote. Prove that it has. At best, you can make a case (which causes a contradiction in Scripture) that the sacrifices have been transferred to the Cross, but that says nothing about whether we should continue to observe God's Appointed Times.

Again, the simple fact is that the very passage in Hebrews (chapter 8) which speaks of a change in the covenants quotes from Jer. 31, which states in no uncertain terms that the New Covenant includes the Torah!

Your entire hang-up about "rabbinical tradition" in observing the Feasts is hypocritical. On the one hand, you decry extra-Biblical (but not yet shown to be anti-Biblical) tradition in keeping the Feasts of the Lord, but you keep your own extra-Biblical traditions in observing Sunday, for example.

That's a rather hollow claim since we all agree that "Torah" has been significantly altered in the new covenant.

You're still presuming that which you have yet to prove, I see. And it's obvious that you've either not read my arguments on my blog or that you have no answer to them.

Has God written the law on our hearts that we ought to observe the judaistic Passover or feast of trumpets? Has God witten the law on our hearts that we ought not to shave around the sides of our heads, or not to wear clothing of mixed materials?

I know He has on mine. I can't speak for what's written on your heart.

What "tradition" shall we follow on these things?

Why don't you agree to follow God's written commands, and then worry about the "traditional" details?

It might do well to consider Edersheim's comments of the matter of trumpets:

Funny, that seems pretty close to what I wrote.

Note that (ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian) Edershiem does not go to the excess of suggesting that the Second Coming will be on the old covenant day called "Rosh Hashanah".

So?

No one can know that, and there is certainly not enough information in the Scripture to draw such a conclusion, otherwise I'm sure Edershiem would have made that connection.

Oi vey. You've not yet presented anything other than uncertainties and mud in the water. You've not presented a single argument from Scripture to show that I'm wrong--all you've done is make another silly argument from silence: "Well, if Edersheim didn't say it, it can't be true."

Moreover, you've once again applied a double-standard out of your kneejerk dislike for anything Messianic or Jewish: You quote Edersheim, who essentially agrees with me about the symbolism of the Feast of Trumpets and who does so because he read the same Jewish traditional sources that I did.

How do you not see the hypocrisy of that? Seriously, did it never occur to you for even a moment that Edersheim was probably one of my sources?

I swear TC, you're making it more evident with every post that if I said the sky was blue, you'd go out of your way to argue that it was mauve.

The trumpet sounding was not limited to one day of the year in ancient Israel.

True. Yet God singled out one of those New Moons in particular. Did you ever wonder why? Or did you just dismiss such a question as irrelevant because of your Reform bias?

Romish Christmas and judaizing Rosh Hashanah are the same in my book.

You have no Feasts to honor the Lord at all in your life then? Small wonder your posts sound so bitter. And you also loose all right to ever use the "Church tradition" argument ever again, since the universal tradition of the Church is to have special days to particularly remember and reinact what God has done for us.

We've been here and done this, TC. And you once again demonstrate that you do not have a cogent, logical, Biblical argument against my Messianic beliefs.

191 posted on 09/25/2006 8:16:58 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; topcat54; Diego1618; kerryusama04
Very nicely and succinctly put, Doug. You cut to the heart of the matter while I was dickering on details. My hat's off to you.
192 posted on 09/25/2006 8:18:53 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
1) Whether a person had to be Jewish (circumcised) to be saved. The answer is a resounding no.

That's true. James determined that circumcision wasn't necessary for Gentiles. In Acts 15:19-20 James, who is in charge of the early church states what IS necessary:

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Paul chose to ignore what James directed.

Galatians 2:6,9
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

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.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Paul conveniently forgot about this part:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

James was the Head of Christianity of his day, which as you pointed out was a sect within Judaism. Bishop of Jerusalem is not simply one among equals, but the leader. This is why Paul resented James so much, and it is why James sent others to spy on Paul. And this is why Peter left the table at Antioch. If Peter had been 'in charge', why feel guilty about breaking table fellowship with gentiles? Answer, because James was in charge and Head of the Church

Galatians 2
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

They left because James who was in authority sent people to check up on things in Antioch, and they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar so to speak.

193 posted on 09/26/2006 5:11:44 AM PDT by ET(end tyranny) (John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a MAN that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Diego1618; Buggman; kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
Are you looking for instruction? If you don't know how to celebrate the days that God ordained then I suggest that you do some research on how various Christians observe them.

If I wanted a rabbi I would ask a rabbi. If I were interested in mere human tradition I have lots to choose from.

Actually, you folks are doing a masterful job avoiding the issue.

On the one hand you are saying that the law regarding feasts has not changed and all Christians regardless of their racial background are obligated to observe these feasts, while on the other hand you are ignoring the details of the law and just placing emphasis in the mere timing of the feasts.

You are picking and choosing to suit your odd situation.

Let's face it that the modern day judaizers are in worse shape than their 1st century cousins since at least those folks had a temple to point the gentiles to in order to place them under the ceremonial law.

Modern judaizers have no such instructions, but are making things up on the fly, using the same tactics that the apostate rabbis used after their temple was destroyed and the implication of the passing of the ceremonial law became apparent.

Thankfully most of the Christian church left these judaizing tendencies long ago.

194 posted on 09/26/2006 6:06:35 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; DouglasKC; Diego1618; Buggman; kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; ...
Thankfully most of the Christian church left these judaizing tendencies long ago.

Most of the Christian Church prays the rosary, prays to dead people, "venerates" Mary and the Pope, bows to graven images...

Seems when they threw out the old traditions they brought in some new ones. At least the old traditions were scriptural.

195 posted on 09/26/2006 6:20:22 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; DouglasKC; Diego1618; Buggman; kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; ...
Seems when they threw out the old traditions they brought in some new ones. At least the old traditions were scriptural.

Hardly. The Christian church blowing horns on Rosh Hashanah is no more Scriptural (i.e., OT + NT) that splashing holy water on yourself or praying to Mary.

Blowing a horn on a depleted "Rosh Hashanah" "in Jesus' name" is no different or any more appropriate in the new covenant than sacrificing a goat "in Jesus' name".

As Calvin put it, they are both a form of "will worship" since they have their foundation in the traditions of men, not the Word of God.

The modern judaizers have no Levites to show them how to call a "holy convocation" on these alleged holy days.

"Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

196 posted on 09/26/2006 6:33:03 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Blowing a horn on a depleted "Rosh Hashanah" "in Jesus' name" is no different or any more appropriate in the new covenant than sacrificing a goat "in Jesus' name".

Well, now I wouldn't go that far. Sacrificing goats "in Jesus' name" would be an explicit denial of the efficiency of Christ's atonement. (There is no indication Acts 22 is in any way normative.)

Basically, all someone is doing in celebrating a "depleted" Rosh Hashanah (which is a very good description!) is blowing a rams horn and shouting some Hebrew words. If you see Christian symbolism in that, well and good for you. I have no quarrel with this. My quarrel is when people start talking about these Jewish holy days being normative for Christians. That is simply unacceptable. Consider:

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days – these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!" - Col. 2:16-17 [NET]

Likewise, Romans 14 is explicit that the person who recognizes the holy day - to the glory of God - is neither inferior nor superior to the one who considers all days equal. Therefore, if celebrating the Old Testament feast days helps you comprehend the reality that was Christ's finished work, those feast days have never been forbidden - but at the same time, they have never been declared normative for the Christian church. Those who start critiquing other Christians who don't celebrate the Day of Atonement or Passover have completely missed the boat. They belong to an old economy which has been irrevocably swept away (Heb. 8:13 and following).

197 posted on 09/26/2006 7:14:28 AM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; P-Marlowe

Meant to include you on the above reply.


198 posted on 09/26/2006 7:15:18 AM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
I don't know how to reply to all of those folks.

As Calvin put it...

Of course Calvin didn't believe in the LAW - it convicted him of his murderous deeds.

1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word.

I choose the LORD.

199 posted on 09/26/2006 7:21:48 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Buggman; jude24; xzins; blue-duncan
You avoided my point. Nice dodge. But the Christian Church, after removing all the scriptural Jewish feasts and holy days, created their own non-scriptural feast and holy days. After eliminating many of the traditions of the Jews, they adopted many of the traditions of the pagans.

So arguing that because th Christian Church abandoned all these Jewish practices that they were inappropriate after Christ is meaningless since the Christian Church later adopted many pagan practices to take their place. At least the Jewish practices honored the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

200 posted on 09/26/2006 8:11:03 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 501-541 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson