Meat Coming Soon: His Appointed Times

[PeteR]

There is neither Jew nor gentile, but we are all one in Christ.

Same verse says 'there is neither male nor female....' You might want to check the context .

Hebrews 11 & 12, again, context.

You yourself quoted, '..not one jot or tittle will pass until ALL is fulfilled...'.. either ALL is fulfilled, or ALL is NOT fulfilled.... which is it?

 

[PeteR]

Does this not show that the keeping of the ceremonial aspects of the Law are irrelevant?

Precisely the opposite! 2:25-26 says that keeping the Law proves circumcision of the heart. Knowing the Law and NOT keeping it proves uncircumcision of the heart.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Precisely the opposite! 2:25-26 says that keeping the Law proves circumcision of the heart. Knowing the Law and NOT keeping it proves uncircumcision of the heart.

That is kind of my point, and I think this is Paul’s point too. Who keeps it? I don’t see how anyone can keep it. As you pointed out earlier, the means for keeping the whole Law (which is what is required under the commands given at Sinai) have not been available for about 2000 years. Also, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to differentiate between keeping the Law and being circumcised if circumcision is part of the law he is referring to. How does one keep the Law without being circumcised if circumcision is part of that same Law? I believe that Paul is making a distinction between the moral law of God and the ceremonial aspects of the Sinai Covenant. The moral aspects of the Sinai Covenant are as much a part of the new covenant as it was the old, but physical circumcision along with the other ceremonial and symbolic duties are not. This is the summation “But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God”

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Same verse says 'there is neither male nor female....' You might want to check the context .

Hebrews 11 & 12, again, context.

You yourself quoted, '..not one jot or tittle will pass until ALL is fulfilled...'.. either ALL is fulfilled, or ALL is NOT fulfilled.... which is it?

Matthew 5:18 KJV
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

All what? It seems like you are assuming that means everything that will occur in human history, but it doesn’t state that.

Galatians 5:14 KJV
[14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

John 15:13 KJV
[13] Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 19:28,30 KJV
[28] After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

[30] When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.


Acts 3:18 KJV
[18] But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

What is the all He is referring to?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Same verse says 'there is neither male nor female....' You might want to check the context .

Hebrews 11 & 12, again, context.

You yourself quoted, '..not one jot or tittle will pass until ALL is fulfilled...'.. either ALL is fulfilled, or ALL is NOT fulfilled.... which is it?

Yes neither Jew nor gentile, male nor female. All one in Christ, not one Torah.

 

[PeteR]

That is kind of my point, and I think this is Paul’s point too. Who keeps it? I don’t see how anyone can keep it. As you pointed out earlier, the means for keeping the whole Law (which is what is required under the commands given at Sinai) have not been available for about 2000 years. Also, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to differentiate between keeping the Law and being circumcised if circumcision is part of the law he is referring to. How does one keep the Law without being circumcised if circumcision is part of that same Law? I believe that Paul is making a distinction between the moral law of God and the ceremonial aspects of the Sinai Covenant. The moral aspects of the Sinai Covenant are as much a part of the new covenant as it was the old, but physical circumcision along with the other ceremonial and symbolic duties are not. This is the summation “But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God”

Negative. Yeshua said, 'For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law (Torah) until all is accomplished.'

All has not been accomplished.

You make an artificial distinction between moral and ceremonial, something nowhere found in Scripture.

1 Jn 3:4 'Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.'

The Law defines sin, not 'the moral elements of the Law'...

Is the following the everlasting unchanging Word?

119:1 How blessed are those whose way is blameless,
Who walk in the Torah of Yahweh.

2How blessed are those who observe His testimonies,
Who seek Him with all their heart.

3They also do no unrighteousness;
They walk in His ways.

4You have ordained Your precepts,
That we should keep them diligently.

5Oh that my ways may be established
To keep Your statutes!

6Then I shall not be ashamed
When I look upon all Your commandments.

There are 1000 more beautiful verses like these extolling.g the Torah and promising blessings for obedience.

 

[PeteR]

Yes neither Jew nor gentile, male nor female. All one in Christ, not one Torah.

Paul got that from Ex. 12:43-49. Redemption / salvation is avaible to all, but obedience is expected.

 

[FollowingHim]

There is neither Jew nor gentile, but we are all one in Christ.

God has only one people, one ekklesia, one church. Once that ekklesia was centred around Adam and his family, later Noah and his family. Once it was centred around a group of Israelites with a tabernacle in the wilderness. Once it comprised a scattered set of faithful exiles in Babylon and elsewhere. Then it again had a centre in Jerusalem. Then it was centred around Jesus, while he walked around Judea preaching. Then it was centred around the apostles and the assemblies they founded. Later it was centred in the Catholic church, when the assemblies joined under a common leadership. Then it divided as corruption and heresy grew and reform was not possible. Today it's this diverse group we call the Church.

We are all one, the Church is Israel - and Israel was the Church.

 

[FollowingHim]

I find it is easy to get lost in the weeds on this. I try and step back and keep it relatively simple.

If we are going to have "holy days", then what holy days should we keep? The ones that are clearly stated in the Bible, given by the Lawgiver (who is Christ)? Or should we reject every single one of them and replace the lot with ones that were invented later?

If church tradition was to keep some of the feasts as written, but replace others with another day, and there was a logic (right or wrong) behind why each of those specific changes were made that linked the old feast to a new replacement, that I could understand. It would imply continuity. However that is not what we have. Rather, church tradition is to essentially ignore every one of God's feast days, and wholesale replace them all. Only passover and pentecost have been retained in some form, and only because the church is commemorating a New Testament era event that happened to coincide with that date. There is no effort to retain or even overtly replace any of the original feast days, they are just ignored. Only sabbath has been retained, and even that has been changed.

This implies an intentional ignorance of God's instructions.

His appointed times were given for a reason. We should therefore, at a bare minimum, at least notice when they occur and consider them. Having considered them, we should give them at least as much honour as later man-made feast days, if not more. Practically, that means that if we think it is worth taking a day off work for Christmas, surely it is even more important to take a day off work for the feast of trumpets, given that was actually given to us by God himself? And surely it would be more acceptable to ignore Christmas than to ignore the feast of trumpets?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Negative. Yeshua said, 'For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law (Torah) until all is accomplished.'

All has not been accomplished.

You make an artificial distinction between moral and ceremonial, something nowhere found in Scripture.

1 Jn 3:4 'Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.'

The Law defines sin, not 'the moral elements of the Law'...

Is the following the everlasting unchanging Word?

119:1 How blessed are those whose way is blameless,
Who walk in the Torah of Yahweh.

2How blessed are those who observe His testimonies,
Who seek Him with all their heart.

3They also do no unrighteousness;
They walk in His ways.

4You have ordained Your precepts,
That we should keep them diligently.

5Oh that my ways may be established
To keep Your statutes!

6Then I shall not be ashamed
When I look upon all Your commandments.

There are 1000 more beautiful verses like these extolling.g the Torah and promising blessings for obedience.

All what? All of time? All of Torah? All of the Law? It doesn’t specify.

If there is no distinction between the moral and the ceremonial aspects of the Law, how can Paul say “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?” If there is no distinction, to my mind, that is like saying illegal immigrants aren’t criminals. By definition they are. How can one be an uncircumcised law keeper, if there is no distinction?

I’m certainly not arguing that those passages are not scripture by any means, but the volume of the book is written about Him, I am in Him and His righteousness covers me. That’s how we can enjoy his blessing, it isn’t based on my merit but His as we’re all those before who walked in faith that Messiah would come and fulfill all righteousness.

If 1 John is saying that not getting circumcised is a sin why was Titus not compelled to be circumcised? It’s one of simplest and most basic acts of keeping the ceremonial laws. Did they just wink at his sin or was it not sin for him to be uncircumcised?

 

[Edward]

Where do you sacrifice?

Well I don't live in Israel and there is no Temple so we can't do any sacrifices and most importantly Yahshua was, is, our final sin sacrifice.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I find it is easy to get lost in the weeds on this. I try and step back and keep it relatively simple.

If we are going to have "holy days", then what holy days should we keep? The ones that are clearly stated in the Bible, given by the Lawgiver (who is Christ)? Or should we reject every single one of them and replace the lot with ones that were invented later?

If church tradition was to keep some of the feasts as written, but replace others with another day, and there was a logic (right or wrong) behind why each of those specific changes were made that linked the old feast to a new replacement, that I could understand. It would imply continuity. However that is not what we have. Rather, church tradition is to essentially ignore every one of God's feast days, and wholesale replace them all. Only passover and pentecost have been retained in some form, and only because the church is commemorating a New Testament era event that happened to coincide with that date. There is no effort to retain or even overtly replace any of the original feast days, they are just ignored. Only sabbath has been retained, and even that has been changed.

This implies an intentional ignorance of God's instructions.

His appointed times were given for a reason. We should therefore, at a bare minimum, at least notice when they occur and consider them. Having considered them, we should give them at least as much honour as later man-made feast days, if not more. Practically, that means that if we think it is worth taking a day off work for Christmas, surely it is even more important to take a day off work for the feast of trumpets, given that was actually given to us by God himself? And surely it would be more acceptable to ignore Christmas than to ignore the feast of trumpets?

It’s not the enjoying of a biblical feast that I have any issue with. And I have no issue with someone having other celebrations as well. We have liberty in Christ. I think the issue I have is when, whether intentionally or not, it works it’s way around to, if you’re not celebrating all the feasts, or you’re not circumcised then you are part of the whore church and you’re cut off. You just can’t find that in the apostles doctrine, which we should hold fast to. Christ taught the apostles so that they could teach us. I see a number of places where the apostles rebuked different churches for a number of things, what I don’t see is them rebuking churches for, is failing to keep the ceremonial aspects of Torah. Which is something we should see a lot of if was it was something they were supposed to be doing.

I pray everyone here has a blessed evening, thank you for your time.

 

[The Revolting Man]

John the Baptist could have been Elijah to them if they had listened. That's at least how I understood it.

Right, but some people were expecting actual Elijah. Someone like Elijah showed up but not Elijah.

I’m just always a little cautious basing important points only or even largely on prophecy. It frequently ends up looking different then was assumed.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It’s not the enjoying of a biblical feast that I have any issue with. And I have no issue with someone having other celebrations as well. We have liberty in Christ. I think the issue I have is when, whether intentionally or not, it works it’s way around to, if you’re not celebrating all the feasts, or you’re not circumcised then you are part of the whore church and you’re cut off. You just can’t find that in the apostles doctrine, which we should hold fast to. Christ taught the apostles so that they could teach us. I see a number of places where the apostles rebuked different churches for a number of things, what I don’t see is them rebuking churches for, is failing to keep the ceremonial aspects of Torah. Which is something we should see a lot of if was it was something they were supposed to be doing.

I pray everyone here has a blessed evening, thank you for your time.

I don’t think most Torah keepers would have a problem with this statement. Acts 15 lays out an acceptable place for uncircumcised believers to exist and doesn’t put a time limit on staying there.

 

[James Pease]

Right, but some people were expecting actual Elijah. Someone like Elijah showed up but not Elijah.

I’m just always a little cautious basing important points only or even largely on prophecy. It frequently ends up looking different then was assumed.

There very well still could be an actual Elijah

 

[James Pease]

It’s not the enjoying of a biblical feast that I have any issue with. And I have no issue with someone having other celebrations as well. We have liberty in Christ. I think the issue I have is when, whether intentionally or not, it works it’s way around to, if you’re not celebrating all the feasts, or you’re not circumcised then you are part of the whore church and you’re cut off. You just can’t find that in the apostles doctrine, which we should hold fast to. Christ taught the apostles so that they could teach us. I see a number of places where the apostles rebuked different churches for a number of things, what I don’t see is them rebuking churches for, is failing to keep the ceremonial aspects of Torah. Which is something we should see a lot of if was it was something they were supposed to be doing.

I pray everyone here has a blessed evening, thank you for your time.

A lot of people struggle to understand circumcision. Paul points out Abraham was called while he was uncircumcised so that he could be the father of many nations. The circumcision is a physical sign of an inward change. Paul said that he still taught circumcision and didn't know why he was being persecuted. The circumcision of the heart has always been the required circumcision. Romans 2 points to that.

Romans 6
1¶What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

We are not to continue to transgress the Law that grace may abound, Acts 15 lists 4 requirements for people who presently turning to God to have fellowship. The Apostles expected those turning to hear Moses read every Sabbath and change as knowledge increased.

 

[PeteR]

It’s not the enjoying of a biblical feast that I have any issue with. And I have no issue with someone having other celebrations as well. We have liberty in Christ. I think the issue I have is when, whether intentionally or not, it works it’s way around to, if you’re not celebrating all the feasts, or you’re not circumcised then you are part of the whore church and you’re cut off. You just can’t find that in the apostles doctrine, which we should hold fast to. Christ taught the apostles so that they could teach us. I see a number of places where the apostles rebuked different churches for a number of things, what I don’t see is them rebuking churches for, is failing to keep the ceremonial aspects of Torah. Which is something we should see a lot of if was it was something they were supposed to be doing.

I pray everyone here has a blessed evening, thank you for your time.

Good discussion. I enjoyed it... we are all still learning.

Shalom to you and yours.

 

[James Pease]

I don’t think most Torah keepers would have a problem with this statement. Acts 15 lays out an acceptable place for uncircumcised believers to exist and doesn’t put a time limit on staying there.

The Greek verbs are important in Acts 15. The word turning is a present active participle which implies and "ing" action. There is no time limit because the Gentiles are not considered "turned to God" but instead are in a category of "turning to God". The understanding of Greek verbs can completely alter our poor translated understandings.

 

[The Revolting Man]

There very well still could be an actual Elijah

Could be, that’s my point. We need to be careful basing important ideas solely or even largely on how we view prophecy unfolding. It can surprise us.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The Greek verbs are important in Acts 15. The word turning is a present active participle which implies and "ing" action. There is no time limit because the Gentiles are not considered "turned to God" but instead are in a category of "turning to God". The understanding of Greek verbs can completely alter our poor translated understandings.

But still, no time limit given. And I’m a little skeptical of needing secret decoder rings to read the Bible. God can translate. We don’t have to have an understanding of the arcane workings of Greek to read the Bible, especially on important issues.