Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yom Kippur: Israel's Reconciliation
The B'rit Chadasha Pages | 9/29/06 | Michael D. Bugg

Posted on 09/29/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by Buggman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-292 next last
To: 1000 silverlings; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; topcat54
Buggman's article: The sacrifice was not accepted because it was being offered by the wrong High Priest:

silverlings: An astounding statement, considering that this is just the opposite of what the book of Hebrews teaches!

Please re-read the article. Buggman's reference to the unaccepted sarifice is referring to the one at the temple on earth, not in heaven. The ribbon did not turn white because God was trying to tell the first century Jews to quit sacrificing animals. Buggman is in no way saying that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient.

51 posted on 10/02/2006 7:41:56 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; HarleyD; Buggman; 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; Diego1618; DouglasKC; jude24
I believe in a replacement theology of sorts, or rather an addition theology.:

Much fuss has been made in our Jewish evangelism circles regarding "replacement" theology, the idea that the church has "replaced" the Jewish people in the plan of God. Some have even accused all who think New Covenant believers are "Spiritual Israel" as being guilty of this "replacement theology", that is, of replacing the Jewish people with the church. Charges have been made that this idea of "Spiritual Israel" leads to anti-semitism.

Ironically my first exposure to the idea of all believers being spiritually Israel came about through involvement in "Messianic Judaism"! Way back in 1975 I attended a seminar by Manny Brotman, president of the "Messianic Jewish Movement International" on "How to Share the Messiah". In the seminar notes I read: "When a Gentile asks the Messiah into his heart and life, he is accepting the Jewish Messiah, the Jewish Bible, and the Jewish blood of atonement and could be considered a proselyte to biblical Judaism and a child of Abraham by faith!" Isn't this essentially a statement of the "Spiritual Israel" idea?

NOT REPLACEMENT...EXPANSION! by Rev. Fred Klett

Klett expresses a reasonable version of Reformed Israelology. I can agree with most of what he has written on the subject.

So we seem to be agreeing to a certain point. Obviously where we differ is the extent to which the practices of old Israel may legitimately be brought into the new Israel.

While some folks here have tried to deny there is a distinction in the Bible between moral and ceremonial law, I think this is very much a minority position. Most new covenant believers recognize this distinction. So it it not hard, for example, to recognize things like bestiality, incest, and homosexuality as all being sin simply because they are issue of the moral law, not the ceremonial. No need for them to be explicitly reiterated in the NT (although homosexuality and incest certainly are) because they are part of the eternal moral law of God, binding on all men in all ages.

Again, where we differ is on this nagging matter of the ceremonial laws and how they may or may not apply to the church as parts of religious worship.

Let me make it clear that we are not speaking about Jewish followers of Christ retaining their cultural heritage and family customs. No one is opposed to that, any more than we would oppose Italians who come to Christ continuing to enjoy uniquely Italian customs. As long as they are not forbidden in the Word of God, we are permitted as individuals to enjoy those customs and traditions. If you want to blow a horn on the new moon, go right ahead.

The problem comes when some folks try to introduce these Jewish customs and traditions into the church as normative ways of worshipping God. Then things get sticky. It must legitimately be asked, where has God called for this sort of culturally limited worship patterns in the universal church of God? Why are we not to take, for example, the book of Hebrews as teaching these patterns as being part of the old covenant that was declared "decayed and passing away"?

Some folks are insisting that the biblical pattern is for the church to observe new moons and feast days, just without the sacrifices and levitical trappings. I assume that is the reason for quoting Revelation, "who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus."

In my estimation, and in my reading of the church fathers, the difficulty here is in further subdividing the ceremonial law into another two categories; those non-moral laws which expired in Jesus' day and those which did not.

Do the commandments of God which you are to keep (according to Revelation) include sacrificing animals or being careful about the way you shave or about the sort of material you have in your clothing? If not, why not? You can brush off my list of questions, but you have yet to paint a bright line for stating clearly what goes and what stays. You may think you know that in your head, but until you can articulate it from Scripture it merely remains a tradition of men. As I said earlier no one is obligated to keep your traditions.

I personally have yet to see a good argument from Scripture for this further subdivision of the ceremonial law. I would be more than happy to rearrange my views based on sound reasoning from the Bible. Right now the overall language of Galatians and Hebrews leads me to believe that all the ceremonial law was expired in the transition from old covenant to new covenant.

52 posted on 10/03/2006 9:31:27 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; topcat54; HarleyD

Then Mr. Buggman needs to rewrite his article. Let him be clear in what he is stating, for it is difficult to make heads or tails of his confusing personal theology. Maybe if he loses all the affectations it would make some sense.


53 posted on 10/03/2006 10:57:38 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; HarleyD; Buggman; 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; Diego1618; DouglasKC; ...
Tonight at sundown is the beginning of Yom Kippur.

We should seek the Face of God on this the most Holy day of the year.

b'shem Yah'shua

54 posted on 10/03/2006 11:35:19 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; kerryusama04; HarleyD; Buggman; 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; Diego1618; DouglasKC; ...
Actually, my "day of atonement" is every Lord's Day when I gather together with the people of God and recall what Christ has done for me and my household. We sing praise to Him, we pray to Him, we hear Him speak to us through His Word from His ordained elders, and we share in the new covenant meal.

And in reality Christ Himself is our true Day of Atonement. That is what the day represented, the coming of Christ to make propitiation and expiation before God because of our sin. He is our kippur, our covering. He is both the Lamb shed to atone for our sins, and the mercy seat where God comes to dwell with His people and which hides the guilt of the law from the eyes of God. He is the Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, most unlike the Levitical priests who could not offer perfection. "Year after year" people needed to return to have the blood of animals shed to try to take away sins. "Year after year" the high priest had to first atone for his own sins, then he could minister for the people.

But Christ is our Perfection. We no longer need to return in the futility of "year after year" ceremonies. "When He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

"Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

There are really 52 "most Holy days" in the Christian calendar, one for every week. The annual sabbaths have passed away since they were but a shadow of Jesus Christ who is the "good things to come".

We no longer live in the shadows since we have been transformed into the sons of Light (John 12:36; 1 Thess. 5:5).

We look back on Christ's atoning work when we gather together with our fellow believers and celebrate the Lord's Supper. In the simplicity of bread and wine we are reminded of His broken body and shed blood of the new covenant on our behalf. And we do this continually and often until He comes again.

"But now [Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises."

The old covenant Yom Kippur, which unbelieving Judaism still tries imperfectly to recall, is merely a reminder that we participate in a better covenant. One not established with Levites and the blood of animals shed "year after year". But in the blood of Jesus Christ shed once for all time to save His people from their sins.

The old covenat could only hold out an imperfect hope of salvation since the offerings and priests were both temporal. The new covenant is a surety of salvation since it is made for us by the eternal Son of God.

Let us cast off the shadows and walk in the light of Christ's new covenant.

55 posted on 10/03/2006 12:12:38 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; topcat54
Well, it looks like I'll be tackling this thread in reverse-order (since that's the order of things in my post file), so if I miss a previous argument as I'm working my way back, my apologies in advance:

Please re-read the article. Buggman's reference to the unaccepted sarifice is referring to the one at the temple on earth, not in heaven.

That is correct. Silverlings doesn't take the time to read what I write before he/she posts.

The ribbon did not turn white because God was trying to tell the first century Jews to quit sacrificing animals.

Not necessarily, actually. Acts indicates that the first-century Messianic Jews, including the Apostles, saw nothing wrong with continuing to worship in the Temple, which meant participating in the daily sacrifices by assent. Moreover, Acts shows that many Jewish believers took voluntary Nazrite oaths, which meant offering specified sacrifices at the end of their terms (which Sha'ul participated in to prove that he was still following Torah).

Rather, the rejection of Yeshua as the Messiah-King by the Jewish leadership, including the majority of the priests, resulted in a corresponding rejection of their sacrifices by God. By visibly not accepting the Yom Kippur sacrifice, God was calling attention to the insufficiency of the Temple system apart from the ministry of the King-Priest Yeshua. Likewise, constantly opening the Temple doors was a call for all Israel to enter into the special closeness that is afforded to us in our Savior. Had there been national repentence and turning to the Messiah for true forgiveness of sins, I'll wager that the ribbon would have once again turned white as a symbol of Israel's acceptance--that, or the Messiah Himself would have returned to Israel post haste, wearing His white garments, as that sign.

I normally separate the issues of Torah-observance from the issues of sacrifice. Even if the specific nature of sacrifice has been forever altered so that animal sacrifices are now an abomination before God, that by no means overturns all of the "ceremonial" Torah commands. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, one can observe the specific commands for Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Passover, etc. which were for all the people, not just the Levites.

I went to a Messianic Kol Nidre ("All Vows") service Sunday night. There was a lot of traditional Jewish liturgy; there was also significant modification of the liturgy to reflect New Covenant truth, such as responsive readings from the book of Hebrews. The truth that Yeshua is our High Priest, as well as the sacrifice who was slain and yet lives (like the two goats) was very much at the forefront of the service and sermon, which ended with a very Evangelical altar call for any who had not yet repented and put their trust in the Messiah of Israel. The fact that the sacrifice has been transferred in no way took away from the importance of keeping the Day of Atonement--on the contrary, it made it full.

Now, having affirmed that the only sacrifice which is necessary--indeed, the only sacrifice that can truly take away our sins--is that of Yeshua, I'll go ahead and say that I believe that there will indeed be a return of sacrifice and offering, for several reasons.

First, because sacrifice and offering was part-and-parcel of Apostolic worship, as already noted.

Second, because even after Yeshua's ultimate sacrifice, sacrifices still serve the purpose of "sanctifi[ng] to the purifying of the flesh" (Heb. 9:13) and serving as "a remembrance again made of sins every year" (10:3). There is no doubt that the Messiah's sacrifce is a superior sacrifice, which alone can "purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (9:14). There is also no doubt that a backhoe is a superior tool to a shovel--that doesn't make the shovel without value for certain tasks. Just as all of the sacrifices before Yeshua pointed forward to the true Sacrifice, though "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (10:4), all of the sacrifices after Yeshua's great work on the Cross serve as a memorial of it.

Third, because God has affirmed that "this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year" (Lev. 16:34, speaking of the Yom Kippur sacrifice). Likewise, the priesthood of Phineas' line is given forever: "Behold, I give unto him My covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel" (Num. 25:12-13). God could well have said, "Until the Messiah/Prophet like unto Moses comes," if He had intended the Levitical priesthood to be a temporary office, but He didn't. He gave the office of priest unto the sons of Aaron forever (Heb. 'olam).

This eternal Levitial priesthood is confirmed in Jeremiah 33:

For thus saith YHVH; "David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually." And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, "Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me." (vv. 17-22)
Notice what the Lord is saying here: The eternality of the Levite office is directly linked to the eternality of the office of the Messiah.

Several objections might be raised to this verse: For example, why couldn't the priesthood mentioned be that of Yeshua? Because "it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Heb. 7:14). Yeshua is of the order of Melchiezedek, not the order of Levi. Furthermore, while "a son to reign upon his throne" (Jer. 33:21) is constructed to indicate a singular person, all references to the Levites in this passage are in the plural.

The second objection that might be raised is that the "Levites" here refer to believers, for we are after all referred to as a kingdom of priests (cf. 1 Pt. 2:9, Rev. 5:10). However, this too falls short. Referring to the Church as a "royal priesthood" and a "kingdom of priests" refers us back to Ex. 19:6 and affirms the ingrafting of the believing remnant of Gentiles into Israel's root (again, which is to say that we are adopted, not that we replace the natural-born children). However, just as Israel was a kingdom of priests and yet only the tribe of Levi was called to the specific priestly office of the Tabernacle and later the Temple, neither does the Church's ingrafting into the Kingdom of Priests make us Levites (barring those believers who may, in fact, be descended from Phineas, of course).

Fourth, the continuance of the Levitical priesthood and service is prophesied in Scripture. In addition to the above passage, Ezekiel 40-47 describe a Temple which has never been built, in which the Levitical priesthood will minister: "'But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to me to minister unto Me, and they shall stand before Me to offer unto Me the fat and the blood,' saith the Lord YHVH (Ezk. 44:15).

Moreover, premillennial eschatology recognizes that there will be the beginnings of a restored priesthood and a restored Temple even before the Second Coming (cf. Dan. 9:27, 11:31, 12:11). Attempts to explain away this clear reference to sacrifice in the End Times all fail for four reasons:

First, because every other time Daniel refers to the removal of the sacrifice (ibid., also 8:11-13), it is by Antiochus and/or the Antichrist, and is presented as a great evil; it is therefore inconsistant and a matter of special pleading to claim that 9:27 refers to the "ending" of animal sacrifice which alledgedly took place at the Cross.

Second, every other instance in Daniel refers to the literal ending of sacrifice and offering in the Temple of God due to the military might of a hostile force. The sacrifices continued in the Temple for nearly another forty years after the Messiah's Sacrifice.

Third, because as already noted, the early Jewish believers continued worship and offering in the Temple for at least thirty years (up to Acts 21) after Yeshua's Ascension--they apparently didn't see the sacrifices as having ended as a legitimate expression of worship, provided that they were understood in their proper context.

And fourth, because there is no indication that Yeshua's ministry lasted for the requisite 3 1/2 years; Yochanan (John) mentions only three Passovers in his Gospel account, which gives us a period of less than three years (see here for a detailed chronology).

Some may ask why God would allow a rebuilt Temple before Israel as a whole accepted Yeshua the Messiah as their Lord. The answer is easy to understand: For nearly two millennia, the Jewish people have been forced to downplay the necessity of blood sacrifice in atonement for sin. With a functioning Temple in place, they will find themselves revisiting oft-ignored passages in the Tanakh (like Lev. 17:11, for example). I believe that God will use a restored Temple service to clear a path in the Israelite consciousness for the Cross.

As for why there will be restored sacrifice in the Millennium and (perhaps) beyond, I would suggest that in what will otherwise be Eden restored, the sacrificies will serve to keep the heavy price of sin in everyone's mind.

There are many even in the Messianic movement who disagree with me on this matter. That's fine; it's not a major point of my theology, though I believe it is a necessary one to reconcile all of Scripture together. However, the issue of the future place, if any, of Temple sacrifice is again not one of primary importance to the issue of keeping the Torah and (for example) God's Appointed Times. The sacrifices served as a "second best" solution: "Don't sin, but if you do, do this." With Yeshua as our ultimate Sacrifice, our sole and sufficient atonement, the only means by which our sins may be truly taken away, we are free to keep the whole Torah out of love and adoration for our Lord, not out of fear of punishment.

Shalom.

56 posted on 10/03/2006 1:15:37 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; XeniaSt; HarleyD; Buggman; 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; Diego1618; DouglasKC; ...
TC, what happened between posts 52 and 55? Did your dog die or something?

You can brush off my list of questions, but you have yet to paint a bright line for stating clearly what goes and what stays. You may think you know that in your head, but until you can articulate it from Scripture it merely remains a tradition of men. As I said earlier no one is obligated to keep your traditions.

Have you read any of my posts? There is a very bright line between my posts and yours. Aside from the Barnabas thing (which I quoted to show that Sunday was a creation of men), I quote scripture and you quote men.

Here's the bright line for the record:

Exo 20:19 Then they said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, lest we die." Exo 20:20 And Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin." Exo 20:21 So the people stood at a distance, while Moses approached the thick cloud where God was. Exo 20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'You yourselves have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven.

Everything before this must be considered the Commandments of God. Some consider the stuff after, but at a bare minimum, the 10 Commandments were given directly from God. No mediator.

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. Mat 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Mat 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

These least commandments. I guess it depends on what one considers "these least commandments". That does leave room for more, but Jesus specifically says there is a minimum. You'll note that the Holy Days are not in the minimum! I personally believe that once a Christian actually studies God's Word and learns what these days are, the Christian will want to keep God's Holy Days - NOT mens. At least that how it is working out with me.

As far as I am concerned, keeping the 10 Commandments AND having the testimony of Jesus Christ ought to be the goal of the converted Christian.

As far as the "ceremonial" stuff - the service where I worship had no ceremony. We all pretty much fasted and then went to church. The sermon highlighted many of the parallels with the Day of Atonement to Christ's sacrifice. The most stark parallel that I see in the Day of Atonement and Christ's Sacrifice is that those who observe the Day fast and do absolutely nothing. The entire Nation of Israel did nothing while their High Priest humbled himself and mediated between them and God. Sound familiar?

57 posted on 10/03/2006 3:08:31 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt
This is where I check out, dude:

Now, having affirmed that the only sacrifice which is necessary--indeed, the only sacrifice that can truly take away our sins--is that of Yeshua, I'll go ahead and say that I believe that there will indeed be a return of sacrifice and offering, for several reasons.

A poster up the thread mentioned if the Sabbath was valid in the OT, and will be in the Millenia as well as the New Earth, then why do we get a reprieve now? Ditto to that. Either Christ offered the sacrifice "once for all" or he didn't.

58 posted on 10/03/2006 4:38:26 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04

So what do you do with Jer. 33, then? Not looking for an argument (this is one of those things I put in the "theoretical" column--fun to talk about, but not something that practically affects us until the Lord comes to explain it personally), just some insight into your viewpoint.


59 posted on 10/03/2006 5:38:53 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
I don't have all the answers, but one thing is for sure: Sabbatarians suck at prophesy! LOL

When reading this verse:

Jer 33:25 "Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established,

These came to mind:

Rev 21:25 And in the daytime (for there shall be no night there) its gates shall never be closed;

Mat 24:29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken,

Food for thought.

60 posted on 10/03/2006 5:58:08 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
The problem with that interpretation is that it would mean that the Messiah's office ends at the same time, since the same prophecy that promises that He will always be there to sit on David's throne also promises that there will always be Levites to offer sacrifice and offering. If the sixth seal brings about the end of the Levitial office, then it also brings about the end of the Messiah's.

I don't think either of us would follow it to that conclusion. :^)

61 posted on 10/03/2006 6:02:00 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Since we both think dead=dead, where are the Levitical priests now?
62 posted on 10/03/2006 6:12:50 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; kerryusama04
Speaking here of the Last Days.....and sacrifices
63 posted on 10/03/2006 6:19:22 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04

God knows, just like He knows the identity of all the other tribes (Rev. 7) and families (Zec. 12:12-14).


64 posted on 10/03/2006 6:39:08 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Diego1618
It sure does say sacrifices and such, but why? Perhaps during the millenium, but cetainly no more after that.

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

The New Jerusalem has no temple and the one that you guys are referencing now will be built with human hands, right? So it will have to be destroyed before the new heaven and the new earth arrive, no? It makes no sense to me to have animal sacrifices just for the sake of having them. But, again, I spend most of my time studying about the past apostasies and what we need to do now in order to be a witness to these marvels :)

65 posted on 10/03/2006 7:26:38 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; Diego1618

I don't know how the Levitical priesthood's role will change in Eternity--the Bible doesn't give us enough information on that Age to do more than speculate wildly. By the same token, we don't know how King Yeshua's role will change--He won't need to rule the nations "with a rod of iron" when all evil is done away with, I'd imagine. That doesn't mean that He won't continue to rule, nor does the end of history mean that the Levites won't continue to minister in a role particular to them.


66 posted on 10/03/2006 8:15:23 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; kerryusama04; Diego1618
That doesn't mean that He won't continue to rule, nor does the end of history mean that the Levites won't continue to minister in a role particular to them.

That's a good point. In the heavenly realm there seem to be certain classes of angels with certain responsibilities. Cherubin for example, and seraphim. There's no reason to think that glorified humans won't have specific roles in eternity.

67 posted on 10/03/2006 9:26:09 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Buggman; kerryusama04; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; jude24

But just so much speculation.

If the most fundamental of relationship, marriage, will be radically changed in eternal state (Matt. 22:30), what make us think such mundane and time limited matters like the levitical priesthood would remain?

"You are a priest forever, accordng to the order of Melchizedek."

In reality, the new Jerusalem is represented symbolically as the holy of holies. It is describe as a perfect cube.

"The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal." (Rev. 21:16; cf. 1 Kings 6:20)

This represents how the people of God are made to be priests forever (Rev. 5:10), since we all live within the most holy place. We live in the same place where Jesus entered by His own blood.

Folks need to recognize how any notion of a continuation of the levitical priesthood once Messiah has appeared and offered His perfect sacrifice once for all is a fundamental denial of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King.


68 posted on 10/05/2006 6:34:06 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; DouglasKC; kerryusama04; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; jude24
If the most fundamental of relationship, marriage, will be radically changed in eternal state (Matt. 22:30), what make us think such mundane and time limited matters like the levitical priesthood would remain?

You mean besides the fact that Jer. 33 says it will?

In reality, the new Jerusalem is represented symbolically as the holy of holies. It is describe as a perfect cube.

That's one speculative interpretation. Another is that it is a pyramid, and is referred to in the Tanakh as the Mountain of God or Mount of Assembly (i.e., the spiritual truth to which Mt. Zion on earth points).

Folks need to recognize how any notion of a continuation of the levitical priesthood once Messiah has appeared and offered His perfect sacrifice once for all is a fundamental denial of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King.

Then I guess all the Apostolic Jewish believers were in denial, since they continued to worship daily in the Temple (Acts 2:46, 3:1ff, etc.), which meant participating in the daily burnt offerings at the very least. And those under Ya'akov (James) who thought it no unusual thing to take a Nazrite oath, which required no less than four animal sacrifices when it came time to shave their heads (Acts 21:20ff) were also apostates. And Sha'ul was likewise an apostate for joining them--or else a liar and a hypocrite who lacked the courage of his convictions.

Simply stating a position does not constitute an argument, TC. If you want to discuss the role or not of sacrifices in the End Times and post-Second Coming period, I wrote practically a whole article defending the position that the Levite priesthood will continue which you have to refute.

But, lest anyone think that this is a point which one can use to go after Messianic worship in general, let me state again: Not all Messianics share my view. Many agree with you that the Levitical priesthood is done away with forever. However, neither that position nor my own that the High Priesthood is transferred to Yeshua (though without canceling God's promises to the heirs of Phineas) aborogate us from the commands of God; it simply transfers the sacrificial part of those commands to the Holy of Holies in Heaven.

Again, the discussion of the priesthood is an intellectual eschatological one, not one which affects our current practice. it's a side-issue to the primary one on this thread.

So then, on Yom Kippur, it is Yeshua who intercedes before the Father on our behalf as our High Priest (as indeed He does every day), but it is still for us to take a sabbath-rest, to deny and humble ourselves, and to gather in a holy convocation which takes special note of His intercession. Not for salvation, but out of obedience to the God we love.

69 posted on 10/05/2006 7:42:13 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; DouglasKC; kerryusama04; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; jude24
Jer. 33

In the new covenant all the saints are priests of God (Rev. 5:10). Under the old covenant types, the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices were simply shadows of the work of Messiah. So the prophecy tend to reflect that perspective. To take them literally while ignoring the NT is a fatal error.

Since Christ is on the throne of David in heaven, and ministering in according to the order of Melchizedek (a better priesthood) I don't see why Jer. 33 is an issues unless one is given to an artificial literalism on OT prophecies that ignores the NT reality.

"In reality, the new Jerusalem is represented symbolically as the holy of holies. It is describe as a perfect cube."

That's one speculative interpretation. Another is that it is a pyramid, and is referred to in the Tanakh as the Mountain of God or Mount of Assembly (i.e., the spiritual truth to which Mt. Zion on earth points).

Well that a curious statement coming from one wanting to emphasize the basically Hebrew nature of the Scriptures.

Why would God give the Jewish John the Revelator a vision of a pyramid?

"Then he built the twenty-cubit room at the rear of the temple, from floor to ceiling, with cedar boards; he built it inside as the inner sanctuary, as the Most Holy Place. ... The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and twenty cubits high. He overlaid it with pure gold, and overlaid the altar of cedar." (1 Kings 6:16,20)

"The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal." (Rev. 21:16)

The language in these two passages is virtually identical. Unless you allow for the most holy place being a pyramid, why would you think the new Jerusalem is a pyramid?

Mt. Zion was not literally pyramid shaped, since the city of David was constructed on it. I'm just curious, are there any identifiable God-constructed pyramids in the Bible?

Note also other feature of its construction:

"The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass."

"And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass."

Look back on 1 Kings:

"He overlaid it with pure gold ..."

""And the floor of the temple he overlaid with gold, both the inner and outer sanctuaries."

We also read about other parallels with Ezekiel's temple:

"And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."

One is reminded of Jesus' words in John 4, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."

"He brought me out by way of the north gate, and led me around on the outside to the outer gateway that faces east; and there was water, running out on the right side. And when the man went out to the east with the line in his hand, he measured one thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the water came up to my ankles. Again he measured one thousand and brought me through the waters; the water came up to my knees. Again he measured one thousand and brought me through; the water came up to my waist. Again he measured one thousand, and it was a river that I could not cross; for the water was too deep, water in which one must swim, a river that could not be crossed." (Ezek. 47)

Edersheim comments on the priestly background of the writer of Revelation:

Indeed, the Apocalypse, as a whole, may be likened to the Temple services in its mingling of prophetic symbols with worship and praise. But it is specially remarkable, that the Temple-references with which the Book of Revelation abounds are generally to minutiae, which a writer who had not been as familiar with such details, as only personal contact and engagement with them could have rendered him, would scarcely have even noticed, certainly not employed as part of his imagery. They come in naturally, spontaneously, and so unexpectedly, that the reader is occasionally in danger of overlooking them altogether; and in language such as a professional man would employ, which would come to him from the previous exercise of his calling.

But it seems highly improbable that a book so full of liturgical allusions as the Book of Revelation—and these, many of them, not to great or important points, but to minutia —could have been written by any other than a priest, and one who had at one time been in actual service in the Temple itself, and thus become so intimately conversant with its details, that they came to him naturally, as part of the imagery he employed.

He also says about some of the details in Rev. 21, “Of the four distinctive articles in the high-priest’s dress, the breast-plate, alike from its square form and the twelve jewels on it, bearing the names of the tribes, suggest ‘the city four-square,’ whose ‘foundations’ are twelve precious stones (Rev 21:16, 19, 20).”

Given this understanding it seems far more likely that Rev. 21 has the temple as its backdrop rather than a pagan symbol like a pyramid.

These are obviously non-literal images depicting spiritual reality. The new Jerusalem is not really a physically construct literally a cube overlayed with gold and miles on a side. It merely represents the truth of our position in Christ based on His sacrifice for His people. The old covenant holy place was a type of the new Jerusalem. But we, the church, are the new Jerusalem.

70 posted on 10/05/2006 1:36:45 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Buggman; Diego1618; XeniaSt; kerryusama04
But just so much speculation.
If the most fundamental of relationship, marriage, will be radically changed in eternal state (Matt. 22:30), what make us think such mundane and time limited matters like the levitical priesthood would remain?

There's certainly no speculation that there will be roles fulfilled by glorified humans. Scripture is clear on this. For example, glorified Christians are to be "kings and priests" or "kingdom of priests"

Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Now a kingdom of priests would seem to have priestly duties to fulfill, whatever those may be.

Luk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
Luk 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

There are just a couple. And as I said, it's well within the range of possiblity that there will be a role for the Levitical priesthood. That exact role is open for debate, but all glorified humans will have some type of role.

71 posted on 10/06/2006 7:31:43 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Buggman; Diego1618; XeniaSt; kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; jude24
There's certainly no speculation that there will be roles fulfilled by glorified humans

But nothing based on racial distinctions.

Buggman points to Jer. 33 as somehow endorsing this view, but it's interesting to alo read Isaiah 66:19-21 where we see God raising up "Levites" even from among the gentiles.

"'I will set a sign among them; and those among them who escape I will send to the nations: to Tarshish and Pul and Lud, who draw the bow, and Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles. Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the Lord out of all nations, ... And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites,' says the Lord."

Of course the fuller revelation of the NT makes it clear that we are all "kings and priests" in the household of faith regardless of our ethnic background.

72 posted on 10/06/2006 1:22:05 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; 1000 silverlings; OrthodoxPresbyterian; jude24
Of course the fuller revelation of the NT makes it clear that we are all "kings and priests" in the household of faith regardless of our ethnic background.

Amen. Who can read Hebrews and not understand that?

"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?

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood...

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God...

By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." -- Hebrews 7:11-14;18-19;22-28


73 posted on 10/06/2006 1:44:54 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; DouglasKC; Buggman; Diego1618; XeniaSt; kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; topcat54; ...
Amen. Who can read Hebrews and not understand that?

Was Hebrews a message sent to Greek Pagans
who had become believers in the Jewish Messiah
or was it a message to Jewish believers
who had accepted Y'shua as there Messiah ?

It is a question of context and direct audience.

It is a question of Hermeneutics.

b'shem Y'shua.
74 posted on 10/08/2006 10:43:24 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Hi Xenia,

Sure enough, I just opened a Protestant Bible (NKJV) and it sure does say: "The Epistle to the HEBREWS". Just for kicks, I looked at all of Paul's letters and they all say, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the ROMANS, CORINTHIANS (both 1 and 2), GALATIANS, etc". Very interesting.

75 posted on 10/08/2006 11:57:29 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Buggman; Diego1618; kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; jude24; HarleyD
Was Hebrews a message sent to Greek Pagans who had become believers in the Jewish Messiah or was it a message to Jewish believers who had accepted Y'shua as there Messiah ?

Which makes the extent and manner of the renouncing of the old covenant shadows even more significant.

Some people wish to cling to certain aspects of the old covenant ceremonies without benefit of a human priesthood, but such a view is not authorized by God in His Scriptures.

For the church to hold to some of the Jewish ceremonies will result in the same sort of false syncretism in worship that the Jewish nation faced when they allowed certain of the Canaanites to remain in the land of promise.

"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." (Heb. 10:1)

76 posted on 10/08/2006 4:14:05 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Buggman; Diego1618; kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; jude24; ...
Some people wish to cling to certain aspects of the old covenant ceremonies without benefit of a human priesthood, but such a view is not authorized by God in His Scriptures.

This is GREAT news, TC! Since you have decided to limit your worship to that which is authorized by God, then can we expect you at services the Sabbath after next, after everyone gets back from the Feast?

The address is:
3100 South Crysler
Independence, MO

Bible study is at 2, Services at 3. I look forward to finally meeting you.

Chris

77 posted on 10/09/2006 4:21:30 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04

Don't hold your breath, Hoss!


78 posted on 10/09/2006 4:44:45 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Buggman; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
This is GREAT news, TC! Since you have decided to limit your worship to that which is authorized by God, then can we expect you at services the Sabbath after next, after everyone gets back from the Feast?

Except I read all the Bible, not just the old testament.

God nowhere in His word authorized the church (Jews and gentiles together) to worship on the old covenant last day sabbath, or with the shadows of the new moons and feast days of the Jews.

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." (Acts 20:7)

The apostle Paul brought the church together on the first day of the week to "break bread" (the Lord's Supper; 1 Cor. 10:16) and to hear the preaching of the word. IOW, to worship as the church.

You are left with the undeniable fact that nowhere do we find Christ's church (Jews and gentiles together) worshipping on the last day sabbath of the Jews. Nowhere, unless you have a verse or two hidden up your sleeve.

So, unless you worship on Sunday as the apostles did, I will stay home, thanks.

79 posted on 10/09/2006 5:22:49 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Buggman; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Is this verse in your Bible, TC?

Act 13:44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.
Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming.
Act 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, 'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'"
Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

80 posted on 10/09/2006 5:29:51 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04
You are left with the undeniable fact that nowhere do we find Christ's church (Jews and gentiles together) worshiping on the last day sabbath of the Jews. Nowhere, unless you have a verse or two hidden up your sleeve.

Acts 18:24-26

It is very sad to see one continue in their Roman apostasy, knowing full well their error....but refusing to acknowledge it.

81 posted on 10/09/2006 5:53:54 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; topcat54; kerryusama04
It is very sad to see one continue in their Roman apostasy, knowing full well their error....but refusing to acknowledge it.

That seems a tad strong. Personally I see nothing in scripture to support either Saturday or Sunday worship. In fact, I would argue that all of this has been done away with:

For sure, believers are commanded to come together, but I would argue that having a set time for worship service is strictly for our convenience-not something that God emphasizes. Any emphasis on a set day is unfounded. God did away with it all.
82 posted on 10/10/2006 5:01:22 AM PDT by HarleyD ("...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Diego1618; topcat54
That seems a tad strong. Personally I see nothing in scripture to support either Saturday or Sunday worship. In fact, I would argue that all of this has been done away with:

Then by what standard shall we be judged? Please don't think I (we) only worship God on the Sabbath. The thesis here is that the Sabbath was the Sabbath in Genesis, in Exodus, in Isaiah, in Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, in Acts, and Paul's letters, in Genesis, and beyond. I can't speak for my Sabbatarian brothers, but I would never not worship God on any day of the week. My burning question is that since the only day ever commanded to be kept Holy by God is the 7th day, then why do nearly all the Protestants keep the day commanded by the Church they are Protesting?

Isa 66:22 "For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me," declares the LORD, "So your offspring and your name will endure. Isa 66:23 "And it shall be from new moon to new moon And from sabbath to sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me," says the LORD.

Galatians was written to Gentile believers who used to worship the elements. Do you really believe that Paul would call the 10 Commandments "worthless elemental things"?

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

I'm curious, where is it all done away with if Isaiah prophesied that the Sabbath will be in the new earth?

83 posted on 10/10/2006 5:59:54 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
Hi TC,

If you are having trouble finding a Sabbatarian Church, here is a list:

Seventh Day Baptist
Seventh Day Adventist
United Church of God
Independent Churches of God (100% Sabbath with only about 5% of the doctrine and no MSG!)
Messianic Jew

Judging from your posts, I think you might find the easiest transition with the 7th Day Baptists.

FRegards,
Chris

84 posted on 10/10/2006 6:10:20 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Buggman; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Don't forget the context:

"So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. ... But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region." (vv. 42,43,50)

As it was Paul custom, he preached the gospel to the Jews in their synagogues on their sabbath. When the apostate leaders of the Jews refused to listen to the gospel, Paul took his message to the Jews and gentiles who would listen. They merely gathered on the customary day of the Jews. No big mystery.

You still cannot point out where the church specifically is mentioned in this verse.

We know it was the custom, of the Jews to worship on the last day sabbath. We know it was the custom of Paul to preach the gospel to the Jews in their synagogues on the last day sabbath.

But you still have no record of the church (baptized Jews and gentiles) coming together to worship -- to break bread in the Lord's Supper and to hear the preaching of the good news about Jesus Christ -- on the last day sabbath.

I realize this is a hard fact some some folks to accept, but such is the case. You can read Acts 13 plainly and conclude "nearly the whole city" does not equal "the church".

It'd as if one is saying that "nearly the whole city" came out to a Billy Graham crusade on a Saturday. Billy picks his dates to get maximum audience exposure. Paul did the same thing when he preached the gospel to unbelievers on the sabbath of the Jews.

"And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

Then they were baptized and became identified with Christ's body, the church, and, as was the custom of the apostles, began to gather on the first day of the week as we see in Acts 20.

85 posted on 10/10/2006 7:11:17 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Thanks for your concern, but since I'm not a cultist, I have no interest in these groups.

I'm a Christian sabbatarian. I acknowledge that the practice of the church universal for 2000 years is agreeable with the entire revelation of the Word of God.

None of the picking and choosing of verses by old covenant sabbatarians has changed my mind regarding the correct interpretation of God's holy revelation.

86 posted on 10/10/2006 7:16:00 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; Diego1618; topcat54
Then by what standard shall we be judged?

My burning question is that since the only day ever commanded to be kept Holy by God is the 7th day, then why do nearly all the Protestants keep the day commanded by the Church they are Protesting?

Galatians was written to Gentile believers who used to worship the elements. Do you really believe that Paul would call the 10 Commandments "worthless elemental things"?


87 posted on 10/10/2006 8:01:54 AM PDT by HarleyD ("...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Acts 18:24-26 ... It is very sad to see one continue in their Roman apostasy...

We've been here before.

Read #458 and #462.

There is no mention of the worship of baptized Christians (Jews and gentiles) in Acts 18. There is a discussion of the customary worship of Jews on their sabbath, and the habit of Paul, Apollos, and others to preach Christ to them on their day.

What you refer to as "Roman apostasy" is merely the recognition of the universal practice of the church according to the Scripture (apostolic teaching) and a refusal to fall under the anti-scriptural teaching of certain old covenant sabbatarian cults.

88 posted on 10/10/2006 8:34:56 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; HarleyD
'm a Christian sabbatarian. I acknowledge that the practice of the church universal for 2000 years is agreeable with the entire revelation of the Word of God.

you mean.....The Catholic Sabbath?????

89 posted on 10/10/2006 8:35:06 AM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
BTW, funny colors and big fonts will not make your argument for you.

Graphical shouting never takes the place of careful, reasonable exegesis of the Scripture.

90 posted on 10/10/2006 8:39:09 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; kerryusama04; HarleyD

Little "c" catholic, yes. I'm sure from your understanding of church history you can figure it out.


91 posted on 10/10/2006 8:48:31 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; kerryusama04; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
BTW, I have no problem affirming my practice as being "catholic".

Now, will you also affirm that yours is the habit of the cults?

I believe the sabbath principle of one day in seven as outlined in the 4th commandment is eternally binding on all men in all ages. I also believe that the particular day of the week was not eternally set, and that under the old covenant the weekly sabbath was on the last day while under the new covenant the weekly sabbath/Lord's Day has been the first day of the week.

Exodus 20:10 says, "... but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God." Note that it does not say the sabbath day is the seventh day. It says the seventh day is the sabbath day. And so it was under the old covenant, just as new moons and feast days were also designated as sabbath days.

While the day could change (and did according to the apostles) the principle of one day in seven remains the eternal. That is why it is placed among the Ten Words written by the finger of God Himself.

92 posted on 10/10/2006 8:58:04 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Diego1618; kerryusama04; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg

Exodus 20:10 says, "... but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God." Note that it does not say the sabbath day is the seventh day. It says the seventh day is the sabbath day. And so it was under the old covenant, just as new moons and feast days were also designated as sabbath days.

While the day could change (and did according to the apostles) the principle of one day in seven remains the eternal. That is why it is placed among the Ten Words written by the finger of God Himself.

92 posted on 10/10/2006 9:58:04 AM MDT by topcat54

How do you take the leap to the Pagan day of Sunday and ignore the G-d-breathed Word of G-d?
b'shem Yah'shua
93 posted on 10/10/2006 11:22:02 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Diego1618; kerryusama04; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
How do you take the leap to the Pagan day of Sunday and ignore the G-d-breathed Word of G-d?

Last time I checked all the days of the week belonged to the Lord.

"The earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness, The world and those who dwell therein."

To suggest one day of the week is more "pagan" than another is pure nonsense.

We also know that Jesus Christ Himself is "Lord of the sabbath".

The Word of God includes the testimony of the apostles and prophets in what we call the New Testament. It reflects the reality of Christ's new kingdom and the new covenant made in His blood.

God's people no longer live in the shadows of the old covenant that was decaying and has passed away. When Christ rose on the first day of the week, and met with His disciples on the first day of the week, and poured out His Holy Spirit on the first day of the week, He established an infallible pattern that His apostles used to teach the church, baptized Jews and gentiles, how to truly worship Him in Spirit and Truth on the first day of the week.

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." (Acts 20:7)

How odd that Luke would record Christians worshipping on an allegedly "pagan" day.

Paul preached a message and the baptized believers in the Lord Jesus Christ participated in His communion meal. This is Christian worship in the simplicity intended by God Himself.

The beggardly elements of the ceremonial law no longer bind God's people. We do not worship according to Hagar, the earthly Jerusalem. Those who worship on the last day are the children of Hagar. But the Jerusalem above is free.

94 posted on 10/10/2006 12:04:53 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Last time I checked all the days of the week belonged to the Lord.

"The earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness, The world and those who dwell therein."

To suggest one day of the week is more "pagan" than another is pure nonsense.

We also know that Jesus Christ Himself is "Lord of the sabbath".

Amen, topcat. You've helped me to understand this.

I'm always puzzled by the few Christians who do not embrace the fact that when the old covenant ended, the new covenant called for a new beginning, the first day of the week, the day Christ was resurrected and proved it all true.

A perfect symmetry.

95 posted on 10/10/2006 12:14:57 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Diego1618; kerryusama04; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." (Acts 20:7)

How odd that Luke would record Christians worshipping on an allegedly "pagan" day.

Paul preached a message and the baptized believers in the Lord Jesus Christ participated in His communion meal. This is Christian worship in the simplicity intended by God Himself.

The beggardly elements of the ceremonial law no longer bind God's people. We do not worship according to Hagar, the earthly Jerusalem. Those who worship on the last day are the children of Hagar. But the Jerusalem above is free.

94 posted on 10/10/2006 1:04:53 PM MDT by topcat54

I believe this has been answered more than once.

To a Jew as Paul, the first day is Saturday evening when it was traditional to have a meal after the shabbat.

b'shem Y'shua
96 posted on 10/10/2006 1:11:24 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Diego1618; kerryusama04; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
I believe this has been answered more than once. To a Jew as Paul, the first day is Saturday evening when it was traditional to have a meal after the shabbat.

I'm afraid it hasn't been answered, at least not very well.

Luke, the author of Acts, was writing to a gentile named Theophilus. Theophilus would have understood Luke's words just as we understand them, as referring to Sunday, the first day of the week.

In addition, even accounting for a Jewish way of reckoning the days, it plainly says that there broke bread and Paul preached "on first day of the week."

Let's actually look at the text and not guess what it says.

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight."

It explicitly says they came together "on the first day of the week." It does not say they were gathered on the last day and then lingered on into the first day.

That may have been late Saturday evening or very early Sunday morning, or perhaps Sunday afternoon into the evening, but it was still the first day of the week. It was not the Jewish sabbath. It says nothing about what may or may not have happened on the Jewish sabbath since these were Christians. This was not a post-sabbath meal of the Jews. This was the Lord's Supper being celebrated by baptized believers in Jesus Christ.

That is a fact. We can deal with facts. We do not deal as well with speculation, esp. when trying to assert theological points.

The entire old covenant sabbath argument is about speculation.

There is no evidence that the church, baptized Jews and gentiles, worshipped on the Jewish, last day, old covenant sabbath.

That is also a fact.

97 posted on 10/10/2006 1:51:55 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; HarleyD; XeniaSt
When Christ rose on the first day of the week....

You always come back to this false statement. I have showed you time after time this is totally non scriptural....but you persist. You obviously wish this were the case....to support your "Pagan Day of the Sun" theory....but you know it's not.

98 posted on 10/10/2006 1:55:42 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; XeniaSt; kerryusama04; HarleyD
"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." It explicitly says they came together "on the first day of the week." It does not say they were gathered on the last day and then lingered on into the first day.

Acts 20:8 Must have been a cloudy day!

99 posted on 10/10/2006 2:05:14 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Dude, I showed you unequivocally in huge bold letters that the Gentiles and the Jews came together on the Sabbath. The same text also says that the Jews were supposed to be a light to the world. They kept the Sabbath as a light to guide Gentiles to do the same.


100 posted on 10/10/2006 2:06:32 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-292 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