Posted on 09/20/2006 10:14:32 AM PDT by Buggman
As many of you already know, we are entering into the fall High Holy Days, comprised of the Feasts of Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles. Just as the spring Feastdays celebrate the First Coming of Messiah Yeshua, and Shavuot (Pentecost) celebrates the giving of the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) to the Ekklesia in between the visitations of Yeshua, the Fall Feastdays look forward to His Second Coming—and in particular, the Feast of Trumpets looks forward to His Glorious Appearance in the clouds of heaven!
The day which this year falls on September 23 (beginning at sundown the previous night) is known by many names, but is little understood. The most commonly used today is Rosh Hashanah, the Head of the Year or New Year, and is regarded as the start of the Jewish civil calendar. (The religious calendar begins on the first of Nisan, fourteen days before Passover, in accordance with Exo. 12:2.) For this reasons, Jews will greet each other with the phrase, “L’shana tova u-metukah,” “May you have a good and sweet new year” or simply “Shanah tova,” “A good year.” In anticipation of this sweet new year, it is customary to eat a sweet fruit, like an apple or carrot dipped in honey.
The Talmud records the belief that “In the month of Tishri, the world was created” (Rosh Hashanah 10b), and its probably due to this belief that it became known as the Jewish New Year. The belief that the world was created on Rosh Hashanah came out of an anagram: The letters of the first word in the Bible, “In the beginning . . .” (B’resheit) can be rearranged to say, “1 Tishri” (Aleph b’Tishri). Perhaps because so little is directly said in Scripture about this day—unlike all of the other Feastdays, there is no historical precedent given to explain why Rosh Hashanah should be celebrated—the rabbis also speculated that Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Samuel were all born on this day.
However, that’s not it’s Biblical name, which is Yom Teruah, the Day of the [Trumpet] Blast:
And YHVH spake unto Moses, saying, “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 (Heb. zikrown teruah) [of trumpets], an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto YHVH.’” (Lev. 23:23-25)In each of these passages, I’ve placed “trumpets” in brackets because it’s not actually in the Hebrew text; however, teruah can and usually does mean to sound the trumpet (though it can mean to shout with a voice as well) and the use of a trumpet on this day is considered so axiomatic that there is literally no debate in Jewish tradition on the matter. Specifically, the trumpet used is the shofar. The shofar is traditionally always made from the horn of a ram, in honor of the ram that God substituted for Isaac, and never from a bull’s horn, in memory of the sin of the golden calf.And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing (teruah) [the trumpets] unto you. (Num. 29:1)
The shofar first appears in Scripture as heralding the visible appearance of God coming down on Mt. Sinai to meet with His people (Ex. 19:16-19). It is also linked with His Coming in Zec. 9:14 and with Him going up (making aliyah) to Jerusalem in Psa. 47:5. Small wonder then that Yeshua said He would Come again with the sound of a trumpet, a shofar, in Mat. 24:31, which is echoed by Sha’ul (Paul) in 1 Th. 4:16 and 1 Co. 15:52. Indeed, many commentators have recognized that by “the last trump,” Sha’ul was referring to the final shofar blast, called the Tekia HaGadol, of the Feast of Trumpets.
This visitation by YHVH is closely associated with the second of this Feastdays names: Yom Zikkroun, the Day of Remembrance. This is not primarily meant to be a day when the people remember God, but when God remembers His people—not that He has forgotten them, but in which He fulfills His promises to them by Coming to them. In Isa. 27:13, it is the instrument used to call God’s people Israel back to the Land. In Psalm 27, which is traditionally read in the month leading up to Yom Teruah, we see the Psalmist looking forward to God rescuing him from his enemies:
Among the rabbis, the shofar is often associated with the Coming of the Messiah and the Resurrection of the Dead as well. “According to the Alphabet Midrash of Rabbi Akiva, seven shofars announce successive steps of the resurrection process, with Zechariah 9:14 quoted as a proof text: ‘And Adonai the Lord will blow the shofar’” (Stern, David H., Jewish New Testament Commentary, 489f). “And it is the shofar that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to blow when the Son of David, our righteous one, will reveal himself, as it is said, ‘And the Lord GOD will blow the shofar’” (Tanna debe Eliyahu Zutta XXII). It’s interesting that the rabbis, without the benefit of the New Covenant writings, have come to the same conclusions as the Apostles: That YHVH would visit His people in the person of the Messiah and raise the dead on Yom Teruah (also in the Bablyonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 16b). On Yom Teruah, the shofar not only rouses the people from their complacency, but the very dead from their graves. (See Job 19:25-27, Isa. 26:19, and Dan. 12:2 for the Tanakh’s primary passages on the Resurrection.)Though an host should encamp against me,
My heart shall not fear:
Though war should rise against me,
In this will I be confident . . .For in the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavilion:
In the secret of His tabernacle shall He hide me;
He shall set me up upon a rock. . .
The shofar is an instrument that is very much associated with war (Jdg. 3:27, 2 Sa. 20:1, Neh. 4:18-22, Ezk. 33:3-6). It was used to destroy the walls of Jericho (Jdg. 6:20). In Joel 2:1, it sounds the start of the Day of the Lord, the time in which God will make war on His enemies: “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the Day of YHVH cometh, for it is nigh at hand” (cf. v. 15). This again matches perfectly with the NT, where Sha’ul describes the Lord’s coming with a trumpet immediately preceding the Day of the Lord (1 Th. 4:16, 5:2).
This brings us to the next name for this Feastday, Yom HaDin, Judgment Day. Not only did the shofar sound the call for war, but also the coronation of kings (2 Sa. 15:10; 1 Ki. 1:34, 29; 2 Ki. 9:13, 11:12-14). Therefore, the rabbis have always associated this day with God’s sovereign Kingship over all mankind: “On Rosh Hashanah all human beings pass before Him as troops, as it is said, ‘The LORD looketh from heaven; He beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of His habitation He looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioneth their hearts alike; He considereth all their works’” (Rosh Hashanah 6b, quoting Psa. 53:13-15). To remember God’s Kingship, it is traditional to eat round objects to remind us of God’s crown (oriental crowns being shaped as skullcaps instead of circlets). For example, challah is made to be round instead of braided as it normally is.
Because this day is associated with God’s judgment, it is also considered a time of repentance (t’shuva) in preparation for Yom Kippur. The Casting (Tashlikh) Ceremony, in which observant Jews gather together at the shores of oceans, lakes, and rivers and cast in stones and/or crumbs of bread to symbolize “casting off” their sins, is performed on this day to a prayer comprised of Mic. 7:18-20, Psa. 118:5-9, Psa. 33 and 130, and often finishing with Isa. 11:9.
The Talmud (ibid.) goes on to say that on this day, all mankind is divided into three types of people. The wholly righteous were immediately written in the Book of Life (Exo. 32:33, Psa. 69:28) for another year. The wholly wicked were blotted out of the Book of Life, condemned to die in the coming year. Those in between, if they truly repented before the end of Yom Kippur, could likewise be scribed in the Book of Life for another year. For this reason, a common greeting at this time is “L’shana tova tikatevu,” which means, “May you be inscribed [in the Book of Life] for a good new year.”He will turn again,
He will have compassion upon us;
He will subdue our iniquities;
And Thou wilt cast all their sins
Into the depths of the sea.
(Mic. 7:19)
The Bible, of course, is clear that one is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life (cf. Php. 4:3; Rev. 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, and 21:27) not by one’s own righteousness, but by receiving the Messiah’s righteousness by faith, trusting in Him, and that there is no in-between; one either trusts God or one doesn’t. Nevertheless, a great eschatological truth is preserved for us in this rabbinical tradition. At the time of Yeshua’s Second Coming, all mankind will be divided into three groups. Those who have already trusted in the Messiah will be Resurrected and Raptured to be with Him immediately upon His Coming on the clouds of the sky. Those who have taken the mark of the Beast and have chosen to remain with the Wicked One will be slated to die in the Day of the Lord, which for reasons that are beyond the scope of this essay to address, I believe will last for about a year.
However, there will also be a third group, who neither had believed in the Messiah until they saw Him Coming on the clouds but who also had not taken the mark of the Beast. Many of these will be Jews, who will mourn at His coming and so have a fount of forgiveness opened to them (Rev. 1:7, Zec. 12:10-13:2)—most prominently, the 144,000 of Rev. 7 and 14. Others will be Gentiles who will be shown mercy because they showed mercy to the children of God (Mat. 25:31ff). These are given the opportunity to repent during the period between the fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonment, called the Days of Awe—a reference, I believe, to the Day of the Lord.
Finally, this day is known as Yom HaKeseh, the Hidden Day. It was a day that could not be calculated, only looked for. Ancient Israel kept its calendar simply by observing the phases of the moon. If a day were overcast, it might cause a delay in the observance of the beginning of the month, the new moon (Rosh Chodesh), the first tiny crescent of light. Every other Feast was at least a few days after the beginning of the month so that it could be calculated and prepared for in advance. For example, after the new moon that marked the beginning of the month of Nisan, the observant Jew knew that he had fourteen days to prepare for the Passover.
Not so Yom HaKeseh. In the absence of reliable astronomical charts and calculations (which were made only centuries after God commanded the Feasts to be observed), the Feast of Trumpets could be anticipated, estimated to be arriving soon, but until two or more witnesses reported the first breaking of the moon’s light after the darkest time of the month, no one knew “the day or hour.” Therefore, it was a tradition not to sleep on Rosh Hashanah, but to remain awake and alert, a tradition alluded to by Sha’ul: “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober” (1 Th. 5:4-6).
Because of the difficulty of alerting the Jews in the Diaspora when the Sanhedron had decreed the start of the Feast to be, it became traditional to celebrate the first and second day of Tishri together as Yoma Arikhta, “One Long Day.” Is this meant to remind us, perhaps, of when another Y’hoshua (Yeshua) won against his enemies because God cast down great hailstones (like the hailstones of Rev. 16:21) and called upon the Sun to stand still so that they would not escape (Jos. 10:10ff)?
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.
Shalom, and Maranatha!
What you say might be true, but only if you don't believe that the Holy Spirit lived in Paul's heart. If you do, then you might have to accept that he was excuting G-d's plan, not his, in which case that question becomes moot.
Oh, please. Have I ever called the Jews stupid?
I'm sorry, but I do not.
There is no command anywhere in the Bible for the church, Jews and gentiles together, to keep the ceremonial Mosaic law. To place such a requirement or suggestion on believers, particularly gentile believers, in the new covenant is a tradition of men. It's no different from the the rabbis who added to the law of the tithe by neglecting their own parents.
This is something that you cannot deal with in your analysis. There is neither explicit nor implicit notion of feast day keeping or kosher keeping among the gentile believers.
Unlike the matter of the change of sabbath where we have explicit NT examples of the church gathering for worship on the first day of the week, which you deny has any significance, e.g., Acts 20:7, we have not even one shred of kosher keeping or feast day keeping within the church. Not even a suggestion that such observances are to be kept voluntarily.
Not true. The Greeks and Romans considered Sabbath-keeping a sign of laziness,
Even if this were true, which no one is admitting, why would we think that this is the issue in Colossians when it is neither mentioned nor suggested in any of the language, yet on the other hand we have numerous warnings by Paul to the church regarding the judaizers and their desire to place the gentiles under the ceremonial law of Moses. And language Paul uses here fit with Judaism, not pagan Rome or Greece (see below).
Clearly you are inventing history to match your theology in order to understand the text. While a multitude of Scriptures exist regarding the judaizing tendencies by a sect within of the early church, nowhere does Paul take the church to task for these things which you suggest.
It is clear from Galatians and elsewhere that Paul was much more concerned with the mixing of law and the gospel than he was about whether or not gentile believers were considered lazy by the Romans.
"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Col. 2:13,14)
As Gill puts it:
God's book of remembrance of the sins of men, out of which they are blotted when pardoned; others, the book of conscience, which bears witness to every debt, to every violation and transgression of the law, which may be said to be blotted out, when pacified with an application of the blood and righteousness of Christ; rather with others it signifies the ceremonial law, which lay in divers ordinances and commands, and is what, the apostle afterwards speaks of more clearly and particularly; and may be called so, because submission to it was an acknowledgment both of the faith and guilt of sin; every washing was saying, that a man was polluted and unclean; and every sacrifice was signing a man's own guilt and condemnation, and testifying that he deserved to die as the creature did, which was offered in sacrifice: or rather the whole law of Moses is intended, which was the handwriting of God, and obliged to obedience to it, and to punishment in case of disobedience; and this the Jews call (bwx) (rjv) , "the writing of the debt", and is the very phrase the Syriac version uses here:Paul used the very phrase that the Jews used to specify their obligation to the Mosaic code to make it clear what the believers in Christ were freed from, not just gentiles, but both Jews and gentiles together.
I think the fundamental difference here your sect and the majority of Christianity is that you see Christianity merely as a sect of Judaism, that all of the ordinances peculiar to Israel in the land are still appropriate for the church of both Jews and gentiles. The difficulties with this view are numerous and insurmountable. E.g., you have to invent a new set of traditions for observing feast days in the same fashion as the apostate Jews did. While you whine about the explicit command authorizing the change of weekly sabbath from the last day to the first day, you cannot produce a single verse to authorized the keeping of ersatz new moons and feast days in the absence of a priesthood and temple. It is truly a double standard that I thought you might have picked up on by now.
Only by ignoring Scripture and inserting the traditions of the apostate rabbis in certain cases are you able to make the system hang together. Like the secret rapture theory of your dispensational friends, it is quite clear that no one on their own and come to these conclusions.
The common view has been that the church is the culmination of all that God had promised to father Abraham. Abraham's righteousness was counted to him while yet uncircumcised (Rom. 4:10). It is not Israel after the flesh, and we are not merely a sect of Judaism following modified traditions like the ancient Pharisees or modern Orthodox Jews.
Hebrews testifies loudly and often to the temporary and incomplete nature of the ceremonial law. It was a shadow, and Christ is the Substance. To embrace the shadow while the Substance stands in your midst is a denial of the new covenant.
"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)
"Year by year", new moon after new moon, festival after festival.
We are a new creation, the new Israel of God. We are a true spiritual commonwealth built on the simplicity of the gospel, and the simple gospel ordinances of baptism (not circumcision) and the Lord's Supper (not Passover).
"But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, 'If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?' " (Gal. 2:14)
Note how Paul equates this judaizing tendency even in Peter to be crooked, perverse and contrary to the "truth of the gospel". Now, are we to believe that Peter was really a judaizer at heart? Probably not. But Paul views even the slightest tendency in the direction of "law keeping" as an emblem of one's righteousness as a fundamental denial of the gospel.
Not "plain" according to, apparently from your perspective, 13,000,000 stupid Jews.
Actually the entire Bible from start to finish is thoroughly trinitarian.
stupid Jews
Not stupid, but deaf and blind.
As Jesus said, "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'"
The good news is that any Jew can have his eyes opened and his ears unstopped and recognize Jesus Christ as the Great Prophet and King of Israel and Ruler of the nations.
Works both ways. Maybe he wasn't executing YHWH's plan at all.
2Cr 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
After all, YHWH's plan is TORAH. The very thing that Paul didn't seem to want to instruct the Gentile converts in. There's a word for those that are against YHWH's wishes.
1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
John was a Hebrew; therefore, it is probable that the "us" John refers to in 1 John 2:19 is likely His brethren that followed Yehoshua.
John makes perfectly clear that MANY antichrists had gone out FROM THEM (early believers) teaching false doctrine.
The "spirit of antichrist" is equated to a "spirit of error".
Antichrist = erroneous doctrine. Antichrist primarily represents a set of false teachings, not simply some future possible world religious/political figure, or something inserted under the skin. Those accepting the error promoted by the "spirit of error" or "spirit of antichrist" are unintentional victims of the spirit of antichrist.
YHWH's Torah is His mark. It shows who belongs to Him.
Could this all be wrong? Sure. Could it be right? Yes.
Something to at least think about.
Ya know, next time you're travelling down the road headed to town to punish and/or execute a claque of deviants who claim to hear the word of G-d in their hearts, and then get struck blind by a powerful light no one else can see, and hear words from above instructing you to cease and desist, then you can tell me how it was ambiguous so that you could go back to what you were doing simply because it wasn't by the book.
Could this all be wrong? Sure. Could it be right? Yes.
I guess you had to be there.
... Up to that period the Church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation,11 they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching "knowledge falsely so called."On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession,14 and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord....
Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching.15 Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. . . . Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts16 through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ....
Seems that IF the Holy Spirit were in Pauls' heart then Paul would have executed the instructions given to him at the Jerusalem Council. The 4 necessary things that were deemed necessary by the Holy Ghost. You remember those, right?
Do you have the verses where Paul states and instructs the Gentile converts about those four necessary things?
Not the matter raised in the article regarding a "mikvah" in the wilderness, no we would not.....TC, and as an echo.....1000s
The question you had originally posed in post #351 was this:I'm still trying to figure out how all those folks got immersed out in the wilderness of Sinai Buggman answered in post #353 "God made a river, Remember?" I posted in #356 Psalm 78:13-17 and if you don't want to look it up..... in verse 15 (NIV) it says: "He split the rocks in the desert and gave them water as abundant as the seas."
In verse 20 (which I did not post in #356) it says: (NIV) "When he struck the rock, water gushed out, and streams flowed abundantly."
Now....I'm going to ask my question again. "But we would all agree that this question has now been answered by Psalm 78.....would we not?"
Now if you want to say there was no water available to the Children of Israel in the desert....enough to water their herds....enough to wash their bodies (immerse), then I guess we'll just have to assume you cannot see that the Lord provided everything for these folks "out in the wilderness of Sinai."
By the way, verse 16 (NIV)..... to substantiate Buggman says," He brought streams out of a rocky crag and made waters flow down like rivers." That Rock was Christ. [1 Corinthians 10:1-4]
Those instructions weren't specifically directed to Paul and weren't the sentence of a council, but a pronouncement by Peter:
These are standards characteristic of Jewish expectations of "G-d Fearers" or "Righteous Gentiles" such that they not defile the synagogue.
Realize that Paul had the specific goal of both saving Gentiles and bringing them into the synagogue, in part, to save Jews (the "strong" and the "weak" in Romans respectively, the discriminant being faith). That meant that Gentiles knowing next to nothing of Torah were entering the synagogue claiming co-participation in the blessings of G-d.
There is necessary, and then there is whatever else the love of G-d inspires one to learn and emulate from the word. Think you that learning anything from the Torah has no benefit? Paul made it absolutely clear that it was faith which constituted the principal determinant and not legalism. He also taught that the Gentiles were to be 'law respectful' in a manner similar to the Noahide law for righteous Gentiles and the four criteria you cited. Neither of us will ever know all of what he taught.
There is no command anywhere in the Bible for the church, Jews and gentiles together, to keep the ceremonial Mosaic law.
First of all, where in the Bible does the term "ceremonial law" or its equivalent appear? Or is this just an artificial distinction of your own making based on the traditions of men?
Unless you can show that the Bible makes a clear distinction, then the following verses prove that the whole Torah, moral and ceremonial, is still in effect:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Torah, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Mat. 5:17-19)Now, to head off the inevitable arguments which you always bring in despite their having been refuted dozens of times over: Citing a transferrance (Gr. metatithemi, which means moved, not altered) of the priesthood to Yeshua does automatically result in the aborogation of the whole "ceremonial" Torah. Why not? Because many of the ceremonial aspects are independant of the Levitical priesthood:"Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the Torah. . . Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a (Nazrite) vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads (cf. Num. 6): and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the Torah." (Acts 21:20, 24)
Do we then make void the Torah through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (i.e., uphold) the Torah. (Rom. 3:1)
Therefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (Rom. 7:12)
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Torah: for sin is the transgression of the Torah. (I Jn. 3:4)
--The Sabbath was instituted at creation, and set into motion while Israel was yet in route to Sinai (Exo. 16:23ff) as well as in the Ten Commandments which were given well before the Levitical priesthood was set up (Exo. 20:8ff). If they did not need a functioning Levitical priesthood to observe the Sabbath, neither does the lack of a functioning priesthood aborogate it now.The best you can do against these facts is argue from silence: "Well, maybe those few things were still in effect, but nothing else was." Sorry, but that doesn't cut it in any debate. Given the evidence that the Apostolic Church maintained numerous specific ceremonial commands, and a complete lack of evidence that they ceased, we have to assume where we are not specifically told that they did not keep a certain commandment that they did.In addition, Sha'ul worships and teaches in the synagogues on the Sabbath in Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44; 16:13; 17:2; and 18:4. Acts 13:42-44 specifically notes that the Gentiles came into the synagogue on the Sabbath to hear the Word of God which Sha'ul was preaching. Since the Jewish believers still considered themselves obligated to keep the Torah (per Acts 21), then if the Gentiles and Jews were worshipping together, it would have to be on the Sabbath, not Sunday. Having the Gentiles worship on Sunday would've created a split in the Church, not the unity that the Apostles were striving for.
--Passover was likewise instituted well before the creation of the priesthood, and as others here have pointed out. Moreover, as I've repeatedly pointed out without refutation of any substance, Sha'ul commands keeping the feast of Passover in 1 Co. 5:7f. Indeed, the entirety of the Lord's Supper was originally meant to take place within the context of the Passover Seder.
--As already noted at length in this thread, each of the Feastdays had commands associated with them apart from the sacrificial offerings. On the Feast of Trumpets, we can still have a rest-day and a holy convocation and hear the sound of the shofar together, whether or not we are in Jerusalem--indeed, Yom Teruah isn't even a pilgrimate Feast, so it was expected that most would celebrate it in their home synagogues.
--Sha'ul is eager to return to Jerusalem for Shavuot (Pentecost), a pilgrimage Feast (Acts 20:16). Why would it matter if he was no longer keeping it?
--The zealousness of the Jerusalem believers for the Torah extended to taking voluntary Nazrite oaths and offering the proper sacrifices at the end of them. One poster (was it you or Harley?) objected that there is no indication that this was a regular practice. Not so! The fact that there were already four men under a Nazrite vow when Sha'ul arrived (Acts 21:23), the fact that Sha'ul had previously taken such a vow on his journey (18:18), and the early tradition that Ya'akov (James) himself took a lifelong Nazrite vow (cf. Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, [Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1997], p. 242, quoted here) indicates that the Apostolic Church believed that the "ceremonial" law of the Nazrite vow was also still in effect.
--Indeed, the first Messianic Jews, including the Apostles, "continu[ed] daily with one accord in the Temple" (Acts 2:46). Worshipping in the Temple meant taking part in, at least by assent, the sacrifices and other "ceremonial" parts of the Torah which you would claim were done away with at the Cross.
--As previously noted, the entire institution of baptism was adapted from the Jewish proselyte mikveh, even down to the specific symbolism. Clearly, they didn't think that the "ceremonial law" in this instance (which was actually a tradition drawn out from the Torah, not actually a command of the Torah itself, interestingly) had not passed in this instance. This is driven home by the fact that the expenses that those under a Nazrite vow incurred to shave their heads (cf. Acts 21:24) were those of offering multiple animal sacrifices (Num. 6:14ff).
Therefore, the NT Biblical record clearly supports that the Apostolic Church maintained the "ceremonial" laws of the Torah, your blanket and unsubstantiated dismissals notwithstanding. It is true that they did not impose them on the Gentile converts as a prerequisite for fellowship, but neither is there any evidence that they forbade Gentiles from keeping the whole Torah either, except in the context of becoming circumcised (becoming fully Jewish). The reason why they forbade circumcision is given in detail in my response to ET here. And in the specific matter of the Passover, Sha'ul definitely commands that it be kept--and if the Gentiles were expected to observe the Passover even away from Jerusalem, why not the other Feasts as well?
Right now, you've been reduced to arguing that it is "a tradition of men" that Gentiles keep the Feastdays of the Lord. Oh really? So, in your church, have you provided Sabbath services so that your Jewish members may keep the Torah? Have you provided services for the Feastdays so that Jewish believers may keep the Torah? Have you made it a point to serve only kosher meats at public functions so that Jewish believers may keep the Torah?
If not, then you are guilty of one or both of two sins: 1) You have created a middle wall of separation that makes it impossible for a Messianic Jew to worship with your congregation (i.e., you've essentially said, "Genties only"), or 2) you have discouraged Jews from "staying circumcised" (staying Jewish) and led them to disobey 1 Co. 7:18 as a precondition for fellowship--the opposite and equally evil sin of that of the Judaizers.
Even if keeping the "ceremonial" Torah is only for the Jews (which I dispute--the Lord told His Jewish disciples to teach the Gentiles to do everything which He had commanded them to do, which would include the whole Torah, Mat. 28:20 and 5:17-19; but for the sake of argument), then you are obligated to provide the means for the circumcised members of your congregation to keep the Torah. And if there is truly no more wall of separation, no more Jew or Gentile, then you should take joy in celebrating the Feasts along with your Jewish brethren.
The ball's back in your court. Your entire argument hinges on the thesis that the "ceremonial" Torah is Biblically separate from the "moral" Torah and that the former is done away with. Even if the "ceremonial" Torah is for Jews only, you are still obligated to provide the means for Jewish believers in your congregation to keep it--and if you are not doing so, you have violated the Word of God in favor of a tradition of men and no longer have the right to complain about anyone else's traditions.
If you cannot prove your thesis, then all the rest of your arguments collapse like the house of cards that they are.
Also, note that you have yet to provide a Biblical passage that directly and unequivocably moves the Sabbath. Which means you long ago lost this debate, and simply have not had the honesty to admit it.
And now, I'm off to have dinner with my brother, and I've got prison ministry tomorrow. This will probably be my last post to this thread, as I'll be putting up the Yom Kippur thread shortly. Goodnight, and God bless.
Thanks again for the comments.
The fact remains: 1) The Red Sea was not a true immersionist experience, 2) there was no command from God to get immersed in the wilderness at Sinai, and 3) there is no evidence that anyone got immersed in the wilderness at Sinai.
The language of Psalm 78 is very poetic. That is, after all, what the Psalms are all about. E.g., "He also rained meat on them like the dust, Feathered fowl like the sand of the seas;" (v. 27) They are not intended to be taken as literal history. There was, no doubt, enough water to give the Israelites and their animals to drink. It still does not prove there was enough to immerse over a million people.
BTW, how long would it take to immerse over a million people?
which says:
basically that if anyone is called (to Christianity) who is circumcised, let him be happy with that and if anyone is called who is not circumcised, let him be happy with that. Paul is not telling anyone anything other than to be content with how he is.
Acts 15, verses 5-12, Peter says there is no difference before God, for they both have their hearts purified by faith.
Romans 4:9-11, same same, it is faith, not circumcision that is important.
Galatians 5:2-4 is even stronger, Paul saying that circumcision benefits nothing, once again, it is all of faith.
Colossians 2:11 and 12(re baptism)
Christ 's circumcision is what matters.
My friend......do you really think these folks may not have bathed for forty years?
lol, if you read your bible, and check the place names, you will see that they camped quite often at places where there was water.
Amen.
For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." -- Romans 14:16-17"Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
The ceremonial washings of the Jews really have nothing to do with baptism. Since it is a receiving of the Holy Spirit, it was not even possible until Christ. Acts 19:1-3
The Israelites understood quite well the distinction between moral law and ceremonial law.
"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." (Hos. 6:6)
A clear distinction exists between the two categories of law in that passage. One is eternal, and the other is not.
As I have also pointed out here that in the various enumerations of the law mentioned in the NT, none of them refers to the ceremonial law; circumcision, sacrifices, feast days, and other temple ordinances.
Even the rabbis understood this for many of them believed that in the "age to come" the ceremonial law (sacrifices and feast days) would cease.
Edersheim says:
There were, indeed, in this, as in most respects, diverging opinions according to the different standpoints of the Rabbis, and, as we infer, not without controversial bearing on the teaching of Christianity. The strictest tendency may be characterised as that which denied the possibilty of any change in the ceremonial Law, as well as the abrogation of festivals in the future. Even the destruction of the Temple. and with it the necessary cessation of sacrifices - if, indeed, which is a moot question, all sacrifices did at once and absolutely cease - only caused a gap; just as exile from the land could only free from such laws as attached to the soil of Israel. ... The smallest and most extreme section held that, the laws, as Israel observed them, would be imposed on the Gentiles (Chull. 92 a); others that only thirty commandments, the original Noachic ordinances supposed to be enumerated in Lev. xix., would become obligatory, while some held, that only three ordinances would be binding on the new converts: two connected with the Feast of Tabernacles, the third, that of the phylacteries. On the other hand, we have the most clear testimony that the prevailing tendency of teaching was in a different direction. ... But the Talmud goes even further, and lays down the two principles, that in the ‘age to come’ the whole ceremonial Law and all the feasts were to cease. (Comp. on this Holdheim , Das Ceremonialges, p. 46.)In another place Edershiem makes this interesting comment about rabbinism:
Perhaps we ought here to point out one of the most important principles of Rabbinism, which has been almost entirely overlooked in modern criticism of the Talmud. It is this: that any ordinance, not only of the Divine law, but of the Rabbis, even though only given for a particular time or occasion, or for a special reason, remains in full force for all time unless it be expressly recalled (Betsah 5 b ). Thus Maimonides (Sepher ha Mitsv.) declares the law to extirpate the Canaanites as continuing in its obligations. The inferences as to the perpetual obligation , not only of the ceremonial law, but of sacrifices, will be obvious, and their bearing on the Jewish controversy need not be explained. Comp. Chief Rabbi Holdheim . d. Ceremonial Gesetz in Messasreich, 1845.He says this in the context of a discussion of the different schools of the rabbis and how each approached the interpretation of the Law.
The Jewish Encyclopedia also goes into quite a discussion of the distinction within rabbinism.
So I'm rather surprised that you deny such a distinction in found in the Bible. Such a denial certainly explains how one could arrive at such faulty conclusions about specific texts. It's all about presuppositions and biases.
It is understandable why those who deny we are in "the age to come", that is the time of Messiah, would deny the ceremonial law has changed, arather it has decayed and expired (Heb. 8:13). Why those who profess to believe that Messiah has come would hold to such a view is less understandable. We know it was merely a shadow of Christ's coming into the world. We have seen the Christ. We no longer live in the shadows.
The closest you appear to get is here:
Acts 13:42-44 specifically notes that the Gentiles came into the synagogue on the Sabbath to hear the Word of God which Sha'ul was preaching.
But it is obvious that that was not a wosahip servies of Christian believers. It was a Jewish synagogue. We have already been over how it was Paul's custom to go into the synagogue to preach the gospel to Jews. He didn't drag gentile believers along and have them follow Jewish customs under the guise of Christian worship.
But nowhere do we have a mixed gathering of believers participating the Jewish customs.
Oh, then there is the rather poor reference to 1 Cor. 5:7, but you will please note there is no reference to the conduct of a Jewish passover feast. It says quite plainly that Christ is our passover.
"For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Note the symbolic langauge. There is no mention of literal leaven or literal bread. But rather spiritual thing slike malice and wickedness, sincerity and truth. Perhaps Paul had the word of Jesus in mind:
"There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man."
It's clear from the context that the discussion was about spiritual leaven, not the passover ordinance of the Jews. In fact the actual discussion of the Lord's Supper comes some time later in the letter. And he does not refers to it as "the feast" or "passover" but simply as "The Lord's Supper". Surely Paul knew it was really a passover meal. How odd then that we find in his description nothing particularly Jewish in the way the sacrament was to be truly observed. Just bread and the cup, same as Christians around the world have done it for centuries.
So, none of the gentiles were circumcised, none of then observed Rosh Hashanah, or sacrificed an annimal. None of them observed "kosher laws" or anything else particular to the Jews.
Is that correct? Can I get an "Amen"?
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.