# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Can you celebrate pagan fertility rites and still be a Christian?

## GunnyFreedom

In the spirit of threads gone by, "Can you (whatever) and still be a Christian?" I would offer the following query to the religious segment of this board:

Can you celebrate the pagan festival of Eostre, a fertility goddess commonly celebrated by adults dressing in rabbit costumes, exchanging brightly painted eggs, and participating in a massive sexual orgy as a fertility rite, and still be a Christian?

The origins of the holiday of Easter came from Constantine, who chose rather than embracing the fundamental philosophy of Christianity to actually keep all of the old pagan ideas, holidays, and philosophies, but to simply wave his hand and call them 'Christian.'  A few fig leafs were added to cover the naked pagandom of these holidays, and Christian-like themes were imposed upon them externally.

Easter in particular comes from the worship of two pagan fertility goddesses - Eostre and Ishtar.  Their purpose was fertility, and thus the fertile rabbit, and the symbol of new life, the egg.  By participating in the veneration of rabbits and eggs, it was assume that the goddess would be pleased and therefore give the people bountiful crops in during the growing season.

As mentioned above, celebrations included humans dressed as rabbits, exchanging brightly colored and decorated eggs, and participating in massive orgies.  The fundamental idea was that if you exchanged eggs with someone, the two of you had sex.  Sex, was also symbolic of fertility, and therefore the more sex that took place, the more bountiful the crops were supposed to be.

Now, we no longer host orgies on Easter, but we still do the rabbits and the eggs and the hoping for bountiful crops.  So, why is any of this okay?

Yeshua Messiah (Jesus Christ) did not rise from the dead on Easter (a holiday that already existed), He rose from the dead on the Feast of the Firstfruits.  As Paul described in 1 Corinthians 15:20 "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the _firstfruits_ of them that slept." [KJV]

So why are so many so desperately opposed to celebrating the actual day that Messiah rose from the dead?  The actual day that God set down back in Leviticus for such a celebration?  The day that Messiah Himself, and also Paul the Apostle celebrated the resurrection?

Do we really reject the God-ordained Passover and Firstfruits, and choose instead to keep the pagan fertility festival?

If, having done the research to determine that everything in this post is factually correct, one willfully chooses to keep celebrating pagan fertility rites while rejecting the actual God ordained Holy Days on which the Messiah was actually crucified and actually rose from the dead, doesn't that mean they are no longer ignorant, but openly rebellious?  And if one is openly rebellious against God, can they still actually be a Christian?

----------


## TheTexan

> Can you celebrate the pagan festival of Eostre, a fertility goddess commonly celebrated by adults dressing in rabbit costumes, exchanging brightly painted eggs, and participating in a massive sexual orgy as a fertility rite, and still be a Christian?


I didnt think there could be a holiday better than Halloween

----------


## jmdrake

So you're saying that if I give my ex wife an Easter egg and she accepts it she's obligated to......never mind.  

Yeah Easter and Christmas (the winter solstice) and Halloween all have pagan roots.  And they aren't the only pagan things brought into Christianity.  Some churches shy away from all such holidays for those reasons.  Others use it as a witnessing opportunity.  We used to give away scriptures along with our Halloween candy.

----------


## jmdrake

> I didnt think there could be a holiday better than Halloween


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bxm042 again._

LOL

----------


## Suzanimal

What if you celebrate Easter by going to Mass and an Easter egg hunt?  I've never participated in an Easter orgy.

I had to vote "Huh"

----------


## Sola_Fide

No.  The Christ Mass and Easter are not Biblical,  therefore not Christian.  The Mass itself is an abomination.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I celebrate Pascha, not "Easter".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What if you celebrate Easter by going to Mass and an Easter egg hunt?  I've never participated in an Easter orgy.
> 
> I had to vote "Huh"


Sola_Fide will gaze upon you with scorn and dismay.  And subsequently excommunicate you from his church.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

btw, hope you're having a blessed Lent, gunny!  ~hugs~

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I celebrate Pascha, not "Easter".


Where in the Bible does it say to celebrate that?

----------


## Terry1

I just like to decorate myself.  Give me a reason to decorate the house or table and I'll celebrate anything.  I put up a Christmas tree too and nothing's better than watching the kids hunt for eggs.

As long as you take the kids to church and teach them what the true meaning is for that day--the rest of it's just having fun IMO.  Getting gifts and candy, being with family and friends just makes the day all the more enjoyable.  

It's whatever you're truly celebrating in your heart and mind that matters--not what you decorate or have some fun with aside from that.  

Easter egg hunts are huge fun for the kids.  I just like handing candy out on Halloween--love seeing the kids in their costumes.  We live our own convictions and teach Christ is Lord.

If someone doesn't believe in doing that stuff--then that's their own conviction and choice--no biggy.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I just like to decorate myself.  Give me a reason to decorate the house or table and I'll celebrate anything.  I put up a Christmas tree too and nothing's better than watching the kids hunt for eggs.
> 
> As long as you take the kids to church and teach them what the true meaning is for that day--the rest of it's just having fun IMO.  Getting gifts and candy, being with family and friends just makes the day all the more enjoyable.  
> 
> It's whatever you're truly celebrating in your heart and mind that matters--not what you decorate or have some fun with aside from that.  
> 
> Easter egg hunts are huge fun for the kids.  I just like handing candy out on Halloween--love seeing the kids in their costumes.  We live our own convictions and teach Christ is Lord.
> 
> If someone doesn't believe in doing that stuff--then that's their own conviction and choice--no biggy.


There's not a problem with celebrations.   We celebrate birthdays.   There is nothing wrong with that.   There is everything wrong with celebrating something in regards to worship that the Bible doesn't authorize.

----------


## fisharmor

> The origins of the holiday of Easter came from Constantine, who chose rather than embracing the fundamental philosophy of Christianity to actually keep all of the old pagan ideas, holidays, and philosophies, but to simply wave his hand and call them 'Christian.'  A few fig leafs were added to cover the naked pagandom of these holidays, and Christian-like themes were imposed upon them externally.


Source?




> Easter in particular comes from the worship of two pagan fertility goddesses - Eostre and Ishtar.  Their purpose was fertility, and thus the fertile rabbit, and the symbol of new life, the egg.  By participating in the veneration of rabbits and eggs, it was assume that the goddess would be pleased and therefore give the people bountiful crops in during the growing season.


Source?




> As mentioned above, celebrations included humans dressed as rabbits, exchanging brightly colored and decorated eggs, and participating in massive orgies.  The fundamental idea was that if you exchanged eggs with someone, the two of you had sex.  Sex, was also symbolic of fertility, and therefore the more sex that took place, the more bountiful the crops were supposed to be.


Source?




> If, having done the research to determine that everything in this post is factually correct, one willfully chooses to keep celebrating pagan fertility rites while rejecting the actual God ordained Holy Days on which the Messiah was actually crucified and actually rose from the dead, doesn't that mean they are no longer ignorant, but openly rebellious?  And if one is openly rebellious against God, can they still actually be a Christian?


Pascha doesn't include rabbit costumes or chicks or any of that other crap.
It does include eggs.  Lots of them.
Because of an alternate explanation:
Suppose you keep chickens.  Suppose you're starting a 50 day fast from meat and dairy... including eggs.
So you go out to your chickens and tell them "Now ladies, I can't eat any of your eggs, so stop pushing them out for the next 50 days, because even though it's cold and most of them will keep, I can't imagine what I'm going to do with 400 of them when this fast is over"..... right?

Or, maybe you just keep all the eggs and eat them all afterward.....

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There's not a problem with celebrations.   We celebrate birthdays.   There is nothing wrong with that.   There is everything wrong with celebrating something in regards to worship that the Bible doesn't authorize.


That's a little dishonest.  I'm not a fan of the pagan elements stuff and don't use them, but I'm not aware of anyone who worships, venerates, etc the various imagery and icons of Easter/Christmas/etc.

----------


## staerker

Is it *legal* for me to worship and celebrate Jesus Christ on this day, 3/12/15? Imagine all the evil that has occurred on this earth, on this same day in years past.

Event collectivism (for lack of a better term) is just as dangerous, and invalid, as human collectivism.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Source?
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> 
> ...


I'm fairly sure that's what the Feast day after Lent is for...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So you're saying that if I give my ex wife an Easter egg and she accepts it she's obligated to......never mind.


You can alway try telling her that if she doesn't, all of her crops will die, and she will starve.  It worked 1000 years ago.  You never know.  




> Yeah Easter and Christmas (the winter solstice) and Halloween all have pagan roots. And they aren't the only pagan things brought into Christianity. Some churches shy away from all such holidays for those reasons. Others use it as a witnessing opportunity. We used to give away scriptures along with our Halloween candy.


I don't really begrudge people who try to do that, but 'churches' that set up 'haunted houses' bother me in the worst way.  As for me, since the day I was born again back in 1998, I have shuttered all the doors, windows, and lights and refused to participate in Halloween at all.  

Really, the language I used in the OP is a bit over the top.  It was intentional as a slight bit of mockery of the "can you still be a Christian if..." threads that have gone before.  I do not actually bear judgement against people - particularly if they do it in ignorance - who celebrate the wrong holiday.  When someone 100% KNOWS the facts presented in the OP and _still_ rejects Firstfruits for Easter, however, I admit that _that_ does kinda bother me.  It's one thing to not know that a certain practice is offensive to God and do it in ignorance, bit it's another thing entirely to know it and still do it.

In fact, I have at times actually refrained from educating people as to the origins of Easter because I knew they were weak-minded and would not change their behavior, because I did not want to add to their burden of sin by destroying their ignorance on this subject.

It's not as though one has to stop celebrating the Resurrection by rejecting Easter.  Instead, celebrate the Resurrection on the proper, Biblical day.  The Feast of Firstfruits.  

Whatever you normally do to celebrate the Resurrection, just do that on the first Sunday after the Passover instead.  'Doing the right thing' on this subject couldn't be easier, actually.  Usually it simply means celebrating the Resurrection a week before or after Easter, and occasionally Firstfruits falls ont he same day as Easter.  

It also has a slight language adjustment.  Instead of saying "Happy Easter," I say "Have a blessed Resurrection Day."

I do recommend giving up the rabbits and eggs though.  No way is that stuff going to go over well at the Bema Seat.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's a little dishonest.  I'm not a fan of the pagan elements stuff and don't use them, but I'm not aware of anyone who worships, venerates, etc the various imagery and icons of Easter/Christmas/etc.


What is the Christ Mass HB?

----------


## Terry1

> There's not a problem with celebrations.   We celebrate birthdays.   There is nothing wrong with that.   There is everything wrong with celebrating something in regards to worship that the Bible doesn't authorize.


Well--I don't worship the Easter bunny or the colored eggs, but I sure like decorating with them.  Same with my Christmas stuff--  A lot of this stuff came from pagan origins, but that's not the reason we celebrate Pascha/Easter or any other Holiday--people just want to have fun.  We worship the Lord.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What if you celebrate Easter by going to Mass and an Easter egg hunt?


I would strongly advise avoiding egg hunts at all costs.  As you become acclimatized to the new paradigm of accuracy in celebration, the desire for Easter Mass will also fade and in it's place a desire to celebrate the Resurrection on the actual day it happened will replace it.  




> I've never participated in an Easter orgy.


That's because you are younger than 1000 years old.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well--I don't worship the Easter bunny or the colored eggs, but I sure like decorating with them.  Same with my Christmas stuff--  A lot of this stuff came from pagan origins, but that's not the reason we celebrate Pascha/Easter or any other Holiday--people just want to have fun.  We worship the Lord.


Why do you celebrate the Christ Mass?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well--I don't worship the Easter bunny or the colored eggs, but I sure like decorating with them.  Same with my Christmas stuff--  A lot of this stuff came from pagan origins, but that's not the reason we celebrate Pascha/Easter or any other Holiday--people just want to have fun.  We worship the Lord.


I remember from when I was a child that a lot of that stuff was fun.  Today, I also remember the Scriptures which command me to "Learn not the way of the heathen."

Jeremiah 10:1-8 (KJV)


Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:


Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.


Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee. But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.

----------


## jmdrake

> Source?
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> 
> ...


So  you're saying you can't eat eggs unless you paint them a bunch of funny colors first?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> btw, hope you're having a blessed Lent, gunny!  ~hugs~


I don't celebrate pagan festivals.  I keep the Biblical Holy Days.  The ones actually written in the Bible, and commanded by the Living God to be kept forever.

----------


## specsaregood

..

----------


## Natural Citizen

Likely easier to clip my previous thought on it. Apologies for intruding in another one of those by invitation only discussions for the religious segment. Us "Pagans" have no courtesy, you know. We're uncivilized.  Heh. 





> Yeah, see....wuh hah happened wuh...the ancients observed the Sun's movement from the Summer Solstice through the Winter Solstice. 
> 
> The days became shorter as the Sun continuously moved south. With this, came the expiration of crops. To these ancients, this symbolized death. The death of the Sun. By December 22nd the Sun's "death" was fully seen from Earth after moving continuously from the north for six months to it's lowest point in the sky. Of course, then what happened was that the Sun _stopped_ moving south, at least perceivably, for three days. You see?
> 
> And so then during these three days, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross...or Crux constellation. After this period , on December 25th, the Sun moves 1 degree_ North._ Are you following me here, Nang?  
> 
> Anyhoo. This movement North forshadowed longer days, warmth and spring to those ancients who observed this phenomenon. They knew that new life would follow. Crops would thrive. Life was revitalized for them. 
> 
> And so it was said. "The son died on the cross, was dead for three days, only to be resurrected or born again."
> ...


I'll add that I do so loathe the use of the term "pagan" when I hear it placed into context from the so called civilized society. It's a weasel word.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Gosh, this thread really ticks me off. And I know that it shouldn't but boy does it tick me off.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't celebrate pagan festivals.  I keep the Biblical Holy Days.  The ones actually written in the Bible, and commanded by the Living God to be kept forever.


Lent isn't Pagan. It's distinctly Christian.  But do as you will.  ~hugs~

*Great Lent*

                                                                                                                                                            (Redirected from Lent)
*The Great Fast* or _Lent_ is the period of preparation leading up to Holy Week and Pascha.  The Lenten Triodion governs the divine services of Great Lent as well as those of the Weeks of Preparation preceding Great Lent. _Lent_ is a Middle English word  meaning "spring." The Great Fast has come to be called Lent by  association; it is called "great" to distinguish it from the other fasts. 
Observance of Great Lent is characterized by abstention from many foods, intensified private and public prayer, personal  improvement, and almsgiving.  The foods traditionally abstained from  are meat and dairy products, fish, wine and oil.  (According to some  traditions, only olive oil is abstained from; in others, all vegetable  oils.)  Since strict fasting is canonically forbidden on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, wine and oil are permitted on Saturdays and Sundays.  If the Feast of the Annunciation falls during Great Lent, then fish, wine and oil are permitted on that day. 
Besides the additional liturgical celebrations described below, Orthodox Christians  are expected to pay closer attention to their private prayers and to  say more of them more often.  The Fathers have referred to fasting  without prayer as "the fast of the demons" since the demons do not eat according to their incorporeal nature, but neither do they pray. 
During the weekdays of Great Lent, there is a liturgical fast when the eucharistic Divine Liturgy  is not celebrated. However, since it is considered especially important  to receive the Holy Mysteries during this season the Liturgy of the  Presanctified Gifts, also called the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Dialogist, may be celebrated on Wednesdays and Fridays.  At this vesperal  service some of the Body and Blood of Christ reserved the previous  Sunday is distributed. On Saturday and Sunday the Divine Liturgy may be  celebrated as usual, although on Sundays the more solemn Liturgy of St. Basil the Great is used in place of that of St. John Chrysostom. 
Like the observation of Lent in the West, Great Lent itself lasts  for forty days, but unlike the West, Sundays are included in the count.  It officially begins on Monday seven weeks before Pascha and concludes  on the eve of Lazarus Saturday, the day before Palm Sunday. However, fasting continues for the following week, known as Passion Week, Great Week or Holy Week, up until Pascha.  

*Structure of Great Lent*

  Monday following Forgiveness Sunday (also called Cheesefare Sunday)  1. Sunday of Orthodoxy (John 1:43-51),  2. Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas,  3. Sunday of the Holy Cross,  4. Sunday of St. John Climacus, and  5. Sunday of St. Mary of Egypt.  Following Meatfare Sunday, meats are removed from the diet.  Following Cheesefare Sunday (also known as Forgiveness Sunday), dairy is removed, initiating the strict fasting of Great Lent.  During Great Lent, the weekday readings are taken only from the Old Testament, focusing on Genesis, Proverbs, and Isaiah.  Great Lent is followed by Holy Week, the week beginning with Palm Sunday and preceding Pascha. 
*Purpose of Great Lent*

 The original purpose of the pre-Pascha fast (now known as Great Lent)  was the fasting of catechumens who were being prepared for baptism and  entry into the Church. However, it quickly became a time for those who  were already Christian to prepare for the feast of the Resurrection of  Christ.  It is the living symbol of man's entire life which is to be  fulfilled in his own resurrection from the dead with Christ. It is a  time of renewed devotion: of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. It is a  time of repentance, a real renewal of minds, hearts and deeds in  conformity with Christ and his teachings. It is the time, most of all,  of return to the great commandments of loving God and neighbors. 
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Lent

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Gosh, this thread really ticks me off. And I know that it shouldn't but boy does it tick me off.


lulz   You kids are funny.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't celebrate pagan festivals.  I keep the Biblical Holy Days.  The ones actually written in the Bible, and commanded by the Living God to be kept forever.


For a Christian,  the only holy day is Sunday.

----------


## Terry1

Oh God--bunny haters!  Jesus forgive them for they know not what they do.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Source?


Council of Nicaea, 325 AD.  This event was highly documented, it was called by the Emperor Constantine, and the Passover and Firstfruits which had been celebrated for the previous 300 years were explicitly rejected as being "too Jewish," and replaced by a 'christianized' version of the pagan fertility rites.




> Source?


Nearly every chronicle of history ever written.  Notably, this transition was heavily documented by Bede in the 8th Century.  

"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance."" - Bede, De temporum ratione, Chapter 15

This is the pagan goddess that Bede connected "Easter/Paschal" to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre

and the connection to Ishtar 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar

Comes through Tammuz: http://www.babylonforsaken.com/easter.html

Also, many scholars have postulated that Ishtar evolved into Eostre via Ostara, providing yet another connection.




> Source?


Already provided above.




> Pascha doesn't include rabbit costumes or chicks or any of that other crap.
> It does include eggs.  Lots of them.
> Because of an alternate explanation:
> Suppose you keep chickens.  Suppose you're starting a 50 day fast from meat and dairy... including eggs.
> So you go out to your chickens and tell them "Now ladies, I can't eat any of your eggs, so stop pushing them out for the next 50 days, because even though it's cold and most of them will keep, I can't imagine what I'm going to do with 400 of them when this fast is over"..... right?
> 
> Or, maybe you just keep all the eggs and eat them all afterward.....


The people who were a lot closer to the actual events disagree with you.  

Are you seriously denying that people celebrate Easter with Easter Bunnies?

Constantine explicitly chose to 'move' Resurrection day to be celebrated on the pagan holiday for Eostre, and Bede documented the name change from Eostre to Paschal, but stated that even with the name change people were still calling it "Easter" despite the best efforts of the Church to shed the pagan trappings.

Also, the origin of using eggs to celebrate this day came from orgies celebrating fertility.  That may not be the purpose you provide them today, but that is absolutely what it came from.  The celebration of the Spring Solstice using eggs to celebrate fertility, along with sex to demonstrate virility.  This practice predates the advent of Messiah by some 800 years.  The fact that the sex has been removed from the celebration today, does not change the origin of the practice.  Time simply doesn't flow in that direction.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Terry, you are a shipwreck.   You are tossed around by every wave of doctrine and have no discernment.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> For a Christian,  the only holy day is Sunday.


So are the 12 Disciples going to hell because they kept the 7 Feasts of the Lord as we are commanded by the Living God?

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, you are a shipwreck.   You are tossed around by every wave of doctrine and have no discernment.


Thank you.

----------


## TheTexan

Pagans sure know how to party.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So are the 12 Disciples going to hell because they kept the 7 Feasts of the Lord as we are commanded by the Living God?


Where is that?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Is it *legal* for me to worship and celebrate Jesus Christ on this day, 3/12/15? Imagine all the evil that has occurred on this earth, on this same day in years past.
> 
> Event collectivism (for lack of a better term) is just as dangerous, and invalid, as human collectivism.


"Legal" is not a term of relevance as "The Law" no longer defines a physical reality but a Spiritual one.

It is not sinful to worship the Messiah at ANY time.  

It is, however, sinful to uphold pagan rites and claim that they come from, or are suited for the worship of, God.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Terry, you are a shipwreck.   You are tossed around by every wave of doctrine and have no discernment.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "Legal" is not a term of relevance as "The Law" no longer defines a physical reality but a Spiritual one.
> 
> It is not sinful to worship the Messiah at ANY time.  
> 
> It is, however, sinful to uphold pagan rites and claim that they come from, or are suited for the worship of, God.


What feast did Jesus tell us to remember until the last day?  (Hint: there's just one)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 


Excuse me?  When have I changed what I preached?

----------


## Terry1

> 


LOL

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Where is that?


In Leviticus, the work most-quoted by Messiah, the Feasts were commanded to be observed _forever_.  

Acts 18:21 Paul was sailing to Jerusalem to keep the Passover.

Acts 20:6-7 Paul celebrates Unleavened Bread, Passover, and Firstfruits in Philippi.

Acts 20:13-16 Paul actually cuts his ministry short in Asia Minor in zeal to return to Jerusalem in time to celebrate the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost).

Acts 27:9 Paul describes observing Yom Kippur.

1 Cor. 16:5-8 Paul tells the Corinthians he can't come to visit them until he has celebrated the Feast of Weeks with the Ephesians.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What feast did Jesus tell us to remember until the last day?  (Hint: there's just one)


"Do this always in remembrance of Me" = The Last Supper aka the Passover, however this admonition is not exclusive in any way, shape or form.  Nowhere does He say "Stop celebrating the Pentecost."  To assume that He does is unwarranted.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Oh God--bunny haters!  Jesus forgive them for they know not what they do.


I don't think I would suggest being so cavalier about this.  King Josiah of Israel, upon learning the truth found in a book of the Law found abandoned in the Temple, was granted mercy from God and Josiah's whole Kingdom with him, because he explicitly took the opposite course upon revelation that you are charting here.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Lent isn't Pagan. It's distinctly Christian.  But do as you will.  ~hugs~
> 
> *Great Lent*
> 
>                                                                                                                                                             (Redirected from Lent)
> *The Great Fast* or _Lent_ is the period of preparation leading up to Holy Week and Pascha.  The Lenten Triodion governs the divine services of Great Lent as well as those of the Weeks of Preparation preceding Great Lent. _Lent_ is a Middle English word  meaning "spring." The Great Fast has come to be called Lent by  association; it is called "great" to distinguish it from the other fasts. 
> Observance of Great Lent is characterized by abstention from many foods, intensified private and public prayer, personal  improvement, and almsgiving.  The foods traditionally abstained from  are meat and dairy products, fish, wine and oil.  (According to some  traditions, only olive oil is abstained from; in others, all vegetable  oils.)  Since strict fasting is canonically forbidden on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, wine and oil are permitted on Saturdays and Sundays.  If the Feast of the Annunciation falls during Great Lent, then fish, wine and oil are permitted on that day. 
> Besides the additional liturgical celebrations described below, Orthodox Christians  are expected to pay closer attention to their private prayers and to  say more of them more often.  The Fathers have referred to fasting  without prayer as "the fast of the demons" since the demons do not eat according to their incorporeal nature, but neither do they pray. 
> During the weekdays of Great Lent, there is a liturgical fast when the eucharistic Divine Liturgy  is not celebrated. However, since it is considered especially important  to receive the Holy Mysteries during this season the Liturgy of the  Presanctified Gifts, also called the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Dialogist, may be celebrated on Wednesdays and Fridays.  At this vesperal  service some of the Body and Blood of Christ reserved the previous  Sunday is distributed. On Saturday and Sunday the Divine Liturgy may be  celebrated as usual, although on Sundays the more solemn Liturgy of St. Basil the Great is used in place of that of St. John Chrysostom. 
> ...


I can paint a barn silver and pink and call it a spaceship....but at the end of the day it's still just a barn.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "Do this always in remembrance of Me" = The Last Supper aka the Passover, however this admonition is not exclusive in any way, shape or form.  Nowhere does He say "Stop celebrating the Pentecost."  To assume that He does is unwarranted.


Didn't Jesus fulfill that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In Leviticus, the work most-quoted by Messiah, the Feasts were commanded to be observed _forever_.  
> 
> Acts 18:21 Paul was sailing to Jerusalem to keep the Passover.
> 
> Acts 20:6-7 Paul celebrates Unleavened Bread, Passover, and Firstfruits in Philippi.
> 
> Acts 20:13-16 Paul actually cuts his ministry short in Asia Minor in zeal to return to Jerusalem in time to celebrate the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost).
> 
> Acts 27:9 Paul describes observing Yom Kippur.
> ...


 Paul told Timothy to get circumcised.   Why do you think he said that?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Likely easier to clip my previous thought on it. Apologies for intruding in another one of those by invitation only discussions for the religious segment. Us "Pagans" have no courtesy, you know. We're uncivilized.  Heh. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll add that I do so loathe the use of the term "pagan" when I hear it placed into context from the so called civilized society. It's a weasel word.


Why would you assume that "Pagan" = "uncivilized?" Because that's how Hollywood uses the term?  Frankly, I don't pay much attention to them, either.

Remember that Nimrod, one of the first "Pagans" was tenfold more 'civilized' than the rest of the planet in his day.  Paganism has literally nothing to do with the state of civilization.  Instead, it has to do with a category of naturalistic and animistic religions.  It is nothing more or less than a category of religions that focus on naturalism and animism.  

Tying 'civilization' to 'godliness' would make the Tower of Babel 'godly.'  There is no rational basis for presuming that 'pagan' = 'uncivilized.'

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Didn't Jesus fulfill that?


Do you believe that fulfill is a synonym for abolish?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Paul told Timothy to get circumcised.   Why do you think he said that?


Because Timothy was going to preach specifically to the Jews, who would have rejected him if they did not perceive him as a fellow Jew; however Paul was not celebrating Unleavened Bread, Passover and Firstfruits in Philippi with the Jews, but with the Greeks, likewise Paul celebrated the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) with Greeks (not Jews) in Ephesus.  Therefore your comparison breaks down.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I can paint a barn silver and pink and call it a spaceship....but at the end of the day it's still just a barn.


Not an argument and doesn't at all address my post, so I'll just leave it at that.  Dodge it and move on as you wish.  Have a blessed day.  ~hugs~   /exits thread never to return (sorry I forgot to include that)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not an argument and doesn't at all address my post, so I'll just leave it at that.  Dodge it and move on as you wish.  Have a blessed day.  ~hugs~


It _is_ an argument, and it _directly_ addressed your point.  You can avoid it all you want, but it doesn't change the basic fact of it.  No matter how you 'dress up' a pagan originated practice, it still originates from pagan practices.  May the living God bless you with the light of Truth, that you may see clear to steer away from the traditions of men which cloud the Revelation of our Lord.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you believe that fulfill is a synonym for abolish?


It depends.   The ceremonial laws are not so much abolished, but have passed away because the reality is here (Jesus).  This is what the book of Hebrews is about.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
> 
> 
> I can paint a barn silver and pink and call it a spaceship....but at the end of the day it's still just a barn.
> 
> 
> Not an argument and doesn't at all address my post, so I'll just leave it at that.


Actually, that was a great line in and of itself, I thought. And true. In so many ways. Perhaps not relative to your thought but true none the less. I mean, if you take the personification that has evolved out of real and recurring observations that I had shared in my intitial post here it is essentially the same concept. It really is.

----------


## dannno

> Sex, was also symbolic of fertility, and therefore the more sex that took place, the more bountiful the crops were supposed to be.


Wow, Christianity really ruined everything.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It depends. The ceremonial laws are not so much abolished, but have passed away because the reality is here (Jesus). This is what the book of Hebrews is about.


Why do you assume that the Feast of Tabernacles is ceremonial, when it's primary purpose was to celebrate Christ, who was God tabernacling with man?

Indeed, all seven of the commanded feasts celebrate the acts of Messiah.

The Spring Feasts describe what Messiah does during His First coming, while the Fall Feasts describe what Messiah does during His Second Coming.

Are the actual acts of the Messiah no longer relevant to us that we just throw away the guides as irrelevant?

Every single element of the Passover points directly to the ministry of Christ, in a far more detailed, descriptive, and rich manner than ALL of the other non-biblical holidays combined.  

So somehow it has become sinful to celebrate Christ?

See, I look that that manner of thinking and see that Satan has REALLY twisted people's heads around backwards on this.

God's appointed times are for US.  

In the Book of Zechariah, the prophet describes a time AFTER the Messiah has returned in His Second Coming, when the Kingdom of God reigns over all the Earth, and he clearly states that those nations (in that day) which do not celebrate Tabernacles, will not receive rain for an entire year.

So, how is it that it was mandatory to celebrate Tabernacles before Messiah was born, it will be mandatory to celebrate Tabernacles after Messiah returns, but today it is somehow.......sinful?  

How does that make any sense?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wow, Christianity really ruined everything.


Yes.  God has specific rules for sex, and all those who violate those laws will go to Hell forever.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why do you assume that the Feast of Tabernacles is ceremonial, when it's primary purpose was to celebrate Christ, who was God tabernacling with man?
> 
> Indeed, all seven of the commanded feasts celebrate the acts of Messiah.
> 
> The Spring Feasts describe what Messiah does during His First coming, while the Fall Feasts describe what Messiah does during His Second Coming.
> 
> Are the actual acts of the Messiah no longer relevant to us that we just throw away the guides as irrelevant?
> 
> Every single element of the Passover points directly to the ministry of Christ, in a far more detailed, descriptive, and rich manner than ALL of the other non-biblical holidays combined.  
> ...


Yes, those feasts were meant to point TO the messiah, but now that He is here, the Lord's Supper is only to be observed until He returns.

----------


## TheTexan

> Yes.  God has specific rules for sex, and all those who violate those laws will go to Hell forever.


Can you make a list?  I want to make sure I'm doing it right.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can you make a list?  I want to make sure I'm doing it right.


You're not doing it right. Even if lust in your heart, you are an adulterer.  Please put your faith in Jesus Christ for your salvation from God's wrath, and don't put you faith in your works. I promise you that you will fail if you put your faith in your works rather than Christ's works.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes, those feasts were meant to point TO the messiah, but now that He is here, the Lord's Supper is only to be observed until He returns.


See this, in Zechariah Chapter 14, (all quotes from the NASB, all emphases are mine)




> Zechariah 14:1-4 Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. *In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley,* so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.


This is describing the Second Coming, yes?  The establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth, now often referred to as "The Millennial Reign."  




> Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one.


In case verses 1-4 were not clear enough, verse 9 should dispel any confusion as to the time period the prophet is describing here.  It is AFTER the Second Coming.  You are solid enough with your Bible to agree with that, I am certain.

So look at this...




> Zechariah 14:16-19 Then it will come about that _any who are left of all the nations_ that went against Jerusalem _will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths._ And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them. If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. _This will be the punishment_ of Egypt, and the punishment _of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths._


So explain to me how observing the Feast of Tabernacles was _required_ prior to the birth of the Messiah, will be _required_ again after Messiah has returned, but is somehow sinful today?  

I am quite certain that _you do not believe_ that the prophet Zechariah was simply wrong here, so how then do you explain Zechariah 14:16-19?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes, those feasts were meant to point TO the messiah, but now that He is here, the Lord's Supper is only to be observed until He returns.


Also, please point to the passage in the Holy Bible where the Lord commands us to _stop_ observing the Feasts that God commanded be observed forever?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> See this, in Zechariah Chapter 14, (all quotes from the NASB, all emphases are mine)
> 
> 
> 
> This is describing the Second Coming, yes?  The establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth, now often referred to as "The Millennial Reign."  
> 
> 
> 
> In case verses 1-4 were not clear enough, verse 9 should dispel any confusion as to the time period the prophet is describing here.  It is AFTER the Second Coming.  You are solid enough with your Bible to agree with that, I am certain.
> ...



No I don't believe it is the second coming.  What was commanded at the feast of the tabernacle, Gunny?  *Animal sacrifices.*  These sacrifices were to point to the reality of the Messiah because the blood of animals could never take away sin.  That is why they had to be performed year after year.  They were a reminder that something better was coming.  This is what the entire book of Hebrews is about.  Read this:




> *Colossians 2:16-17
> 
> "So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or [yearly] sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality."
> 
> *

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Also, please point to the passage in the Holy Bible where the Lord commands us to _stop_ observing the Feasts that God commanded be observed forever?





> * Colossians 2:16-17
> 
> "So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or [yearly] sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality."*


...

----------


## Terry1

> Yes.  God has specific rules for sex, and all those who violate those laws will go to Hell forever.


If that's true Sola, there's a lot of single guys going to hell for whackin the noodle.  Isn't that rather draconian Levitical OT stuff?  I do believe that under the New Covenant, men are free to whack the noodle.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> ...


That says the dead opposite of what you are claiming it says.  It says DO NOT let others condemn you for keeping or not keeping these Feasts.  

In no way, shape, or form does it say, "Stop observing them."  It simply does not say it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That says the dead opposite of what you are claiming it says.  It says DO NOT let others condemn you for keeping or not keeping these Feasts.  
> 
> In no way, shape, or form does it say, "Stop observing them."  It simply does not say it.



"For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality."

What does that mean to you Gunny?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If that's true Sola, there's a lot of single guys going to hell for whackin the noodle.  Isn't that rather draconian Levitical OT stuff?  I do believe that under the New Covenant, men are free to whack the noodle.


It's not the Old Testament.   Jesus said that if you lust in your heart, you will go to Hell.

----------


## Terry1

> That says the dead opposite of what you are claiming it says.  It says DO NOT let others condemn you for keeping or not keeping these Feasts.  
> 
> In no way, shape, or form does it say, "Stop observing them."  It simply does not say it.



Right!

Colossians 2
*16*Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath _days_:  *17*Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body _is_ of Christ.

Romans 14:
*1*Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, _but_ not to doubtful disputations.  *2*For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.  *3*Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.  *4*Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

----------


## Terry1

> It's not the Old Testament.   Jesus said that if you lust in your heart, you will go to Hell.


Where does it say that?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No I don't believe it is the second coming.


You would be the first person I have ever encountered, who believes in a future Kingdom, who does not believe that Zechariah 14 describes that future Kingdom.  To me, the feet of Messiah resting on the Mt of Olives, and God reigning as King over _all_ the Earth, and being recognized by all humans as the _only_ God, should make the time being described obvious.

Can you point to any other time in world chronology, past, present, or future, when God is King over all the Earth, and all persons recognize that He, and He alone is God?

If not the Second Coming, then what point in time is Zechariah describing?




> What was commanded at the feast of the tabernacle, Gunny?  *Animal sacrifices.*  These sacrifices were to point to the reality of the Messiah because the blood of animals could never take away sin.  That is why they had to be performed year after year.  They were a reminder that something better was coming.  This is what the entire book of Hebrews is about.  Read this:


There are no more animal sacrifices, since the substitution was made once forever in Messiah.  That is part of Messiah having "made full" the law.

When Yeshua "fulfilled" the law, He 'made it full.'  Like a bud becomes a flower.  *Not* like the plant dies and goes away.  You are still treating 'fulfill' as a synonym for 'abolish,' which is explicitly is not. Yeshua said "I have _not_ come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it." That explicitly rules out treating 'fulfill' as a synonym for 'abolish.'  

If Yeshua meant what you are saying He meant, He would have said, "I have come to abolish parts of the Lww by fulfilling it."  He did _not_ say that.  

Instead, He demonstrated how we are to relate to the Law in the Age of Grace, as a _Spiritual_ guide rather than a physical guide.  Why would that same lensing effect not also apply to the sacrifices as they do to everything else in the Law?  Therefore, the parts of the Feasts which require animal sacrifices you spiritually substitute the sacrifice of Messiah in place of the animal sacrifice and carry on.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> "For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality."
> 
> What does that mean to you Gunny?


It means that the Feasts describe Messiah, and what He does.  Which frankly astonishes me why someone who worships Messiah would reject them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It means that the Feasts describe Messiah, and what He does.  Which frankly astonishes me why someone who worships Messiah would reject them.


I don't reject them.  The ceremonial laws were there to teach everyone that something better was coming...the reality.  Since the reality of Jesus is here, there is no need to go back to the ceremonial laws.

What was performed at the feast of the tabernacle is something that no Christian can ever submit to.  And if you read the book of Hebrews you see that not only do those sacrifices not avail before God, they actually condemn the person believing in them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You would be the first person I have ever encountered, who believes in a future Kingdom, who does not believe that Zechariah 14 describes that future Kingdom.  To me, the feet of Messiah resting on the Mt of Olives, and God reigning as King over _all_ the Earth, and being recognized by all humans as the _only_ God, should make the time being described obvious.
> 
> Can you point to any other time in world chronology, past, present, or future, when God is King over all the Earth, and all persons recognize that He, and He alone is God?
> 
> If not the Second Coming, then what point in time is Zechariah describing?
> 
> 
> 
> There are no more animal sacrifices, since the substitution was made once forever in Messiah.  That is part of Messiah having "made full" the law.
> ...


You say that Jesus didn't "abolish" any of the laws, but then you say we are not to perform animal sacrifices anymore.  Why not?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't reject them.  The ceremonial laws were there to teach everyone that something better was coming...the reality.  Since the reality of Jesus is here, there is no need to go back to the ceremonial laws.
> 
> What was performed at the feast of the tabernacle is something that no Christian can ever submit to.  And if you read the book of Hebrews you see that not only do those sacrifices not avail before God, they actually condemn the person believing in them.





> It means that the Feasts describe Messiah, and what He does. Which frankly astonishes me why someone who worships Messiah would reject them.


The Bible describes Messiah.  It is also a mere shadow of the reality of the Messiah Himself.  I also do not judge people for failing the read the Bible.  

_That does not_ make it sinful to read the Bible.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You say that Jesus didn't "abolish" any of the laws, but then you say we are not to perform animal sacrifices anymore.  Why not?


As I said, when Messiah came, he taught us to apply the Law _spiritually_, rather than _physically_.  "Do not muzzle the ox that treads the grain," was an admonishment to the churches to support Paul.

Paul was not an ox, neither was he pulling a plow or a harvester through a grainfield, and yet he specifically applied that part of the Law to himself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Bible describes Messiah.  It is also a mere shadow of the reality of the Messiah Himself.  I also do not judge people for failing the read the Bible.  
> 
> _That does not_ make it sinful to read the Bible.


No, the Scriptures are not to be described as a shadow.  It was the Old Testament ceremonial and civil laws that are described as shadows that pointed to the reality, Jesus.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> As I said, when Messiah came, he taught us to apply the Law _spiritually_, rather than _physically_.  "Do not muzzle the ox that treads the grain," was an admonishment to the churches to support Paul.
> 
> Paul was not an ox, neither was he pulling a plow or a harvester through a grainfield, and yet he specifically applied that part of the Law to himself.


But you never answered my question.  Why do Christians not sacrifice animals if Jesus didn't fulfill or abolish that law?

----------


## TaftFan

Unless you are putting another God before Him, I do not see a problem.

----------


## acptulsa

> No.  The Christ Mass and Easter are not Biblical,  therefore not Christian.  The Mass itself is an abomination.


The OP discusses an Easter Orgy and your biggest problem with it is a Priest mumbling Latin?!

Why, Sola!  This is an interesting new side to you...!

Let that be a lesson to y'all.  Never underestimate a Baptist!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The OP discusses an Easter Orgy and your biggest problem with it is a Priest mumbling Latin?!


Yes.  The Mass is even more sinful than any orgy.

----------


## bubbleboy

> But you never answered my question.  Why do Christians not sacrifice animals if Jesus didn't fulfill or abolish that law?


because Jesus is our sacrifice.  HELLO

----------


## TaftFan

Eggs were eggs and rabbits were rabbits before the pagans came along.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes.  The Mass is even more sinful than any orgy.


Got news for you, choir boy.  As someone who is comfortable enough in my Lord's arms to walk through the valley of the shadow of death fearing no evil, I can assure you that there are stickier things than Holy Water.

----------


## Jamesiv1

Whoa. You're enticing me to google the local pagan festivals lol

Get thee behind me!!@!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Got news for you, choir boy.  As someone who is comfortable enough in my Lord's arms to walk through the valley of the shadow of death fearing no evil, I can assure you that there are stickier things than Holy Water.


What is this even supposed to mean?  Do you know?

----------


## acptulsa

> What is this even supposed to mean?  Do you know?


The devil is leading our satanic leaders to bomb brown babies wholesale and you actually think, and actually think you can convince us, that God figures the most evil thing we're up to is confessing $#@!ing each other to (hopefully) celibate men and reciting the Hail Mary over and over.

Your sense of proportion is fascinating.  And I'd like to get your humanity under a microscope.

----------


## Crashland

The answer to "Can a person willfully do [insert perceived wrong thing here] and still be a Christian?" is yes. Christians are not immune from willfully doing wrong things.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The devil is leading our satanic leaders to bomb brown babies wholesale and you actually think, and actually think you can convince us, that God figures the most evil thing we're up to is confessing $#@!ing each other to (hopefully) celibate men and reciting the Hail Mary over and over.
> 
> Your sense of proportion is fascinating.  And I'd like to get your humanity under a microscope.


Can someone translate this for me?  I have no idea what this is supposed to mean....

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, the Scriptures are not to be described as a shadow.  It was the Old Testament ceremonial and civil laws that are described as shadows that pointed to the reality, Jesus.


The Law is a perfect description of God.  Our requirements in the Law are the perfect manner of our behavior before God.  I fail to see how anybody can imagine this would fade from relevance in any way.

Do not mix cotton and wool in your clothing.  We no longer care about the _physical_ mixing of cotton and wool, but about sending mixed messages in our communication.

Do not harvest the corners of your fields, it is for the poor.  Rather than taking it in a physical sense, take it in a metaphysical sense, spending dollars instead of change, save up all your change, and use it to bless those less fortunate.

Do not muzzle the ox that treads the grain.  Paul is working here, pay him a living.



Unleavened Bread, The Word, purging our hearts and souls of the leaven of sin that burdens us.
Passover, the Lamb of God who gave His life for our salvation.
Firstfruits, Christ who rose from the dead to deliver us to eternity.
Pentecost, God fills us.
Trumpets, Christ is coming again, and He will reign as King.
Atonement, His Kingdom will make (even this horrifying) world righteous.
Tabernacles, God will dwell with us, and we will dwell with God.

Keeping the Spring Feasts is everything a Christian could ever want from Easter, and 1000-fold more.  If our children now learn to worship Christ from going to church on Easter Sunday, a day with it's origins in pagan metaphysics, then _how can it be worthless_ to actually live out Jesus Christ's own life, death, resurrection, and fulfillment in the Spirit as an annual observance?  Will we not learn 1000 times more by actually stepping into Jesus's sandals every year, rather than go to some formalized regulated ceremonial and staid Easter Sunday service?

What is the purpose of keeping days if not to inculcate one's self with the understanding of those days?  If the Days are in fact a perfect description of the life, ministry, death, resurrection, and coming reign of Jesus Christ, then what better understanding to instill?

The blood was taken out of the Law, because *all* the blood in the Law was accomplished in Christ.  That doesn't take the Law away, it just takes the death out of the Law.  When you remove death from the Law, then the reason for the lack of animal sacrifices should be obvious now.  The sacrifices are not gone, neither are they repealed, they are simply accounts that are balanced in Christ.  Why would I keep paying a bill that I no longer owe?  That I no longer owe it doesn't make the bill any less real, or relevant.  

What gets me is the people who freak out because someone observes the Feasts, like how you are trying to make it sinful to observe Tabernacles, which observation God commands unequivocally forever, past, present, and future.  I neither condemn nor judge anybody for failing to observe Tabernacles today, although I will occasionally point out that God rather adamantly demands it in Zechariah 14 when He comes to reign in His Kingdom, and I will more often point out that observing a pagan festival with Jesus's name painted on the side is probably a bad idea, but if anybody wants to not keep the appointed times of God, that's their business.  Maybe they have a reason.  We are not judged on physical matters anyway, so keeping a holy day or not does not affect our salvation today.  

Instead, we are judged on spiritual matters, or more precisely, the intentions of our heart.  If our _intent_ is to honor God, and we have our eyes on the actual God, we could even observe Halloween in our stupidity and God will honor our _intent_ despite our ignorance.  God judges the heart, which is why it is completely impossible to make any kind of judgements on outward appearances.  Outward appearances including clothing cross necklaces, or observing Easter or Passover.

Teaching a lack of judgement is not equivalent to teaching that a thing is wrong or sinful.

I am familiar with the argument that "if you want to keep any part of the Law, then you have to also perform animal sacrifices."  That is actually a debauched conglomeration of a couple different teachings of Paul.  It is also moot in light of the sacrifice of Christ, the Passover Lamb of God, which removed the blood and the death from the Law, leaving the Law as a light alone with which we can see and discern the will of God.

All of the Law is as relevant today as the day it was recorded by Moses.  That we are to understand it spiritually as operating within our hearts, rather than physically as operating in death and blood, does not change that.

As to keeping the Appointed Feasts, as you see above the seven feasts are actually a deeply inclusive description of Christ.  If we are going to observe any days at all, then why are these days verboten?

How can any soul in Christ, considering what the Feasts actually mean and signify, believe that observing these Feasts are somehow _wrong_ before God?

Is it _wrong_ to celebrate Christ in the times and days that we observe?

If it is not wrong to do that, then _why not_ build our own lives around the times of Christ?

Maybe I can understand someone who says "It's not for me, Jesus's life is too much of a burden for me to bear.  I cannot handle seeing the universe through His eyes."  But what I cannot understand, is someone who believes that doing such a thing is actually wrong.

The scriptures are a brief description of the DNA of the Messiah.  By the grace of God, this description is inerrant, but due to the enormity of God it can only be extraordinarily brief.  There is the Word; which is God, is also of the nature of God, it proceeded forth from God, and it cast on the tabernacle of flesh in Mary, He was born and lived among us as a Man.

Everything that proceeds from God is the Word.  The scriptures are not everything that proceeds from God, there is so much more.  Everything that is the Word, is Christ.  It is not the bible alone that is Christ.

No part of the DNA of Christ is less relevant today than yesterday.  No part of the DNA of Christ has lost meaning or import.  Simply because the Bible is not a _complete_ description of God, does not make any part of the Bible a _revoked_ description of God.

The Law is like the operation of the mind of God, while Jesus is the physical manifestation of what that mind-operation produces.  Christ Himself taught us to consider the Law spiritually rather than physically, and if He changed anything at all, He actually made the Law even more strict than it was to begin with.

Matthew 5, If you hate a man you have already committed murder.  If you lust after a woman, you have already committed adultery.  Be as perfect as God.

^^^ These are things that Jesus Christ added to the Law that He never abolished or repealed.

Yes, that really does include "Be as perfect as God" as Law.  It is a current Law of God, just like Old Testament Law, that we _must_ be as perfect as God.

If we understand the Law physically, then the only one who goes to heaven is Jesus.  Which is kind of the point.  If we understand the Law metaphysically, then it conforms us to Christ.  Which is also kind of the point.

Jesus Christ did not come to abolish the Law, but to make it full.

The fullness of the Law, is to fold it into the intentions of our hearts in a metaphysical sense.  This will produce in us Christ-likeness, and it is according to the intentions of our hearts we will be judged.

----------


## acptulsa

> Can someone translate this for me?  I have no idea what this is supposed to mean....


It means you're missing the whole point.  It's humanity.  We as libertarians in the most destructive empire the world has ever seen want to take power from the head psychopaths in charge so they will stop killing and killing whole families of the least of these Jesus' children and you keep trying to keep us from doing it so we can all sit around like dupes while you cross examine us like some kind of demented fundamentalist Perry Mason in the hopes that we'll all jump up and say, 'Yes!  We can get to heaven now that we know we were always going to heaven and that everyone else going to heaven was always going to heaven and the brown babies don't matter, even though they are the least of these Our Lord's Children, because they're being raised Muslim and aren't going to heaven anyway!'

And the reason we don't is because that's all bull$#@! and what we're trying to do is a damned sight more likely to actually save people than what you keep doing, over and over and over, like a stuck record or a tape loop or some clownish gif that's funny for a minute then gets repetitious and boring.

Now is it clear?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It means you're missing the whole point.  It's humanity.  We as libertarians in the most destructive empire the world has ever seen want to take power from the head psychopaths in charge...


I have a tough time swallowing that line of logic. So many times I see people who profess agreement with tyranny toward humanity under the label/cloak of libertarianism. And many times those same people are completely complicit with tyranny so long as they get something out of it. Kind of a do as you want to others so long as it doesn't affect me kind of thing.

Is why I've tried to separate myself from that whole libertarian model. I'm likely not libertarian in the most definitive expression of it.

In fact, I'll be honest, and say that there have been times when I've heard various libertarian positions espoused that I've viewed as _dangerous_ to humanity.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But you never answered my question.  Why do Christians not sacrifice animals if Jesus didn't fulfill or abolish that law?


Interestingly, I have answered it directly multiple times.

The blood was taken out of the Law, because all the blood in the Law was accomplished in Christ. That doesn't take the Law away, it just takes the death out of the Law. When you remove death from the Law, then the reason for the lack of animal sacrifices should be obvious now. The sacrifices are not gone, neither are they repealed, they are simply accounts that are balanced in Christ. Why would I keep paying a bill that I no longer owe? That I no longer owe it doesn't make the bill any less real, or relevant. 

I am familiar with the argument that "if you want to keep any part of the Law, then you have to also perform animal sacrifices." That is actually a debauched conglomeration of a couple different teachings of Paul. It is also moot in light of the sacrifice of Christ, the Passover Lamb of God, which removed the blood and the death from the Law, leaving the Law as a light alone with which we can see and discern the will of God.

The sacrifices are not gone, they are simply carried by Christ.  They are still there, they are just balanced by Messiah.  To keep _physically_ sacrificing to fulfill a _spiritual_ Law would be to say that "Jesus was not enough to pay this debt," which would be a severe and crippling lack of faith in God; *and* it would be acting like you still live in Flatland after such a time as you have emerged into space-time.

"Ah Ha!" you may say, "if you don't kill animals anymore now that you are no longer in flatland, who bother with any of it?"

Well, a circle is still a circle, even if I come to understand it as a sphere, a cone, or a cylinder.  The measure of that circle is still 2πr² even if I am no longer living in Flatland.  Transitioning from flatland to space-time doesn't mean abandoning 2πr².

----------


## acptulsa

> Interestingly, I have answered it directly multiple times.


Sometimes I think things go in one of those ears and out the other so fast there must be sonic booms inside.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Interestingly, I have answered it directly multiple times.
> 
> The blood was taken out of the Law, because all the blood in the Law was accomplished in Christ. That doesn't take the Law away, it just takes the death out of the Law. When you remove death from the Law, then the reason for the lack of animal sacrifices should be obvious now. The sacrifices are not gone, neither are they repealed, they are simply accounts that are balanced in Christ. Why would I keep paying a bill that I no longer owe? That I no longer owe it doesn't make the bill any less real, or relevant. 
> 
> I am familiar with the argument that "if you want to keep any part of the Law, then you have to also perform animal sacrifices." That is actually a debauched conglomeration of a couple different teachings of Paul. It is also moot in light of the sacrifice of Christ, the Passover Lamb of God, which removed the blood and the death from the Law, leaving the Law as a light alone with which we can see and discern the will of God.
> 
> The sacrifices are not gone, they are simply carried by Christ.  They are still there, they are just balanced by Messiah.  To keep _physically_ sacrificing to fulfill a _spiritual_ Law would be to say that "Jesus was not enough to pay this debt," which would be a severe and crippling lack of faith in God; *and* it would be acting like you still live in Flatland after such a time as you have emerged into space-time.
> 
> "Ah Ha!" you may say, "if you don't kill animals anymore now that you are no longer in flatland, who bother with any of it?"
> ...


Gunny, do you make blue tassels on the edges of all your garments?  Why or why not?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The answer to "Can a person willfully do [insert perceived wrong thing here] and still be a Christian?" is yes. Christians are not immune from willfully doing wrong things.


truth, and yet the 'disease' of rebellion 'presents' (in the diagnostic sense) as a fatal affliction.  a) It's a sin. b) the wages of sin are death. c) Yeshua has forgiven our death-bills by paying them in our stead.  When you dig in and examine the minutiae of the equation, that 'death' part is just going to come up from time to time.  It would be just as neglectful to forget about c) as it would be to forget about b).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Gunny, do you make blue tassels on the edges of all your garments?  Why or why not?


do you mean.....in the _physical_ sense?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> do you mean.....in the _physical_ sense?


You don't celebrate the feast of the tabernacle in the spiritual sense do you?  No, you're advocating actually physically doing it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You don't celebrate the feast of the tabernacle in the spiritual sense do you?  No, you're advocating actually physically doing it.


So I am forbidden to carry out in reality a spiritual truth that comes from God within me?

Not only would I be forbidden from physically sewing on blue tassels, I would also be forbidden from doing what that Law signifies by simply placing reminders around my environment to obey God?

I am allowed to obey God so long as I only do it in my mind alone and not carry any of it out into the real world?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So I am forbidden to carry out in reality a spiritual truth that comes from God within me?
> 
> Not only would I be forbidden from physically sewing on blue tassels, I would also be forbidden from doing what that Law signifies by simply placing reminders around my environment to obey God?
> 
> I am allowed to obey God so long as I only do it in my mind alone and not carry any of it out into the real world?


What is the spiritual equivalent of the feast of Tabernacle in the modern day?  You aren't talking about doing anything spiritual with it....you are advocating actually doing it.  Why are you observing one law spiritually and another literally?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Here is the blue tassel I keep on my dining room table, so that I see it when I head out the door:

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Here is the blue tassel I keep on my dining room table, so that I see it when I head out the door:


Okay, what is the spiritual equivalent of the feast of Tabernacle?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What is the spiritual equivalent of the feast of Tabernacle in the modern day?  You aren't talking about doing anything spiritual with it....you are advocating actually doing it.  Why are you observing one law spiritually and another literally?


I actually keep that cross on my dining room table.  I don't just pretend to keep that cross on my dining room table, I _actually_ keep it there.  That cross is a blue tassel.  

Maybe tomorrow I decide to actually string 613 tassels onto my clothes, that would not be any more or less wrong than keeping that Bible verse on my dining room table.  For me, planting reminders in my environment is more effective in fulfilling the purpose of that Law, therefore I do that.

For me, keeping the Passover is more effective than ignoring it, therefore I do that.  Also for me, observing Tabernacles is more effective than ignoring it, therefore I do that.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Okay, what is the spiritual equivalent of the feast of Tabernacle?


Dwelling with God in the wilderness; and God dwelling with me even when I have no direction or should I have no home.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I actually keep that cross on my dining room table.  I don't just pretend to keep that cross on my dining room table, I _actually_ keep it there.  That cross is a blue tassel.  
> 
> Maybe tomorrow I decide to actually string 613 tassels onto my clothes, that would not be any more or less wrong than keeping that Bible verse on my dining room table.  For me, planting reminders in my environment is more effective in fulfilling the purpose of that Law, therefore I do that.
> 
> For me, keeping the Passover is more effective than ignoring it, therefore I do that.  Also for me, observing Tabernacles is more effective than ignoring it, therefore I do that.


You observe the ceremonial law for tassels spiritually,  but you observe the ceremonial law for the feast of Tabernacle literally. 

Why?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Dwelling with God in the wilderness; and God dwelling with me even when I have no direction or should I have no home.


So why are you advocating literally observing the feast?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You observe the ceremonial law for tassels spiritually,  but you observe the ceremonial law for the feast of Tabernacle literally. 
> 
> Why?


Why not?

And what do you mean by "literally?" I don't build a booth from sticks.  I go camping in the woods for a week and worship God while I am there.  I sleep in a commercial tent, with a fine sleeping bag on an air mattress.  I camp like anybody camps, I just devote the time to worship, and studying in the scriptures how God tabernacles with us, and we tabernacle with God.

Occasionally I actually use the week for backpacking, to make the experience even more sojourn-y.  Like I'm wandering the desert with the Israelites.

ETA - only it's not the desert, it's generally the North Carolina mountains.

----------


## William Tell

> So why are you advocating literally observing the feast?


What better time to take vacations, than the times God once told folks to take vacations?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why not?
> 
> And what do you mean by "literally?" I don't build a booth from sticks.  I go camping in the woods for a week and worship God while I am there.  I sleep in a commercial tent, with a fine sleeping bag on an air mattress.  I camp like anybody camps, I just devote the time to worship, and studying in the scriptures how God tabernacles with us, and we tabernacle with God.
> 
> Occasionally I actually use the week for backpacking, to make the experience even more sojourn-y.  Like I'm wandering the desert with the Israelites.
> 
> ETA - only it's not the desert, it's generally the North Carolina mountains.


Why not?  Because it is completely inconsistent to observe one ceremonial law literally and another figuratively.   The reason that these feasts and these other ceremonial laws are not observed today is that Christ has fulfilled them and they have passed away.  The only feast that Christians observe today is the Lord's Supper.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Why not?  Because it is completely inconsistent to observe one ceremonial law literally and another figuratively.


Chapter and verse?




> The reason that these feasts and these other ceremonial laws are not observed today is that Christ has fulfilled them and they have passed away.


"Fulfilled" is _not_ a synonym for "abolished," no matter how much you want it to be so.




> The only feast that Christians observe today is the Lord's Supper.


You mean "The only feast that Sola_Fide observes today is the Lord's Supper."

----------


## William Tell

> "Fulfilled" is _not_ a synonym for "abolished," no matter how much you want it to be so.
> 
> You mean "The only feast that Sola_Fide observes today is the Lord's Supper."


All This ^^^

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What better time to take vacations, than the times God once told folks to take vacations?


Apparently doing what God says we should do, is now somehow a sin.

----------


## William Tell

> Apparently doing what God says we should do, is now somehow a sin.


And don't forget, you better eat pork and dogs now. Because the Almighty would never have a practical reason for telling us to do things. You should eat crap, just because, well, you can. 

Wouldn't it be weird if God gave us feast days so we could have a good time? Almost as weird as if he recommended 1 year honeymoons. Oh wait, he did.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Chapter and verse?
> 
> 
> 
> "Fulfilled" is _not_ a synonym for "abolished," no matter how much you want it to be so.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean "The only feast that Sola_Fide observes today is the Lord's Supper."



Gunny, you haven't come close to explaining why a person should observe one ceremonial law and not another one.  Do you wear clothing that is threaded from two different fabrics?   Or is that one you only observe "spiritually" ?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Gunny, you haven't come close to explaining why a person should observe one ceremonial law and not another one.  Do you wear clothing that is threaded from two different fabrics?   Or is that one you only observe "spiritually" ?


You clearly have not been reading what I have been writing, since I already addressed the mixing of fabrics.  If you are just skimming my posts to search for angles of attack, then explain to me why should I bother engaging with you and not just shake the dust from my sandals?

Do you think Paul was actually an ox, and that he pulled a plow through fields of grain?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

If you go by this logic, Sola, that says one is required to either take everything literally or take everything metaphorically with nothing in between, then either Paul was not actually a man but literally an ox working a grain field, who literally kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the Philippians, or Paul was in fact a man and only metaphorically an ox, who lied about literally keeping the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the Philippians.

Paul's behavior here is only consistent from my paradigm.

The Bible is not either everything-is-literal or nothing-is-literal with nothing in between

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I do admit to being curious as to where you put Zechariah 14 if it not describing the Second Coming and the coming Kingdom.

(see, I actually read _your_ posts)

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Why would you assume that "Pagan" = "uncivilized?" Because that's how Hollywood uses the term?  Frankly, I don't pay much attention to them, either.
> 
> Remember that Nimrod, one of the first "Pagans" was tenfold more 'civilized' than the rest of the planet in his day.  Paganism has literally nothing to do with the state of civilization.  Instead, it has to do with a category of naturalistic and animistic religions.  It is nothing more or less than a category of religions that focus on naturalism and animism.  
> 
> Tying 'civilization' to 'godliness' would make the Tower of Babel 'godly.'  There is no rational basis for presuming that 'pagan' = 'uncivilized.'


I don't know that you understood the logic in my initial thought here in the thread. I'll try to explain. Has nothing to do with Hollywood or anything like that. Although, one could place it into that perspective if they wished. It'd be rather shallow, though. What I was sharing was _process_. Which is critical to understand and accept in all of this. And, really, the fact that you ignored it in the op was why I shared my thought from another thread where the topic was relevant. You just reminded me of it. Culturally we have some problems. This thread is indicative of those problems. Look what it has become. As well, the very question that you ask in the title of the thread is a product _of_  the problem as well as a common social driver that promotes/compounds impact with regard to getting in the way of transcendence as a civilization or culture. I'll try to explain myself here. And I'm going to add my initial thought to what I'm going to say here just for clarity sake. 

First, we are dealing with a difficult process here. A cultural process. The more critical issue here is that we, as a civilization, haven't come to understand ourselves. I've mentioned my thought on this previously whenever relevant topics of discussion have presented the opportunity to do so. We kind of define ourselves in a way that is premised upon our morality. Why? Well, it's simple, really. We can't and don't see ourselves in any cosmic sense at all. We are a very provincial culture. What I mean by this is that we are very limited in our perspectives. They are narrow. And certainly self centered. Man, historically, demands that he be central. And even today, the Church teaches man to separate the heavens from the Earth. He's tought to separate mind from matter. Similar to the days of Plato and Aristotle. Of course, these mne served tyrants. They were content to live in a slave society. But what happens is that man simply never understands how to identify himself. You know? He really doesn't. Of course, it could be said that it is an impossibility. We just aren't wired to do it at the level that we must. And so it is logical for him to seek to define himself in a way in which he's central. Morality is a great example. His personality. Now, that doesn't necessarily serve healthy order in his culture. From a civilization perspective. Heck, you see how this thread has turned.  Fighting over religion.

　
It is my opinion that fundamentalist Christians are just as bad as fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Atheists. At their cores, are they really like that? Our egos make it seem that way but are they? Really? The very premise of a so called transcendent experience, for lack of a better word, is about qualities like love. Right? Of course, with those similarites come differences of opinion. Differences in application or practice. Those differences aren't intrinsic, I don't believe, but with those differences we see  culture move to share that which they are theoretically pursuing in synergy toward a more transcendent model such as love, peace, harmony, unity, prosperity and whatnot but the problem is that in trying to define the experience we tend  to want to define an external deity _as opposed to the process itself_. Why? Well...as I said, we're programmed to identify ourselves in a way that is central. And, of course, we define ourselves in a way that is conforming to our personality or our morality. We seek order that runs congruent with the phenomenon. I think it is also a convenient way to avoid responsibility. In other words, we can just blame it on God or Satan. You see? But then we let our egos become our driver. And then all of that so called transcendence that was supposed to hold civilization/culture together is out the window. Our egos won't let us overcome ourselves as a civilization/culture/society in a way in which we may function in synergy and acheive all of those things. We're not there yet. Likely won't be for a very long time.

But anyhow. I'm rambling now. I just don't think you understood why I shared my previous thought on _process_. We tend to ignore what we would likely benefit most as a culture by understanding, accepting, and making applicable in our journey as a whole. We'd do well from a cultural evolution to nurture and appreciate  _process_ as opposed to remaining content to define an _external deity_ or it's guidance as we perceive it to be. All that I've seen evolve from the model is hate. Bad energy. War. Death. Destruction. And, again, our egos won't allow for that to be overcome. We don't always want to look for process. 

The point is that what I had shared previously has nothing to do with Hollywood. I was simply sharing process. Which is very real, btw. And it is necessary to share once in a while.

Which I did. Why? Because you ignored defining process in favor of defining deities. 




> Yeah, see....wuh hah happened wuh...the ancients observed the Sun's movement from the Summer Solstice through the Winter Solstice. 
> 
> The days became shorter as the Sun continuously moved south. With this, came the expiration of crops. To these ancients, this symbolized death. The death of the Sun. By December 22nd the Sun's "death" was fully seen from Earth after moving continuously from the north for six months to it's lowest point in the sky. Of course, then what happened was that the Sun _stopped_ moving south, at least perceivably, for three days. You see?
> 
> And so then during these three days, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross...or Crux constellation. After this period , on December 25th, the Sun moves 1 degree_ North._ Are you following me here, Nang?  
> 
> Anyhoo. This movement North forshadowed longer days, warmth and spring to those ancients who observed this phenomenon. They knew that new life would follow. Crops would thrive. Life was revitalized for them. 
> 
> And so it was said. "The son died on the cross, was dead for three days, only to be resurrected or born again."
> ...

----------


## Natural Citizen

Ah, man. Heh. S_F got banned again? Jiminy crickets...

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Jesus said that if you lust in your heart, you will go to Hell.


No, he did not.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> No, he did not.


Here is all I can come up with on lust and hearts...

I John 2:16-17, Matthew 5:28, Proverbs 6:25-29, Titus 2:11-12

I'm not a Bible scholar, though. And I think a lot of the scriptures are relegated in value to one's own perception of them and so it is what it is. Again, biblicists are some of the most diverse people. Ultimately, that is a major cultural problem and is self destructive to the biblical community in terms of their vision. What is worse is that this shortcoming affects civilization. Although, I suppose that is what I mean by what should be the vision. This is another reason I mentioned what I did to Gunny. The ancients observed and celebrated _process_. We don't do that anymore. 

Ah, well.

----------


## Ronin Truth

You do, it's called Easter. 

What do you think all of those candy eggs and chocolate bunnies are about?

----------


## TheTexan

> You're not doing it right. Even if lust in your heart, you are an adulterer.  Please put your faith in Jesus Christ for your salvation from God's wrath, and don't put you faith in your works. I promise you that you will fail if you put your faith in your works rather than Christ's works.


Well $#@!, when you put it that way, what's the point in even trying to do it right? I guess I'll just keep doing it the way I've been doing it, and put my faith in knowing that Jesus can do it better.

----------


## Dr.3D

This really blows my mind.

First someone is telling us that works don't save us, then he turns around and says works can condemn us.

----------


## euphemia

Please allow me to point out that if we avoided everything that was taken by pagans, there would be practically nothing left over for the rest of us.  For the believer in Christ, all days belong to Him.  All of them.  If someone wants to take a day and name it tobismom day and create symbols and practices for that day, they can, but it does not change the fact that the times and seasons are in Jehovah's hand.  They all belong to him.  He invented days, and he will keep on giving them until He decides this world is done.

----------


## RJB

> Please allow me to point out that if we avoided everything that was taken by pagans, there would be practically nothing left over for the rest of us.  For the believer in Christ, all days belong to Him.  All of them.  If someone wants to take a day and name it tobismom day and create symbols and practices for that day, they can, but it does not change the fact that the times and seasons are in Jehovah's hand.  They all belong to him.  He invented days, and he will keep on giving them until He decides this world is done.


That's one of the reasons why I won't read the bible.  The Greeks were pagans.  Parts of the bible were written in Greek (a pagan language) and some of the root words for concepts of Christianity come from Greek  (pagan) root words.   Best not to read, talk, or write-- oops.  I'm logging off.

----------


## euphemia

Really?  It's in Greek because that's what the people spoke where the events happened surrounding the life of Christ.  He spoke Greek and probably Hebrew.  

Don't speak English, then, because a lot of our words come from Greek.  And Latin.  And German.  And a few more.

----------


## RJB

> Really?  It's in Greek because that's what the people spoke where the events happened surrounding the life of Christ.  He spoke Greek and probably Hebrew.  
> 
> Don't speak English, then, because a lot of our words come from Greek.  And Latin.  And German.  And a few more.


I don't speak English either for that same reason.

----------


## euphemia

You write in it, though.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You write in it, though.


Oh the perils of the flesh.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Please allow me to point out that if we avoided everything that was taken by pagans, there would be practically nothing left over for the rest of us.  For the believer in Christ, all days belong to Him.  All of them.  If someone wants to take a day and name it tobismom day and create symbols and practices for that day, they can, but it does not change the fact that the times and seasons are in Jehovah's hand.  They all belong to him.  He invented days, and he will keep on giving them until He decides this world is done.


To me, this sounds a lot like, "Well, Charles Manson breathed oxygen and spoke English, and so do we. Therefore it's okay to go around killing people."  There really is no comparison between an observation that Wednesday is named for Odin, and actually participating in the trappings of pagan rituals. 

Daniel, Shadrack, Meshach, Abed-nego. They weren't villians because they lived in a pagan kingdom they were heroes because they refused to partake in the practices of pagan worship. 

I do not buy the argument that because we eat broccoli, and some antichristian once ate broccoli too, therefore it's a good idea to dance for Moloch like everyone else does.

----------


## William Tell

> You write in it, though.


LOL!  He's kidding around.

----------


## RJB

> LOL!  He's kidding around.


Laugh all you want pagan!

Darn it! I wrote in a pagan language again.  I need to log off!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There's not a problem with celebrations.   We celebrate birthdays.   There is nothing wrong with that.   There is everything wrong with celebrating something in regards to worship that the Bible doesn't authorize.


Even if I were to accept this, it would be acceptable to celebrate Christmas outside church.

----------


## DamianTV

I think the answer depends on who is asked.  Christians I think would probably say no, but Pagans I doubt would have much of an issue with it.  I know that wont be true in all cases...

----------


## staerker

> To me, this sounds a lot like, "Well, Charles Manson breathed oxygen and spoke English, and so do we. Therefore it's okay to go around killing people."  There really is no comparison between an observation that Wednesday is named for Odin, and actually participating in the trappings of pagan rituals. 
> 
> Daniel, Shadrack, Meshach, Abed-nego. They weren't villians because they lived in a pagan kingdom they were heroes because they refused to partake in the practices of pagan worship. 
> 
> I do not buy the argument that because we eat broccoli, and some antichristian once ate broccoli too, therefore it's a good idea to dance for Moloch like everyone else does.


I have thought about your arguments over the past day, and almost convinced myself that you are correct. While I understand your desire to distance yourself from these "practices," I do not think that they apply to everyone (1 Cor, meat and idols.)

I am not saying that dancing for Moloch is not sinful, but that eating broccoli is not. Regardless of what the followers of Moloch believe that entails. 

By condemning an otherwise sinless activity, for its connection to a pagan event (eating broccoli on Moloch's Broccoli Day--notice there are no orgies) you ascribe too much authority to a false god.

To follow such train of thought would allow godlessness to hijack every other pure form of living (of which enjoying God's creation is a part of, see eggs and bunnies.) As a son of God, having never worshiped Moloch, this is not a stumbling block for me.

----------


## TheTexan

Can I celebrate Christian holidays and still be a pagan?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Can I celebrate Christian holidays and still be a pagan?


Now that's a darn brilliant question right there. I'm serious now. Good question. I don't think so, personally. Although, various pagans have actually personified that which they have observed. Is interesting. I think that Christianity and other forms are merely an extension of that. Although, many would certainly disagree.

----------


## mosquitobite

I admire your walk Gunny and the revelations He has given you as you take time to get away (much like our Savior did) and commune with God in His Creation.

----------


## specsaregood

..

----------


## RJB

> I'm left wondering if I can put up an easter orgy lawn ornament display and defend it as freedom of religion.


I've always thought snake handling churches were the extremes as far as oddity religions go.  Now I hear there are places having Easter orgies.  It sounds like some great material for a reality show.

----------


## jmdrake

> For a Christian,  the only holy day is Sunday.


Except the Bible never called Sunday holy.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm left wondering if I can put up an easter orgy lawn ornament display and defend it as freedom of religion.


Or you can defend it a ancient art.




Warning.  The ancient city where this was found was destroyed by a fast moving volcanic eruption and the inhabitants were buried alive in fire and brimstone.

----------


## moostraks

> Can I celebrate Christian holidays and still be a pagan?


Such as what? Considering the enormous number of holidays, as such, a pagan has in which there is gratitude for life shown, I am puzzled what supposedly Christian only holiday one would choose. I know there are those who mix Christian beliefs with paganism and in my experience the most vocal have had Catholic backgrounds who write literature on the subject.

----------


## William Tell

> Except the Bible never called Sunday holy.


Yeah, I guess Sola just agrees with some church elders on this one.

----------


## William Tell

> For a Christian,  the only holy day is Sunday.


Sola, where in the Bible does it say Sunday's are holy?

----------


## donnay

I don't follow Traditions of Men--Easter, Easter bunny and eggs.  I celebrate the resurrection of Yahshua!

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I don't follow Traditions of Men--Easter, Easter bunny and eggs.  I celebrate the resurrection of Yahshua!


One year we put the story of Christ's resurrection in eggs.

We wrote out the biblical account of Christ's death and resurrection.  We cut the story into puzzle form, numbered them and placed them in the eggs.  The little ones then had to open eggs, put the story together and read.

The adults had so much fun and since we had un-believing family members, it was a great way to give them God's Word.

----------


## paleocon1

I expect that the Church in America has problems far beyond bunnies and eggs.

----------


## donnay

> One year we put the story of Christ's resurrection in eggs.
> 
> We wrote out the biblical account of Christ's death and resurrection.  We cut the story into puzzle form, numbered them and placed them in the eggs.  The little ones then had to open eggs, put the story together and read.
> 
> The adults had so much fun and since we had un-believing family members, it was a great way to give them God's Word.


In the world we live in planting seeds through the Tradition's of Men is the only way to introduce some to God's word.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sola, where in the Bible does it say Sunday's are holy?


It doesn't-unless you number Sunday as the Sabbath. (this is traditionally Saturday) It says the sabbath is holy.  


> 7"You  shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will  not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain. 8"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9"Six days you shall labor and do all your work,…


Considering Sunday a day of worship is one of those "evil" traditions of men that certain people claim to loathe.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> In the world we live in planting seeds through the Tradition's of Men is the only way to introduce some to God's word.


Agree.  We go round about these traditions every year.  As with many issues not directly related to one's salvation, we rest in knowing that God knows our heart.

----------


## jmdrake

> It doesn't-unless you number Sunday as the Sabbath. (this is traditionally Saturday) It says the sabbath is holy.


And this just makes me LOL until my sides split.  On the one hand Sunday observers use the "Some men judge all days the same and some highlight one over the other" to denigrate Sabbath observance and then on the other hand turn around and use the sanctity reserved for the 7th day of the week to lift up Sunday.  If no days are holy then no days are holy.

----------


## TER

> Agree.  We go round about these traditions every year.  As with many issues not directly related to one's salvation, we rest in knowing that God knows our heart.


Christ is the fulfillment of the hope of all men who have ever lived.  All traditions, all things, when understood through the prism of Christ Who gives them their true meaning and logos, are good to eat, just as the vision given to St. Peter when God told Him "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common".  No Christian I know is worshipping easter bunnies or thinks they find their salvation in colored eggs or marshmallow yellow chickadees, and if they are they didn't learn that in the worship services of the Church or the through the writings of the Saints.  

Traditions serve a purpose, for both evangelical and pastoral reasons.  There needs discernment and proper instruction however, because even if a snake is allowable by God for man to eat does not mean it may not bite or cause harm if handled improperly.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It doesn't-unless you number Sunday as the Sabbath. (this is traditionally Saturday) It says the sabbath is holy.  
> Considering Sunday a day of worship is one of those "evil" traditions of men that certain people claim to loathe.


Yes it must certainly does:




> * And upon the first day of the week,* when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
> 
> --Acts 20:7
> 
> Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. *On the first day of every week*, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.
> 
> --1 Corinthians 16:1-2


The breaking of the bread, the worship, the preaching, the offering etc. was on the first day of the week, Sunday.

----------


## TER

> And this just makes me LOL until my sides split.  On the one hand Sunday observers use the "Some men judge all days the same and some highlight one over the other" to denigrate Sabbath observance and then on the other hand turn around and use the sanctity reserved for the 7th day of the week to lift up Sunday.  If no days are holy then no days are holy.


The Sabbath is holy just as all days are holy now that Christ has sent His Spirit in the world.  But the holy day par excellance is the Lord's Day, which we call Sunday, for this is the day Christ rose from the dead to establish a new covenant not only for the Jews but for all men.  This is the day when the ekklesia would come together to share in the Lord's Meal after prayer and singing psalms throughout the evening and into the dawn, just as the monasteries have continued in the traditions of the earliest Christians.

----------


## TER

> Yes it must certainly does:
> 
> 
> 
> The breaking of the bread, the worship, the preaching, the offering etc. was on the first day of the week, Sunday.



Sola is correct to affirm that the Lord's Day holds pre-eminence in the Church, as the First Day of the New Covenant.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Christ is the fulfillment of the hope of all men who have ever lived.  All traditions, all things, when understood through the prism of Christ Who gives them their true meaning and logos, are good to eat, just as the vision given to St. Peter when God told Him "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common".  No Christian I know is worshipping easter bunnies or thinks they find their salvation in colored eggs or marshmallow yellow chickadees, and if they are they didn't learn that in the worship services of the Church or the through the writings of the Saints.  
> 
> Traditions serve a purpose, for both evangelical and pastoral reasons.  There needs discernment and proper instruction however, because even if a snake is allowable by God for man to eat does not mean it may not bite or cause harm if handled improperly.


Well, you said a bunch here. For the sake of peace, I like the snake part.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And this just makes me LOL until my sides split.  On the one hand Sunday observers use the "Some men judge all days the same and some highlight one over the other" to denigrate Sabbath observance and then on the other hand turn around and use the sanctity reserved for the 7th day of the week to lift up Sunday.  If no days are holy then no days are holy.


I don't think it's particularly funny, but you're right.  Also, only taking communion on Sunday is a "tradition of man".  Jesus says "do this as oft as you wish in remembrance of me".  I've been to protestant churches in which this is inscribed on the communion table.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The Sabbath is holy just as all days are holy now that Christ has sent His Spirit in the world.  But the holy day par excellance is the Lord's Day, which we call Sunday, for this is the day Christ rose from the dead to establish a new covenant not only for the Jews but for all men.  This is the day when the ekklesia would come together to share in the Lord's Meal after prayer and singing psalms throughout the evening and into the dawn, just as the monasteries have continued in the traditions of the earliest Christians.


This^^  "Sunday" is translated as "Voskresenye" in Russian, from "voskres", which means "to be resurrected".  Every Sunday is a sort of Resurrection Day.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I don't think it's particularly funny, but you're right.  Also, only taking communion on Sunday is a "tradition of man".  Jesus says "do this as oft as you wish in remembrance of me".  I've been to protestant churches in which this is inscribed on the communion table.


Many Roman Catholics have Communion available every day, even without  Mass.  Some Lutherans and other Christian congregations have Communion every Sunday, others every other week, others four times a year, etc.

----------


## TER

> Many Roman Catholics have Communion available every day, even without  Mass.  Some Lutherans and other Christian congregations have Communion every Sunday, others every other week, others four times a year, etc.


You are correct.  The Divine Liturgy is done every day in the Church (at least in monasteries) except for the week days of Holy Lent and on good Holy Friday for reasons pertaining to the mourning of those days.  But there must be Mass and there must be at least one communicant other than the priest.

The RC introduced liturgical reforms in Vatican II which called for 'special and closed' liturgies for specific purposes and groups which is an unfortunate change, as the Divine Liturgy should be to express the fullness of the Church with all baptized members in the Kingdom of Heaven.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> You are correct.  The Divine Liturgy is done every day in the Church (at least in monasteries) except for one day, which is Holy Friday for reasons pertaining to the mourning of the day.


Interesting.  The very Orthodox Roman Catholic church we attended for Holy Friday, gave Communion after venerating the cross.   Since Catholics believe in transubstantiation and preserving the Eucharist in sacred vessels, they could have offered Communion without Mass.

A picky question - what happens to the Body and Blood in the bread and wine as soon as everyone has partaken of Eucharist, in the EO?  How does it mystically revert back to bread and wine?

----------


## TER

> Interesting.  The very Orthodox Roman Catholic church we attended for Holy Friday, gave Communion after venerating the cross.   Since Catholics believe in transubstantiation and preserving the Eucharist in sacred vessels, they could have offered Communion without Mass.
> 
> A picky question - what happens to the Body and Blood in the bread and wine as soon as everyone has partaken of Eucharist, in the EO?  How does it mystically revert back to bread and wine?


I edited my post above cause I made a mistake.  The Divine Liturgy service is not done on weekdays during Lent because it is a time of repentance and mourning.  There is a vespers service, what is called the 'Presanctified Liturgy' in the middle of the week on Wednesdays, whereas some of the already sanctified Eucharist from the previous Divine Liturgy is saved on the altar to provide spiritual nourishment for those who are fasting.  It is a dispensation given for pastoral reasons, however these are still sanctified through the proper prayer service of the Divine Liturgy.  (IOW, they are not just casually blessed or given shortened services or prayers for the sake of providing communion)  

Regarding the great question you asked about what happens to the Eucharist which is left over on the typical Divine Liturgy (that is, it is not being saved during Holy Lent for the Wednesday service of the Presanctified Liturgy I mentioned above), the priest is to commune every last bit, put water in the chalice I think three times and do it again so that all of the Holy Eucharist can be communed and not one drop or particle remain.  We don't believe that the elements ever revert back to bread and wine.  For the same reason, if a person was sick and vomited immediately after partaking of the Holy Eucharist, the priest eats off the floor what has been expelled so that the Lord's Body and Blood would not be stepped on and profaned.

----------


## TER

Also, on the Paschal Divine Liturgy which happens once a year and is the greatest service of the Orthodox Church, an extra chalice of bread and wine is sanctified which remains on the Altar throughout the year.  This is the Holy Eucharist which is given in emergencies for those who are dying or on their deathbed.  It remains on the Altar and whatever is not used during the year, the priest communes on the night of the following Paschal Divine Liturgy.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I edited my post above cause I made a mistake.  The Divine Liturgy service is not done on weekdays during Lent because it is a time of repentance and mourning.  There is a vespers service, what is called the 'Presanctified Liturgy' in the middle of the week on Wednesdays, whereas some of the already sanctified Eucharist from the previous Divine Liturgy is saved on the altar to provide spiritual nourishment for those who are fasting.  It is a dispensation given for pastoral reasons, however these are still sanctified through the proper prayer service of the Divine Liturgy.  (IOW, they are not just casually blessed or given shortened services or prayers for the sake of providing communion)  
> 
> Regarding the great question you asked about what happens to the Eucharist which is left over on the typical Divine Liturgy (that is, it is not being saved during Holy Lent for the Wednesday service of the Presanctified Liturgy I mentioned above), the priest is to commune every last bit, put water in the chalice I think three times and do it again so that all of the Holy Eucharist can be communed and not one drop or particle remain.  We don't believe that the elements ever revert back to bread and wine.  For the same reason, if a person was sick and vomited immediately after partaking of the Holy Eucharist, the priest eats off the floor what has been expelled so that the Lord's Body and Blood would not be stepped on and profaned.


I posted this question in the Communion thread...so we could talk over there if you'd like.   I will also read this over, thank you.

----------


## Terry1

> And this just makes me LOL until my sides split.  On the one hand Sunday observers use the "Some men judge all days the same and some highlight one over the other" to denigrate Sabbath observance and then on the other hand turn around and use the sanctity reserved for the 7th day of the week to lift up Sunday.  If no days are holy then no days are holy.


Romans 14:

*1*Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, _but_ not to doubtful disputations.  *2*For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.  *3*Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.  *4*Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.


*5**One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.  6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it*. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.  *7*For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.  *8*For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.  *9*For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

----------


## TER

> Also, on the Paschal Divine Liturgy which happens once a year and is the greatest service of the Orthodox Church, an extra chalice of bread and wine is sanctified which remains on the Altar throughout the year.  This is the Holy Eucharist which is given in emergencies for those who are dying or on their deathbed.  It remains on the Altar and whatever is not used during the year, the priest communes on the night of the following Paschal Divine Liturgy.





> I edited my post above cause I made a mistake.  The Divine Liturgy service is not done on weekdays during Lent because it is a time of repentance and mourning.  There is a vespers service, what is called the 'Presanctified Liturgy' in the middle of the week on Wednesdays, whereas some of the already sanctified Eucharist from the previous Divine Liturgy is saved on the altar to provide spiritual nourishment for those who are fasting.  It is a dispensation given for pastoral reasons, however these are still sanctified through the proper prayer service of the Divine Liturgy.  (IOW, they are not just casually blessed or given shortened services or prayers for the sake of providing communion)  
> 
> Regarding the great question you asked about what happens to the Eucharist which is left over on the typical Divine Liturgy (that is, it is not being saved during Holy Lent for the Wednesday service of the Presanctified Liturgy I mentioned above), the priest is to commune every last bit, put water in the chalice I think three times and do it again so that all of the Holy Eucharist can be communed and not one drop or particle remain.  We don't believe that the elements ever revert back to bread and wine.  For the same reason, if a person was sick and vomited immediately after partaking of the Holy Eucharist, the priest eats off the floor what has been expelled so that the Lord's Body and Blood would not be stepped on and profaned.





> This is exactly what a RC priest does.  Yet, the two churches seem to view what happens to the bread and wine in Eucharist differently, or at least call it by different names.


The fundamental beliefs that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ are the same between the two Churches.  Whereas the Western Church began to explain these processes in a more scholastic approach (likely to counter attacks against it during those days), the Eastern Church has understood it to be a mystery beyond human comprehension and understanding.  There is no great need, in the Eastern Orthodox mind, to have to scientifically or philosophically prove how this transformation occurs.  We simply take it on faith and as a teaching of Christ.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> The fundamental beliefs that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ are the same between the two Churches.  Whereas the Western Church began to explain these processes in a more scholastic approach (likely to counter attacks against it during those days), the Eastern Church has understood it to be a mystery beyond human comprehension and understanding.  There is no great need, in the Eastern Orthodox mind, to have to scientifically or philosophically prove how this transformation occurs.  We simply take it on faith and as a teaching of Christ.


Thank you.

----------


## jmdrake

> Romans 14:
> 
> *1*Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, _but_ not to doubtful disputations.  *2*For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.  *3*Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.  *4*Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
> 
> 
> *5**One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.  6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it*. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.  *7*For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.  *8*For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.  *9*For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.


I'm not sure what your point is.  Again, as I said, either there are holy days or there are not.  One cannot rely on Romans 14 to denigrate the 10 commandment, was kept in Eden and will be kept again in the New Earth Sabbath and then turn around and say "Oh but Sunday is holy."

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes it must certainly does:
> 
> 
> 
> The breaking of the bread, the worship, the preaching, the offering etc. was on the first day of the week, Sunday.


The apostles broke bread on *every* day of the week.

_Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,_

They worshiped on Sabbath.

_Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,_

Note that in some of these occasions Jews and Gentiles were being preached to and the services were not happening in the synagogue.

----------


## Todd

> As mentioned above, celebrations included humans dressed as rabbits, exchanging brightly colored and decorated eggs, and participating in massive orgies.  The fundamental idea was that if you exchanged eggs with someone, the two of you had sex.


So these guys were the 1st "Furries"

----------


## Matt McGuire

I guess we better stop observing Thursday then (Thor's day).

----------


## Dr.3D

> I guess we better stop observing Thursday then (Thor's day).


Who named that day?

----------


## phill4paul

> I guess we better stop observing Thursday then (Thor's day).


  Sunday...day of the sun.
  Monday... Moon day. 
  Tuesday...Tui's day. God of war. In Norse, Tyr.
  Wednesday...Woden's day. Norse, Odin.
  Thursday...Thor's day. God of Thunder. And Rock-n-Roll.
  Friday... Frigga's day. Goddess of clouds, the sky, and conjugal (married) love. Norse, Frigg.
  Saturday...Saturn's day.




> Who named that day?


  Civilizations with pantheons dead and gone. For the most part.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Sunday...day of the sun.
>   Monday... Moon day. 
>   Tuesday...Tui's day. God of war. In Norse, Tyr.
>   Wednesday...Woden's day. Norse, Odin.
>   Thursday...Thor's day. God of Thunder. And Rock-n-Roll.
>   Friday... Frigga's day. Goddess of clouds, the sky, and conjugal (married) love. Norse, Frigg.
>   Saturday...Saturn's day.
> 
> 
> ...


So why didn't Pope Gregory change the names when he came up with our current calendar?

----------


## TER

> So why didn't Pope Gregory change the names when he came up with our current calendar?


Can you provide a link, because I haven't heard this before.  I know that in Greece and most Orthodox countries, the days of the week are named by their number, thus in Greek is  The Lord's Day (Sunday), Second Day (Monday), Third Day, Fourth Day, Preparation Day (Paraskeve, Friday), Sabbath (Saturday).

I am not certain how the tradition started for Thor's day (Thursday, etc)...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The apostles broke bread on *every* day of the week.
> 
> _Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,_
> 
> They worshiped on Sabbath.
> 
> _Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
> 
> Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
> ...





> THE SABBATH & SUNDAY
> by Pastor J. Mark Martin
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN THE COUNSEL OF ACTS 15 CONVENED to determine what Gentile Christians must observe, SABBATH KEEPING IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT. Peter exhorts the leadership of the Church not to place the Gentiles under the Law: 
> 
> Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." Acts 15:10-11. 
> 
> ...


...

----------


## phill4paul

> So why didn't Pope Gregory change the names when he came up with our current calendar?


  No idea, Doc. When Christianity was first brought to the Norse I'd imagine that it came in sublime. Many of the Norse weren't willing to give up their pantheon so it was probably easier to integrate the two as much as possible.

----------


## TER

> No idea, Doc. When Christianity was first brought to the Norse I'd imagine that it came in sublime. Many of the Norse weren't willing to give up their pantheon so it was probably easier to integrate the two as much as possible.


This is usually the historical case.  If Pope Gregory did not object to Christians using these names, it was likely out of oikonomia and for pastoral reasons.  Just because I write Thursday today doesn't mean I worship Thor.  If it is true today, it was likely true back then when Christians in general were much more serious about the faith.

----------


## TER

I use the word oikonomia often, and I am not sure it is understood by all.  Here is a concise definition:

In the Orthodox Church, in Eastern and Latin Catholic churches, and in the teaching of the Church Fathers which undergirds the theology of those communions, economy or oeconomy (Greek: οἰκονομία, oikonomia) has several meanings. The basic meaning of the word is "handling" or "disposition" or "management" or more literally "housekeeping" of a thing, usually assuming or implying good or prudent handling (as opposed to poor handling) of the matter at hand. In short, economia is discretionary deviation from the letter of the law in order to adhere to the spirit of the law and charity. This is in contrast to legalism, or akribia (Greek: ακριβεια)—strict adherence to the letter of the law of the church.

As such, the word "economy", and the concept attaching to it, are utilized especially with regard to two types of "handling": (a) divine economy, that is, God's "handling" or "management" of the fallen state of the world and of mankind—the arrangements he made in order to bring about man's salvation after the Fall; and (b) what might be termed pastoral economy (or) ecclesiastical economy, that is, the Church's "handling" or "management" of various pastoral and disciplinary questions, problems, and issues that have arisen through the centuries of Church history.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Can you provide a link, because I haven't heard this before.  I know that in Greece and most Orthodox countries, the days of the week are named by their number, thus in Greek is  The Lord's Day (Sunday), Second Day (Monday), Third Day, Fourth Day, Preparation Day (Paraskeve, Friday), Sabbath (Saturday).
> 
> I am not certain how the tradition started for Thor's day (Thursday, etc)...


What do you want a link to?  Is it that you want a link to how the Gregorian calendar came into existence?

----------


## TER

> What do you want a link to?  Is it that you want a link to how the Gregorian calendar came into existence?


I thought you were going to point to some historical controversies about the name of the days of the week.


I wonder when this started becoming a big deal?  I mean, about an insistence that saying 'Thor's Day' had any crippling effect in their faith.  What city were these 'Biblical Christians' protesting at that time?  I do have writings of the Saints which make clear that such things have no value apart from Christ.

This has born true in my own experience.   As a child I associated 'Friday' with 'Christ's death on the cross', before I ever heard of Norse myths and religions.  So it remains today, the day Christ was crucified, even knowing about the other history of calendar nomenclature.

I would posit that this modern phenomenon of critiquing things which were never a cause for riot or schism has more to do with a protesting spirit then a spirit of understanding and compassion.  It is like a manufactured 'crisis' when it never was such.  

It is because Christians could understand the difference and through prayer and humility learn to see Christ in all things, that these symbols found any usefulness or meaning.

----------


## TER

My basic point, my friend, is that these are needless distractions and should not be things which cause separation.  Should I fear eternal torment because I use a calendar which has the name 'Thursday' as a cultural tradition?  If so, we all are doomed!

----------


## erowe1

Where's the option for celebrating Easter as a remembrance of the resurrection of Jesus?

----------


## jllundqu

I am one of those who actually celebrate the pagan holiday, the equinox, etc, as I don't believe Christ actually rose from the dead.... so....  you got me.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I am one of those who actually celebrate the pagan holiday, the equinox, etc, as I don't believe Christ actually rose from the dead.... so....  you got me.


Do you consider yourself a Christian?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I use the word oikonomia often, and I am not sure it is understood by all.  Here is a concise definition:
> 
> In the Orthodox Church, in Eastern and Latin Catholic churches, and in the teaching of the Church Fathers which undergirds the theology of those communions, economy or oeconomy (Greek: οἰκονομία, oikonomia) has several meanings. The basic meaning of the word is "handling" or "disposition" or "management" or more literally "housekeeping" of a thing, usually assuming or implying good or prudent handling (as opposed to poor handling) of the matter at hand. In short, economia is discretionary deviation from the letter of the law in order to adhere to the spirit of the law and charity. This is in contrast to legalism, or akribia (Greek: ακριβεια)—strict adherence to the letter of the law of the church.
> 
> As such, the word "economy", and the concept attaching to it, are utilized especially with regard to two types of "handling": (a) divine economy, that is, God's "handling" or "management" of the fallen state of the world and of mankind—the arrangements he made in order to bring about man's salvation after the Fall; and (b) what might be termed pastoral economy (or) ecclesiastical economy, that is, the Church's "handling" or "management" of various pastoral and disciplinary questions, problems, and issues that have arisen through the centuries of Church history.


I didn't know that yet, thanks!  ~hugs~

----------


## RJB

> Where's the option for celebrating Easter as a remembrance of the resurrection of Jesus?


It inspired me to put up a poll and asking the members if they still beat their spouses:  Yes or No?

----------


## moostraks

> I thought you were going to point to some historical controversies about the name of the days of the week.
> 
> 
> I wonder when this started becoming a big deal?  I mean, about an insistence that saying 'Thor's Day' had any crippling effect in their faith.  What city were these 'Biblical Christians' protesting at that time?  I do have writings of the Saints which make clear that such things have no value apart from Christ.
> 
> This has born true in my own experience.   As a child I associated 'Friday' with 'Christ's death on the cross', before I ever heard of Norse myths and religions.  So it remains today, the day Christ was crucified, even knowing about the other history of calendar nomenclature.
> 
> I would posit that this modern phenomenon of critiquing things which were never a cause for riot or schism has more to do with a protesting spirit then a spirit of understanding and compassion.  It is like a manufactured 'crisis' when it never was such.  
> 
> It is because Christians could understand the difference and through prayer and humility learn to see Christ in all things, that these symbols found any usefulness or meaning.


Certain Quakers will say numbers for days of the week and months as well. So this is third month, second day. They also usually hold to thees and thous. It is called plain speech. I never chose to adopt the practice but I know some plain speaking Quakers. They are part of the branch of Quakerism I find closest to my beliefs.

Video for anyone interested: http://quakerspeak.com/history-quaker-plain-speech/ or google Quaker plain speech

----------


## tod evans

> It inspired me to put up a poll and asking the members if they still beat their spouses:  Yes or No?


Only if she brings me the crop and asks in a respectful and subservient manner...

----------


## Dr.3D

> My basic point, my friend, is that these are needless distractions and should not be things which cause separation.  Should I fear eternal torment because I use a calendar which has the name 'Thursday' as a cultural tradition?  If so, we all are doomed!


Yeah, I just wondered why, when he had the chance, he didn't remove the pagan names and replace them with something else, like numbers.  I now have the answer I was looking for, thank you.

----------


## jmdrake

> ...


LOL.  Can't just simply admit you were wrong can you?  Instead you responded by a cut and paste wall of text of someone else's *commentary* in response to my simple search of the *Bible*.  The fact is you were wrong.  The apostles broke break everyday and came together for worship on Sabbath.  The "Well Thomas worshiped Jesus the first day Thomas saw him" argument is ridiculously weak.  Jesus got worshiped when whenever miraculous or significant things happened.  Mary worshiped Him after anointing Him.  Sometimes people He healed worshiped Him.  

By the way, *Thomas worshiped Jesus on a MONDAY!*

_26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you._

Count it up.  Jesus appeared to some of the disciples on a Sunday, the day he arose.  *Eight days later would be Monday*!

Let's count them.

Monday - 1 day later.  Tuesday - 2 days later.  Wednesday - 3 days later.  Thursday - 4 days later.  Friday - 5 days later.  Saturday - 6 days later.  Sunday - 7 days later.  *MONDAY WAS THE EIGHT DAY FOLLOWING RESURRECTION SUNDAY!*

So Sola_Fide, if you are using the day Thomas worshiped Jesus as your day of worship then you need to start going to church on *MONDAY*!

Hey, I'm not going to complain for a 3 day weekend.  Let's throw in every Friday for Good Friday too.

----------


## Dr.3D

And since this thread is about Holydays.    Here are this years dates.   The new moon was just seen in Israel on the 21st. marking the first month of the Biblical year.
These Holy Day dates are for Israel and regions westward to the International Date Line.
This may be Year 6019 After Creation. 

 Date     Sunset Moonset   Illum. Sun's  [Moon's at Sunset]  Sun's    Visib   Visible?
(Evening)                    %    Azimuth Azimuth Altitude   Alt(M)   Number
20 Mar     5:50   6:03     0.11   89.86   91.07    1.89      -2.87     23.96  Not Visible
21 Mar     5:51   7:12     2.39   90.33   88.03    15.6      -17.1     186.2  Visible
Abib 1 is Sunday, 22 Mar 2015 CE 
The Passover sacrifice is Saturday,  4 Apr 2015 CE 
The Feast of Unleavened Bread goes from  Sunday,  5 Apr 2015 CE 
to Saturday, 11 Apr 2015 CE 
The Wave Offering (the First-fruit) is Sunday,  5 Apr 2015 CE 
First-fruits  (Pentecost) is Sunday, 24 May 2015 CE 
 Date     Sunset Moonset   Illum. Sun's  [Moon's at Sunset]  Sun's    Visib   Visible?
(Evening)                    %    Azimuth Azimuth Altitude   Alt(M)   Number
13 Sep     5:48   5:52     0.13   94.41   91.85    0.03      -0.99     7.436  Not Visible
14 Sep     5:47   6:25     1.70   93.96   83.11    7.06      -8.16     96.22  Prob Not Visible
The following Holy Days could be one day earlier:
Feast of Trumpets is Wednesday, 16 Sep 2015 CE 
The Day of Atonement is Friday, 25 Sep 2015 CE 
The Feast of Tabernacles (Ingathering) goes from Wednesday, 30 Sep 2015 CE 
to Tuesday,  6 Oct 2015 CE 
The Great Last Day is Wednesday,  7 Oct 2015 CE

----------


## Ender

I haven't seen anyone's mention of Christmas- which I love, BTW. 




> CHRISTMAS
> Why December 25?
> For the church's first three centuries, Christmas wasn't in December—or on the calendar at all.
> Elesha Coffman | posted 8/08/2008 12:33PM
> 
> 
> For the church's first three centuries, Christmas wasn't in December—or on the calendar at all.
> 
> Elesha Coffman
> ...


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/...000/dec08.html

It isn't when we celebrate- it is what's in our hearts that matter.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> If you go by this logic, Sola, that says one is required to either take everything literally or take everything metaphorically with nothing in between, then either Paul was not actually a man but literally an ox working a grain field, who literally kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the Philippians, or Paul was in fact a man and only metaphorically an ox, who lied about literally keeping the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the Philippians.
> 
> Paul's behavior here is only consistent from my paradigm.
> 
> The Bible is not either everything-is-literal or nothing-is-literal with nothing in between


You must spread blah blah blah. Gunny, STOP MAKING SENSE! I can't keep up with so many damn reps!

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> What feast did Jesus tell us to remember until the last day?  (Hint: there's just one)


You're talking about "the lords supper" or whatever you want to call it right?




> For a Christian, the only holy day is Sunday.


Wait, which one of those is the only one? Or is there only two now? I'm confused.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Sure, just be sure to bring your own vernal equinox celebration chocolate bunnies and eggs.

----------


## hells_unicorn

I have 52 holy days that I will be celebrating this year, and it's called the Lord's Day, it gives me time to rest spiritually, recharge my batteries after 6 days of spinning my wheels in this crazy world and also expand my cranium with some good books on the history and piety of the church. Why spend just one Sunday stuffing my face with candy so some corporate CEO can have another limousine and drive myself crazy with extraneous activities like playing amateur artist with hard-boiled eggs, when I can have a regularly scheduled rest period and weekly routine that actually keeps me sane?

P.S. - Anyone who is still celebrating Old Testament holy days needs to crack open Paul's epistle to the Galatians, particularly if they are still ritually slaughtering lambs and eating unleavened cracker-bread for Passover while calling themselves a Christian.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I have 52 holy days that I will be celebrating this year, and it's called the Lord's Day, it gives me time to rest spiritually, recharge my batteries after 6 days of spinning my wheels in this crazy world and also expand my cranium with some good books on the history and piety of the church. Why spend just one Sunday stuffing my face with candy so some corporate CEO can have another limousine and drive myself crazy with extraneous activities like playing amateur artist with hard-boiled eggs, when I can have a regularly scheduled rest period and weekly routine that actually keeps me sane?
> 
> P.S. - *Anyone who is still celebrating Old Testament holy days needs to crack open Paul's epistle to the Galatians, particularly if they are still ritually slaughtering lambs and eating unleavened cracker-bread for Passover while calling themselves a Christian*.


Paul also tells us to retain our Christian Traditions (such as the Eucharist and Pascha).  


> So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings  we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.


[]

----------


## Ronin Truth

Which of the above are the pagan fertility rites?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Paul also tells us to retain our Christian Traditions (such as the Eucharist and Pascha).  
> []


I do retain the Eucharist, only not with unleavened bread, which along with observing an OT ceremonial holy day is Judaizing. http://www.reformation.org/unleavened-bread-error.html

The Eucharist/Communion supplanted the typical holy day of Passover, a shadow meant to point to the coming of Christ. Celebrating Passover is thus a redundant, obsolete practice, and one that has nothing to do with colored eggs. http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=305

When Paul was speaking of keeping the Passover, he was speaking of the Eucharist, which was instituted by Christ at the final Passover (The Last Supper) before his crucifixion.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Which of the above are the pagan fertility rites?


I voted no on the fertility rites since I don't celebrate any of the Roman Catholic advent calendar. I tried to inject a little bit of a lighthearted tone into my post because it seemed most of the people here held an opposing view.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I voted no on the fertility rites since I don't celebrate any of the Roman Catholic advent calendar. I tried to inject a little bit of a lighthearted tone into my post because it seemed most of the people here held an opposing view.


Carry on.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I do retain the Eucharist, *only not with unleavened bread, which along with observing an OT ceremonial holy day is Judaizing.* http://www.reformation.org/unleavened-bread-error.html
> 
> The Eucharist/Communion supplanted the typical holy day of Passover, a shadow meant to point to the coming of Christ. Celebrating Passover is thus a redundant, obsolete practice, and one that has nothing to do with colored eggs. http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=305
> 
> When Paul was speaking of keeping the Passover, he was speaking of the Eucharist, which was instituted by Christ at the final Passover (The Last Supper) before his crucifixion.


That's not Judaizing.  Judaizers claimed that converts to Christianity had to become ritually Jewish before becoming Christian.  Pascha isn't redundant.  As you say, it is the celebration of the sacrifice of humanity's Paschal lamb, Christ.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I do retain the Eucharist, only not with unleavened bread, which along with observing an OT ceremonial holy day is Judaizing. http://www.reformation.org/unleavened-bread-error.html
> 
> The Eucharist/Communion supplanted the typical holy day of Passover, a shadow meant to point to the coming of Christ. Celebrating Passover is thus a redundant, obsolete practice, and one that has nothing to do with colored eggs. http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=305
> 
> When Paul was speaking of keeping the Passover, he was speaking of the Eucharist, which was instituted by Christ at the final Passover (The Last Supper) before his crucifixion.


"Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

Judaizing? I think you meant "Bibleizing."

----------


## William Tell

> "Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
> 
> Judaizing? I think you meant "Bibleizing."


Paul can't mean keep a feast literally as well as figuratively, because, well, just because...

(sarcasm)

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> That's not Judaizing.  Judaizers claimed that converts to Christianity had to become ritually Jewish before becoming Christian.  Pascha isn't redundant.  As you say, it is the celebration of the sacrifice of humanity's Paschal lamb, Christ.


Exactly right. People throw around that term without a thought. They should look up how it is used in the bible.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> "Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
> 
> Judaizing? I think you meant "Bibleizing."


Uh, nope, I meant Judaizing. And you seem to have problems with figurative language Johnny Reb.

*"Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Matthew 16:6
"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Galatians 5:9*

The Jews never leavened their bread for Passover, hence the reference to leaven in Paul's and Christ's words regarding both the Judaizers and the Pharisees/Sadducees deals with teaching, not what is done with the sacramental bread, which is more Germane to the following verse:

*"The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." Matthew 13:33*

The use of leaven in sacramental bread, which was used universally for the first 1,000 years of the Christian faith, was added as an acknowledgment that Christ's resurrection ushered in the end of the Old Testament dispensation. This is the same reason why the Sabbath was moved from the 7th day to the 8th/1st day, as stated in the following:

*"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." Acts 20:7

"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Corinthians 16:2

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Colossians 2:16-17

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." Revelation 1:10
*
Hmm, what was that about "Bibleizing" again? lol

----------


## hells_unicorn

> That's not Judaizing.  Judaizers claimed that converts to Christianity had to become ritually Jewish before becoming Christian.  Pascha isn't redundant.  As you say, it is the celebration of the sacrifice of humanity's Paschal lamb, Christ.


Uh, yeah, and the Paschal lamb was sacrificed, so the celebration is obsolete since we have the historical account, unless you want to keep sacrificing it over and over every year/Sunday, which seems pretty cruel and unusual to me. Furthermore, why celebrate Christ's death? Is he risen or not?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Exactly right. People throw around that term without a thought. They should look up how it is used in the bible.


Judaizing is a term that applies to specific cases in Galatians, but also applies to any similar innovative ideas that attempt to bring back the OT ceremonial laws.

Oh, by the way, if you are of the Adventist position, you might want to look in the mirror before lecturing anybody else on throwing around biblical passages without a thought. Furthermore, if your sect was co-founded by a mentally unstable woman in the 19th century, against the wisdom of 1,800 years of established Christian doctrine, you're not beginning at a good place. I've read some of Ellen G. White's material, and she makes Joseph Smith look orthodox.

P.S. - Apologies for 3 posts in a row.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

A Judaizer, in scriptural context, is someone who believes that obedience to law, rather than givenness to Christ, is critical for salvation.  Your interpretation would make Paul a Judaizer for sponsoring Nazarite vows.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> A Judaizer, in scriptural context, is someone who believes that obedience to law, rather than givenness to Christ, is critical for salvation.  Your interpretation would make Paul a Judaizer for sponsoring Nazarite vows.


Nope, in scriptural context a Judaizer is a person who brings back ceremonial practices as if Christ has not come, the Old Testament is not a Works-based covenant, that went away after Genesis 3. Furthermore, you would have had a better case if you had argued that James would be a Judaizer, since he was the NT author that emphasized obedience to the law as contingent to being a Christian, though that is not my position, nor is my position the one you ascribed to me.

I am not a Biblicist, I don't subscribe to American 19th century innovations on scriptural interpretation. Provide chapter and verse and I'll get back to you on why whoever instructed you is flying against centuries of consistent teaching, handed down directly from the Apostles via the New Testament. Also, you may want to cite which tradition you are cleaving to in your interpretation, as it will serve to expedite this conversation.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Judaizing is a term that applies to specific cases in Galatians, but also applies to any similar innovative ideas that attempt to bring back the OT ceremonial laws.
> 
> Oh, by the way, if you are of the Adventist position, you might want to look in the mirror before lecturing anybody else on throwing around biblical passages without a thought. Furthermore, if your sect was co-founded by a mentally unstable woman in the 19th century, against the wisdom of 1,800 years of established Christian doctrine, you're not beginning at a good place. I've read some of Ellen G. White's material, and she makes Joseph Smith look orthodox.
> 
> P.S. - Apologies for 3 posts in a row.


No, I'm not an Adventist, and no, I'm not a follower of White.

I'm less concerned with the last 1800 years of Christianity, and more concerned with the first 200 years, before Christian doctrine was put under the auspices of the Roman government.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Nope, in scriptural context a Judaizer is a person who brings back ceremonial practices as if Christ has not come. Furthermore, you would have had a better case if you had argued that James would be a Judaizer, since he was the NT author that emphasized obedience to the law as contingent to being a Christian.
> 
> _I am not a Biblicist,_ I don't subscribe to American 19th century innovations on scriptural interpretation. Provide chapter and verse and I'll get back to you on why whoever instructed you is flying against centuries of consistent teaching, handed down directly from the Apostles via the New Testament. Also, you may want to cite which tradition you are cleaving to in your interpretation, as it will serve to expedite this conversation.


That would explain why you are in error regarding the bible's teaching on Judaizers.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> No, I'm not an Adventist, and no, I'm not a follower of White.
> 
> I'm less concerned with the last 1800 years of Christianity, and more concerned with the first 200 years, before Christian doctrine was put under the auspices of the Roman government.


Ah, so you're a pre-White Restorationist with a fetish for conspiracy theories. That helps. I'll point you to 2 Peter 1:20 then.

P.S. - I'm not a Roman Catholic, so that angle doesn't really help our situation here.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> That would explain why you are in error regarding the bible's teaching on Judaizers.


Yeah, I don't think that Christianity magically poofed into the ether after the Apostle John died and then reappeared when I picked up the bible or some Anabaptist did the same within the past few centuries. Guilty as charged.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Yeah, I don't think that Christianity magically poofed into the ether after the Apostle John died and then reappeared when I picked up the bible or some Anabaptist did the same within the past few centuries. Guilty as charged.


Have you heard of a man by the name of Constantine?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yeah, I don't think that Christianity magically poofed into the ether after the Apostle John died and then reappeared when I picked up the bible or some Anabaptist did the same within the past few centuries. Guilty as charged.


So we should be the same kind of Christians as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, who would also be called "Judaizers" by you because they kept the Passover.  So I'm in good company.   Great!

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Ah, so you're a pre-White Restorationist with a fetish for conspiracy theories. That helps. I'll point you to 2 Peter 1:20 then.
> 
> P.S. - I'm not a Roman Catholic, so that angle doesn't really help our situation here.


I don't know why you insist on labeling me, but you're doing it wrong. I never said your were catholic either. This way of dialogging will take more time, not less. So, what theory about conspiring do you believe I've promoted, and why is it wrong?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Uh, yeah, and the Paschal lamb was sacrificed, so the celebration is obsolete since we have the historical account, unless you want to keep sacrificing it over and over every year/Sunday, which seems pretty cruel and unusual to me. Furthermore, why celebrate Christ's death? Is he risen or not?


Because He said to.



> And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them,  saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Because He said to.


Aye.  "Do this" is pretty unambiguous.

----------


## TER

> So we should be the same kind of Christians as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, who would also be called "Judaizers" by you because they kept the Passover.  So I'm in good company.   Great!


If they did, they stopped when it became a stumbling block for the Gentiles in the growing and expanding Church.  To continue to do so would have made them "Judaizers". 

By the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, this practice of celebrating the Jewish Passover by Jewish Christian in the very early church existed in rare pockets outside of the Levant and definitely not in the communities of Gentile converts which were growing in numbers of faithful.  It lingered around the cities of the Decapolis mainly until it disappeared completely by the mid second century after the second Jewish Revolt.  This is because of the Holy Spirit working in the Church, Who is the Spirit of Truth, and who cleansed the Church of the traditions which do not save nor bring spiritual benefit to the body of believers.

The Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wasted away into oblivion the old Jewish feasts in the Christian worship life for a reason, because the Church would have as its basis the worship of God in Trinity for all who believe (not only Jews), not as ones under the Law, but rather, under the grace of Christ.  And these feasts of the Old Covenant were discarded in order to fulfill the great commission to go and baptize the nations, not as a Church of Jews or Greeks, but as a new creation and members of the Body of Christ. 

 The Church was not made for the Sabbath, but rather, the Sabbath was made for the Church.  And as the Lord's Day for all replaced the Sabbath for the Jews, likewise the Christian Feasts replaced the other ones which were required and created for under the Old Covenant of the Jews.  Those old ones were the shadows and preparatory prefigurings which would find fulfillness within the feasts and worship of the Church of Christ.   As Passover was fulfilled by the Lord's Pascha or Resurrection Day, and the Jewish Pentecost was fulfilled and replaced (by the Church) into the Feast of Pentecost (commemorating the day when circumcised and uncircumcised were grafted together into the Church).  

This is the new wineskin for the new wine of the new Covenant, and it wasn't until just a mere century ago when this early stumbling block of Judaizing (namely, of maintaining the old Jewish Feasts) blipped in the radar of history again by some men who ignore the history of why the Christian Church abandoned Judaizing practices to begin with.  Since then, it has spread a little, with no linking history through the ages or patristic support, and in denial of the lives and works of the Christian saints, and most tragically, against the Holy Spirit in the world.  It too, in time, will fade away again just as it did before, but the Feasts of the Christian Church and the new and life-giving Covenant will endure through eternity.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If they did, they stopped when it became a stumbling block for the Gentiles in the growing and expanding Church.  To continue to do so would have made them "Judaizers". 
> 
> By the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, this practice of celebrating the Jewish Passover by Jewish Christian in the very early church existed in rare pockets outside of the Levant and definitely not in the communities of Gentile converts which were growing in numbers of faithful.  It lingered around the cities of the Decapolis mainly until it disappeared completely by the mid second century after the second Jewish Revolt.  This is because of the Holy Spirit working in the Church, Who is the Spirit of Truth, and who cleansed the Church of the traditions which do not save nor bring spiritual benefit to the body of believers.
> 
> The Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wasted away into oblivion the old Jewish feasts in the Christian worship life for a reason, because the Church would have as its basis the worship of God in Trinity for all who believe (not only Jews), not as ones under the Law, but rather, under the grace of Christ.  And these feasts of the Old Covenant were discarded in order to fulfill the great commission to go and baptize the nations, not as a Church of Jews or Greeks, but as a new creation and members of the Body of Christ. 
> 
>  The Church was not made for the Sabbath, but rather, the Sabbath was made for the Church.  And as the Lord's Day for all replaced the Sabbath for the Jews, likewise the Christian Feasts replaced the other ones which were required and created for under the Old Covenant of the Jews.  Those old ones were the shadows and preparatory prefigurings which would find fulfillness within the feasts and worship of the Church of Christ.   As Passover was fulfilled by the Lord's Pascha or Resurrection Day, and the Jewish Pentecost was fulfilled and replaced (by the Church) into the Feast of Pentecost (commemorating the day when circumcised and uncircumcised were grafted together into the Church).  
> 
> This is the new wineskin for the new wine of the new Covenant, and it wasn't until just a mere century ago when this early stumbling block of Judaizing (namely, of maintaining the old Jewish Feasts) blipped in the radar of history again by some men who ignore the history of why the Christian Church abandoned Judaizing practices to begin with.  Since then, it has spread a little, with no linking history through the ages or patristic support, and in denial of the lives and works of the Christian saints, and most tragically, against the Holy Spirit in the world.  It too, in time, will fade away again just as it did before, but the Feasts of the Christian Church and the new and life-giving Covenant will endure through eternity.


Actually, the main reason they stopped keeping the feasts was Rome persecuted the Jews before the Christians, and they did not want to be associated with the Jews on account of they didn't want to be fed to the lions.  It was all for naught of course, as a few decades later the Christians were getting hit harder than the Jews ever did.  Which should have served as warning that the original motivation for divorcing the association was not good.

----------


## TER

> Actually, the main reason they stopped keeping the feasts was Rome persecuted the Jews before the Christians, and they did not want to be associated with the Jews on account of they didn't want to be fed to the lions.  It was all for naught of course, as a few decades later the Christians were getting hit harder than the Jews ever did.  Which should have served as warning that the original motivation for divorcing the association was not good.


Yes, because the original motivation of the Judaizers which was based on racist pride against the Gentile Christians was a benefit for the growing Church.  

St. Paul gave up the childish things when he grew up and sought for spiritual meat.  So did the maturing Church which was the Church of the New Covenant, which was not held any longer bound to the old law and the old feasts and traditions, for it was the new children of God which where neither Jewish nor Greek, but rather adopted sons of God through Christ.  Don't presume to know what the Church needed to fulfill commission of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit and in doing so put yourself above the saints of the Church and judge to know better then them.

----------


## TER

> Actually, the main reason they stopped keeping the feasts was Rome persecuted the Jews before the Christians, and they did not want to be associated with the Jews on account of they didn't want to be fed to the lions.  It was all for naught of course, as a few decades later the Christians were getting hit harder than the Jews ever did.  Which should have served as warning that the original motivation for divorcing the association was not good.


Yes, and perhaps they should have demanded physical circumcision as well, and then God wouldn't have punished them and fed them to the lions and the whole Church fall into apostasy until the twentieth century!

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Have you heard of a man by the name of Constantine?


What about him? If you're playing the angle that he invented Roman Catholicism, see my previous statement about conspiracy theories, because you are flirting with Da Vinci Code nonsense if you are going where I think you are with this one. Constantine is noteworthy for 2 principle reasons, the first being for ending the persecution of the church (not a bad thing in my estimation), and calling the 1st Council of Nicaea. Constantine was not himself a theologian, and the only precedent that he sent regarding the action of calling a council was setting a precedent for the civil authority initiating the action, which has since become a tradition unique to Eastern Orthodoxy and does not apply to current Roman Church policy, or even Roman Church policy at any point during the spread of Christianity in Western Europe.

The formulation of Christ's relation to God the Father is full in keeping with the opening chapter of John's Gospel, and the Nicene Creed is in full agreement with the Apostles Creed. If you are asserting a Unitarian position based on an independent/Baptist Biblicist angle, you are taking a Restorationist position that is historically dubious at best. If you are likewise asserting a view of Independent Congregationalism, you are running afoul of the very spirit of Paul's Epistles, which are binding statements of faith to churches outside of the purview of a single local congregation by a church office holder.

I don't observe Easter, so that part of the Council of Nicaea

----------


## hells_unicorn

> So we should be the same kind of Christians as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, who would also be called "Judaizers" by you because they kept the Passover.  So I'm in good company.   Great!


They kept the Passover as transitional arbiters of the New Covenant to Israel, hence their function as leaders of the 12 new tribes of Israel, whereas Paul, himself being a Jew, was keeping the Passover in agreement with his own lineage. However, the Passover is not a binding rule upon Gentile converts, anymore than circumcision or the Jubilee year. Celebrating Passover when we have been given The Lord's Day for every first day of the week is a redundant practice at best.

P.S. - You do realize that Roman Catholicism uses similar logic to your dubious analogy to yourself and the apostles by asserting that the Apostolic Era is still in effect and the Roman clergy are direct successors of the apostles by virtue of their consecration as priests. Both analogies draw serious questions as to whether one believes that the biblical canon is actually closed if there are still de facto apostles running around.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I don't know why you insist on labeling me, but you're doing it wrong. I never said your were catholic either. This way of dialogging will take more time, not less. So, what theory about conspiring do you believe I've promoted, and why is it wrong?


The only reason to bring up Roman innovation in the Christian religion is if you think I am in some way tied into it, that is why I made that inference. If I don't know where you are coming from, I am left to speculate based on the stew of American innovative offshoots of Baptist theology that have cropped up in the past 150 years in order to know your position, hence all of the guess work going on here.

The conspiracy theory I was alluding to is actually the one you ended up referring to when you dropped Constantine's name, namely a full or otherwise all encompassing disappearance of the True Christian Faith from Constantine until The Radical Reformation in the 16th century. I get this a lot when dealing with Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witness people who have tried proselytizing to my household, and it is historically untenable.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> They kept the Passover as transitional arbiters of the New Covenant to Israel, hence their function as leaders of the 12 new tribes of Israel, whereas Paul, himself being a Jew, was keeping the Passover in agreement with his own lineage. However, the Passover is not a binding rule upon Gentile converts, anymore than circumcision or the Jubilee year. Celebrating Passover when we have been given The Lord's Day for every first day of the week is a redundant practice at best.
> 
> P.S. - You do realize that Roman Catholicism uses similar logic to your dubious analogy to yourself and the apostles by asserting that the Apostolic Era is still in effect and the Roman clergy are direct successors of the apostles by virtue of their consecration as priests. Both analogies draw serious questions as to whether one believes that the biblical canon is actually closed if there are still de facto apostles running around.


My logic is "It's commanded in the scriptures," and "Ezekiel demonstrates feastkeeping after the Lord returns."  Pointing to Apostles keeping the feasts is simply evidentiary of doctrines drawn from scripture alone.  I do, however, find it interesting how you attempt to attack my position by falsely likening it to the Catholic Church, like I'm supposed to think, "Ewww, a Catholic did it, therefore I am required to hate it."

Nevermind that your comparison is utterly baseless, but I do wonder, if I told you that George HW Bush routinely wears socks, will you stop wearing socks?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The only reason to bring up Roman innovation in the Christian religion is if you think I am in some way tied into it, that is why I made that inference. If I don't know where you are coming from, I am left to speculate based on the stew of American innovative offshoots of Baptist theology that have cropped up in the past 150 years in order to know your position, hence all of the guess work going on here.
> 
> The conspiracy theory I was alluding to is actually the one you ended up referring to when you dropped Constantine's name, namely a full or otherwise all encompassing disappearance of the True Christian Faith from Constantine until The Radical Reformation in the 16th century. I get this a lot when dealing with Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witness people who have tried proselytizing to my household, and it is historically untenable.


Ahh, so the Catholic thing is a smear you throw at ANYBODY you disagree with in the hopes of offending them.  Interesting.  Are you obsessed with Catholics?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Aye.  "Do this" is pretty unambiguous.


This is a bait and switch. The subject was Pascha, not the Eucharist. The Eucharist/Communion is not a once a year occasion, but a recurring sacrament in which the frequency is determined by church office holders with regard to the estimation of the state of the congregation's faith. Following the unambiguous and anti-nuance verse snippet approach to determining church practice, we can likewise assume by isolating John 6:54 that we commit cannibalism every time we eat the sacramental bread and drink the wine.

Because after all, "ateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood" is pretty unambiguous, right?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes, and perhaps they should have demanded physical circumcision as well, and then God wouldn't have punished them and fed them to the lions and the whole Church fall into apostasy until the twentieth century!


And did that hurt when you pulled it out of your backside?

75% of the males in the United States are medically circumcised.  I suppose that makes them utterly beyond redemption, hellbound children of Satan?

Since you place so much salvific weight on physical things rather than on God alone...

It seems to me that you are the one Judaizing, by trying to go back to obedience to the Law for salvation....only now it's a different Law since you appear to think that God has changed...so now instead of Torah Law you have replaced it with Patriarchal Law.  You appear to have swapped one legalism for another, and then point to me, who knows no Law but Christ, and accuse me of being a Judiazer?  lol.  wow.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> This is a bait and switch. The subject was Pascha, not the Eucharist. The Eucharist/Communion is not a once a year occasion, but a recurring sacrament in which the frequency is determined by church office holders with regard to the estimation of the state of the congregation's faith. Following the unambiguous and anti-nuance verse snippet approach to determining church practice, we can likewise assume by isolating John 6:54 that we commit cannibalism every time we eat the sacramental bread and drink the wine.
> 
> Because after all, "ateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood" is pretty unambiguous, right?


And what do you think the Disciples were doing when Jesus said "do this?"

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes, because the original motivation of the Judaizers which was based on racist pride against the Gentile Christians was a benefit for the growing Church.


Another slanderous smear yanked straight out of your backside.  Do you enjoy doing that?




> St. Paul gave up the childish things when he grew up and sought for spiritual meat.  So did the maturing Church which was the Church of the New Covenant, which was not held any longer bound to the old law and the old feasts and traditions, for it was the new children of God which where neither Jewish nor Greek, but rather adopted sons of God through Christ.  Don't presume to know what the Church needed to fulfill commission of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit and in doing so put yourself above the saints of the Church and judge to know better then them.


So obeying God is "childish things."  Interesting.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Ahh, so the Catholic thing is a smear you throw at ANYBODY you disagree with in the hopes of offending them.  Interesting.  Are you obsessed with Catholics?


No, the continuation of the apostolic era is something that is unique to Roman Catholicism and most strains of Pentecostal Churches, and it fits with language that you were using regarding the notion of copying apostle practice exactly, as opposed to seeing the distinction that develops as the New Testament canon unfolds and the remnant of the Old Testament ceremonial practices ceasing, as they are fulfilled in Christ. The end of the distinction between Gentile and Jew is as both are grafted into the Christian Church, hence the purpose of the ceremonial laws of the OT cease as they are fulfilled in Christ, though the Moral Law from which the OT ceremonies were derived now endure as a rule of life for the faithful.

From earlier posts, it appeared to me that both you and The Rebel Poet were criticizing my assertions from the same angle, and he was the one that brought up Emperor Constantine, which threw some serious red flags up for me as that is primarily a tactic used to conflate the Magistrate Reformers with the Roman Church. If you are not of that position, I apologize for the mix-up.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, the continuation of the apostolic era is something that is unique to Roman Catholicism and most strains of Pentecostal Churches, and it fits with language that you were using regarding the notion of copying apostle practice exactly, as opposed to seeing the distinction that develops as the New Testament canon unfolds and the remnant of the Old Testament ceremonial practices cease, as they are fulfilled in Christ.
> 
> From earlier posts, it appeared to me that both you and The Rebel Poet were criticizing my assertions from the same angle, and he was the one that brought up Emperor Constantine, which threw some serious red flags up for me as that is primarily a tactic used to conflate the Magistrate Reformers with the Roman Church. If you are not of that position, I apologize for the mix-up.


You appear to be completely clueless as to what TRP and I believe, and are therefore resorting to the 'default attack.'  If anything, we are both more liable to believe that the Apostolic Era ended with Moses than that it continued hundreds of years after the Messiah. 

I would gently correct you as to what we actually believe, but you don't appear very interested in that at all.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> And what do you think the Disciples were doing when Jesus said "do this?"


The disciples were observing the last Passover prior to Christ's resurrection, which ushered in the New Covenant. Subsequent observances of Passover as a distinct practice from observing The Lord's Day are a remnant meant to graft OT believers into the New Testament Church. The function of Paul's ministry, and those that ministered under him to the Gentiles, served the same purpose, but did not require the OT ceremonial ordinances of Passover or Circumcision, but Baptism and the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper, the latter being the NT replacement for Passover.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> You appear to be completely clueless as to what TRP and I believe, and are therefore resorting to the 'default attack.'  If anything, we are both more liable to believe that the Apostolic Era ended with Moses than that it continued hundreds of years after the Messiah. 
> 
> I would gently correct you as to what we actually believe, but you don't appear very interested in that at all.


You've been making quite a mystery of it since you seem allergic to ascribing any kind of historical context of your position apart from being a Biblicist, which breaks down to being a position hostile to creedal and confessional Christianity. If this is not the case, I see little reason for you not to elaborate on where the error is in this conclusion, if not for my information, then for that of others reading.

But suit yourself, that seems to be how you approach exegesis.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The disciples were observing the last Passover prior to Christ's resurrection, which ushered in the New Covenant.


_Renewed_ Covenant.  The name given to the covenant of Messiah is Brit Chadasha, and the word /chadasha/ specifically refers to "renew" rather than "new."  As in the "new moon" is renewed every month.  There are other, far more appropriate Hebrew words for 'new' if the idea was to bring forth something genuinely new.  The Renewed Covenant is a restoration and fulfillment of all the covenants which came before.  The Adamic, Noachide, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants are all brought to fruition in Messiah, through what is called in Hebrew "The Renewed Covenant," but which you call "The New Covenant."




> Subsequent observances of Passover as a distinct practice from observing The Lord's Day are a remnant meant to graft OT believers into the New Testament Church.


You have that backwards.  The wild branches were grafted into the cultivated trees, not the other way around.  We are grafted into Israel, Israel is not grafted into us.

Romans 11:16-18 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.




> The function of Paul's ministry, and those that ministered under him to the Gentiles, served the same purpose, but did not require the OT ceremonial ordinances of Passover or Circumcision, but Baptism and the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper, the latter being the NT replacement for Passover.


So the Passover is just some irrelevant meaningless ceremony, that has nothing to do with the prophetic ministry of the Messiah?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You've been making quite a mystery of it since you seem allergic to ascribing any kind of historical context of your position apart from being a Biblicist, which breaks down to being a position hostile to creedal and confessional Christianity. If this is not the case, I see little reason for you not to elaborate on where the error is, if not for my information, then for that of others reading.
> 
> But suit yourself, that seems to be how you approach exegesis.


Why should I explain what I believe when you already claim to know what I believe better than I do?  Wouldn't I just be wasting my time?

My standard of exegesis is to examine the text of scripture in English, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and then believe what it says, often drawing expanded insight from the originals, similar in fashion to the "Amplified Bible" but without all the extraneous doctrinal claptrap that in places colors the Amplified text.

ETA - Oh, and when I place examples in historical context, you accuse me of being a Catholic.

Oh, and it is good to know that you think I am hostile to Christianity.  I should warn you that calling the doctrines of God "hostile to Christianity" is a very dangerous thing to do.  You would be well advised to avoid doing that for your own sake.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> _1. Renewed_ Covenant.  The name given to the covenant of Messiah is Brit Chadasha, and the word /chadasha/ specifically refers to "renew" rather than "new."  As in the "new moon" is renewed every month.  There are other, far more appropriate Hebrew words for 'new' if the idea was to bring forth something genuinely new.  The Renewed Covenant is a restoration and fulfillment of all the covenants which came before.  The Adamic, Noachide, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants are all brought to fruition in Messiah, through what is called in Hebrew "The Renewed Covenant," but which you call "The New Covenant."
> 
> 2. You have that backwards.  The wild branches were grafted into the cultivated trees, not the other way around.  We are grafted into Israel, Israel is not grafted into us.
> 
> Romans 11:16-18 New King James Version (NKJV)
> 16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
> 
> 3. So the Passover is just some irrelevant meaningless ceremony, that has nothing to do with the prophetic ministry of the Messiah?


1. This is splitting hairs regarding translation, I am not asserting that the Law was abolished or that the New Testament is a different covenant, I am arguing that the OT ceremony has been fulfilled in Christ. The Covenant of Grace is an all-encompassing one after The Fall, but the character of it changes after Christ's resurrection when the True Religion goes beyond the OT nation of Israel/Judea.

2. We are grafted into Christ, and via Christ, the New Testament Church. Israel in the New Testament is the Church, not the OT ceremonial nation and temple.

3. Passover is a type/shadow of the coming of Christ. At the end of Christ's ministry, the ceremonial function of Passover ceases. Passover was not a meaningless ceremony prior to the incarnation of The Son, but it is held up by those who deny Christ as messiah as a celebration in wait of another messiah. This is the reason why I do not observe Passover or Pascha, only The Lord's Day.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 1. This is splitting hairs regarding translation, I am not asserting that the Law was abolished or that the New Testament is a different covenant, I am arguing that the OT ceremony has been fulfilled in Christ. The Covenant of Grace is an all-encompassing one after The Fall, but the character of it changes after Christ's resurrection when the True Religion goes beyond the OT nation of Israel/Judea.


Fulfilled is not a synonym for abolished.  Fulfilled means "made full."  The same way that a bud becomes a flower becomes a fruit.  It is still there.  It is now a fruit rather than a bud, because it has been made full.  Modern nominal Christianity treats "fulfilled" as a synonym for "abolished," which completely disregards the actual text of the actual scripture from which the quote actually comes...

Matthew 5:17-19New King James Version (NKJV)
17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

This passage seems pretty clear to me.  The Messiah did not make exceptions for 'ceremonial' things thought to have become irrelevant, like, you know, marriage, which is clearly ceremonial.  Per your logic, any Christian who chooses to get married is in violation of your law.  Or do you get to pick and choose what ceremonial bits you keep and discard?  

You keep marriage, but claim that people who keep the Passover are in violation of the will of God.  I refuse to criticize believers for either observation, and I keep the Passover myself.




> 2. We are grafted into Christ, and via Christ, the New Testament Church. Israel in the New Testament is the Church, not the OT ceremonial nation and temple.


You should re-read Romans 11, because that's not what it says at all.  The text of Romans 11 is pretty clear, just like the text of Matthew 5 quoted in part above.  You have to disregard the plain clear meaning of the actual text in order to apply some strange doctrinal ideation that is actually contradictory to the plain text.  

I will take the actual scriptures over the opinion of hells_unicorn every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.




> 3. Passover is a type/shadow of the coming of Christ. At the end of Christ's ministry, the ceremonial function of Passover ceases. Passover was not a meaningless ceremony prior to the incarnation of The Son, but it is held up by those who deny Christ as messiah as a celebration in wait of another messiah. This is the reason why I do not observe Passover or Pascha, only The Lord's Day.


The Spring Feasts describe the ministry of the Messiah at His first coming, and the Fall feasts describe the ministry of Messiah at His second coming.  I understand why you may think it is not relevant any longer to celebrate the ministry of Messiah at His first coming (I disagree of course), but the Second Coming has not happened yet, so what's wrong with the Fall Feasts?  

By your logic, If the Feasts go irrelevant when the events they point to are fulfilled, then we should absolutely be celebrating Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles because those Feasts point to events that are fulfilled in His Second Coming.  But you derogate the Fall Feasts too.

Tabernacles, in particular, is a strict requirement after Messiah has returned to the Earth and is reigning in Jerusalem in His Kingdom.  It speaks to a time after the Second Coming in Zechariah 14.

Zechariah 14:4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. (NASB)

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one. (NASB)

Zechariah 14:16-19 Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them. If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. (NASB)
As it is established in Zechariah 14:1-11, the prophet is speaking about a time AFTER the Second Coming.  In this era, that is, after the Second Coming, everyone who is left shall go up from year to year to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.  Whichever of the families that do not come up to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles on them there will be no rain.  

Zechariah 14:18-19 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
So, Tabernacles was required (by the Living God) before the First Coming, it will be required (by the Living God) after the Second Coming, but _right now_ anybody who observes it is flaunting the will of God?

How exactly does that work, logically?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

stutterpost

----------


## TER

> And did that hurt when you pulled it out of your backside?
> 
> 75% of the males in the United States are medically circumcised.  I suppose that makes them utterly beyond redemption, hellbound chikdren of Satan?


Not sure where you are getting that from... Having foreskin or not has absolutely no bearing on one's salvation, as the Scriptures rightly teach and the Apsotles rightly decided as leaders of the Church when the issue first came up.  

My point was that you made innuendo that if the Christians acted more like Jews and kept the dead laws and feasts then they wouldn't have endured the sufferings later or faced the wrath of God.  That is something a Judaizer would have said when the Apostles threw away the requirement for physical circumcision.  




> Since you place so much salvific weight on physical things rather than on God alone...


You completely missed my point!  It is you who are putting salvific weight on things which were casted into the trash bin of Christian history because of the stumbling block and unnecessary problems it caused for the growing and expanding Church.  The very reason of the Council of Jerusalem attended by the Apostles and presided by St. James was to begin the divorce which was needed from the old Jewish practices which were neither necessary nor beneficial to the Church.  Did it go away immediately?  No!  Somethings required time and concilliary discussions before they were shed away through the workings of the Holy Spirit in the world within the New Covenant.  You seem to miss entire episodes in the book of Acts, the writings of the Epistles, and the history of the Christian Church in the first centuries. But that is not surprising given that the modern day Judaizers came from the mother of Sola Scriptura, and as such carries this heresy into its own approach to the Christian faith even as it feigns to value tradition.  The irony is thick.




> It seems to me that you are the one Judaizing, by trying to go back to obedience to the Law for salvation....only now it's a different Law since you appear to think that God has changed...so now instead of Torah Law you have replaced it with Patriarchal Law.  You appear to have swapped one legalism for another, and then point to me, who knows no Law but Christ, and accuse me of being a Judiazer?  lol.  wow.


LOL indeed!  The law and worship you seem to follow is one conjured up and imagined a mere century ago, and in doing so pretend yourself to be greater then the saints who sheparded and guided the Church through the centuries, pitting you against them all so that you can be right!   Wow is right!

----------


## TER

> So obeying God is "childish things."


No, acting like a petulant child, ignoring the trials and growing pains of the Christians Church during the first centuries, and placing one's interpretations and beliefs as being more God pleasing and abiding above the workings of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the great saints, who are the pillars of the Church, are the 'childish things' one must cast aside in order to grow in the faith.  

Perhaps you will now claim of the existence of mysterious 'Biblical Christians' who existed through the centuries, as another poster believes in this forum? Where were these Judaizing Christians when the important Christological and Trinitarian debates were raging and the arch heresies were threatening the apostolic teachings regarding Christ?  Where were they when the very canon of the Bible was decided?  Or will you so arrogantly simply claim that the entire Church disappeared and fell into complete apostasy in the first centuries, like some Mormom posters here say, and the true worshiping Christians did not reappear until the last hundred years or so?  Such arrogance, willful ignorance, and denial of the fathers of the Christian faith in order to justify ones innovative distortion of the faith are the childish things that should be cast aside.

----------


## TER

> I should warn you that calling the doctrines of God [Judaizing doctrines of the Old Law- TER] "hostile to Christianity" is a very dangerous thing to do.  You would be well advised to avoid doing that for your own sake.


Spoken like what the Judaizing Christians would have said against St. Paul and the Apostles who deliberated in Jerusalem and decided in council that circumsicion of the flesh was now obsolete now that Christ has come into the world to save all men.  It was the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, who decided to rid of the old baggage of the Old Covenant, and the Church in council has the God-given authority by the Holy Spirit to do this.  And by the second century, what the Apostles started was completed and those old laws and traditions of the old man under the old covenant were shed, just as God willed it.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Fulfilled is not a synonym for abolished.  Fulfilled means "made full."  The same way that a bud becomes a flower becomes a fruit.  It is still there.  It is now a fruit rather than a bud, because it has been made full.  Modern nominal Christianity treats "fulfilled" as a synonym for "abolished," which completely disregards the actual text of the actual scripture from which the quote actually comes...


I didn't state abolished, my stance is that the Levitical Laws and the peculiar structure of the Hebrew calendar as it pertains to ceremonial observance is abrogated. Abolished presupposes a flaw in the Old Testament as the reason for the termination of the ceremonial and Levitical judicial laws, abrogated states that being fulfilled, we are now under the law unto Christ (Romans 10:4). Furthermore, to use your own analogy, Passover is the bud, the Lord's Day is the fruit. If we have the fruit, we need not go back to the bud, unless you wish to assert that the fruit that is Christ is subject to spoil and must be re-budded.

Furthermore, I am not a modern nominal Christian, my position is subordinate to the Westminster Confession and Catechism, which in turn is subordinate to scripture and the effectual approval of the Holy Spirit. You have me confused with somebody else if you are suggesting that because I am opposing your Legalistic tendencies in reviving defunct OT ceremonial practices that I am consequently an Antinomian.




> Matthew 5:17-19New King James Version (NKJV)
> 17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> This passage seems pretty clear to me.  The Messiah did not make exceptions for 'ceremonial' things thought to have become irrelevant, like, you know, marriage, which is clearly ceremonial.  Per your logic, any Christian who chooses to get married is in violation of your law.  Or do you get to pick and choose what ceremonial bits you keep and discard? You keep marriage, but claim that people who keep the Passover are in violation of the will of God.  I refuse to criticize believers for either observation, and I keep the Passover myself.


Christ is talking about the eternal moral law expounded in that of the Decalogue (10 commandments), not the entire Levitical Law and the ceremonial practices of the Hebrew Temple. This is further underscored in Romans 13 regarding the obligation of Christians under civil authority, which specifically cites the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule, and makes no mention of the Levitical Law specifically, nor can it be inferred.   

On the point regarding marriage, marriage is not a ceremonial practice unique to Israel, it is a natural/moral standard of creation reflecting the eternal decree of God, it applies to every human being on the planet, heathen and Christian alike. The reason why the Magistrate Reformers attacked Rome's sacramental system is precisely because they tried to turn marriage into an exclusively Christian ceremonial practice, as though God did not already define it in Genesis 2:24. All are from the seed of Adam, and marriage was instituted in Eden, before The Fall, before the OT Law.




> You should re-read Romans 11, because that's not what it says at all.  The text of Romans 11 is pretty clear, just like the text of Matthew 5 quoted in part above.  You have to disregard the plain clear meaning of the actual text in order to apply some strange doctrinal ideation that is actually contradictory to the plain text.  I will take the actual scriptures over the opinion of hells_unicorn every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.


According to a plain reading of the text, irrespective of history and doctrine, you shouldn't be worshiping on Sundays, since the OT ceremonial law places the Sabbath on Saturday, the 4th commandment commands you to keep the Sabbath, and Christ states in John 14:15 "If you love me, keep my commandments". This is one of several ways in which taking a plain reading (ergo fundamentalist) view will yield you the wrong answer, and this is exactly how Adventists argue that keeping The Lord's Day (which is cited multiple times in the New Testament) is Roman Catholic error, despite the fact that it was practiced well before Roman authority comes into the picture.




> The Spring Feasts describe the ministry of the Messiah at His first coming, and the Fall feasts describe the ministry of Messiah at His second coming.  I understand why you may think it is not relevant any longer to celebrate the ministry of Messiah at His first coming (I disagree of course), but the Second Coming has not happened yet, so what's wrong with the Fall Feasts?  By your logic, If the Feasts go irrelevant when the events they point to are fulfilled, then we should absolutely be celebrating Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles because those Feasts point to events that are fulfilled in His Second Coming.  But you derogate the Fall Feasts too. Tabernacles, in particular, is a strict requirement after Messiah has returned to the Earth and is reigning in Jerusalem in His Kingdom.  It speaks to a time after the Second Coming in Zechariah 14.


Because I'm not a Premillennialist, and neither was the vast majority of the church until the Scoffield Study Bible began promoting Dispensationalist errors throughout the English speaking world. I have taken the Postmillennial position (Amillennialism is also common in Magistrate Reformed circles, particularly Lutherans), Christ's 2nd coming is at Judgment Day, after the 1,000 year reign of the church, not during or before it. For purposes of brevity, I'll simply name the verses supporting this position listed below rather than spell them all out, and give you the option to look them up, as this post is already getting too long.

Old Testament Postmillennial verses -- Num. 14:21; Psalms 2:6-9; 22:27-28; 47; 72:8-11; 110:1-2; 138:4-5 (cf. 102:15); Isa. 2:2-4; 9:6-7; 11:6-10; 45:22-25; 65; 66; Jer. 31:31-34; Daniel 2:31-35; Zech. 9:9f.; 13:1; 14:9.

New Testament Postmillennial verses --  Matt. 13:31-33; 28:18-20; John 12:31-32; 16:33; 1 John 2:13-14; 3:8; 4:4,14; 5:4-5; Acts 2:32-36,41; Rom. 11:25-32; 1 Cor. 15:20-26, 57-58; Hebrews 1:8-9,13; 2:5-9; Rev. 2:25-27; 3:7-9; 7:9-10; 11:15; 19:11-21.




> Zechariah 14:4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. (NASB)
> 
> Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one. (NASB)
> 
> Zechariah 14:16-19 Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them. If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. (NASB)
> As it is established in Zechariah 14:1-11, the prophet is speaking about a time AFTER the Second Coming.  In this era, that is, after the Second Coming, everyone who is left shall go up from year to year to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.  Whichever of the families that do not come up to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles on them there will be no rain.  
> 
> Zechariah 14:18-19 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
> So, Tabernacles was required (by the Living God) before the First Coming, it will be required (by the Living God) after the Second Coming, but _right now_ anybody who observes it is flaunting the will of God?
> ...


Christ's body (the NT church) is the Tabernacle, hence John 2:19-21. Rebuilding the OT tabernacle runs roughshod over the idea of the significance of Christ's sacrifice and resurrection by conflating the OT shadow (the Tabernacle represented his body) with the incarnation. Holding a Premillennial position will automatically color prophecy a certain way when reading it, as will the other positions, but The Gospel message regarding the temple and Paul's epistles against Judaizing are clear indications that rebuilding the OT tabernacle runs contrary to the New Testament.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> The only reason to bring up Roman innovation in the Christian religion is if you think I am in some way tied into it, that is why I made that inference.


I see. Well the reason I brought up Constantine was not to tie him to the Roman Catholic Church, but to demonstrate that there have been changes made to nominal Christianity from very early on that have stuck as traditions over the centuries. Christianity didn't have to "poof into the air" when John died for traditions to be wrong. For the record, I absolutely don't believe that Christianity suddenly vanished, and I'll bet Gunny doesn't either.



> If I don't know where you are coming from, I am left to speculate based on the stew of American innovative offshoots of Baptist theology that have cropped up in the past 150 years in order to know your position, hence all of the guess work going on here.


Or you could ask. Try addressing my words more literally instead of trying to read between the lines, and when you aren't sure about something, just let me know and I'll try to be more clear.



> The conspiracy theory I was alluding to is actually the one you ended up referring to when you dropped Constantine's name, namely a full or otherwise all encompassing disappearance of the True Christian Faith from Constantine until The Radical Reformation in the 16th century. I get this a lot when dealing with Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witness people who have tried proselytizing to my household, and it is historically untenable.


Well, I never said Christianity disappeared, nor did I claim it was restored in the 16th century.

I think I understand why you are trying to guess out all of my particular beliefs though: it has probably worked efficiently 70% of the time in the past. It's rather like ascribing everyone into Democrat or Republican, and then further assuming they have relatively monolithic beliefs. It works most of the time, but then you get someone like me who doesn't fit one of your pre-fab molds.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> *"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." Acts 20:7*


 If one Sunday, the disciples ate together, that's proof that Sabbath law was altered?


> *"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Corinthians 16:2*


 If they set aside there goods at the beginning of the week, does that prove that Sabbath law was changed? 


> *"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Colossians 2:16-17*


 And yet, you judge me.


> *"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." Revelation 1:10
> *


I'm not sure what this one is supposed to prove or suggest.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> my stance is that the Levitical Laws and the peculiar structure of the Hebrew calendar as it pertains to ceremonial observance is abrogated.


I'm curious how you interpret words like "forever," "perpetual," and "for all your generations."

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I see. Well the reason I brought up Constantine was not to tie him to the Roman Catholic Church, but to demonstrate that there have been changes made to nominal Christianity from very early on that have stuck as traditions over the centuries. Christianity didn't have to "poof into the air" when John died for traditions to be wrong. For the record, I absolutely don't believe that Christianity suddenly vanished, and I'll bet Gunny doesn't either.


Constantine didn't change anything so the point is moot, that's the problem. Nicaea I was a defense of the faith against Arian heresy (denying Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, in case you weren't clear on that), much as the Council of Jerusalem was called to deal with the Judaizing problem. Answering the claims of people pushing false doctrine does not mean anything has been changed, quite the opposite.




> Or you could ask. Try addressing my words more literally instead of trying to read between the lines, and when you aren't sure about something, just let me know and I'll try to be more clear.


At this point I think it's been pretty clearly established that you are a Baptist of some stripe, but do feel free to elaborate on the point.




> Well, I never said Christianity disappeared, nor did I claim it was restored in the 16th century.


Given the point that the ceremonial practices that are being brought up here (Passover) were being phased out during the Apostolic Era, you are asserting a gap of over a 1,000 years of a certain viewpoint being outside the scope of Christian history, ergo you are taking a Restorationist viewpoint. My words were a bit hyperbolic, but the implication of this is that Christ allowed his church to disappear from history with zero representation. Doesn't sound like divine planning to me.




> I think I understand why you are trying to guess out all of my particular beliefs though: it has probably worked efficiently 70% of the time in the past. It's rather like ascribing everyone into Democrat or Republican, and then further assuming they have relatively monolithic beliefs. It works most of the time, but then you get someone like me who doesn't fit one of your pre-fab molds.


Oh no I understand you are not "monolithic", being a trustee of post-19th century American Baptist theology actually involves a lot of "thinking for yourself" when it comes to biblical interpretation. That's precisely the problem with it. Nevertheless, all of them share some general tenants, such as a radically individualized view of biblical exegesis, which goes hand in hand with the tendency towards independent/congregationalist church government. I think another one is withholding Baptism from infants because they can't do the work of professing their faith. Consult Matthew 19:14 about denying children access to Christ's body, and consequently his church.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> If one Sunday, the disciples ate together, that's proof that Sabbath law was altered?


Christ being resurrected on the same day (Mark 16:9; Luke 24), and the disciples "giving thanks" on that day, might be a trivial event to you. For the true faithful, the position is a bit different. 




> If they set aside there goods at the beginning of the week, does that prove that Sabbath law was changed?


Yes, getting about the business of the New Testament is a pretty big deal, except for people who amuse themselves with rhetorical questions I suppose.




> And yet, you judge me.


Your own words are judging you, I'm telling you that Christ is risen, you are responding that the disciples just got together and ate on a Sunday.




> I'm not sure what this one is supposed to prove or suggest.


Read over it a few more times, maybe The Holy Spirit will help you out, God willing.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I'm curious how you interpret words like "forever," "perpetual," and "for all your generations."


Words denoting the nature of the eternal moral law reflected in The Word, as opposed to positive decrees of God's will alone that are time specific and meant to point to the former. Still curious?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I didn't state abolished, my stance is that the Levitical Laws and the peculiar structure of the Hebrew calendar as it pertains to ceremonial observance is abrogated. Abolished presupposes a flaw in the Old Testament as the reason for the termination of the ceremonial and Levitical judicial laws, abrogated states that being fulfilled, we are now under the law unto Christ (Romans 10:4). Furthermore, to use your own analogy, Passover is the bud, the Lord's Day is the fruit. If we have the fruit, we need not go back to the bud, unless you wish to assert that the fruit that is Christ is subject to spoil and must be re-budded.
> 
> Furthermore, I am not a modern nominal Christian, my position is subordinate to the Westminster Confession and Catechism, which in turn is subordinate to scripture and the effectual approval of the Holy Spirit. You have me confused with somebody else if you are suggesting that because I am opposing your Legalistic tendencies in reviving defunct OT ceremonial practices that I am consequently an Antinomian.
> 
> 
> 
> Christ is talking about the eternal moral law expounded in that of the Decalogue (10 commandments), not the entire Levitical Law and the ceremonial practices of the Hebrew Temple. This is further underscored in Romans 13 regarding the obligation of Christians under civil authority, which specifically cites the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule, and makes no mention of the Levitical Law specifically, nor can it be inferred.   
> 
> On the point regarding marriage, marriage is not a ceremonial practice unique to Israel, it is a natural/moral standard of creation reflecting the eternal decree of God, it applies to every human being on the planet, heathen and Christian alike. The reason why the Magistrate Reformers attacked Rome's sacramental system is precisely because they tried to turn marriage into an exclusively Christian ceremonial practice, as though God did not already define it in Genesis 2:24. All are from the seed of Adam, and marriage was instituted in Eden, before The Fall, before the OT Law.
> ...


So Zechariah, the prophet of the Living God, was wrong?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If one Sunday, the disciples ate together, that's proof that Sabbath law was altered? If they set aside there goods at the beginning of the week, does that prove that Sabbath law was changed?  And yet, you judge me.


That's the craziest thing about folks like him.  I don't judge anybody for holding the Roman festivals rather than the Biblical Feasts, but the mere fact that I keep the Passover they think they are being judged.

Colossians 2:16-19 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not[a] seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.
I do not think that someone who chooses to observe Christmas and Easter will go to hell, but these people accuse me of being hellbound all. the. time. for observing the Passover.  So I follow Paul's advice to let no one judge me regarding a festival, and for my obedience to scripture, I get this kind of treatment.

It's not unexpected, of course, but when folks like this judge us, all it does is confirm for me that they are the ones being disobedient.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> You appear to be completely clueless as to what TRP and I believe, and are therefore resorting to the 'default attack.' If anything, we are both more liable to believe that the Apostolic Era ended with Moses than that it continued hundreds of years after the Messiah.


Absolutely right!




> I would gently correct you as to what we actually believe, but you don't appear very interested in that at all.


You're just being hard on him at this point, gunny. There is no reason to assume his inner thoughts.




> At this point I think it's been pretty clearly established that you are a Baptist of some stripe, but do feel free to elaborate on the point.
> Oh no I understand you are not "monolithic", being a trustee of post-19th century American Baptist theology actually involves a lot of "thinking for yourself" when it comes to biblical interpretation. That's precisely the problem with it. Nevertheless, all of them share some general tenants, such as a radically individualized view of biblical exegesis, which goes hand in hand with the tendency towards independent/congregationalist church government. I think another one is withholding Baptism from infants because they can't do the work of professing their faith. Consult Matthew 19:14 about denying children access to Christ's body, and consequently his church.


Oh, my bad, Gunny. You were right again. Cary on.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Words denoting the nature of the eternal moral law reflected in The Word, as opposed to positive decrees of God's will alone that are time specific and meant to point to the former. Still curious?



"*You shall also observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread*, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore you shall observe this day *throughout your generations as a permanent ordinance*."

So you think "permanent ordinance" here isn't a positive decree of God's will but actually refers to the nature of The Word?

----------


## RJB

> I do not think that someone who chooses to observe Christmas and Easter will go to hell,


I and others may have misunderstood the point of your thread, but your OP poll seems to suggest that anyone who celebrates the 
Resurrection of our Lord commits idolitry by worshipping bunnies and colored eggs.  Am I wrong?





> Can you celebrate pagan fertility rites and still be a Christian?


 


> but these people accuse me of being hellbound all.


Could you link to such a quotation or even better, a thread similiar to this one but was directed at you?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I and others may have misunderstood the point of your thread, but your OP poll seems to suggest that anyone who celebrates the 
> Resurrection of our Lord commits idolitry by worshipping bunnies and colored eggs.  Am I wrong?


Not so much wrong as missing context.  The post was made during a spate of posts centering around "Can you be a Christian if..."

The intent of the thread title and poll was to kind of mock the "Can you be a Christian if..." threads by pointing to a thing that nearly everyone misses the mark on.  The idea being that the question itself is silly.  The first couple sentences of the OP should have demonstrated that I was making fun of the other such similar posts.  Moses was a murderer, and yet he was chosen by God to bring the Law to Israel.  Having an incorrect doctrine does not invalidate salvation.  Salvation comes from having a living and dynamic relationship with the Living God.  




> Could you link to such a quotation or even better, a thread similiar to this one that you posted that was directed at you?


My point was to shut down the other threads that were making such claims, and the effort appears to have worked.  I would rather not revive them.

----------


## RJB

Wow.  I missed that-- probably from the degree of heat from arguments that followed.     

The reason why I asked, is that I usually respect your posts even when I disagree.  This one seemed far out of character-- now I understand a bit better.  

I constantly complain about my humor not translating over the internet-- speaking of missing the mark on my part.  Carry on  




> Not so much wrong as missing context.  The post was made during a spate of posts centering around "Can you be a Christian if..."
> 
> The intent of the thread title and poll was to kind of mock the "Can you be a Christian if..." threads by pointing to a thing that nearly everyone misses the mark on.  *The idea being that the question itself is silly.*  The first couple sentences of the OP should have demonstrated that I was making fun of the other such similar posts.  Moses was a murderer, and yet he was chosen by God to bring the Law to Israel.  Having an incorrect doctrine does not invalidate salvation.  Salvation comes from having a living and dynamic relationship with the Living God.  
> 
> 
> 
> My point was to shut down the other threads that were making such claims, and the effort appears to have worked.  I would rather not revive them.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> So Zechariah, the prophet of the Living God, was wrong?


No, scripture based prophecy is never wrong. Your interpretation of it, however, is another matter entirely.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> That's the craziest thing about folks like him.  I don't judge anybody for holding the Roman festivals rather than the Biblical Feasts, but the mere fact that I keep the Passover they think they are being judged.
> 
> Colossians 2:16-19 New King James Version (NKJV)
> 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not[a] seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.
> I do not think that someone who chooses to observe Christmas and Easter will go to hell, but these people accuse me of being hellbound all. the. time. for observing the Passover.  So I follow Paul's advice to let no one judge me regarding a festival, and for my obedience to scripture, I get this kind of treatment.
> 
> It's not unexpected, of course, but when folks like this judge us, all it does is confirm for me that they are the ones being disobedient.


You know it's funny, I never mentioned hell once in any of my posts on this thread, nor rendered a judgment at any point in any of my posts regarding an individual person, apart from maybe drawing an inference about the seriousness of TRP regarding his response to my point on The Lord's Day, but I'd argue that's judging a viewpoint, not a person.

Maybe it's just that anybody else holding my position that you've encountered likes to play the "be fearful of hell" card, but your words here seem a bit thin-skinned for someone seeking to poke fun at the religious convictions of others.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, scripture based prophecy is never wrong. Your interpretation of it, however, is another matter entirely.


OK, how else can you *possibly* 'interpret' Zechariah 14:16-19 other than that the entire world will be required to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles?

Zechariah 14:16-19 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Nations Worship the King16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You know it's funny, I never mentioned hell once in any of my posts on this thread, nor rendered a judgment at any point in any of my posts regarding an individual person, apart from maybe drawing an inference about the seriousness of TRP regarding his response to my point on The Lord's Day, but I'd argue that's judging a viewpoint, not a person.
> 
> Maybe it's just that anybody else holding my position that you've encountered likes to play the "be fearful of hell" card, but your words here seem a bit thin-skinned for someone seeking to poke fun at the religious convictions of others.


Calling someone a 'judaizer' is both a judgement and a condemnation.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> "*You shall also observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread*, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore you shall observe this day *throughout your generations as a permanent ordinance*."
> 
> So you think "permanent ordinance" here isn't a positive decree of God's will but actually refers to the nature of The Word?


So you are of the generations of OT Israel? I'm sure you have documentation citing your genetic lineage to one of the 12 tribes then? I was not so blessed, my ancestors were running around like madmen with animal skins and painted faces until St. Patrick and other missionaries landed on Ireland. 

The generations of the Old Testament ceased, that is the extent of the permanence, and that is a positive decree that is subject to change at God's discretion, which was done via the New Testament. I've cited the relevant scripture previously, and I think you were particularly taken by the observation that "the apostles ate together on Sunday", which you think is the extent of what was in view.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Calling someone a 'judaizer' is both a judgement and a condemnation.


That's a statement of fact, particularly if one is holding out keeping OT ceremonies as a binding scriptural obligation when it clearly is not, which is what I've gotten from TRP. Stating that something is a "permanent ordinance" by scripture on Christians is a fairly serious assertion, as it has ramifications for people who don't keep those Holy Days.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That's a statement of fact, particularly if one is holding out keeping OT ceremonies as a binding scriptural obligation when it clearly is not, which is what I've gotten from TRP. Stating that something is a "permanent ordinance" by scripture on Christians is a fairly serious assertion, as it has ramifications for people who don't keep those Holy Days.


Ahh yes, passing judgement and condemning folks to hell is just fine if you call it 'fact.'  I am sure that Yeshua at the Bema Seat will totally overlook your condemnations of other souls because you characterize those judgements as "facts." Clearly, you have nothing to worry about.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

You appear to have skipped a post...




> No, scripture based prophecy is never wrong. Your interpretation of it, however, is another matter entirely.


OK, how else can you *possibly* 'interpret' Zechariah 14:16-19 other than that the entire world will be required to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles?

Zechariah 14:16-19 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Nations Worship the King16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
Now, please explain exactly _how_ Zechariah 14:16-19 can be '_interpreted_' to mean anything other than that all the world will be required to keep the Feast of Tabernacles or suffer the curse of drought for failing to keep the feast.

I am, in fact, _terribly_ curious as to what kind of interpretation could possibly make the passage _mean_ the dead opposite of what it actually _says_.

----------


## TER

9 Then God said to Abraham, “You and your descendants must keep this agreement from now on. 10 *This is my agreement with you and all your descendants, which you must obey: Every male among you must be circumcised. 11 Cut away your foreskin to show that you are prepared to follow the agreement between me and you. 12 From now on when a baby boy is eight days old, you will circumcise him.* This includes any boy born among your people or any who is your slave, who is not one of your descendants. 13 Circumcise every baby boy whether he is born in your family or bought as a slave. Your bodies will be marked to show that you are part of my agreement that lasts forever. 14 *Any male who is not circumcised will be cut off from his people, because he has broken my agreement.”*

Did the Apostles disobey God when they decided in council to do away with physical circumsion as a requirement?  Note, this is not a Prophet saying it, but God Himself commanding that *from then on*, every male eight day old must be circumsized?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 9 Then God said to Abraham, “You and your descendants must keep this agreement from now on. 10 *This is my agreement with you and all your descendants, which you must obey: Every male among you must be circumcised. 11 Cut away your foreskin to show that you are prepared to follow the agreement between me and you. 12 From now on when a baby boy is eight days old, you will circumcise him.* This includes any boy born among your people or any who is your slave, who is not one of your descendants. 13 Circumcise every baby boy whether he is born in your family or bought as a slave. Your bodies will be marked to show that you are part of my agreement that lasts forever. 14 *Any male who is not circumcised will be cut off from his people, because he has broken my agreement.”*
> 
> Did the Apostles disobey God when they decided in council to do away with physical circumsion as a requirement?  Note, this is not a Prophet saying it, but God Himself commanding that *from then on*, every male eight day old must be circumsized?


The circumcision, when brought to fullness in the Messiah, became a circumcision of the heart.  It was not done away with, it was promoted to a higher order.  The circumcision today is as important if not more important than the day it was commanded by Moses, only now it applies to the heart rather than the penis.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Ahh yes, passing judgement and condemning folks to hell is just fine if you call it 'fact.'  I am sure that Yeshua at the Bema Seat will totally overlook your condemnations of other souls because you characterize those judgements as "facts." Clearly, you have nothing to worry about.


Oh come on, I'm not the one constantly bringing up hell here, perdition or mercy is the lone prerogative of The Trinity. The issue here is correct doctrine and exegesis, if you can't handle weighty subjects without trying to be ironic about an apparent inferiority complex, I fail to see why you wish to dwell on this and constantly rehash this passive/aggressive routine, which I'm assuming is sarcastic.

There are very few people that I would speak about with any certainty as "sinning the sin unto death" (1 John 5:16), I'm talking low double digit figures, and all of them no longer in this world (Archbishop Sharpe of St. Andrews is one example, and he's been dead for centuries). If you can't tell the difference between an attempt at correction vs. a condemnation, I don't see how we are going to make any progress here.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> The circumcision, when brought to fullness in the Messiah, became a circumcision of the heart.  It was not done away with, it was promoted to a higher order.  The circumcision today is as important if not more important than the day it was commanded by Moses, only now it applies to the heart rather than the penis.


It was not promoted to a higher order, it was replaced with Baptism. By the same token, the Passover was replaced with Communion/The Eucharist. These are the outward signs of "the circumcision of the heart" and also "worshiping The Lord of hosts at the Tabernacle". I've hashed this out several times with you and TRP, if you are just taking a hyper-literal view of either OT prophecy or Revelation, with no regard for The Gospel and Apostolic Teaching (or a compartmentalized view of it), you are going to be spinning your wheels on abrogated OT ceremonies while likely missing a lot of the finer points of The Gospel.

While the jury is out on whether there are any actual health benefits to circumcising the male member, there is ZERO New Testament significance to parting with your physical foreskin.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Oh come on, I'm not the one constantly bringing up hell here, perdition or mercy is the lone prerogative of The Trinity. The issue here is correct doctrine and exegesis,


Allright, I will be glad to overlook your several judgements against me in this very post, but you appear to have skipped a post.

If, as you say, “The issue here is correct doctrine and exegesis,” I am bewildered that you continue to refuse to exegize Zechariah 14:16-19




> No, scripture based prophecy is never wrong. Your interpretation of it, however, is another matter entirely.


OK, how else can you *possibly* 'interpret' Zechariah 14:16-19 other than that the entire world will be required to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles?
Zechariah 14:16-19 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Nations Worship the King16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
Now, please explain exactly _how_ Zechariah 14:16-19 can be '_interpreted_' to mean anything other than that all the world will be required to keep the Feast of Tabernacles or suffer the curse of drought for failing to keep the feast.

I am, in fact, _terribly_ curious as to what kind of interpretation could possibly make the passage _mean_ the dead opposite of what it actually _says_.




> if you can't handle weighty subjects without trying to be ironic about an apparent inferiority complex, I fail to see why you wish to dwell on this and constantly rehash this passive/aggressive routine, which I'm assuming is sarcastic.
> 
> There are very few people that I would speak about with any certainty as "sinning the sin unto death" (1 John 5:16), I'm talking low double digit figures, and all of them no longer in this world. If you can't tell the difference between an attempt at correction vs. a condemnation, I don't see how we are going to make any progress here.


You seem awfully adamant about claiming that I fail exegesis, but all you ever do is state opinion and never actually point o any scripture to support your opinions.

How _exactly_ do you interpret Zechariah 14:16-19 in such a way that makes keeping the Feast of Tabernacles sinful?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It was not promoted to a higher order, it was replaced with Baptism. By the same token, the Passover was replaced with Communion/The Eucharist. These are the outward signs of "the circumcision of the heart" and also "worshiping The Lord of hosts at the Tabernacle". I've hashed this out several times with you, if you are just taking a hyper-literal view of either OT prophecy or Revelation, with no regard for The Gospel and Apostolic Teaching (or a compartmentalized view of it), you are going to be spinning your wheels on abrogated OT ceremonies while likely missing a lot of the finer points of The Gospel.


If you take Paul's epistles as gospel, you're at odds with him.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> If you take Paul's epistles as gospel, you're at odds with him.


Nope, I got my position directly from him. Read Galatians 3 and Colossians 2, then try again.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It was not promoted to a higher order, it was replaced with Baptism. By the same token, the Passover was replaced with Communion/The Eucharist. These are the outward signs of "the circumcision of the heart" and also "worshiping The Lord of hosts at the Tabernacle". I've hashed this out several times with you, if you are just taking a hyper-literal view of either OT prophecy or Revelation, with no regard for The Gospel and Apostolic Teaching (or a compartmentalized view of it), you are going to be spinning your wheels on abrogated OT ceremonies while likely missing a lot of the finer points of The Gospel.
> 
> While the jury is out on whether there are any actual health benefits to circumcising the male member, there is ZERO New Testament significance to parting with your physical foreskin.


Again, for all your complaints about exegesis, I'm the one backing my statements with actual...scripture

Romans 2:29 New King James Version (NKJV) 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
Now we know, as is universally the case, when a law is brought to fulness by Messiah, the seed of that selfsame fulness is already found in the Law as it formerly stood:

Deuteronomy 30:6 NASB "Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.
I get it, you have concluded that the scriptures do not actually mean what they actually say, in order to support your own personal interpretation of them.  That's fine, that is your business between you and God.

I find it ironic, however, that I am the one exegizing ... actual ... _scripture_ while you are stating unfounded opinions, and your complaint is my lack of exegesis?

You should probably examine your heart and motives here, because the things you are saying are directly contradicted by reality.  This usually only happens to rational persons when dealing with some measure of cognitive dissonance.

----------


## TER

> The circumcision, when brought to fullness in the Messiah, became a circumcision of the heart.  It was not done away with, it was promoted to a higher order.  The circumcision today is as important if not more important than the day it was commanded by Moses, only now it applies to the heart rather than the penis.


And so with the Feast of Tabernacles.  It too will find its fulfillment and higher order, not in the form as practiced by the Old Covenant Jews, but in the light of the resurrection of Christ and fulfilled in the new and eternal Eighth Day, and through the Church of the New Covenant.  The Prophet is not necessarily referring to the Jewish feast in this prophecy, but of the future worldwide fulfillment in Christ which the old Jewish feast prefigured.  The Feast of Tabernacles was a shadow of what would be, yet it is not what _will_ be, just as penile circumcision was a prefiguring and shadow of what would be, which was to be circumsion of the heart.  When the time came, then that shadow was flooded away by the light of Christ's Gospel and the Church, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, let that inferior practice wither on the dead tree of the Old Covenant.

  Likewise, the celebration of the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles by Christians is going backwards and celebrating shadows while Christ has _already come_ and established His Church and New Covenant, in the traditions handed down by the Apostles and held fast to by the Church.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If you take Paul's epistles as gospel, you're at odds with him.


That's actually true, but I'm 'a bad guy' or something, therefore whatever I say must necessarily be wrong.  If my position is in accord with the clear prima facie reading of scripture, because I must be wrong, that means the Bible has some other secret meaning that only he knows, and won't share with the rest of the class. 

How many times have I asked for his exegesis of Zechariah 14:16-19 now?  The most I have gotten is some vague reference to the Messiah _being_ a tabernacle, like that's supposed to somehow change the plain reading of scripture.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And so with the Feast of Tabernacles.  It too will find its fulfillment and higher order, not in the form as practiced by the Old Covenant Jews, but in the light of the resurrection of Christ and fulfilled in the new and eternal Eighth Day, and through the Church of the New Covenant.  The Prophet is not necessarily referring to the Jewish feast in this prophecy, but of the future worldwide fulfillment in Christ which the old Jewish feast prefigured.  The Feast of Tabernacles was a shadow of what would be, yet it is not what _will_ be, just as penile circumcision was a prefiguring and shadow of what would be, which was to be circumsicion of the heart.  When the time came, then that shadow was flooded away by the light of the Christ's Gospel.
> 
>   Likewise, the celebration of the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles by Christians is going backwards and celebrating shadows while Christ has already come and established His Church and New Covenant.


So Zechariah the Prophet of the Living God was wrong?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 1. Again, for all your complaints about exegesis, I'm the one backing my statements with actual...scripture
> 
> 2. Now we know, as is universally the case, when a law is brought to fulness by Messiah, the seed of that selfsame fulness is already found in the Law as it formerly stood:
> 
> 3. I get it, you have concluded that the scriptures do not actually mean what they actually say, in order to support your own personal interpretation of them.  That's fine, that is your business between you and God.
> 
> 4. I find it ironic, however, that I am the one exegizing ... actual ... _scripture_ while you are stating unfounded opinions, and your complaint is my lack of exegesis?
> 
> 5. You should probably examine your heart and motives here, because the things you are saying are directly contradicted by reality.  This usually only happens to rational persons when dealing with some measure of cognitive dissonance.


1. Nope, you are quoting isolated verses and then butchering them. I've offered several scriptures to back up my position, all of them you have ignored (specifically the point I made about Jesus' body being the temple and the Tabernacle). I see no reason why I should dignify your filibustering on Zechariah when you don't seem interested in my answer at all.

2. This is a logically paradoxical statement. If something has come to full formation, it can not by its very nature stand as it formerly stood, anymore than a fully matured human can remain a child. You are violating the very spirit of Romans 2:29 by hanging on the letter and casting aside the actual meaning.

3. Classical case of projection.

4. Projection again, I provided scriptures, you glossed over them. Go back and read my posts again.

5. When you actually approach our discussion in an intellectually honest fashion, I'll know whether you actually know what cognitive dissonance is.

----------


## TER

> So Zechariah the Prophet of the Living God was wrong?


No, you are assuming he was referring to the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles in the mode under the Old Covenant, when he is referring to the future fulfilled Feast of Tabernacles of the Christian Church which will be what the old Jewish feast prefigured as a shadow, not unlike the Feast of Passover was fulfilled by the Lord's resurrection (Pascha) and the Jewish Feast of Pentecost was fulfilled by the descent of the Holy Spirit in the Christian Feast of Pentecost.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> So Zechariah the Prophet of the Living God was wrong?


Do you know what abrogation is Gunny? It's when something serves its historical purpose, and then steps aside for what it was pointing toward, ergo types and shadows. (see Colossians 2:17)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, you are assuming he was referring to the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles in the mode under the Old Covenant, when he is referring to the future fulfilled Feast of Tabernacles of the Christian Church which will be what the old Jewish feast prefigured as a shadow, not unlike the Feast of Passover was fulfilled by the Lord's resurrection (Pascha) and the Jewish Feast of Pentecost was fulfilled by the descent of the Holy Spirit in the Christian Feast of Pentecost.





> Do you know what abrogation is Gunny? It's when something serves its historical purpose, and then steps aside for what it was pointing toward, ergo types and shadows. (see Colossians 2:17)


Zechariah 14 is describing events after the return of the Messiah in His Second Coming.

_Zechariah 14:1-9_ New American Standard Bible (NASB)

*God Will Battle Jerusalem’s Foes*14 Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as [a]when He fights on a day of battle. 4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. 5 You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with [b]Him!

6 In that day there will be no light; the [c]luminaries will dwindle. 7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.

8 And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter.
*God Will Be King over All*9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.
The context of this prophecy is clearly and obviously after the Second Coming.  And after the Messiah has conquered the entire planet and reigns from Jerusalem, it then says this:

*Zechariah 14:16-19* New American Standard Bible (NASB)
16 Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. 17 And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them. 18 If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the Lord smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. 19 This will be the [a]punishment of Egypt, and the [b]punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.
The only way to claim that keeping the Feast of Tabernacles is _sinful_, is to rationalize Zechariah 14 into complete meaninglessness. 

The Bible means what it says, and it says what it means.  When the Bible says that the circumcision becomes a circumcision of the heart, then it means that the circumcision is a circumcision of the heart.  When the Bible says that the world will be required to celebrate Tabernacles after the Messiah returns, then it means that the world will be required to celebrate Tabernacles after the Messiah returns.

To 'interpret' the Bible such that it means the dead opposite of it's prima facie reading is not sound exegesis.

If y'all want to cling to your personal interpretations that's fine, but unless you can exegize Zechariah 14 in accord with your personal interpretation, then don't pretend to claim that your personal interpretations are actually scriptural, because they are not.

----------


## TER

Again, you are interpreting the Prophet Zechariah to be talking about the Feast of Tabernacles in the mode practiced by the Jews of the Old Covenant. But this future event prophecized by him will be the fulfillment of what the Jewish Feast prefigured 'in a mirror, dimly', just as Passover prefigured the Lord's Resurrection.  To place Passover on the same level as Pascha is to put shadows above what Christ fulfilled.  Likewise, to put the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles as practiced in the Old Covenant to be the same level as the future event it is pointing to is to put shadows above what will be.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Again, you are interpreting the Prophet Zechariah to be talking about the Feast of Tabernacles in the mode practiced by the Jews of the Old Covenant. But this future event prophecized by him will be the fulfillment of what the Jewish Feast prefigured 'in a mirror, dimly', just as Passover prefigured the Lord's Resurrection.  To place Passover on the same level as Pascha is to put shadows above what Christ fulfilled.  Likewise, to put the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles as practiced in the Old Covenant to be the same level as the future event it is pointing to is to put shadows above what will be.


That's _not_ what the passage _says_.  When the Bible says that circumcision has become a circumcision of the heart, _it says so_.  When the Bible says that 'do not muzzle the ox that treads the grain' means to pay/feed Paul for preaching, _it says so_.

The Bible does not say that Zechariah is talking about some vague spiritual fulfillment.  Indeed, the fact that it says that people will have to _go up to Jerusalem_ every year to _celebrate the Feast every year,_ that would actually _deny_ the notion of some spiritual fulfillment.

Your interpretation of Zechariah 14 is in direct contradiction with the scriptures of the Holy Bible.  You can't just claim some hocus pocus and therefore the passage means the dead opposite of what it actually says.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.


Okay, since it is clear that I need to write Gunny a miniature essay on Zechariah in order to satisfy his (in my opinion) obstinate demand for clear, fully quoted passages of scripture rather than simple chapter and verse references, I'm going to take the plunge. And just to be clear, while I am not a Biblicist (an American fundamentalist innovation), I am a strict observant of Sola Scriptura, so any and all interpretations I endeavor to make on prophecy are subordinate to The Word and his church, lest they would be of a private nature in opposition 2 Peter 1:20:

*On verse 16:* This language all points to the Christian church, not to attempts to rebuild the OT temple. Relevant verses to consider in the light of this are John 2:19 *"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."* which establishes Christ's body as the temple, contrary to the OT unbelieving Pharisees who thought he would rebuild the physical building. This point is echoed in Matthew 26:61 with further emphasis on the confounded response of Christ's audience *"And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days."* as well as in Mark 14:58 *"We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands."* where Christ says he will do this "WITHOUT HANDS", emphasizing that the temple is spiritual in nature, ergo not a physical building. See Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:19 where he states *"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"* where the bodies of believers are likewise likened unto a temple, accentuating that our participation in the church is not tied to a historical building.

On verse 17: The use of rain is a figurative statement regarding Baptism as entry into the faith and its power to regenerate (aka become born again), relevant verses parallel to this include John 3:5 *"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."* and 1 Peter 3:21 *"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"*. Earlier in 1 Peter 3:20 was have *"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."* where the sprinkling of rain is likened to Baptism, which is one of the verses that causes me to support Baptism by sprinkling or pouring since that is what happened to the 8 souls, whereas full submersion did something other than save the rest of the world. Though to be fair to supporters of immersing, they are not literally holding those petitioning to join the church and their children underwater until they experience literal death as Christ did on the cross (another potential "clear reading" of a scripture verse), and thus the method is valid, though I would argue not binding or to necessarily be preferred.

*On verse 18:* A plain reading of this verse by itself would have us believe that only the Egyptians will be outside Jerusalem seeking entry by way of repentance, rather than a more carefully nuanced reading in light of the rest of scripture which accounts of figurative usage of types, namely Egypt as a typical enemy of OT Israel that symbolizes all the enemy nations of The Church. This is particularly a problem if you read Zechariah completely separate of any relation to Revelation, such as recurring usages of Babylon (another OT adversary of Israel) throughout chapters 17 and 18 for the same signification, and further elaborated by citing what the symbols of the beast represent. To bring back 2 Peter 1:20, prophecy is of no private interpretation, and that includes privatizing part of Zechariah from the rest of prophecy, both OT and NT.

*On verse 19:*  The threat of being blocked from the kingdom is now applied to all nations, and this reflects the exclusive character of The Gospel message as stated in John 6:44 *"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."* and John 10:26 *"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."* These verses can be multiplied many times and references can be thus made to previous verses I cited on the preceding verses of Zechariah to augment the context.

And just one final point before I close. At no time was any argument that I made, either via scripture usage, church historical reference, or paraphrase of church historical figures, an opinion that was mine and mine alone. Part of recognizing that one is a member of the church of which Christ is the chief cornerstone and the apostles and prophets are the foundation (Ephesians 2:20) is also recognizing the subordinate authority of those that stand with you in the church, both past and present, such as the Magistrate Reformers that set about correcting Roman errors about worship, and later Anabaptist errors about prophecy. Nothing that I have stated was even a matter of controversy between divergent reformers such as Martin Luther's later followers and those following Calvin in Geneva, and the more hard-line reformers under John Knox, whom I personally identify with most closely since I am descended from Northern Ireland and am a student of Scottish covenant theology. The Christian faith is not a mere foundation with no building standing upon it. (see 1 Corinthians 12:28)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Okay, since it is clear that I need to write Gunny a miniature essay on Zechariah in order to satisfy his (in my opinion) obstinate demand for clear, fully quoted passages of scripture rather than simple chapter and verse references, I'm going to take the plunge. And just to be clear, while I am not a Biblicist (an American fundamentalist innovation), I am a strict observant of Sola Scriptura, so any and all interpretations I endeavor to make on prophecy are subordinate to The Word and his church, lest they would be of a private nature in opposition 2 Peter 1:20:
> 
> *On verse 16:* This language all points to the Christian church, not to attempts to rebuild the OT temple. Relevant verses to consider in the light of this are John 2:19 *"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."* which establishes Christ's body as the temple, contrary to the OT unbelieving Pharisees who thought he would rebuild the physical building. This point is echoed in Matthew 26:61 with further emphasis on the confounded response of Christ's audience *"And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days."* as well as in Mark 14:58 *"We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands."* where Christ says he will do this "WITHOUT HANDS", emphasizing that the temple is spiritual in nature, ergo not a physical building. See Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:19 where he states *"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"* where the bodies of believers are likewise likened unto a temple, accentuating that our participation in the church is not tied to a historical building.
> 
> On verse 17: The use of rain is a figurative statement regarding Baptism as entry into the faith and its power to regenerate (aka become born again), relevant verses parallel to this include John 3:5 *"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."* and 1 Peter 3:21 *"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"*. Earlier in 1 Peter 3:20 was have *"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."* where the sprinkling of rain is likened to Baptism, which is one of the verses that causes me to support Baptism by sprinkling or pouring since that is what happened to the 8 souls, whereas full submersion did something other than save the rest of the world.
> 
> *On verse 18:* A plain reading of this verse by itself would have us believe that only the Egyptians will be outside Jerusalem seeking entry by way of repentance, rather than a more carefully nuanced reading in light of the rest of scripture which accounts of figurative usage of types, namely Egypt as a typical enemy of OT Israel that symbolizes all the enemy nations of The Church. This is particularly a problem if you read Zechariah completely separate of any relation to Revelation, such as recurring usages of Babylon (another OT adversary of Israel) throughout chapters 17 and 18 for the same signification, and further elaborated by citing what the symbols of the beast represent. To bring back 2 Peter 1:20, prophecy is of no private interpretation, and that includes privatizing part of Zechariah from the rest of prophecy, both OT and NT.
> 
> *On verse 19:*  The threat of being blocked from the kingdom is now applied to all nations, and this reflects the exclusive character of The Gospel message as stated in John 6:44 *"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."* and John 10:26 *"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."* These verses can be multiplied many times and references can be thus made to previous verses I cited on the preceding verses of Zechariah to augment the context.
> ...


None of that even addresses the "Feast of Tabernacles" cited in the passage.  Doesn't even ... mention ... it. Neither the word 'tabernacle' nor the word 'booth' even appears in your text here.

The Feast of Tabernacles, by the way, has *nothing* whatsoever to do with the Temple.  The Temple was not a tent.

----------


## TER

> That's _not_ what the passage _says_.  When the Bible says that circumcision has become a circumcision of the heart, _it says so_.  When the Bible says that 'do not muzzle the ox that treads the grain' means to pay/feed Paul for preaching, _it says so_.


The Bible didn't say so until St. Paul and the rest of the leaders of the Church got together to stop the Judaizing which was creating division in the Church.  It was the Church which decided to stop physical circumcision as a requirement, not the Bible.  It was the same Church which stopped celebrating Jewish Feasts which had become obsolete with Christ's advent and ascension to Heaven, and if the Bible spanned more than a few decades and if the Book of Acts didn't stop suddenly but continued for some years, we wouldn't be arguing about this.  But because you approach the Christian faith through a Sola Scriptura mindset, you put little value on the workings of the Holy Spirit in the growth of the Church unless it was written between the covers of the Bible.  Thank God at least the episode regarding the circumcision controversy made it early enough in the infancy of the Church and can be found in the Book of Acts so that we can at least agree that physical circumcision is not required!




> The Bible does not say that Zechariah is talking about some vague spiritual fulfillment.  Indeed, the fact that it says that people will have to _go up to Jerusalem_ every year to _celebrate the Feast every year,_ that would actually _deny_ the notion of some spiritual fulfillment.
> 
> Your interpretation of Zechariah 14 is in direct contradiction with the scriptures of the Holy Bible.  You can't just claim some hocus pocus and therefore the passage means the dead opposite of what it actually says.


i will get to this tomorrow.  It is late and I need to work tomorrow morning.  Goodnight and God bless you Gunny.  No one is condemning you to hell, especially not me.  I think you are in error and I am trying to correct you.  I have used pointed words, but only because I see you kicking against the goads and pitting yourself against the early Saints who worshiped and believed much differently than you do.  It is because I know how faithful a servant of Christ you are that I bother, and I ask for your forgiveness for words which were too harsh or insensitive.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The Bible didn't say so until St. Paul and the rest of the leaders of the Church got together to stop the Judaizing which was creating division in the Church.  It was the Church which decided to stop physical circumcision as a requirement, not the Bible.


The scriptures clearly promote the circumcision from the flesh to the heart. The scriptures do not say anywhere that the Feasts are obsolete.




> It was the same Church which stopped celebrating Jewish Feasts


I will agree with this, _it is not_ a Biblical teaching to stop celebrating the Feasts.




> which had become obsolete with Christ's advent and ascension to Heaven, and if the Bible spanned more than a few decades and if the Book of Acts didn't stop suddenly but continued for some years, we wouldn't be arguing about this.  But because you approach the Christian faith through a Sola Scriptura mindset, you put little value on the workings of the Holy Spirit in the growth of the Church unless it was written between the covers of the Bible.


I put enormous value on the revelations of the Holy Spirit.  I simply refuse to accept this notion that the Holy Spirit will contradict the Holy Scriptures.




> Thank God at least the episode regarding the circumcision controversy made it early enough in the infancy of the Church and can be found in the Book of Acts so that we can at least agree that circumcision is not required!


In Deuteronomy, it _already_ said that the real circumcision was of the heart.  God does not change, He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.  The advent of Messiah simply de-emphasized the physical component, and re-emphasized the spiritual component.  




> i will get to this tomorrow.  It is late and I need to work tomorrow morning.  Goodnight and God bless you Gunny.  No one is condemning you to hell, especially not me.  I think you are in error and I am trying to correct you.  I have used pointed words, but only because I see you kicking against the goads and pitting yourself against the early Saints who worshiped and believed much differently than you do.  It is because I know how faithful a servant of Christ you are that I bother, and I ask for your forgiveness for words which were too harsh or insensitive.


I promise you that I'm not the one kicking against the goads.  

A Judaizer is one who believes that salvation is contingent on keeping the Law.  That's what it actually means in the text where it is cited.  A Judaizer has never meant someone who happens to observe the Passover.  That's just something the church made up to rationalize it's own disobedience to God.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> None of that even addresses the "Feast of Tabernacles" cited in the passage.  Doesn't even ... mention ... it. Neither the word 'tabernacle' nor the word 'booth' even appears in your text here.
> 
> The Feast of Tabernacles, by the way, has *nothing* whatsoever to do with the Temple.  The Temple was not a tent.


Thank you for sparing me the "you're not using scripture" nonsense this time.

Tell me, if The Feast Of Tabernacles has nothing to do with The Temple, why was it used to dedicate Solomon's Temple to the lord in 1 Kings 8:2, and then again when the Israelites just before rebuilding The Temple in Nehemiah 8? It seems to have a good bit to do with The Temple, as well as with Jesus (the NT Temple), who on the same Feast proclaimed some interesting things tied in his ability to nourish all that come to him (John 7:37-39).

By the way, your last response was extremely quick. Did you even read what I wrote?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It is because I know how faithful a servant of Christ you are that I bother, and I ask for your forgiveness for words which were too harsh or insensitive.


I do forgive you for that, and I forgive you for being wrong about all of this, too.  I understand that I am fighting against 1500 years of inertia.  One does not overcome 1500 years of inertia with a couple of quotes and a logical argument.  

Here in America we really only have about 50 to 100 years of inertia leading in to the police state despotism, and look how hard that is to overcome.  Fifteen hundred years of error can only be 15 to 30 _times_ more difficult to overcome.  This is why at the time of the Trumpet (also a Feast, by the way) the church is described in the Bible as being in apostasy, with an underground remnant.

A church cannot be in apostasy, if they are within the will of God.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 1. The scriptures clearly promote the circumcision from the flesh to the heart. The scriptures do not say anywhere that the Feasts are obsolete.
> 
> 2. I will agree with this, _it is not_ a Biblical teaching to stop celebrating the Feasts.
> 
> 3. I put enormous value on the revelations of the Holy Spirit.  I simply refuse to accept this notion that the Holy Spirit will contradict the Holy Scriptures.
> 
> 4. In Deuteronomy, it _already_ said that the real circumcision was of the heart.  God does not change, He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.  The advent of Messiah simply de-emphasized the physical component, and re-emphasized the spiritual component.  
> 
> 5. I promise you that I'm not the one kicking against the goads.   A Judaizer is one who believes that salvation is contingent on keeping the Law.  That's what it actually means in the text where it is cited.  A Judaizer has never meant someone who happens to observe the Passover.  That's just something the church made up to rationalize it's own disobedience to God.


1. Colossians 2:16-17 applies here.

2. The Bible institutes the Church, it is not its enemy. Furthermore, Paul on Galatians 3 and Colossians 2, he's the one who instructed the ending of the Hebrew Calendar, the Church simply obeyed.

3. There is no contradiction between the Holy Spirit and Scripture, it's your interpretation that is seeing contradictions where none exist.

4. How do you de-emphasize cutting the foreskin? Do we take off less perhaps?

5. This doesn't make any sense at all. On the one hand you are saying that you are just making a choice to observe the Passover (yet it's a command from God, that doesn't sound as light of a matter as you are putting it), and in the other sense you are suggesting that we are standing against God by not continuing to celebrate it and criticizing the notion that we need to carry on doing it when the apostle Paul suggests otherwise. Who is being illogical here?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Thank you for sparing me the "you're not using scripture" nonsense this time.
> 
> Tell me, if The Feast Of Tabernacles has nothing to do with The Temple, why was it used to dedicate Solomon's Temple to the lord in 1 Kings 8:2, and then again when the Israelites just before rebuilding The Temple in Nehemiah 8?


The Ark of the Covenant was held in a tabernacle when there was no Temple.  When the Temple was built, it was removed from the tabernacle and placed in the Temple.  The Temple and a tabernacle are two _very_ different things.  Further, an actual tabernacle is a different thing than the Feast of Tabernacles.  

If a tabernacle is a tent, the Temple is the US Capitol Building, and the Feast of Tabernacles is a national Boy Scout Jamboree, you are saying that we can no longer hold Boy Scout Jamborees, because the US Capitol Building doesn't exist anymore, and your proof of that is because some Congressman once slept in a tent.  It makes absolute no sense whatsoever.

The Feast of Tabernacles actually has more to do with weddings than it does the Temple.




> It seems to have a good bit to do with The Temple, as well as with Jesus (the NT Temple), who on the same Feast proclaimed some interesting things tied in his ability to nourish all that come to him (John 7:37-39).
> 
> By the way, your last response was extremely quick. Did you even read what I wrote?


Yes I read what you wrote.  Every word.  It didn't even address the question.  It didn't even make an attempt to address the question.  

Exegesis is pulled directly word-for-word from the text being analyzed.

The word 'tabernacle' nor the word 'booth' nor the word 'feast' even appeared in your 'analysis,' which means it was not drawn directly word-for-word from the scripture, which means it does not qualify as 'exegesis.'

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 1. Colossians 2:16-17 applies here.


Colossians 2:16-17 New King James Version (NKJV)16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
Well, then you should probably stop judging me regarding festivals, new moons, and sabbaths.




> 2. The Bible institutes the Church, it is not its enemy.


You are ignoring 4000 years of the history of Israel where they cycled in and out of disobedience.  Your notion that it is impossible for a church to be in disobedience because the word church is mentioned in the Bible makes no sense at all.




> Furthermore, Paul on Galatians 3 and Colossians 2, he's the one who instructed the ending of the Hebrew Calendar, the Church simply obeyed.


All I am seeing is Paul instructing people not to judge, nor allow themselves to be judged based on their keeping the Feasts.  If you believe what Paul wrote in Galatians and Colossians, then why are you judging me based on the keeping of a feast?




> 3. There is no contradiction between the Holy Spirit and Scripture, it's your interpretation that is seeing contradictions where none exist.


I'm not the one contradicting scripture, you are.  There are no contradictions in the scripture, nor does the Holy Spirit in any way, shape, or form contradict the scripture.

If you have to tell a .... mistruth .... on me to argue your point, the likelihood is that the Spirit is not leading you in that argument, because the Holy Spirit of God is Truth, and there is no lie in Him.  

Your claim that I have pointed to contradictions in the scripture and between the scriptures and God is a lie, I have never done any such thing.  The fact that you have to lie to make your point would seem to demonstrate that your point is not in God.




> 4. How do you de-emphasize cutting the foreskin? Do we take off less perhaps?


What does this even mean?  You don't seriously believe that my position is to 'take less skin off the penis' do you?  Because if you really think that, then you aren't even paying attention to what I am writing, you aren't reading to understand, you are reading to come up with ammunition to argue.  And if you do not believe that my position is to 'take less skin off the penis' then you lied again, which indicates that your position is not in God, because God does not lie.




> 5. This doesn't make any sense at all. On the one hand you are saying that you are just making a choice to observe the Passover (yet it's a command from God, that doesn't sound as light of a matter as you are putting it), and in the other sense you are suggesting that we are standing against God by not continuing to celebrate it and criticizing the notion that we need to carry on doing it when the apostle Paul suggests otherwise. Who is being illogical here?


You are standing against God by _condemning_ those who observe the Biblical Feasts, calling us judaizers and all manner of wicked things, even lying on us in a vain attempt to make yourself look superior.

I have said again and again that the only thing that matters is a relationship with the Living God in Messiah.  The Feasts were commanded to be observed for all time, but the physical observation was later explained to not be a salvation issue.  

Nothing I have said is contradictory.  You are reading things into my words that are simply not there because you have judged me regarding the festival, and so you have to come up with stuff to rationalize your judgement of me.  Absolutely none of that behavior is even remotely Christ-like, not can it possibly proceed from the Holy Spirit.

----------


## anaconda

Interesting ideas with respect to paganism...

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Interesting ideas with respect to paganism...


Interesting ideas with respect to Peter Joseph's shoddy research skills...




P.S. - The placement of Christmas on December 25th is an example of a misguided Roman evangelizing tool known as "divine reclamation" where popular pagan practices and holidays in and around Rome were grafted into the Advent Calendar and Rome's worship practices/veneration rites as replacements for the Jewish ceremonial Holy Days. Most Roman Catholics that I know with any education in their church's history and a familiarity with the Gospel know that Jesus was not born during winter.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Aye, Zeitgeist is a pile of drek. It would not have had the ammo to make such an absurd and obscene argument if the church had not abandoned scripture in favor of roman pagan trappings and observances in the first place.

----------


## fr33

Name me a christian holiday that didn't involve stealing from pagans. It will be a short list. The principle of using force is common in every religion.

----------


## fr33

> P.S. - The placement of Christmas on December 25th is an example of a misguided Roman evangelizing tool known as "divine reclamation" where popular pagan practices and holidays in and around Rome were grafted into the Advent Calendar and Rome's worship practices/veneration rites as replacements for the Jewish ceremonial Holy Days. Most Roman Catholics that I know with any education in their church's history and a familiarity with the Gospel knows that Jesus was not born during winter.


Yet they and the protestants continue the trend of celebrating Christmas on the wrong day. And a sizeable portion of them claim to be victims of the "war on christmas". They are fighting a war that they hope never ends because it brings attention to their cause. It actually has less to do with Jesus and a lot to do with the feelings associated with victimhood.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Name me a christian holiday that didn't involve stealing from pagans. It will be a short list. The principle of using force is common in every religion.


The Pentecost, which is another name for the Biblical "Feast of Weeks."

Speaking of which, thanks for reminding me -- the Pentecost was on of the seven Biblical Holy Feasts commanded in Numbers and Deuteronomy. Going by most of the logic in this thread, (to everyone else in the thread - not fr33) would it not be sinful then for a Christian to celebrate Pentecost?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Yet they and the protestants continue the trend of celebrating Christmas on the wrong day. And a sizeable portion of them claim to be victims of the "war on christmas". They are fighting a war that they hope never ends because it brings attention to their cause. It actually has less to do with Jesus and a lot to do with the feelings associated with victimhood.


I don't care what uninformed, busy-body Papists and semi-Papist Protestants think on this matter, furthermore, there is no such thing as "celebrating Christmas on the right day", scripture does not teach us to worship or venerate Christ in a worldly humiliation as an infant, nor does it teach us to worship his human nature (which is idolatry). The only right day to celebrate Christ's incarnation in a New Testament context is every Lord's Day, venerating and worshiping his eternal divinity, by which he conquered sin and death for his elect. His human nature is significant to understand his function as mediator, but is not a point of worship or a cause to manufacture holy days. Plus, I don't trivialize Christ by celebrating him only once a year.

Oh, and I'm part of the war on Christmas, particularly the part that secular Americans love so much, namely the insanity that goes on in the economic world because of it. We have a whole stretch of time from the end of November until the new year where people turn the entire Christian religion into a riot at the market place.

Let Bill O'Reilly and his flock feel like victims because I don't get into a fist-fight with some fool at Walmart over the latest Elmo doll, not my problem.




> Name me a christian holiday that didn't involve stealing from pagans. It will be a short list. The principle of using force is common in every religion.


The Lord's Day, 52 times a year, 100% pagan-free. Furthermore, I can give you a laundry list of inhuman acts of genocide done in the 20th century, with full approval from Horseman of the Non-Apocalypse Christopher Hitchens himself, in the name of bringing atheism/reason and modernity to Russia and Eastern Europe. Spare me this nonsense about religion ruining the world, it insults everyone's intelligence.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Interestingly, I am being attacked on the one side for celebrating the Feasts instead of Christmas and Easter.  I am being attacked on the other side for celebrating anything at all except for Sundays.  Being attacked by _both_ the left and the right for actually obeying the text they both claim to venerate is a position in which I am very, very familiar.

----------


## anaconda

> Interesting ideas with respect to Peter Joseph's shoddy research skills...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. - The placement of Christmas on December 25th is an example of a misguided Roman evangelizing tool known as "divine reclamation" where popular pagan practices and holidays in and around Rome were grafted into the Advent Calendar and Rome's worship practices/veneration rites as replacements for the Jewish ceremonial Holy Days. Most Roman Catholics that I know with any education in their church's history and a familiarity with the Gospel know that Jesus was not born during winter.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 


Bahahaha!!! Heresy laws is one of the reasons there are no primary sources for D.M. Murdoch's ridiculous claims? We have over a century of active persecution of Christians in Rome, assisted by Pharisees who are fluent in Greek and Hebrew and could spot scriptural books for burning, and yet we still have the holy scriptures, but Murdoch's magical world of history can't survive Rome's "divine reclamation" policy? I suppose next she's going to say that we don't have flying cars because the main Library of Alexandria (which was burnt by Julius Caesar and later by the Sun-worshiping cult leader Emperor Aurelian, not Roman Christians) was destroyed.

Buffoons, without them who would we have to laugh at?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Interestingly, I am being attacked on the one side for celebrating the Feasts instead of Christmas and Easter.  I am being attacked on the other side for celebrating anything at all except for Sundays.  Being attacked by _both_ the left and the right for actually obeying the text they both claim to venerate is a position in which I am very, very familiar.


You left out getting attacked by the far-left for being a superstitious Christian who kills all the unbelievers and steals all of their gods to create your own. You should be ashamed of what you've done to all those poor pagans.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You left out getting attacked by the far-left for being a superstitious Christian who kills all the unbelievers and steals all of their gods to create your own. You should be ashamed of what you've done to all those poor pagans.


LOL true enough.  I didn't even count them.

----------


## TER

> This is why at the time of the Trumpet (also a Feast, by the way) the church is described in the Bible as being in apostasy, with an underground remnant.


And you believe that remnant is the Christians who celebrate the Jewish feasts and all the rest are in apostasy? 

 Since you believe and have written that those who do not celebrate the Jewish Feasts are being disobedient and acting against the will of God, I am assuming you also believe everyone who does not celebrate the Jewish Feasts are in apostasy.  Am I correct?

Interesting that you would play the victim card, claiming that you are being condemned to hell when no one has said such a thing, but you yourself judge the Christians who do not celebrate the Jewish feasts (and boy, there are a lot of them, going all the way back to the first century!)

Let me ask you then, Gunny, where was this remnant (which you claim exists) in the third century, when the Christians were being massacred?  Can you name me some of these saints?  Where were they in the fourth century when the faith spread like a brushfire throughout the known lands, by the blood of the martyrs and the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of men and women, stretching from Ireland to India and North Africa and throughout the Middle East?  Where were these Biblical Christians when the canon was decided and the faith regarding Christ as God of God was being challenged?  Who were the confessors and the martyrs of this secret remnant who defended the faith when it seemed the entire world might fall into Arianism and later Nestoriansm?  Please, name me one person who was a baptized Christian who was also celebrating Jewish feasts at that time.

Was the Holy Spirit asleep when the faith was handed down through the centuries in a world which fights against Christ?  Didn't Christ say He would be with the Church always and unto the end of the world?

Are we to believe that there was an 'underground' remnant as you put it, hidden in the world?  

Where are their fruits, these great and holy remnant of Christians who worshiped like men still under the Old Covenant, celebrating shadows?  Surely there must be a memory of at least _one_ of these great saints through the ages within at least one of the spread out nations.  

As far as I know what history reveals is that the only people celebrating Jewish Feast for over 90% of Christian history were Christ hating Jews.  Were these the remnant?

Christ told His disciples:

_14 "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven"_

Please point me to the light this remnant shined before men when Christ's Church overcame even the power and might of the Roman Empire?

When the Scriptures were being guarded and copied and died for, and the ground was being soaked with Christian blood, where was this unknown and unnamed remnant who you believe proclaimed it to be against the will of God to not celebrate the Jewish Feasts?  Please, enlighten me as to where I can learn about this remnant and all the great things they did to defend the Christian faith and baptize the nations and so fulfill the commission of Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> * I don't care what uninformed, busy-body Papists and semi-Papist Protestants think on this matter, furthermore, there is no such thing as "celebrating Christmas on the right day", scripture does not teach us to worship or venerate Christ in a worldly humiliation as an infant, nor does it teach us to worship his human nature (which is idolatry). The only right day to celebrate Christ's incarnation in a New Testament context is every Lord's Day, venerating and worshiping his eternal divinity, by which he conquered sin and death for his elect. His human nature is significant to understand his function as mediator, but is not a point of worship or a cause to manufacture holy days. Plus, I don't trivialize Christ by celebrating him only once a year.*
> 
> Oh, and I'm part of the war on Christmas, particularly the part that secular Americans love so much, namely the insanity that goes on in the economic world because of it. We have a whole stretch of time from the end of November until the new year where people turn the entire Christian religion into a riot at the market place.
> 
> Let Bill O'Reilly and his flock feel like victims because I don't get into a fist-fight with some fool at Walmart over the latest Elmo doll, not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The Lord's Day, 52 times a year, 100% pagan-free. Furthermore, I can give you a laundry list of inhuman acts of genocide done in the 20th century, with full approval from Horseman of the Non-Apocalypse Christopher Hitchens himself, in the name of bringing atheism/reason and modernity to Russia and Eastern Europe. Spare me this nonsense about religion ruining the world, it insults everyone's intelligence.


Yep.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't care what uninformed, busy-body Papists and semi-Papist Protestants think on this matter, furthermore, there is no such thing as "celebrating Christmas on the right day", scripture does not teach us to worship or venerate Christ in a worldly humiliation as an infant, nor does it teach us to worship his human nature (which is idolatry). The only right day to celebrate Christ's incarnation in a New Testament context is every Lord's Day, venerating and worshiping his eternal divinity, by which he conquered sin and death for his elect. His human nature is significant to understand his function as mediator, but is not a point of worship or a cause to manufacture holy days. Plus, I don't trivialize Christ by celebrating him only once a year.
> 
> Oh, and I'm part of the war on Christmas, particularly the part that secular Americans love so much, namely the insanity that goes on in the economic world because of it. We have a whole stretch of time from the end of November until the new year where people turn the entire Christian religion into a riot at the market place.
> 
> Let Bill O'Reilly and his flock feel like victims because I don't get into a fist-fight with some fool at Walmart over the latest Elmo doll, not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The Lord's Day, 52 times a year, 100% pagan-free. Furthermore, I can give you a laundry list of inhuman acts of genocide done in the 20th century, with full approval from Horseman of the Non-Apocalypse Christopher Hitchens himself, in the name of bringing atheism/reason and modernity to Russia and Eastern Europe. Spare me this nonsense about religion ruining the world, it insults everyone's intelligence.


That's a kind of ugly way to say it, but you're essentially right.  That's why I celebrate Nativity instead of "Christmas" in the Pagan/quasi-pagan Christian manner.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yep.


I'm more indifferent to Christmas, one way or another.  The Bible says we shouldn't care whether others esteem one day above another or not.  I'm tentatively non-sabbatarian for the same reason.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And you believe that remnant is the Christians who celebrate the Jewish feasts and all the rest are in apostasy? 
> 
>  Since you believe and have written that those who do not celebrate the Jewish Feasts are being disobedient and against the will of God, I am assuming you also believe everyone who does not celebrate the Jewish Feasts are in apostasy.  Am I correct?
> 
> Interesting that you would play the victim card, claiming that you are being condemned to hell when no one has said such a thing, but you yourself judge the Christians who do not celebrate the Jewish feasts (and boy, there are a lot of them, going all the way back to the first century!)
> 
> Let me ask you then, Gunny, where was this remnant (which you claim exists) in the third century, when the Christians were being massacred?  Can you name me some of these saints?  Where were they in the fourth century when the faith spread like a brushfire throughout the known lands, by the blood of the martyrs and the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of men and women, stretching from Ireland to India and North Africa and throughout the Middle East?  Where were these Biblical Christians when the canon was decided and the faith regarding Christ as God of God was being challenged?  Who were the confessors and the martyrs of this secret remnant who defended the faith when it seemed the entire world might fall into Arianism and later Nestoriansm?  Please, name me one person who was a baptized Christian who was also celebrating Jewish feasts at that time.
> 
> Was the Holy Spirit asleep when the faith was handed down through the centuries in a world which fights against Christ?
> ...


Error is different from apostasy.  It is very possible to be in error without being apostate.  My point was that at the time of the Return, the entire organized church is apostate.  Worshipping a church above God is a pretty dangerous proposition considering that fact.

I thought you were going to explain why Zechariah 14 doesn't really mean what it actually says?

And is it sinful to observe Pentecost?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm more indifferent to Christmas, one way or another.  The Bible says we shouldn't care whether others esteem one day above another or not.  I'm tentatively non-sabbatarian for the same reason.


Likewise I don't actually care whether others esteem one day above another or not.  This thread was born of 1) making fun of a myriad of threads questioning whether one could still be a Christian if (whatever) and 2) being sick and tired of being called a judaizer and such the like by people who ought to know better.

----------


## TER

> Error is different from apostasy.  It is very possible to be in error without being apostate.  My point was that at the time of the Return, the entire organized church is apostate.  Worshipping a church above God is a pretty dangerous proposition considering that fact.
> 
> I thought you were going to explain why Zechariah 14 doesn't really mean what it actually says?
> 
> And is it sinful to observe Pentecost?


I will answer your questions again when you can demonstrate a touch of reality with your claim of an underground remnant.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I will answer your questions again when you can demonstrate a touch of reality with your claim of an underground remnant.


Are you saying that the church will *not* be apostate when the Lord returns?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I will answer your questions again when you can demonstrate a touch of reality with your claim of an underground remnant.


My position is that reliance on a church's teachings above that of scripture is problematic, considering that the entire organized church will be apostate when the Trump sounds, and there will only be an underground remnant.  That is as 'reality' as it gets.  

FACT:  When the last trump sounds, the _entire_ organized church will be apostate.

FACT:  There is _always_ a remnant

FACT:  During the time of the antichrist, the remnant will be _heavily_ persecuted.

FACT:  A heavily persecuted people _always_ go underground.

How are _any_ of these points wrong?

You accuse me of being out of touch with reality, perhaps you should examine yourself here.

----------


## TER

> You accuse me of being out of touch with reality, perhaps you should examine yourself here.


Instead of examining me, why don't we examine historical reality and the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ.

Can you please provide the name of one member of this supposed Jewish Feast-celebrating Christian remnant from the second century until the twentieth century?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Instead of examining me, why don't we examine historical reality and the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ.
> 
> Can you please provide the name of one member of this supposed Jewish Feast-celebrating Christian remnant from the second century until the twentieth century?


Like Israel before her, the Church is prone to error.  Also prejudice.  There are several traditions who claim uninterrupted observance of the feasts all the way back to Messiah, but by the 3rd century we were being killed by "church" folks calling us 'judaizers,' so we hid and practiced our faith in secret.

I thought you were going to tell me why Zechariah 14 means the opposite of what it actually says.

And is it sinful to celebrate Pentecost?

----------


## TER

> Like Israel before her, the Church is prone to error.  Also prejudice.  There are several traditions who claim uninterrupted observance of the feasts all the way back to Messiah, but by the 3rd century we were being killed by "church" folks calling us 'judaizers,' so we hid and practiced our faith in secret.


You are going to have to give a little more proof about the existence of a Jewish feast-celebrating Christian remnant through the centuries than merely saying they existed.  

Perhaps you don't understand what the word 'remnant' is?

----------


## TER

> .. but by the 3rd century we were being killed by "church" folks calling us 'judaizers,' so we hid and practiced our faith in secret.


Now this is an interesting charge.  Can you provide any proof to this claim?   Or is this true because you wish it to be true?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You are going to have to give a little more proof about the existence of a Jewish feast-celebrating Christian remnant through the centuries than merely saying they existed.


Why?  Are you considering converting, or are you just judging me?




> Perhaps you don't understand what the word 'remnant' is?


Perhaps you are just really bad at this whole judgement thing.

I thought you were going to tell me why Zechariah 14 means the opposite of what it actually says.

And is it sinful to celebrate Pentecost?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Now this is an interesting charge.  Can you provide any proof to this claim?   Or is this true because you wish it to be true?


Perhaps you just wish it were not true.

I thought you were going to tell me why Zechariah 14 means the opposite of what it actually says.


And is it sinful to celebrate Pentecost?

----------


## TER

> Why?  Are you considering converting, or are you just judging me?


Asking for proof of this super-secret underground remnant is not judging you, it is simply trying to understand why it is that you believe up you are a more God-pleasing servant than 2000 years of Christian saints.  

As for converting to your faith, I of course would if it could be demonstrated to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which has survived and existed from the day of Pentecost (I am taking here about the Christian one, in case you are confused). But so far, you have shown me absolutely nothing to believe your claims.  You really wishing something to be true is simply not enough proof for me to convert.




> Perhaps you are just really bad at this whole judgement thing.


Can you please tell me what the word remnant means to you?

As for judgments, you seem to be really good at it considering you have made the spectacular claim that all of the Christians from the second century on were in grave error for not following the Jewish feasts of the Old Covenant (except of course for the super secret underground persecuted Jewish feast-celebrating Christians of course).  Perhaps these were the same secret group which another poster here calls 'Biblical Christians' yet can offer not one name?  I am beginning to see a pattern...




> I thought you were going to tell me why Zechariah 14 means the opposite of what it actually says.
> 
> And is it sinful to celebrate Pentecost?


I will answer these questions when we can get some proof for this amazing claim you have of a secret underground remnant of Jewish feast-observing Christians through the ages.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Asking for proof of this super-secret underground remnant is not judging you, it is simply trying to understand why it is that you believe up you are a more God-pleasing servant than 2000 years of Christian saints.


See posts #316 and #317.




> As for converting to your faith, I of course would if it could be demonstrated to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which has survived and existed from the day of Pentecost (I am taking here about the Christian one, in case you are confused). But so far, you have shown me absolutely nothing to believe your claims.  You really wishing something to be true is simply not enough proof for me to convert.


I'm not the one doing the wishful thinking here.  I've been answering your questions from the start, but I'm not allowed to challenge your attacks upon me unless I kiss your feet and answer your questions according to the liturgy of your home church?

Brother, I'm not the one with issues here.




> Can you please tell me what the word remnant means to you?


A remnant is a small number of people who walk with God, when all the world has gone after their own way, even falsely claiming godliness for themselves.  Elijah the Prophet came face to face with the lesson that no matter how lost Israel got, that there will always be a remnant.  The same lesson applies to the Church.  No matter how lost the church gets, there will always be a Remnant.




> As for judgments, you seem to be really good at it considering you have made the spectacular claim that all of the Christians from the second century on were in grave error for not following the Jewish feasts of the Old Covenant (except of course for the super secret underground persecuted Jewish feast celebrating Christians of course).


Of course they were in error.  How is Tabernacles required before Messiah came, after He returns, but it's sinful today?  Really?  That doesn't even make sense.  They were in error then, and you are in error now.





> I will answer these questions when we can get some proof for this amazing secret you have about an underground remnant.


I get it.  I answer all of your questions in triplicate and quadruplicate, but unless I recite the answers you want to hear I am not allowed to challenge you at all, on anything.

You may need to work on that humility thing.

----------


## TER

> See posts #316 and #317.


That does not prove anything and it was a waste of time going back to re-read it.  Such diversionary tactics may work in politics but I think the average person can see you have not established any proof at all.




> I'm not the one doing the wishful thinking here.  I've been answering your questions from the start, but I'm not allowed to challenge your attacks upon me unless I kiss your feet and answer your questions according to the liturgy of your home church?
> 
> Brother, I'm not the one with issues here.


You have yet to name me one of this so-called remnant, so you actually haven't answered my question.  Instead, you just want me to take your word about some secret group.

 But if you think I am the one who has issues, that is fine.  




> A remnant is a small number of people who walk with God, when all the world has gone after their own way, even falsely claiming godliness for themselves.  Elijah the Prophet came face to face with the lesson that no matter how lost Israel got, that there will always be a remnant.  The same lesson applies to the Church.  No matter how lost the church gets, there will always be a Remnant.


No, Gunny.  A remnant is those *who have continuously remained*, through the good times and the bad, through the celebrations and the persecutions.  They are not ones who disappeared and then reappeared, but rather have continuously existed.

You are making the claim that the Jewish feast-celebrating Christians have always existed, yet you cannot give ONE NAME.  I claim the Orthodox Church is the remnant and I can name you Saints of every century and in every Christian nation.  See how that works?




> Of course they were in error.  How is Tabernacles required before Messiah came, after He returns, but it's sinful today?  Really?  That doesn't even make sense.  They were in error then, and you are in error now.
> 
> You may need to work on that humility thing.


LOL, the irony!  I certainly need to work on my humility, and you even more so!  Here you are claiming every notable Christian figure of the past 20 centuries were in error and you are not!  And you do so because of one line in Zechariah which you have misinterpreted and then make the spectacularly ridiculous, unbiblical, and ahistorical claim of a secret underground Judaizing remnant.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That does not prove anything and it was a waste of time going back to re-read it.  Such diversionary tactics may work in politics but I think the average person can see you have not established any proof at all.


I don't know what to tell you.  My argument when you started attacking me was that the church would be apostate by the Return, and that there would be a remnant.  You clearly disagree, and you refuse to listen to a rational argument.  You dismiss whatever I say out of hand and refuse to even accept that I am a being who may ask you questions.




> You have yet to name me one of this so-called remnant, so you actually haven't answered my question.  Instead, you just want me to take your word about some secret group.


Did the last trump blow and I missed it?  Even so, it's not like I'm going to 'out' believers where the Antichrist can see.




> But if you think I am the one who has issues, that is fine.


It's pretty obvious that you do.  I am stating things that pretty much every professing Christian on the planet believes (and probably you too) and you are simply losing your mind over it.  If that's not irrational crazy-town I dunno what is.





> No, Gunny.  A remnant is those *who have remained*, thought the good times and the bad, through the celebrations and the persecutions.  They are not ones who disappeared and then reappeared, but have continuously existed.


I prefer what the Bible says a Remnant is rather than some random church who claims to have sole original sovereignty above God Himself. 




> You are making the claim that the Jewish-feast celebrating Christians have always existed, yet you cannot give ONE NAME.  I claim the Orthodox Church is the remnant and I can name you Saints of every century and in every Christian nation.  See how that works?


Actually, I made the claim that by the time Messiah Returns, the Church will be wholly apostate, and there will be a remnant.  And you flipped your biscuit and started screaming at me.  What happened to all that 'forgiveness' stuff you were spouting the other day?  Was that just words with no reality behind them?




> LOL, the irony!  I certainly need to work on my humility, and you even more so!  Here you are claiming every notable Christian figure of the past 20 centuries were in error and you are not!  And you do so because of one line in Zechariah which you have misinterpreted and then make the spectacularly ridiculous and unbiblical claim of a secret underground Judaizing remnant.


You are the one hating me for saying that the church will be apostate when the Messiah returns.  Your position is one of pride, for your congregation.  You should probably work on that.

ANd how, exactly have I misinterpreted Zechariah 14?

I've asked you that, what, seven times now?  And every time you refuse to answer.

You keep making the claim that I am 'misinterpreting' Zechariah 14, but you cannot tell me HOW I am misinterpreting it.  Every time I ask you you say you won't answer me until I answer you same exact question for the 5th time.

I'm not the one here being angry, irrational, and prideful; you are.

Take a deep breath, calm yourself, and try acting like a Christian, please.

In Zechariah 14:16-19 it says clearly and directly with no room for 'other interpretations,' that all the nations will be required to physically go up to Jerusalem to celebrate Tabernacles, or they will receive no rain.

How am I wrong?


Zechariah 14:16-19New King James Version (NKJV)
The Nations Worship the King
16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

How does this passage translate into "Keeping the Feast of Tabernacles is sinful?"

How?

----------


## TER

I am actually quite calm Gunny.    I am, however, in slight shock that an educated person like yourself can believe in a supposed secret underground remnant of Jewish feast-celebrating Christians without one iota shred of evidence in reality. 

 Even with this state of mild surprise, I am quite calm as I have already seen this pattern of claims to a super secret unknown and unnamed remnant coming from those whose pride blinds them from obvious historical truths.  How does it feel to put yourself above the Saints who labored and died for Christ and His Church and who carried down the Gospel and defended the faith through the ages?  As for me, I don't consider myself so highly.

I will get to your above post point by point later if I have the time, as I have to go to work.  In the meanwhile, try and dig up some real proof for us to support your claim for this supposed remnant.  As far as I can tell, this discussion has gone already a couple of pages and you have yet to provide one name.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I am actually quite calm Gunny.    I am, however, in slight shock that an educated person like yourself can believe in a supposed secret underground remnant of Jewish feast-celebrating Christians without one iota shred of evidence in reality.


Look, let me try and spell this out for you.

I stated that when the last trump blows and Messiah returns, the church will be apostate, and only a remnant will remain.

Ever since then, you've been asking me to name names of the Remnant through history.

Do you believe the second coming was in the Second Century?  Because that's the only way your angry ranting at my statement makes any sense at all.




> Even with this state of mild surprise, I am quite calm as I have already seen this pattern of claims to a super secret unknown and unnamed remnant coming from those whose pride blinds them from obvious historical truths.  How does it feel to put yourself above the Saints who labored and died for Christ and His Church and who carried down the Gospel and defended the faith?  Myself, I don't consider myself so highly.


Your entire line of attack is based on something you either accidently or deliberately mis-read.  Since I have clarified it...oh I dunno, ten times? since you started attacking me, I am forced to assume that your misreading is deliberate.




> I will get to your above post point by point later if I have the time, since I have to go to work.


You said that before.  It never happened.  Then you started attacking me for stuff I never said.




> In the meanwhile, try and dig up some real proof for us to support your claim for this supposed remnant.


Posts #316 and #317




> As far as I can tell, this discussion has gone already a couple of pages and you have yet to provide one name.


I am not Doctor Who.  I do not have a time machine.  And even if I did, I do not know when the last trump will blow to set my coordinates.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

And even if I WAS a time traveller and I DID know the exact day that the Lord will return, and I DID travel 14 (or whatever) years into the future, and I DID locate a remnant Christian in the year 2029, and that remnant Christian from the year 2029 DID tell me his name, I am NOT about to go naming names of living Christians during the time of the Beast.  Talk about painting a target for the guillotine!!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

And before you tell me that _you_ know what I said better than _I_ know what I said (since you have done that to me before), I specifically cited "when the trumpet blows" and stated that "the Feast of Trumpets is a Biblical Feast too" in the very post that kicked off your apoplexy against me.

This entire time I've been talking about the Second Coming, so unless you think the Second Coming happened in the Second Century, your entire line of attack against me is makes no sense whatsoever.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> That's a kind of ugly way to say it, but you're essentially right.  That's why I celebrate Nativity instead of "Christmas" in the Pagan/quasi-pagan Christian manner.


My words were colored a little bit by the tone of fr33's language, both because of the ignorant and anti-theistic tone it carried, and also because the subject of modern commercialism being injected into the Christian religion is something that I find grossly offensive, not only for how it flies in the face of Jesus' own words of "Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." in John 2:16, but also because it is such a massive stumbling block for skeptics and agnostics who lap up rubbish like the first part of Zeitgeist. The inclusion of the Zeitgeist movie in this thread also set me off.

Celebrating historical events, even biblical ones, apart from the approved weekly observance of the Lord's Day, is something that I'm somewhat ambivalent on regarding its overt sinfulness, particularly if it doesn't have a notable impact on someone's understanding of Christology and Prophecy. However, making it binding on church worship is something that is unnecessary and contrary to corresponding words in Galatians 3 and Colossians 2.

I think churches are within their right to declare days of fasting and of thanksgiving, but these are peculiar to particular churches and not to the invisible catholic church (as noted in the Apostles Creed). I likewise don't have any objection to national days of rest like Thanksgiving, Mother's Day, and the like as I think the Magistrate is within its right to both instruct in history and inform activity during the other 6 days of the week regarding their particular culture outside a church context.

----------


## TER

> I don't know what to tell you.  My argument when you started attacking me was that the church would be apostate by the Return, and that there would be a remnant.  You clearly disagree, and you refuse to listen to a rational argument.


How can there be a remnant if the entire church fell into apostasy as you claim?  If there is a remnant, that means that a part did not fall into apostasy and never did.  Or are you now redefining the word 'remnant'?

My question remains to you which you have failed to answer: 

where was this remnant you are referring to of Christians celebrating Jewish feasts through the centuries? 




> Did the last trump blow and I missed it?  Even so, it's not like I'm going to 'out' believers where the Antichrist can see.


Who is talking about a last trumpet?  I am simply asking for one single name for you to prove the existence of this supposed Judaizing remnant.  For all I know, it may be in your imagination. 




> I prefer what the Bible says a Remnant is rather than some random church who claims to have sole original sovereignty above God Himself.


You mean, you prefer your interpretation of what the word remnant means and your interpretations of what the Bible says and consider yourself greater than the Saints! Gunny, no one said the Orthodox Church has sovereignty above God, so this attack is baseless.  The reality is that _you_ want primacy and supremacy over two thousand continuous years of Christian Saints in matters of worship and doctrine.  This gives a clear signal that the Hebrew Roots movement is a child of Protestantism, and the fruits of reconstructionalism with a side of Dispensationalism.




> Actually, I made the claim that by the time Messiah Returns, the Church will be wholly apostate, and there will be a remnant.  And you flipped your biscuit and started screaming at me.  What happened to all that 'forgiveness' stuff you were spouting the other day?  Was that just words with no reality behind them?


How can a Church be wholly apostate and yet there be a remnant?  Please, I beg you to answer this for me.  As for screaming, I am quite calm.




> You are the one hating me for saying that the church will be apostate when the Messiah returns.  Your position is one of pride, for your congregation.  You should probably work on that.


I am not hating on anyone, and I haven't had an apoplexy like you mentioned above.  I actually have been very calm.  I don't think my heart rate broke above 60.  Perhaps you are projecting your own attitude and reading of my posts?

But considering your entire faith is built on pride over the fathers of the Church before you, then it is not that surprising.




> ANd how, exactly have I misinterpreted Zechariah 14?


I aready answered this.  Zechariah was referring to the future fulfillment of what Christ accomplished for mankind by His incarnation and resurrection.  This prophecy remains a mystery to us because it has yet to happen, and what Zechariah is saying may be on levels we can not yet understand.   Exegesis is not limited to literal interpretation, but there is allegorical and typological interpretations in levels of meaning as well.

 You are reading in your interpretation, while the Church believes Zechariah is pointing to a new and Christianized fulfillment, likely spiritual in nature, of which the Old Feast was a shadow of and pointed towards.

The Old Covenant Jews worshipped and found communion with God in the types and shadows revealed to them and given to them in measure by God.  Not the full measure, for the Light of the world had not yet come, Christ had not yet risen from the dead. and the Spirit had yet to descend and establish the New Covenant Church.  Rather,  the Old Covenant was during a  time when death still ruled over human nature and the Father had yet to be revealed (even known by Name).

It was not until Christ came and restored mankind's nature that the true Heavenly Feast could be initiated and the worship and communion between God and man could be restored and renewed, and that is exactly how the early Christian Way developed and grew and matured.  The early believers shed many of their Jewish ways, especially in regards to certain observances and requirement of the old Law.   (This was a process started by the Apostles).  

By the end of the first century, the major Christian centers in the world had scrapped most of its Jewish trappings as it matured by the Holy Spirit into an orthodox Christian faith and worship, which was catholic (and growing more catholic) in scope and practice.

Man's renewal in Christ was now universal and a new covenant between God and man had been established.  No longer was righteousness and hope confined to the Jews, but rather now there was salvation for all men.  

There was little sense in following the Jewish Feasts, for the Church was a new creation and the promise of God had been fulfilled, and the baton had been passed onto the Gentiles in order to continue the mission of the Church and go into the lands and baptize the nations.  This was a new communion with God, a _new covenant_.  The once green fig tree of the Jews under the Old Covenant had been left barren and has been left desolate.  No longer is there Jew or Greek, but one communion as members of a body centered in Christ, in their thoughts, in their prayers, in their worship, and in the creeds.

 The Jewish Passover had been fulfilled and now supplanted by the New Covenant celebrations of Christ's resurrection, no longer in the dead traditions of men and the Law, but in the living waters of the Church and in communion with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Christ said to His disciples that new wine should not be put in old wine skins.  The wine skins won't endure (and that is exactly what happened, and that is why there is not one name you can give me of this imaginary remnant you have been misled to believe existed.)




> I'm not the one here being angry, irrational, and prideful; you are.
> 
> Take a deep breath, calm yourself, and try acting like a Christian, please.


Again, I am quite calm.  I am simply making the observation that you consider yourself a more obedient servant to God than every Church Father.

You also said:



> .. but by the 3rd century we were being killed by "church" folks calling us 'judaizers,' so we hid and practiced our faith in secret.


Can you cite the source of this information regarding 'killings by church folks' of Judaizing Christians?  Do you have any proof of this secret group hiding through the centuries?

And BTW, while it is true I believe this Judaizing, Protestant-born, new movement of the last few decades is completely off the reservation with regards to their imaginary claims with no basis in historical reality, I have neither condemned you to hell as you claimed, nor have I said worshipping the Feasts of the Old Covenant was necessarily sinful.  Neither have I called you an apostate which you so easily call >99.99% of all the Christians who ever lived for not observing Jewish Feasts from the Old Covenant.  

Indeed, you said the entire Church became wholly apostate (except, paradoxically, for a minuscule remnant of Judaizing Christians hidden in plain sight until the year of the Lord 1900's, and now you can't name even one person).  Looks like you are really making the Holy Spirit be as an abject failure as well, which is even worse, since the gates of Hell prevailed over the Spirit of God and it wasn't until the Hebrew Roots Movement of North America would come to finally shepherd the lost sheep.  What a lovely story.  Too bad it is neither Biblical nor ever taught in the history of Christian wipritings.  Neither in Jerusalem, nor in Syria, nor in Egypt, nor in Rome.  Indeed, the truest Spirit-bearers proclaimed in the open and with their very lives the Gospel of Christ, and these are the ones history and men have named Saints.  Even until today, these men and women are commemorated and Feasts are held in their memory and honor as true Spirit-dwelling disciples of Christ

Where are your Saints, Gunny, so that I may know of your Church?

Look Gunny, I do not doubt the faith in Jesus that you have, and you may very well get into the Kingdom before me, but I do question your rational mind when you make positive assertions about a super-secret, underground, unknown to the world remnant of communing Christians which you claim existed through the centuries.  Sounds like an episode of Zeitgeist.

The sin in false worship can be spiritually detrimental, but what condemns a man is his self-love and pride.  We must not allow our corruptible three pound brain (and our brain's interpretations) to believe itself to be more authoritative or apostolic than the collective, historical, and sacramentally unified true remnant of baptized believers which were taught by the Apostles and the leaders they ordained.  These are Saints whose memories have endured the ages and who the Church prays alongside with, in concelebration, every Lord's Day, and every Divine Liturgy.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> So you are of the generations of OT Israel? I'm sure you have documentation citing your genetic lineage to one of the 12 tribes then? I was not so blessed, my ancestors were running around like madmen with animal skins and painted faces until St. Patrick and other missionaries landed on Ireland. 
> 
> The generations of the Old Testament ceased, that is the extent of the permanence, and that is a positive decree that is subject to change at God's discretion, which was done via the New Testament. I've cited the relevant scripture previously, and I think you were particularly taken by the observation that "the apostles ate together on Sunday", which you think is the extent of what was in view.


"*A mixed multitude also went up with them*, along with flocks and herds, a very large number of livestock." - Exodus 12:38

"The same law shall apply to the native as to the *stranger who sojourns among you*." Exodus 12:49

Those groups had no genetic lineage to any of the twelve tribes either.

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. *For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel*; nor are they all children because they are Abrahams descendants, but: through Isaac your descendants will be named." Romans 9:6-7

"Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham." Galatians 3:7

"But if some of the branches were broken off, and *you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them* and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith." - Romans 11:17-20

Religion was never about pedigree, it was always about faith.

"Behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a *new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah*, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord, I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, declares the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

If you are a partaker in the New Covenant, you are a part of Israel.

----------


## TER

Righteousness was not limited to race or pedigree, in either the Old or the New Covenant.  It was always about faith _and the works of which we will be judged upon._

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How can there be a remnant if the church fell into apostasy? If there is a remnant, that means that a part did not fall into apostasy and never did. Or are you now redefining the word 'remnant'?
> 
> My question remains to you which you have failed to answer: 
> 
> where was this remnant you are referring to of Christians celebrating Jewish feasts through the centuries?


LMAO really?_ Really?_

Are you trying to take my words out of context?  Or are you just lying on me because you think it will influence others?

I honestly do not know how to make it any simpler than I already have, but I will try:
See person.
See person live.
Person lives in future.
Future is when Christ comes back.
When Christ comes back, 
the church will not know God anymore,
but there will still be believers.
Those believers will be the remnant.
Are you still going to keep demanding that I name names from the future, and accusing me of dodging your question because I am unable to name the names of people *from the future?*

Do you have a spare time machine I can borrow?  I have an idea maybe I can set it to spend about 5 seconds per month in the space time continuum, and eventually I will see the chaos of the Tribulation and then I will know when to stop, go out, and start asking people their names.   

ROFL!




> Who is talking about a last trumpet?


I have been.  From the start.  Then you started demanding that I name names of people who are alive during the sounding of the trump, in an ever increasingly shrill and hateful manner.  Which is completely irrational.  Which is why I know you are not 'calm' at all despite your protestations.  Calm people are not that irrational.  Calm people read to understand, calm people do not read to attack.




> I am simply asking for one single name for you to prove the existence of this supposed Judaizing remnant. For all I know, it may be in your imagination.


"Judaizing remnant."  It's not like you don't already know I find "Judaizer" offensive.  I am not a legalist.  I am not a Judaizer.  People who keep the feast of Tabernacles are not Judaizers.  Judaizers, in the actual...scriptures...are hellbound legalists.  By calling me a 'judaizer' you are accusing me of being a hellbound legalist, and by calling my entire faith judaizers, you are calling my entire system of belief hellbound legalism.

I am not the one tossing you into hell for observing Christmas, you are the one tossing me into hell for observing Tabernacles...which thing the Scriptures actually command.

I'm not the one practicing legalism... "Obey me or go to hell."  That's you.  You are far far closer to 'Judaizing' than I am.

I could call you and your entire belief system all kinds of hateful and nasty names...but I don't. See, I'm not a monster.  If you were 'overcome with zeal' then I can get you trying to hurt me.  All of us do things in the throes of passion that are regrettable.  But you claim to be calm doing this.

You claim to be completely calm, while intentionally trying to hurt me.  That's monstrous.




> You mean, you prefer your interpretation of what the word remnant means and your interpretations of what the Bible says and consider yourself greater than the Saints!


No, I prefer what the Bible _actually says,_ full stop.  I'm not the one interpreting passages to mean the total opposite of what they actually say.  I'm just reading the plain text, you are the one doing the interpretations.




> Pope Gunny, no one said the Orthodox Church has sovereignty above God, so this attack is baseless.


Not baseless.  A logical deduction.

Bible says "A"
People you venerate say "B"
Bible is the Word of God.
People you venerate is the word of your church.
You claim "A" is sinful while "B" is godly.

Therefore you, by putting "B" above "A" put the word of your church above the Word of God.
Therefore you put your church above God.

Pure unadulterated logical deduction.




> The reality is that you want sovereignty above two thousand continuous years of Christian Saints in matters of worship and doctrine.


No, I put the plain text of the scriptures above the traditions of men who would subvert those scriptures and claim that they mean the opposite of what they actually say.


_Mark 7:9-13 New King James Version (NKJV)_
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[b] 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
Putting the traditions of men above the commandments of God is not a good thing.  Yeshua the Messiah applied this Prophecy of Isaiah to such people who put the traditions of men above the Word of the Living God:


_Isaiah 29:13-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)_
13 Then the Lord said,“Because this people draw near with their [a]words
And honor Me with their [b]lip service,
But they remove their hearts far from Me,
And their [c]reverence for Me [d]consists of [e]tradition learned by rote,
14 Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;
And the wisdom of their wise men will perish,
And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed.”
Your behavior in this thread shows me that Mark 7:1-13 applies.  




> This gives a clear signal that the Hebrew Roots movement is a child of Protestantism, and the fruits of reconstructionalism with a side of Dispensationalism.


None of the above.  My faith is built on Covenant Theology, not Dispensationalism.  Dispensationalism is the opposite of what I believe.  I've already explained this to you more than once, demonstrating once again that you are not reading to understand, you are reading to find ammunition to attack me.




> How can a Church be wholly apostate and yet there be a remnant? Please, I beg you to answer this for me.


How can you not know this?

Secular Dictionary:_rem·nant_
ˈremnənt/Submitnoun
1.a small remaining quantity of something.
synonyms:    remains, remainder, leftovers, residue, rest; technicalresiduum
"the remnants of the picnic"
a piece of cloth or carpeting left when the greater part has been used or sold.
synonyms:    scrap, piece, bit, fragment, shred, offcut, oddment
"remnants of cloth"
a surviving trace.
"a remnant of the past"CHRISTIAN THEOLOGYa small minority of people who will remain faithful to God and so be saved (in allusion to biblical prophecies concerning Israel).
adjective
adjective: remnant
1.
remaining."remnant strands of hair"
See?  Even the secularists know what a 'remnant' is.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary describes "remnant" as "What is left of a community after it undergoes a catastrophe".
_Romans 11:5-7 New King James Version (NKJV)_
5 Even so then, at this present time there is a *remnant* according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.[a] But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

I am not hating on anyone, and I haven't had an apoplexy like you mentioned above. I actually have been very calm. Don't think my heart rate broke 60. Perhaps you are projecting your own reading of my posts? Does a bruised ego hurt you that much?
_Revelation 12:17 King James Version (KJV)_
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the *remnant* of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Holman Bible Dictionary_Remnant_Something left over, especially the righteous people of God after divine judgment. Several Hebrew words express the remnant idea: yether , “that which is left over”; she' ar , “that which remains”; she' rith , “residue”; pelitah , “one who escapes”; sar id, “a survivor”; and, sheruth , “one loosed from bonds.” In the New Testament, remnant or left over is the equivalent of the Greek words: kataleimma , leimma , and loipos .
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology_Remnant_Leftovers or remainders, whether of daily food ( Ruth 2:14 Ruth 2:18 ), food at the Passover ( Leviticus 7:16 Leviticus 7:18 ), anointing oil ( Le 14:17 ), or even and especially people who survive a major disaster. A remnant of people is what is left of a community following a catastrophe (e.g., Noah's family after the flood, Gen 6:5-8:22 ; Lot's family after the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen. 19 those who remained in the land after the deportations of 597 b.c., Ezra 9:8 ; Jer 24:8 ; 52:15 ; those left behind under Gedaliah, Jeremiah 40:6 Jeremiah 40:11 Jeremiah 40:15 ; or the Jews who came out of exile Ezra 9:8 Ezra 9:13 ; Zechariah 8:6 Zechariah 8:11-12 ). Terms for remnant in the Old Testament derive from six roots and occur some 540 times (forms of Heb. sr, ytr, plt, srd; Gk., leimma, hypoleimma, loipos, kataloipos). Remnant, frequently in the sense of residue or refugee, takes on theological hues when it becomes the object of God's address and/or action.



> But considering your entire faith is built on pride over the fathers of the Church before you, then it is not that surprising.


My entire faith is built on keeping the scriptures, the commands of God, and submitting to the Spirit of God, rather than of keeping the traditions of men when those traditions are in conflict with the clearly written Word.

Obeying God and the Bible above men and their traditions is not "pride," it is obedience.  I am not the one putting the traditions of men above the clearly written Word of God.  Now _that_ would be _pride_.




> I aready answered this.


No, you really didn't.  You made some vague hand-waving noise about how _I_ don't understand it, but you did not ever exegize the _actual text_ of the scripture in Zechariah 14.

The last time you 'tried' to explain Zechariah 14, you never even mentioned the words 'tabernacles' or 'feast' or 'booths.'  You never quoted a single letter, jot, or tittle of the actual scripture that I was asking you to explain.  You just went on a rant about how *I* don't understand it, and never even made an attempt to explain it yourself.

Therefore I have asked you now, like ten times, and you have refused to answer every. single. time.




> Zechariah was referring to the future fulfillment of what Christ accomplished for mankind. This prophecy remains a mystery to us because it has yet to happen, and what Zechariah is saying may be on levels we can not yet understand.


I understand it, I understand it _clearly_.  It's the plain text of the scriptures.

_Zechariah 14:16-19 New King James Version (NKJV)_
The Nations Worship the King
16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
Exegesis:

And it shall come to pass - something that will happen in the future

that everyone who is left of all the nations - everyone who remains across the whole world

which came against Jerusalem - those who opposed God during the Tribulation and His Return

shall go up from year to year - will physically travel to Jerusalem every year

to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. - to worship God and keep the Feast of Tabernacles

And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth - any of these people

do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, - who do not go to Jerusalem to worship God

 on them there will be no rain. - God will give them drought

If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, - if families from Egypt do not go to Jerusalem

they shall have no rain; - God will give them drought

they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations - this is the plague with which God will curse them

who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. - if they do not keep the Feast of Tabernacles

This shall be the punishment of - the plague is the punishment

 Egypt and the punishment of all the nations - for Egypt and everyone else on Earth

that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. - who does not go to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles

^^^ This is extremely clear.  There is no room for 'interpretation,' and certainly not for interpreting the passage to call observing the Feast of Tabernacles "sinful" or "Judaizing."

If that is still not enough for you, I can actually break out the Hebrew and exegize it lemma for lemma including prefixes, suffixes, word roots, and forms.




> You are reading in your interpretation,


I am not 'interpreting' anything.  I am reading the prima facie text and accepting it as it is written, without 'interpreting' it to mean the opposite of what it actually says.

_You_ are the one _interpreting_ Zechariah 14:16-19 to claim that keeping the Feast of Tabernacles is sinful.  _I'm_ just reading the plain text and believing what is written, with no 'interpretation' involved.




> while the Church believes Zechariah is pointing to a new and Christianized fulfillment , likely spiritual in nature, of which the Old Feast pointed too.


The 'the church' is putting their own traditions of men above the blatantly clear written Word of God, ie placing themselves _above_ God.  The only way around this, without abandoning your position that I am a sinful hellbound judaizer, is for you to claim that Zechariah was wrong in 14:16-19.




> The Old Covenant Jews worshipped and found communion with God in the types and shadows revealed to them and given to them in measure by God.  Not the full measure, for the Light of the world had not yet come and the Spirit had yet to descend. This instead was in a time when death still ruled over human nature.


Messiah Yeshua Himself dined with Moses and the Elders at Mt Moriah.  God does not change, He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  The simple fact that the Spring Feasts were fulfilled at Messiah's First Coming, and the Fall Feasts will be fulfilled at Messiah's Second Coming, does not make observing these feasts 'sinful' or 'judaizing.'  That is _your_ traditions of men saying that, in direct contradiction to the Word of the Living God.




> It was not until Christ came and restored mankind's nature that the true Feast could be restored and renewed, and that is exactly how the early Christian Way developed and grew and matured.


Messiah bringing the fullness of meaning to the Feasts, does not make observing the Feasts sinful.  LOL that's absurd.  

Hey, your gas tank is empty.  I'm going to fill your tank up with gas, but once I do then your car will be illegal to drive. You are only allowed to drive it with your gas tank empty.

Hey, the bud on that Orange Tree will over the course of time turn into a flower and then an orange.  But once it becomes an orange, then it is sinful to touch the orange.  You are only allowed to touch it when it is a bud.

Hey, Paul has explained that "thou shall not muzzle the ox that treads the grain" means we are supposed to feed him while he is going around ministering to us, but now that we know what it means, it is sinful to actually obey it, therefore Paul has to starve.

What you are saying makes no sense _at all._




> The early believers shed many of their Jewish ways, especially in regards to certain observances and requirement of the old Law. (This was a process started by the Apostles).


The same apostles who observed the Feasts. which you claim is a sinful thing to do?

Like the Apostle Paul observing the Day of Atonement in Acts 17:9?  Was that sinful?

How about when Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, instructing them to observe the Passover in 1Corinthians 5:7-8, was that sinful?

How about when Paul himself celebrated Unleavened Bread and the Passover in Acts 20:6, was that sinful?

Are your saints which you venerate better than Paul?

We have clear records dating back to the 4th century that the abandonment of the Feasts was borne out of antisemitism, a fella named John Chrysostom said “The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now.” Homily 1 in Adversus Judaeos 

We also have clear records back to the 1600's of the Szekler Sabbatarians, a sect of Christians observing the Feasts.  




> By the end of the first century, the major Christian centers in the world had scrapped most of its Jewish trappings as it matured by the Holy Spirit into an orthodox Christian faith and worship, which was and was becoming catholic in scope and practice.
> 
> Man's renewal in Christ was now universal and a new covenant between God and man had been established. No longer was righteousness and hope confined to the Jews, but rather now there was salvation for all men. 
> 
> There was little sense in following the Jewish Feasts, for the Church was a new creation and the promise of God had been fulfilled, and the baton had been passed onto the Gentiles in order to go into the lands and baptize the nations. This was a new communion with God, a _new covenant_. The once green fig tree of the Jews under the Old Covenant had been left barren and has been left desolate. No longer is there Jew or Greek, but one communion as members of a body centered in Christ, in their thoughts, in their prayers, in their worship, and in the creeds.
> 
> The Jewish Passover had been fulfilled and now supplanted by the New Covenant celebrations of Christ's resurrection, no longer in the dead traditions of men and the Law, but in the living waters of the Church and in communion with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Christ said to His disciples that new wine should not be put in old wine skins. The wine skins won't endure (and that is exactly what happened, and that is why there is not one name you can give me of this imaginary remnant you have created in your mind.)


I am reading every word of this section above, where you claim to be explaining the meaning behind Zechariah 14, and strangely enough you talk about everything else, and you never talk about Zechariah 14, except to tell me that I don't understand it.

I have broken down the text of Zechariah 14:9-13 above, phrase by phrase, you can see that I highlighted exegesis in red.

What, exactly, am I failing to understand?  Please be specific.  No more hand-waving vage 'well you just don't understand it.' nonsense.  If I am not understanding the passage, then break it down, like I have, phrase by phrase and explain how Zechariah 14:9-13 makes keeping the Feast of Tabernacles 'sinful.'




> Again, I am quite calm. I am simply making the observation that you consider yourself a more obedient servant to God than every Church Father.


I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt.  If you are really that desperate to insult me, condemn me, and cause me pain while being calm, well, that says something even worse.   A lot worse.




> You also said:
> 
> Do you have source of such killings by church folks?


The "one true church (tm)" has been executing heretics since the 2nd Century.  You clearly believe that keeping the Feasts is heresy.  This isn't rocket science.




> Do you have any proof of this secret group hiding through the centuries?


Again, if you are so calm, then why are you deliberately misrepresenting what I say in order to try and damage me?  If you were just overcome with passion I could understand it, but to deliberately misconstrue my words and try to hurt me while being calm?  That's monstrous, and you should be ashamed.




> And BTW, while I believe this new Judaizing Protestant-born movement is completely off the reservation with regards to their imaginary claims, I have neither condemned you to hell as you claimed, nor have I said worshipping the Feast of the Old Covenant was necessarily sinful. Neither have I called you an apostate which you so easily call >99.99% of all the Christians who ever lived for not observing like the Jews under the Old Covenant.


What do you think accusing me and my entire faith of being 'judaizers' is?  Judaizers are legalists who have abandoned Messiah for salvation and cling to keeping the Law like it will save them.  I've explained this half a dozen times already and you continue to call me a judaizer.  Therefore you are condemning me while claiming to not condemn me.

This is a sophistic attack, and it clearly appears intentional.  You say things that make me a lost and damned soul, and then say "I'm not condemning you, I'm just stating facts."  Riiiight.  Out of one side of your mouth you accuse me of being a legalist who thinks that salvation is found in keeping the law rather than in keeping Messiah, and then out of the other side of your mouth you say that you are not condemning me.

That kind of sophistry may work amongst your own congregation, but it will not work before the Judgement Seat of the Messiah.  You should be minded to repent from this horrid behavior.




> But I do question your rational mind when you make positive assertions about a super-secret, underground, unknown to the world remnant of communing Christians which you claim existed through the centuries.


If you have to lie about what I am saying in order to make your point, then you are clearly not being led by the Holy Spirit, because God is not a liar.




> Sound like an episode of Zeitgeist.


So now I'm a rabid militant atheist.

But you aren't condemning me, just stating facts.  Right?

LOL I am sure that the Messiah will just overlook your condemnations of me because you call them 'facts' rather than 'judgements.'  Because that makes passing judgement on others so much better.

----------


## TER

Good night Gunny.  I think we both said enough for tonight.

I know how much you want the Hebrew Roots movement to be the one, but it too will pass as one of those contemporary and fashionable heterodox religions in the history of mankind.  I am trying to save you from the disappointment.  

If you don't wish to join the Orthodox Church, then that is fine.  I still believe there is hope in your salvation, through the mercy and love of God.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

We have clear records dating back to the 4th century that the abandonment of the Feasts was borne out of antisemitism, a fella named John Chrysostom said The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. Homily 1 in Adversus Judaeos 

If there were not _Christians_ observing the Feasts during the 4th Century, then what in the world was John Chrysostom on about when he wrote, There are many in our ranks who ... will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. ??

Chrysostom said, I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now.

This attitude was not borne of worshipping God, but of antisemitism.  We can clearly see this throughout his work Adversus Judaeos, but for now I will stick to the same passage in Homily 1 The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts.

As for what God says about people who hate the Jews

_Romans 11:17-21 New King James Version (NKJV)_
17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

19 You will say then, Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in. 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
In this section, Paul has called "the Jews" the 'natural' branches of the Olive Tree, and "the Gentiles" the 'wild' branches of the Olive Tree.

17 And if some of the branches were broken off, - that is, Jews were removed from the living Congregation of God

and you, being a wild olive tree, - Christians

were grafted in among them, - became attached to Israel

and with them became a partaker - and with the Jewish remnant that remains, partook of

of the root and fatness of the olive tree, - the blessings of Israel

18 do not boast against the branches. - do not speak against those Jews

But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. - because you do not support them, they support you

19 You will say then, Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in. - you may claim they were broken off of Israel to bring you into Israel.

20 Well said. - Right.

Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. - They did not believe and were broken off while you are in Israel by faith.

Do not be haughty, but fear. - do not be prideful against them, but respect God

21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, - God did not spare the Jews

He may not spare you either. - He may not spare you either.

Jews were removed from the living Congregation of God (so that) Christians (could) become attached to Israel and with the Jewish remnant partake of the blessings of Israel. Do not speak against those Jews because you do not support them, they support you. You may claim they were broken off of Israel to bring you into Israel and you are right. They did not believe and were broken off while you are in Israel by faith. Do not be prideful against them, but respect God. God did not spare the Jews, He may not spare you either.

_Romans 11:17-21 World English Bible (WEB)_

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them, and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree; 18 dont boast over the branches. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20 True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Dont be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God didnt spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Now, I have laid out Romans 11:17-21 as clearly as it is humanly possible to lay out. Given what Paul is teaching in this section, it should become clear that John Chrysostom's effort in _the 4th Century_ to eradicate Christians who keep the Feasts stands in clear violation of Romans 11:17-21.

Can a 'good' doctrine arise from disobedience, or violation of the Word?

I say no.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Good night Gunny.  I think we both said enough for tonight.
> 
> I know how much you want the Hebrew Roots movement to be the one, but it too will pass as one of those contemporary and fashionable heterodox religions in the history of mankind.  I am trying to save you from the disappointment.  
> 
> If you don't wish to join the Orthodox Church, then that is fine.  I still believe there is hope in your salvation, through the mercy and love of God.


Implying, as I have said all along (which you denied believing) that I am not saved.  Now you have said it clearly.

This is judgement, or condemnation.  Judge not, lest ye be judged.  It's really that simple.

----------


## TER

> Implying, as I have said all along (which you denied believing) that I am not saved.  Now you have said it clearly.
> 
> This is judgement, or condemnation.  Judge not, lest ye be judged.  It's really that simple.


All of us are saved from eternal death, because Christ has destroyed the power of sin and death.

Yet neither of us is saved into the Kingdom until the Final Judgement.

I have said clearly you may be saved on that day.

I judge your false teachings, as they should be called out considering this is an open forum.  You in turn judge the entire history of Christians Saints, including St. John Chrysostom, who was a greater Christian then you will ever hope to become, and I say that very confidently.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> All of us are saved from eternal death, because Christ has destroyed the power of sin and death.
> 
> Yet neither of us is saved into the Kingdom until the Final Judgement.
> 
> I have said clearly you may be saved on that day.
> 
> I judge your false teachings, you judge the entire history of Christians Saints, including St. John Chrysostom who was a greater Christian then you will ever hope to become, and I say that very confidently.


John Chrysostom, whose doctrines here were not borne of obedience to God, but out of hatred of the Jews....in direct and incontrovertible violation of Paul's teaching in Romans 11:17-21.

Whose references *clearly* indicate that there were Christians in the 4th Century that were keeping the Feasts, which he sought to eradicate.

Wasn't your whole argument so far that no real Christians were keeping the Feasts past the 2nd Century?

Your own antisemitic 'Saint' says there were Christians keeping the Feasts in the 4th Century.

I notice you just kind of glossed over that....

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> We have clear records dating back to the 4th century that the abandonment of the Feasts was borne out of antisemitism, a fella named John Chrysostom said “The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now.” Homily 1 in Adversus Judaeos 
> 
> We also have clear records back to the 1600's of the Szekler Sabbatarians, a sect of Christians observing the Feasts.


Thanks for the info, that's a quote I hadn't run across before.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Thanks for the info, that's a quote I hadn't run across before.


Anytime! 

One of the main reasons there is not much record of Christians who kept the feasts after the 4th Century, is they were being persecuted and killed, all the way from John Chrysostom's 4th Century where he vowed to eradicate such, all the way up to Hitler in the 1940's who sent Christians that kept the Feasts to Auschwitz.

On July 7th 1638, one János Torockai, a Feast-keeping Christian was sentenced to be stoned to death. He and a large group of his fellow Feast-keeping Christians were killed, and the entire movement went underground until the 1900's when they thought they were safe, only to be sent to Auschwitz by Hitler in the 1940's.

Is it any wonder that there are scant records of Feast-keeping Christians from 300AD through 1960AD when the penalty for admitting it was to be put to death?

ETA:  lol but we are supposed to believe that this all feast-keeping stuff just started in the last 20 or 30 years

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> John Chrysostom, whose doctrines here were not borne of obedience to God, but out of hatred of the Jews....in direct and incontrovertible violation of Paul's teaching in Romans 11:17-21.
> 
> Whose references *clearly* indicate that there were Christians in the 4th Century that were keeping the Feasts, which he sought to eradicate.
> 
> Wasn't your whole argument so far that no real Christians were keeping the Feasts past the 2nd Century?
> 
> Your own antisemitic 'Saint' says there were Christians keeping the Feasts in the 4th Century.
> 
> I notice you just kind of glossed over that....


St Chrysostom's doctrines were absolutely borne of God.  Hence, his liturgy is widely celebrated to this day.  You are confusing his homilies against the Judaizing heretics with "anti-semitism".




> *The Homilies against the Judaizers* Chrysostom wrote of the Jews and of Judaizers in eight homilies _Adversus Judaeos_ (against the Judaizers).[1]  At the time he delivered these sermons, Chrysostom was a tonsured reader and had not yet been ordained a priest or bishop. 
> 
>  "The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to  march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of  Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts.  There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of  these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in  keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this  perverse custom from the Church right now." (Homily I, I, 5) "Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness,  their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade?  The whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these  things. But do their festivals have something solemn and great about  them? They have shown that these, too, are impure." (Homily I, VII, 1) "But before I draw up my battle line against the Jews, I will  be glad to talk to those who are members of our own body, those who seem  to belong to our ranks although they observe the Jewish rites and make  every effort to defend them. Because they do this, as I see it, they  deserve a stronger condemnation than any Jew." (Homily IV, II, 4) "Are you Jews still disputing the question? Do you not see that you are condemned by the testimony of what Christ and the prophets  predicted and which the facts have proved? But why should this surprise  me? That is the kind of people you are. From the beginning you have  been shameless and obstinate, ready to fight at all times against  obvious facts." (Homily V, XII, 1)
>  The purpose of these attacks was to prevent Christians from joining  with Jewish customs, and thus prevent the erosion of Chrysostom's flock.  Robert L. Wilken contends that applying the modern label of  Anti-Semitism onto St. John Chrysostom is anachronistic. He particularly  focuses on the rhetorical genre that St. John employed in these  homilies, and points out that St. John was using the genre of psogos (or  invective): 
>  "The psogos was supposed to present unrelieved denigration of  the subject. As one ancient teacher of rhetoric put it, the psogos is  "only condemnation" and sets forth only the "bad things about someone"  (Aphthonius Rhet. Graeci 2.40).... In psogos, the rhetor used omission  to hide the subject's good traits or amplification to exaggerate his  worsts features, and the cardinal rule was never to say anything  positive about the subject. Even "when good things are done they are  proclaimed in the worst light" (Aristides Rhet. Graeci 2.506). In an  encomium, one passes over a man's faults in order to praise him, and in a  psogos, one passed over his virtues to defame him. Such principles are  explicit in the handbooks of the rhetors, but an interesting passage  from the church historian Socrates, writing in the mid fifth century,  shows that the rules for invective were simply taken for granted by men  and women of the late Roman world. In discussing Libanius's [St. John's  Pagan instructor in Rhetoric] orations in praise of the emperor Julian  [the Apostate], Socrates explains that Libanius magnifies and  exaggerates Julian's virtues because he is an "outstanding sophist"  (Hist. eccl. 3.23). The point is that one should not expect a fair  presentation in a psagos, for that is not its purpose. The psogos is  designed to attack someone, says Socrates, and is taught by the sophist  in the schools as one of the rudiments of their skills.... Echoing the  same rhetorical background, Augustine said that, in preparing an  encomium on the emperor, he intended "that it should include a great  many lies," and that the audience would know "how far from the truth  they were" (Conf. 6.6)." (p. 112).[2]    Another important point of context that Wilkens highlights is the  reign of Julian the Apostate, and the way he used the Jews (and was used  by them) to undercut Christianity. Julian had even planned to rebuild  the Temple in Jerusalem, primarily because he believed it would refute  Christ's prophesies about the destruction of the Temple. This happened  when St. John was a young man, and so Christians at this time had no reason to believe that they  had a firm position in society that could not be overturned in a short  period of time. Thus polemics against the Jews were not the polemics of a  group with a firm grip on power, but the polemics of a group that had  reason to fear what the future might bring. 
>  "The Roman Empire in the fourth century was not the world of  Byzantium or medieval Europe. The institutions of traditional Hellenic  culture and society were still very much alive in John Chrysostom's day.  The Jews were a vital and visible presence in Antioch and elsewhere in  the Roman Empire, and they continued to be a formidable rival to the  Christians. Judaizing Christians were widespread. Christianity was still  in the process of establishing its place within the society and was  undermined by internal strife and apathetic adherents. Without an  appreciation of this setting, we cannot understand why John preached the  homilies and why he responds to the Judaizers with such passion and  fervor. The medieval image of the Jew should not be imposed on  antiquity. Every act of historical understanding is an act of empathy.  When I began to study John Chrysostom's writings on the Jews, I was  inclined to judge what he said in light of the unhappy history of  Jewish-Christian relations and the sad events in Jewish history in  modern times. As much as I feel a deep sense of moral responsibility for  the attitudes and actions of Christians toward the Jews, I am no longer  ready to project these later attitudes unto the events of the fourth  century. No matter how outraged Christians feel over the Christian  record of dealing with the Jews, we have no license to judge the distant  past on the basis of our present perceptions of events of more recent  times' [3]

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thanks for the info, that's a quote I hadn't run across before.


The quote is out of context and does not prove Gunny's claim.  See previous post.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> St Chrysostom's doctrines were absolutely borne of God.  Hence, his liturgy is widely celebrated to this day.  You are confusing his homilies against the Judaizing heretics with "anti-semitism".


I just read your entire post, and it still says what I said it does.  It is not even remotely "out of context."  Your own quote proves my point completely.

the pitiful and miserable Jews

Jews plundering

Jews covetousness

Jews abandonment of the poor

Jews thefts

Jews cheating in trade

Jews festivals are impure.

my battle line against the Jews.

those who seem to belong to our ranks although _they observe the Jewish rites_ and make every effort to defend them. Because they do this, as I see it, _they deserve a stronger condemnation than any Jew_.

"Are you Jews still disputing the question? Do you not see that you are condemned 

obvious facts." 

^^ all of this could have come straight from Hitler.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

those who seem to belong to our ranks although _they observe the Jewish rites_ and make every effort to defend them. Because they do this, as I see it, _they deserve a stronger condemnation than any Jew_.

All the while, the actual SCRIPTURE says,

Colossians 2:16-17 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 So *let no one judge you* in food or in drink, or *regarding a festival* or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
Once again, your _saintly_ traditions of men are in direct contradiction to the Word of the Living God.

I will take the Word of the Living God over your _saintly_ traditions of men every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

We already know what Messiah Yeshua says about people who venerate their traditions of men over and above the commandments of the Living God.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I just read your entire post, and it still says what I said it does.  It is not even remotely "out of context."  Your own quote proves my point completely.
> 
> the pitiful and miserable Jews
> 
> Jews plundering
> 
> Jews covetousness
> 
> Jews abandonment of the poor
> ...


But isn't this all about the Jews' religion, not their race? I wouldn't consider it explicitly anti-Semitic. You could argue that it was driven by antisemitism, but if it refers to Judaism as a religion, it's not explicitly racial.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But isn't this all about the Jews' religion, not their race? I wouldn't consider it explicitly anti-Semitic. You could argue that it was driven by antisemitism, but if it refers to Judaism as a religion, it's not explicitly racial.


The Jews are a special case where it's kind of hard to separate the religion from the race.  The entire fact that they ARE a race at all is borne of religious observance, otherwise they'd just be ordinary semites like the Arabs and the Persians and so on.

Also this reference to thefts and cheating and such does not seem related to religion at all to me, but to the Jews as a people.

All of these characteristics listed by Chrysostom as his reasons for hating the Jews, would later be echoed in Nazi propaganda as the reason they needed rounded up into Ghettos and eventually shipped off to the camps.

At some point, if it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck....

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> The Jews are a special case where it's kind of hard to separate the religion from the race.  The entire fact that they ARE a race at all is borne of religious observance, otherwise they'd just be ordinary semites like the Arabs and the Persians and so on.
> 
> Also this reference to thefts and cheating and such does not seem related to religion at all to me, but to the Jews as a people.
> 
> All of these characteristics listed by Chrysostom as his reasons for hating the Jews, would later be echoed in Nazi propaganda as the reason they needed rounded up into Ghettos and eventually shipped off to the camps.
> 
> At some point, if it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck....


His motives _seem_ clearly bad to me, but I eschew presuming peoples feelings or intentions. Let me ask another way, how is this any worse than what the bible says about Jews?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *But isn't this all about the Jews' religion, not their race?* I wouldn't consider it explicitly anti-Semitic. You could argue that it was driven by antisemitism, but if it refers to Judaism as a religion, it's not explicitly racial.


Yes.  We could go around about Judaizing vs Judaism with my brother Gunny, but I suspect it would be more effective to talk to a brick wall.  I've laid out the evidence.  Y'all can read St Chrysostom in his own words and figure it out for yourselves. (it is ideal if you consider the historical context when examining his choice of language, of course-such as the bit in #344 above^^)

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Anytime! 
> 
> One of the main reasons there is not much record of Christians who kept the feasts after the 4th Century, is they were being persecuted and killed, all the way from John Chrysostom's 4th Century where he vowed to eradicate such, all the way up to Hitler in the 1940's who sent Christians that kept the Feasts to Auschwitz.
> 
> On July 7th 1638, one János Torockai, a Feast-keeping Christian was sentenced to be stoned to death. He and a large group of his fellow Feast-keeping Christians were killed, and the entire movement went underground until the 1900's when they thought they were safe, only to be sent to Auschwitz by Hitler in the 1940's.
> 
> Is it any wonder that there are scant records of Feast-keeping Christians from 300AD through 1960AD when the penalty for admitting it was to be put to death?
> 
> ETA:  lol but we are supposed to believe that this all feast-keeping stuff just started in the last 20 or 30 years


"I kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and overpowering them" Daniel 7:21

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes.  We could go around about Judaizing vs Judaism with my brother Gunny, but I suspect it would be more effective to talk to a brick wall.  I've laid out the evidence.  Y'all can read St Chrysostom in his own words and figure it out for yourselves. (it is ideal if you consider the historical context when examining his choice of language, of course-such as the bit in #344 above^^)


lol

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> His motives _seem_ clearly bad to me, but I eschew presuming peoples feelings or intentions. Let me ask another way, how is this any worse than what the bible says about Jews?


The reason it seems different to me is because the Bible talks about 'these specific Jews who did this specific thing are bad because...'

This guy just seems (to me) to just be angry at 'da joooos' in general.

----------


## TER

> John Chrysostom, whose doctrines here were not borne of obedience to God, but out of hatred of the Jews....in direct and incontrovertible violation of Paul's teaching in Romans 11:17-21.
> 
> Whose references *clearly* indicate that there were Christians in the 4th Century that were keeping the Feasts, which he sought to eradicate.
> 
> Wasn't your whole argument so far that no real Christians were keeping the Feasts past the 2nd Century?
> 
> Your own antisemitic 'Saint' says there were Christians keeping the Feasts in the 4th Century.
> 
> I notice you just kind of glossed over that....


No one said heresies don't repeat themselves Gunny, just like Arianism has been refashioned into Jehovah's Witness and the Judaizing Christians have been refashioned into the Hebrew Roots movement.  They come, they go, but they have never remained as a communion through the centuries.  That is proof they are without grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit, for popping up and then disappearing is not nature of the Church strengthened by the Holy Spirit, and the Orthodox Church is proof of that having existed in communion in faith and unity since the Day of Pentecost.   

St. John Chrysostom had to deal with a particular problem in his See, that it, dealing with Christ hating Jews who were fooling the sheep he was ordained to protect and shepherd.  It was not against Semites he was against, but of the religious practices of the Jewish adherents.  And their influence had started to defile some of the previously pious Christian faithful into keeping dead customs of the Old Covenant and causing division in the Church.

  At the time, the Roman Emperor Julian (the Apostate) was manipulating the Jewish leaders in order to keep the growing Christian power at check (promising a rebuilding of the second temple, etc, in other words, there was a surge in mainstream Zionism during that time, not unlike what has occurred in the past hundred years in this country).  Indeed the parallels between that time and this time are remarkable when you think about it.

St. John Chrysostom's duty as a Bishop was to stop the faith from being divided on account of heretics of which these Judaizing Christians were.  But your conflagration that this caused killings is pure imagination. Lol.  Instead, his tool was excommunication to protect the integrity of the Church, and that is what he did, namely excommunicate from the sacramental Eucharist and the holy altar those who caused division.  You are simply making up stories that never existed about widespread persecutions and a underground remnant which survived continuously through the centuries.

I still await for ONE NAME you can provide of any Judaizing Christian in the post Apostolic age.  Or is your claim that they were so secret and underground and so persecuted, that there is not a single shred of evidence other than the mere quote of St. John against certain Jewish practices during his particular and then a 16th century reference? 

A remnant would have existed in every century.  A heresy is what pops up and again in order to cause division in the Church.

----------


## TER

> Anytime! 
> 
> One of the main reasons there is not much record of Christians who kept the feasts after the 4th Century, is they were being persecuted and killed, all the way from John Chrysostom's 4th Century where he vowed to eradicate such, all the way up to Hitler in the 1940's who sent Christians that kept the Feasts to Auschwitz.
> 
> On July 7th 1638, one János Torockai, a Feast-keeping Christian was sentenced to be stoned to death. He and a large group of his fellow Feast-keeping Christians were killed, and the entire movement went underground until the 1900's when they thought they were safe, only to be sent to Auschwitz by Hitler in the 1940's.
> 
> Is it any wonder that there are scant records of Feast-keeping Christians from 300AD through 1960AD when the penalty for admitting it was to be put to death?


You keep trying to rationalize the lack of evidence, and I will keep waiting for one single name,


[quite]ETA:  lol but we are supposed to believe that this all feast-keeping stuff just started in the last 20 or 30 years [/QUOTE]

In the past 2000 years, >99.99% of Christians did not celebrate the Old Covenant feasts and >99.9% of people who did celebrate the feasts of the Old Covenant were Christ-hating Jews.  

Apparently all these people were confused and Gunny is right!  Wow, what a blessing to have such an obedient servant of God amongst us!  One of the super secret elect has finally surfaced from underground and now we have a name!  Gunny will show us the way!  

The only names you can give to prove this heretical approach to the Christian faith are from the last 20 or 30 years.  And I challenge you to find their existence to have continuously existed, which is what a remnant is.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No one said heresies don't repeat themselves Gunny,


Your first argument was that my faith was some new thing created in the last 20 years.  Now that I demonstrate it's existence in the first century, second century, fourth century, and the 1500's, 1600's through the 1940's and today, you move the goalposts and just say 'heresies repeat.'




> just like Arianism has been refashioned into Jehovah's Witness and the Judaizing


I am not a legalist.  I am not a judaizer.  How many times do I have to tell you this before you stop insulting me with lies?

A judaizer, according to God, is someone who places salvation on obedience to the Law of Moses.  They say you have to be circumcised to be saved.  They say you have to obey the 613 Laws to be saved.  I do not hold that position.

You are not even reading my posts, you are just spewing whatever in my direction.  It's childish, and you need to stop it.




> Christians have been refashioned into the Hebrew Roots movement.  They come, they go, but they have never remained as a communion


They have never remained in YOUR church, because YOUR church has been busy killing us.  We have existed since Messiah walked the Earth.




> through the centuries.  That is proof


You have posted proof of nothing.  You don't even quote scripture.  You talk about what a bunch of people once did to persecute MY Church Fathers, and claim that they are right because we are wrong.  That has been the extend of your argument.  That me and my kind deserve to die.  




> they are without grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit, for popping up and then disappearing is not nature of the Church strengthened by the Holy Spirit, and the Orthodox Church is proof of that having existed in communion in faith and unity since the Day of Pentecost.   
> 
> St. John Chrysostom had to deal with a particular problem in his See, that it, dealing with Christ hating Jews who were fooling the sheep he was ordained to protect and shepherd.  It was not against Semites he was against, but of the religious practices of the Jewish adherents.  And their influence had started to defile some of the previously pious Christian faithful into keeping dead customs of the Old Covenant and causing division in the Church.
> 
>   At the time, the Roman Emperor Julian (the Apostate) was manipulating the Jewish leaders in order to keep the growing Christian power at check (promising a rebuilding of the second temple, etc, in their words, there was a surge in mainstream Zionism during that time, not unlike can be seen in the past hundred years in this country).  Indeed the parallels between that time and this time are remarkable when you think about it.
> 
> St. John Chrysostom's duty as a Bishop was to stop the faith from being divided on account of heretics of which these Judaizing Christians were.  But your conflagration that this caused killings is pure imagination. Lol.  Instead, his tool was excommunication to protect the integrity of the Church, and that is what he did, namely excommunicate from the sacramental Eucharist and the holy altar those who caused division.  You are simply making up stories that never existed about widespread persecutions and a underground remnant which survived continuously through the centuries.
> 
> I still await for ONE NAME you can provide of any Judaizing Christian in the post Apostolic age.  Or is your claim that they were so secret and underground and so persecuted, that there is not a single shred of evidence other than the mere quote of St. John against certain Jewish practices during his particular and then a 16th century reference?


Again, after I have pointed it out to you more than 12 times, you continue to take my words out of context and spin them into a lie.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  You act like this and claim to be in Christ?  What is wrong with you?




> A remnant would have existed in every century.  A heresy is what pops up and again in order to cause division in the Church.


My kind have existed continuously from the Day Messiah walked the Earth.  Your kind have been killing us for 2000 years.  Reading your posts now, it is clear to me that you would do the same if you had free reign.  You need to repent.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You keep trying to rationalize the lack of evidence, and I will keep waiting for one single name,
> 
> 
> [quite]ETA:  lol but we are supposed to believe that this all feast-keeping stuff just started in the last 20 or 30 years





> In the past 2000 years, >99.99% of Christians did not celebrate the Old Covenant feasts and >99.9% of people who did celebrate the feasts of the Old Covenant were Christ-hating Jews.  
> 
> Apparently all these people were confused and Gunny is right!  Wow, what a blessing to have such an obedient servant of God amongst us!  One of the super secret elect has finally surfaced from underground and now we have a name!  Gunny will show us the way!  
> 
> The only names you can give to prove this heretical approach to the Christian faith are from the last 20 or 30 years.  And I challenge you to find their existence to have continuously existed, which is what a remnant is.


Yes, because right and wrong are determined solely by popularity. 

ANd again you are lying.  I gave you a couple names from the 1620's.    The 1620's did not happen in the last 20 or 30 years.

God is not a liar.  You are lying.  You are not in God.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  You need to repent.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Seriously TER, you are not reading my posts to understand them, you are just scanning them to find ammunition to attack me with.  That is ungodly behavior.  You are also distorting my words beyond all recognition.  That, too, is ungodly behavior.  You are also straight up lying about what I have said and not said.  That, too, is ungodly behavior.

You can disagree with me all day long, but when you call me names, lie about what I believe, and lie about what I've said, you have crossed the line.

You are in the wrong here, and you need to recognize that and repent from it.  

Why would I even bother answering your posts anymore if you are just going to lie about what I've said, and pretend like I'm something I'm not in the hopes of 'scoring points' against me?

You are not interested in the truth here, you are only interested in looking for things with which to cause me harm.

That is not the way God would have us to behave.

----------


## TER

> Your first argument was that my faith was some new thing created in the last 20 years.  Now that I demonstrate it's existence in the first century, second century, fourth century, and the 1500's, 1600's through the 1940's and today, you move the goalposts and just say 'heresies repeat.'


The goal posts of the Church have always been sacramental communion around the Holy Eucharist in one faith, one mind, one worship, and one spirit as members united as one Body of Christ. Those who caused divisions in the apostolic Church were excommunicated.  That is how the Church has remained, how the deposit of faith has been transmitted through the ages, and why there is a remnant which has never disappeared or broken away.  Not outside of the communion of the faithful, but inside it, and in the open, for the world to see.  The true Christian saints and martyrs publicly confessed Christ and were killed by their enemies for it and the baptized believers remember them to this day, for their memory is eternal.  Not every saint had such courage, but the true Church had such courageous Saints.  

Where are the supposed great Judaizing Christians you are fantasizing about which displayed such courage and obedience to the faith?  Where are all your saints?  Is a lamp put under a table?  Was the Church supposed to be hidden in the world?  How did these Judaizing Christians go and baptize the nations and yet not one was remembered?

Heresies repeat, Gunny.  Your faith is indeed some new thing created in the last 20 years, in the mold of previous Judaizimg hersies.  Just like the Arians of today have regurgitated previous heresies.  Are we to believe there was a communing body of Arians in one faith, one mind, one worship and one spirit who survived throughout the ages?

But there is *no* such remnant that has survived in communion through the ages, either for the Arians or the Judaizers, just rare blips on the screen throughout the past twenty centuries.  You are naming a scarce few examples of a similar heresy, that does not in any way prove a remnant.  Show us some more examples of Christian writers talking about Judaizing Christians keeping the Jewish Old Feasts.  Surely if they were always around, there would have been more discussions and debates.  But your claim is that they were in such a secret that you cannot name one!

Where were they when it was decided which books would go into the Canon?  Where were they when the great Christological and Trinitarian debates were being done and the the orthodox and apostolic faith was proclaimed and the truths of Christ defended?  




> I am not a legalist.  I am not a judaizer.  How many times do I have to tell you this before you stop insulting me with lies?


You said it was breaking God's commandment to not observe the Jewish Feasts of the Old covenant.  That makes you both a legalistic and a Judaizer.




> A judaizer, according to God, is someone who places salvation on obedience to the Law of Moses.  They say you have to be circumcised to be saved.  They say you have to obey the 613 Laws to be saved.  I do not hold that position.


Your line of thinking is what created the first council in Jerusalem, and you would have been on the losing side.  Thankfully, the Apostles, when they came in Council began to strip themselves from the dead works of the Old Covenant which were a detriment to the young Church and were based on nationalistic and racist pride and a misunderstanding of what Christ came to establish.




> They have never remained in YOUR church, because YOUR church has been busy killing us.  We have existed since Messiah walked the Earth.


Such a serious charge needs proof, and so far you have presented none that the Orthodox Church was killing the Judaizing Christians.  Why don't you stop spreading lies.




> You have posted proof of nothing.  You don't even quote scripture.  You talk about what a bunch of people once did to persecute MY Church Fathers, and claim that they are right because we are wrong.  That has been the extend of your argument.  That me and my kind deserve to die.


Again lies.  But please, tell me more about your supposed Church Fathers.  Can you name me one?





> Again, after I have pointed it out to you more than 12 times, you continue to take my words out of context and spin them into a lie.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  You act like this and claim to be in Christ?  What is wrong with you?


You make the claims that the Orthodox Church was killing Judaizing Christians without proof, you bring up a mere couple of examples in twenty centuries of Christians celebrating Jewish Feasts against the practice of the Church and then claim that there was always some secret underground remnant of which you cannot name one person.  What is wrong with you?




> My kind have existed continuously from the Day Messiah walked the Earth.  Your kind have been killing us for 2000 years.  Reading your posts now, it is clear to me that you would do the same if you had free reign.  You need to repent.


keep the fantasy going Gunny if it makes you sleep better at night.  We both need to repent.

----------


## TER

dupe

----------


## TER

> Seriously TER, you are not reading my posts to understand them, you are just scanning them to find ammunition to attack me with.  That is ungodly behavior.  You are also distorting my words beyond all recognition.  That, too, is ungodly behavior.  You are also straight up lying about what I have said and not said.  That, too, is ungodly behavior.
> 
> You can disagree with me all day long, but when you call me names, lie about what I believe, and lie about what I've said, you have crossed the line.
> 
> You are in the wrong here, and you need to recognize that and repent from it.  
> 
> Why would I even bother answering your posts anymore if you are just going to lie about what I've said, and pretend like I'm something I'm not in the hopes of 'scoring points' against me?
> 
> You are not interested in the truth here, you are only interested in looking for things with which to cause me harm.
> ...


And you in your pride putting yourself over the Christian Saints and the Fathers of the Christian Church is ungodly behavior.  You accusing Saints of killing Judaizing Christians is also ungodly behavior.  We will both need to confess our sins after this thread.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And you in your pride putting yourself over the Christian Saints and the Fathers of the Christian Church is ungodly behavior.  You accusing Saints of killing Judaizing Christians is also ungodly behavior.  We will both need to confess our sins after this thread.


There you  go with this 'judaizer' lie again.  God is not a liar. Satan is a liar.  If you are lying, then you are not in God, you are in Satan.  I am so glad that I know better, because if you were the only example I had of what a "Christian" was, I'd rather go to hell.  Thank God I know better.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The goal posts of the Church have always been sacramental communion around the Holy Eucharist in one faith, one mind, one worship, and one spirit as members united as one Body of Christ. Those who caused divisions in the apostolic Church were excommunicated.  That is how the Church has remained, how the deposit of faith has been transmitted through the ages, and why there is a remnant which has never disappeared or broken away.  Not outside of the communion of the faithful, but inside it, and in the open, for the world to see.  The true Christian saints and martyrs publicly confessed Christ and were killed by their enemies for it and the baptized believers remember them to this day, for their memory is eternal.  Not every saint had such courage, but the true Church had such courageous Saints.  
> 
> Where are the supposed great Judaizing Christians you are fantasizing about which displayed such courage and obedience to the faith?  Where are all your saints?  Is a lamp put under a table?  Was the Church supposed to be hidden in the world?  How did these Judaizing Christians go and baptize the nations and yet not one was remembered?
> 
> Heresies repeat, Gunny.  Your faith is indeed some new thing created in the last 20 years, in the mold of previous Judaizimg hersies.  Just like the Arians of today have regurgitated previous heresies.  Are we to believe there was a communing body of Arians in one faith, one mind, one worship and one spirit who survived throughout the ages?
> 
> But there is *no* such remnant that has survived in communion through the ages, either for the Arians or the Judaizers, just rare blips on the screen throughout the past twenty centuries.  You are naming a scarce few examples of a similar heresy, that does not in any way prove a remnant.  Show us some more examples of Christian writers talking about Judaizing Christians keeping the Jewish Old Feasts.  Surely if they were always around, there would have been more discussions and debates.  But your claim is that they were in such a secret that you cannot name one!
> 
> Where were they when it was decided which books would go into the Canon?  Where were they when the great Christological and Trinitarian debates were being done and the the orthodox and apostolic faith was proclaimed and the truths of Christ defended?  
> ...


Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer
Judaizer

You are doing that because you know that I find it offensive.

You are intentionally trying to hurt me because my refusal to worship your church like it was God makes you feel threatened.



What kind of monster says things to intentionally hurt people, while claiming to be a Christian?

----------


## TER

> There you  go with this 'judaizer' lie again.  God is not a liar. Satan is a liar.  If you are lying, then you are not in God, you are in Satan.  I am so glad that I know better, because if you were the only example I had of what a "Christian" was, I'd rather go to hell.  Thank God I know better.


Did you not say that it was breaking God's commandment for a Christian to not celebrate the Feasts of the Old Covenant?
Did you not make the claim that the Saints killed the Judaizing Christians without any proof?
That makes you both a Judaizer and a liar, even if you cannot see it.

----------


## TER

> There you  go with this 'judaizer' lie again.  God is not a liar. Satan is a liar.  If you are lying, then you are not in God, you are in Satan.  I am so glad that I know better, because if you were the only example I had of what a "Christian" was, I'd rather go to hell.  Thank God I know better.


Did you not say that it was breaking God's commandment for a Christian to not celebrate the Feasts of the Old Covenant?
Did you not make the claim that the Saints killed the Judaizing Christians without any proof?
That makes you both a Judaizer and a liar, even if you cannot see it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I bet you'd feel right at home with Tomás de Torquemada, both of you getting your jollies off hurting people.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Did you not say that it was breaking God's commandment for a Christian to not celebrate the Feasts of the Old Covenant?
> Did you not make the claim that the Saints killed the Judaizing Christians without any proof?
> That makes you both a Judaizer and a liar, even if you cannot see it.


Why should I answer any questions you have, monster?  All you are doing is looking for things to attack me.  I've been answering your every question in depts for this entire thread, you ignore what I write, and look for things to hurt me with, monster.

You are a monster, not merely because you enjoy hurting people -- which is bad enough -- but you enjoy hurting people in the name of Christ.  That makes you wicked, wicked evil.

Why would I invest the hours into providing you with rational responses like I have this entire thread when you ignore them, lie on me, and then get your rocks of trying to hurt me in the Name of Christ?

If you are the example of what a "Christian" is, I don't want any.

----------


## TER

The only jollies I am getting is that maybe others reading this thread will see how heretics put themselves over the Church and the Saints of Christ (you know, the ones that really existed and the Christians remembered..) and perhaps they will not fall into similar error as you have.

But what have I done?  Shown you that your faith is based on imaginary saints?  That the Hebrew Roots movement is not the remnant, for they never continuously remained?  

Even so, I have never condemned you to hell, or said that practicing old covenant feasts were necessarily sinful.  After all, perhaps one day there will be another great Council, and the Old Feasts will be reintroduced.  But if this happens, it will happen through the Church which has always remained, around the same common Eucharist, which has defined the Canon of Scripture, which was passed on apostolic ordination, whose saints defended the deposit of faith from those who sought to undercut Jesus and distort the truths and divide the body, and who (very importantly) actually existed.  

Yes, I have been harsh with you because you have been harsh with me.  Yet have I called you a potential murderer as you have towards me?  Have I claimed your imaginary saints were killing others as you made claims about Christian Saints and Church Fathers?  Let the reader decide who is the one who is making false accusations.  I call you a Judaizer because that is what you are.  Yet, I have not lied and call you a murderer and a monster.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I suggest, TER, that you copy this thread in it's entirety and carry it to your Bishop, or Deacon, or whatever you call it and ask him for council.  Chances are he's actually in Christ and maybe hearing it from him will convict you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The only jollies I am getting is that maybe others reading this thread will see how heretics put themselves over the Church and the Saints of Christ (you know, the ones that really existed and the Christians remembered..) and perhaps they will not fall into similar error as you have.
> 
> But what I have done?  Shown you that your faith is based on imaginary saints?  That the Hebrew Roots movement is not the remnant, for they never continuously remained?  
> 
> Even so, I have never condemned you to hell, or said that practicing old covenant feasts were necessarily sinful.  After all, perhaps one day there will be another great council, and the Old Feasts will be reintroduced?  But if this happens, it will happen through the Church which has always remained, which has defined the Canon of Scripture, which defended the deposit of faith from those who sought to undercut Jesus and distort the truths, and who actually existed.  
> 
> Yes, I have been harsh with you because you have been harsh with me.  Yet have I called you a potential murderer as you have towards me?


You mean after the 30th time you called me a "judaizer," monster?




> Have I claimed your imaginary saints were killing others as you made claims about Christian Saints and Church Fathers?  Let the reader decide who is the one who is making false accusations.  I call you a Judaizer because that is what you are.  Yet, I have not lied and called you a murderer.

----------


## TER

> I suggest, TER, that you copy this thread in it's entirety and carry it to your Bishop, or Deacon, or whatever you call it and ask him for council.  Chances are he's actually in Christ and maybe hearing it from him will convict you.


In the spirit of obedience, humility and charity, all of which I confess I lack, I will stop calling you a Judaizer since you find it offensive, as you are probably correct that my Bishop would tell me to stop arguing with others and hurting other's feelings and to concentrate on correcting my own sins and failings.

----------


## TER

Dupe

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> In the past 2000 years, >99.99% of Christians did not celebrate the Old Covenant feasts and >99.9% of people who did celebrate the feasts of the Old Covenant were Christ-hating Jews.


"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." - Matthew 7:13-14

----------


## William Tell

> No, Gunny.  A remnant is those *who have continuously remained*, through the good times and the bad, through the celebrations and the persecutions.  They are not ones who disappeared and then reappeared, but rather have continuously existed.


 Nobody continuously remains, we are not immortal. Identifying with a church doesn't make its teachings true. You sure seem to put a lot of stock in continuing institutions. Its kind of hard to prove individuals  continued to follow a teaching throughout the centuries. I guess unless Gunny finds the Convent of Feast Keepers, and returns with the golden scrolls of yearly records, you won't recognize the term remnant?

It doesn't  matter how many if any have followed a teaching in 1000 years, if it is  indeed Biblical, they are the remnant it seems to me. Teachings abide,  they remain. I couldn't care less how old any church or sect is, only whether teachings are true or not. Either keeping the feasts is good, or its bad, or it doesn't matter either way.

I don't see anything in the Bible to suggest they are negative, in fact it was the Creator who commanded them in the first place. Even if you don't consider them necessary, I don't see how anyone can really think they are negative.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

It's too bad God didn't put his rules and regulations for us in some static document like a book or something instead of leaving it to a gigantic, several-thousand-year game of telephone.

----------


## William Tell

> The Pentecost, which is another name for the Biblical "Feast of Weeks."
> 
> Speaking of which, thanks for reminding me -- the Pentecost was on of the seven Biblical Holy Feasts commanded in Numbers and Deuteronomy. Going by most of the logic in this thread, (to everyone else in the thread - not fr33) would it not be sinful then for a Christian to celebrate Pentecost?


I always thought sin was breaking God's law, but maybe churches have a more up to date definition.
Surely keeping God's feasts mentioned in his law is some how a sin now?

----------


## TER

> "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." - Matthew 7:13-14


When the Lord said that quote, He was referring to ALL people, not just Christians.  The many who enter through the wide gate will include Christians, of course, but the greater of them will be those who deny Christ. 

The point I am making about >99.99% is with regards to fundamental belief and practice which makes one a Christian.

For example, >99.99% of Christians who have ever lived believed Jesus is the Son of God.  Because that is what makes one a Christian.

Likewise, >99.99% of Christians who have ever lived did not believe that celebrating the Old Feasts were necessary under the New Covenant.  Because that is what makes one a Christian.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I always thought sin was breaking God's law, but maybe churches have a more up to date definition.
> Surely keeping God's feasts mentioned in his law is some how a sin now?


It all depends on how you interpret the bible. If you just go through all willy-nilly and just accept whatever simple interpretations you come up with are valid, then you might think such nonsense, on the other hand, if you get a Certified Bible Interpreter licenced by the Greco-Roman government to explain the secret gnosis to you, then you literally can't go wrong, because large groups of people are never wrong.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Are you for real? Nobody continuously remains, we are not immortal.  Latching onto the names of saints by any side doesn't prove squat. You sure have a  lot of faith in institutions. Its kind of hard to prove individuals  continued to follow a teaching throughout the centuries. I guess unless Gunny finds the Convent of Feast Keepers, and returns with the golden scrolls of yearly records, you won't recognize the term remnant?
> 
> It doesn't  matter how many if any have followed a teaching in 1000 years, if it is  indeed Biblical, they are the remnant it seems to me. Teachings abide,  they remain. I couldn't care less how old any church or sect is, only whether teachings are true or not. _Either keeping the feasts is good, or its bad, or it doesn't matter either way._


It's good, but it matters a lot less than the OP implies.  The OP was a response to several similar threads and the intent was to mock those other threads.  Those threads have died, but this one keeps going, so it is easy to they the wrong impression of what was going on with the OP.

The reason it's good to keep the Feasts, is because the Feasts are an in-depth representation of the ministry of the Messiah, and observing them brings a deeper understanding of what He did in the past, and what He will do in the future.  The Spring Feasts (plus Pentecost) describe what He did during His first advent, and the Fall Feasts (plus Pentecost) describe what He will do on His Return.

They certainly are not required for salvation.  You don't *need* to have this intensely enormous understanding of the exact nature Messiah's entire ministry in order to be given to God in Messiah.  

However to say that it is _wrong/evil/sinful_ to have this intensely enormous understanding of the exact nature Messiah's entire ministry is extremely problematic to me.  How can it be _sinful_ to have a deeper understanding of what the Messiah has done and will do?

In the Passover alone, there are scores of symbols all of which illuminate the depths of what Messiah has done.  While it's possible to pull every one of those points out of the Scriptures, people generally do not, so going over them every year helps to fulfill that understanding in a way that eschewing the Feast cannot do.

It's like you can grasp a very deep understanding of marine life and aquaculture from studying books, but if you go to SeaWorld once a year, you will have a much more indelible grasp on those subjects than you would from reading books alone.  You don't _have_ to go to the aquarium to understand sea life and aquaculture, of course, but it does help.

Likewise, you don't _have_ to keep the Feasts to understand the full breadth and depth of the ministry of Messiah, but it does help.  It helps to 'put to reality' things known mostly from the Book.  Traditionally, Christianity celebrates the birth, and the death and resurrection; but the Messiah did _so much more_ than just living and dying and living again.

It's _okay_ if an oceanography student has no desire to visit an aquarium, but it's pretty silly to say it's _wrong_ for that oceanography student to visit the aquarium.  Likewise, it's _okay_ if a Christian has no desire to keep the Feasts, but it's pretty silly to say that it is _sinful_ for a Christian to keep the Feasts.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I always thought sin was breaking God's law, but maybe churches have a more up to date definition.
> Surely keeping God's feasts mentioned in his law is some how a sin now?


Well, apparently some hero in antiquity decided that all Jews are thieves, and therefore any Christian who kept the Jewish feasts had to be eradicated.  From that point on 'the church' decided that keeping the Feasts was some kind of sin.  This is one of the (several) reasons why I know that placing the 'traditions of men' above the commandments of God is a terrible, terrible idea.

----------


## TER

> Nobody continuously remains, we are not immortal.


Yes, we are immortal, now that Christ has destroyed death, and even though our flesh dies and decomposes, our soul remains.  

The remnant which will remain and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven on the Last Day will include those who were still alive in the world at that time (few in number) and those who died in the flesh in the past (the vast majority).  Together, as one Body and one Bride they will constitute the Remnant.




> Identifying with a church doesn't make its teachings true.


Of course not.  That is why we have to be very careful and particular with regards to _which_ Church we become members to.  We should identify which Church goes back to the beginning and whose communion of saints around the Holy Eucharist can prove this to be the case.  Then we have found the apostolic Church of the New Testament which Christ said the gates of hell would never overcome and which the Apostles believed to be the foundation for the truth.




> You sure have a  lot of faith in institutions. Its kind of hard to prove individuals  continued to follow a teaching throughout the centuries. I guess unless Gunny finds the Convent of Feast Keepers, and returns with the golden scrolls of yearly records, you won't recognize the term remnant?


If Gunny wishes to convince me that a Covenant of Feast Keepers existed, he will have to show me more proof.  I don't necessarily need the golden scrolls of yearly records (hyperbole appreciated), but I will need much more proof than what he has given me (which is pretty much nothing and circumstantial and certainly not proof of a continual communing Church of Feast Keepers).  Some names of Saints of this community would be a good start.




> It doesn't  matter how many if any have followed a teaching in 1000 years, if it is  indeed Biblical, they are the remnant it seems to me. Teachings abide,  they remain. I couldn't care less how old any church or sect is, only whether teachings are true or not. Either keeping the feasts is good, or its bad, or it doesn't matter either way.


And how will you know if keeping the feasts is good, or its bad, or it doesnt' matter either way without knowing what the Christians believed for 2000 years and what has been taught as Biblical?  People have different interpretation of the writings of the Bible, that is the problem.  And because of that, different teachings have sprouted up, and heresies such as Arianism and others threatened to divide the body of believers.  You should care how old a Church is, because that is a marker of how true it's teachings on.  

Here is an example of a Biblicist:







> I don't see anything in the Bible to suggest they are negative, in fact it was the Creator who commanded them in the first place. Even if you don't consider them necessary, I don't see how anyone can really think they are negative.


You may not see anything that is negative about celebrating Jewish Feasts of the Old Covenant, but Christians before you (who the masses have called Saints for centuries) did see something negative about maintaining Jewish traditions in the face of a growing Church open to ALL men.  These included the Apostles who threw away God's command of physical circumcision of the flesh, and they could do that, because of the authority given to them by God in the Holy Spirit.  Likewise, the leaders they in turn ordained by the same Holy Spirit continued the process of removing the excess baggage of the Jewish Old Feasts which no longer served a purpose now that Christ has come to save ALL men and that the symbols and feasts of the past found fulfillment and new meaning in the light of Christ's ascension into Heaven.

----------


## TER

> Well, apparently some hero in antiquity decided that all Jews are thieves, and therefore any Christian who kept the Jewish feasts had to be eradicated.  From that point on 'the church' decided that keeping the Feasts was some kind of sin.  This is one of the (several) reasons why I know that placing the 'traditions of men' above the commandments of God is a terrible, terrible idea.


The reason to dump the old dead feasts started way before St. John Chrysostom.  It became more urgent for him because of the threats the Jews were causing to the unity of the Church.

It wasn't that much of an issue for most of the Saints in the centuries before him because it had already been mostly eradicated according to God's good will, which is why you barely find a mention of it in the writings of the previous Saints.  It was a sect that was already on it's way of dying out, while the Church was doing the real work of spreading the faith to the nations.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The reason to dump the old dead feasts started way before St. John Chrysostom.  It became more urgent for him because of the threats the Jews were causing to the unity of the Church.


Probably from folks like you condemning those of us who choose to honor God.  I'm not the one excluding you from the Body, you are the one excluding me.  Any division came from your folks, not mine.




> It wasn't that much of an issue for most of the Saints in the centuries before him because it had already been mostly eradicated according to God's good will, which is why you barely find a mention of it in the writings of the previous Saints.  It was a sect that was already on it's way of dying out, while the Church was doing the real work of spreading the faith to the nations.


Because all twelve of the Apostles clearly needed to be eradicated by your preferred traditions of men.

I'll stick with the folks who choose to honor God over the folks who want to eradicate those who honor God every day of the week, and twice on Sundays, thankyouverymuch.

----------


## TER

> It all depends on how you interpret the bible. If you just go through all willy-nilly and just accept whatever simple interpretations you come up with are valid, then you might think such nonsense, on the other hand, if you get a Certified Bible Interpreter licenced by the Greco-Roman government to explain the secret gnosis to you, then you literally can't go wrong, because large groups of people are never wrong.


The sarcasm is rich, but the imaginary Certified Bible Interpreter licenced by the Greco-Roman government never existed.  Instead, what existed were Christians who were tortured, maimed, and killed by the Greco-Roman government for centuries until the faith eventually reached the Emperor Constantine and the persecutions died down (for a little while).  When the next future apostate Emperors entered into the scene, the Christians again became the target for torture and persecution.  Eventually, thanks be to God, Christianity was accepted by the masses to a degree that Emperors and Kings bowed down to Christ and promised to rule in ways which would please Christ so that they too may enter into His Kingdom.  (of course, with politics, some things said were just platitudes, but for others, they meant this very much).

Anyways, with regards to the current topic of this thread, the Christian Church casted away Jewish practices of celebrating the old and barren feasts of the Old Covenant way before any Christians were in positions of authority in the Roman State, so your remarks do not apply.

----------


## TER

> I'll stick with the folks who choose to honor God over the folks who want to eradicate those who honor God every day of the week, and twice on Sundays, thankyouverymuch.


 Yes, and my point is that you DO NOT choose to stick with the folks who choose to honor God (which are the Saints of the Christian Church), but choose to stick with an imaginary continuous remnant which you cannot name one person.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes, and my point is that you DO NOT choose to stick with the folks who choose to honor God (which are the Saints of the Christian Church), but choose to stick with an imaginary continuous remnant which you cannot name one person.


In _your_ opinion.  I've never called those people 'saints.'  I'll stick with the commandments of God over some random traditions of men thankyouverymuch.

ETA:



> which you cannot name one person.


And can you please stop lying?  It's unbecoming, and terribly unchristlike.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> And how will you know if keeping the feasts is good, or its bad, or it doesnt' matter either way without knowing what the Christians believed for 2000 years and what has been taught as Biblical?  People have different interpretation of the writings of the Bible, that is the problem.  And because of that, different teachings have sprouted up, and heresies such as Arianism and others threatened to divide the body of believers.  You should care how old a Church is, because that is a marker of how true it's teachings on.


It's too bad God didn't tell us what's good and bad in some static document like a book or something instead of leaving it to a gigantic, several-thousand-year game of telephone.

----------


## William Tell

Were the Pharisees or Sadducees the older sect? I'm sure that matters some how. Surely Jesus should have more reverence the older one....

----------


## TER

> However to say that it is _wrong/evil/sinful_ to have this intensely enormous understanding of the exact nature Messiah's entire ministry is extremely problematic to me.  How can it be _sinful_ to have a deeper understanding of what the Messiah has done and will do?


What is wrong and sinful is to judge the Saints and claim they are murderers with no proof.  Worshiping wrong out of ignorance or out of misplaced piety will not necessarily cast one out of the body and communion of the Saints.  Judging them, however, will.




> Likewise, you don't _have_ to keep the Feasts to understand the full breadth and depth of the ministry of Messiah, but it does help.


Well, this is a nice change Gunny.  It is good to hear you say that the Feasts of the Old Covenant are not necessary, because I think in the past you did put that condition on being a righteous and God-abiding Christian.   I think we are making progress.




> It's _okay_ if an oceanography student has no desire to visit an aquarium, but it's pretty silly to say it's _wrong_ for that oceanography student to visit the aquarium.  Likewise, it's _okay_ if a Christian has no desire to keep the Feasts, but it's pretty silly to say that it is _sinful_ for a Christian to keep the Feasts.


What is sinful is misleading people and causing division amongst the Church.  Thus, the Apostles did not cast away physical circumcision because doing so out of piety was sinful, but because it caused division and scandal and judgements within the Church.  For the same reason the Jewish Old Feasts were casted away, not because they in themselves were sinful, but because it was an obstacle to those coming to Christ, and a source of division within the Body which was under a New Covenant.

----------


## TER

> In _your_ opinion.  I've never called those people 'saints.'  I'll stick with the commandments of God over some random traditions of men thankyouverymuch.


The commandments of God in the Old Covenant have been supplanted by the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, thus we dont have to cut our foreskins, we don't have to observe dietary laws, and we don't have to celebrate dead Feasts.  This is not my decision, this is the decision of the _real_ Church, not the imaginary one.




> And can you please stop lying?  It's unbecoming, and terribly unchristlike.


Did you name someone and I missed it?  Can you repeat the single name again?  I do recall you mentioned maybe someone from the 16th century I think.

----------


## TER

> It's too bad God didn't tell us what's good and bad in some static document like a book or something instead of leaving it to a gigantic, several-thousand-year game of telephone.


The Bible, unfortunately, can be easily misinterpreted, that is why the Apostles believed that the living Church empowered and enlightened by the Holy Spirit is the pillar and foundation for the truth, and not a static document like a book or something that can easily be misinterpreted and mistranslated.

----------


## William Tell

> It's like you can grasp a very deep understanding of marine life and aquaculture from studying books, but if you go to SeaWorld once a year, you will have a much more indelible grasp on those subjects than you would from reading books alone.  You don't _have_ to go to the aquarium to understand sea life and aquaculture, of course, but it does help.


 I have learned a bit about marine life and aquaculture from reading what God has to say about eating animals of the sea. Fascinating stuff.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What is wrong and sinful is to judge the Saints and claim they are murderers with no proof.  Worshiping wrong out of ignorance or out of misplaced piety will not necessarily cast one out of the body and communion of the Saints.  Judging them, however, will.


Your same 'saints' who wanted to eradicate Christians who wanted nothing more than to keep the feasts and be left in peace.  Sounds pretty murderous to me.




> Well, this is a nice change Gunny.  It is good to hear you say that the Feasts of the Old Covenant are not necessary, because I think in the past you did put that condition on being a righteous and God-abiding Christian.   I think we are making progress.


This has been my exact position since 1999. It has not changed.  If you would have bothered to read my posts to understand them rather than just skimming them to look for things to attack me with, you might have picked up on that.




> What is sinful is misleading people and causing division amongst the Church.


Then you should probably stop doing it.




> Thus, the Apostles did not cast away physical circumcision because doing so out of piety was sinful, but because it caused division and scandal and judgements within the Church.


Relying on physical circumcision as a work unto salvation after Messiah had come, was quite sinful.




> For the same reason the Jewish Old Feasts were casted away,


In _your_ opinion.  An opinion that I vehemently do not share.




> not because they in themselves were sinful, but because it was an obstacle to those coming to Christ,


The only obstacle to Messiah here, is your obstinate insistence that I am being being sinful to keep the Feasts.




> and a source of division within the Body which was under a New Covenant.


The only source of division within the Body here, is your enmity against me because I choose to keep the Feasts.

----------


## TER

> Were the Pharisees or Sadducees the older sect? I'm sure that matters some how. Surely Jesus should have more reverence the older one....


The Pharisees was the older sect, and Christ's teachings were much much more in line with the doctrines and beliefs of the Pharisees then the Sadducess.  The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection, in heaven and hell, in synergism of God with the free will of man, in the oral Law, etc etc.  The Sadduccess were newer group to come around and great heretics who believed in Scripture alone (they were the Jewish Sola Scripturists of the day!), no life after death, total freedom of human will with no chance at synergism with God.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The commandments of God in the Old Covenant have been supplanted by the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, thus we dont have to cut our foreskins, we don't have to observe dietary laws, and we don't have to celebrate dead Feasts.  This is not my decision, this is the decision of the _real_ Church, not the imaginary one.


God does not change.  He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.




> Did you name someone and I missed it?  Can you repeat the single name again?  I do recall you mentioned maybe someone from the 16th century I think.


You've missed a LOT.  Primarily because you are not reading my posts to understand them, you are scanning my posts to look for things with which to attack me.

Post #343




> On July 7th 1638, one János Torockai, a Feast-keeping Christian was sentenced to be stoned to death. He and a large group of his fellow Feast-keeping Christians were killed, and the entire movement went underground until the 1900's when they thought they were safe, only to be sent to Auschwitz by Hitler in the 1940's.

----------


## TER

> On July 7th 1638, one János Torockai, a Feast-keeping Christian was sentenced to be stoned to death. He and a large group of his fellow Feast-keeping Christians were killed, and the entire movement went underground until the 1900's when they thought they were safe, only to be sent to Auschwitz by Hitler in the 1940's.


Is this your proof that a communion of Feast-keeping Christians existed continuously since the Day of Pentecost?

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> The Bible, unfortunately, can be easily misinterpreted, that is why the Apostles believed that *the living Church empowered and enlightened by the Holy Spirit is the pillar and foundation for the truth*, and not a static document like a book or something that can easily be misinterpreted and mistranslated.


"When the brazen serpent became a fetish in Israel, and the people burned incense to it, the good king Hezekiah contemptuously called it a piece of brass, and broke it in pieces. And since `the Church' has become an idol and an enemy to Christianity, it becomes a duty to expose the falseness of its pretensions. *The position accorded to it in the religion of Christendom is itself a mark of the apostasy*" - Sir Robert Anderson

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Is this your proof that a communion of Feast-keeping Christians existed continuously since the Day of Pentecost?


Origen, Contra Celcus, Book 8 Chapter 22


If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord's day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his thoughts, words, and deeds serving his natural Lord, God the Word, all his days are the Lord's, and he is always keeping the Lord's day. He also who is unceasingly preparing himself for the true life, and abstaining from the pleasures of this life which lead astray so many—who is not indulging the lust of the flesh, but keeping under his body, and bringing it into subjection,— such a one is always keeping Preparation-day. Again, he who considers that Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, and that it is his duty to keep the feast by eating of the flesh of the Word, never ceases to keep the paschal feast; for the pascha means a passover, and he is ever striving in all his thoughts, words, and deeds, to pass over from the things of this life to God, and is hastening towards the city of God. And, finally, he who can truly say, We are risen with Christ, and He has exalted us, and made us to sit with Him in heavenly places in Christ, is always living in the season of Pentecost; and most of all, when going up to the upper chamber, like the apostles of Jesus, he gives himself to supplication and prayer, that he may become worthy of receiving the mighty wind rushing from heaven, which is powerful to destroy sin and its fruits among men, and worthy of having some share of the tongue of fire which God sends.

----------


## TER

> Origen, Contra Celcus, Book 8 Chapter 22
> 
> 
> If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord's day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his thoughts, words, and deeds serving his natural Lord, God the Word, all his days are the Lord's, and he is always keeping the Lord's day. He also who is unceasingly preparing himself for the true life, and abstaining from the pleasures of this life which lead astray so many—who is not indulging the lust of the flesh, but keeping under his body, and bringing it into subjection,— such a one is always keeping Preparation-day. Again, he who considers that Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, and that it is his duty to keep the feast by eating of the flesh of the Word, never ceases to keep the paschal feast; for the pascha means a passover, and he is ever striving in all his thoughts, words, and deeds, to pass over from the things of this life to God, and is hastening towards the city of God. And, finally, he who can truly say, We are risen with Christ, and He has exalted us, and made us to sit with Him in heavenly places in Christ, is always living in the season of Pentecost; and most of all, when going up to the upper chamber, like the apostles of Jesus, he gives himself to supplication and prayer, that he may become worthy of receiving the mighty wind rushing from heaven, which is powerful to destroy sin and its fruits among men, and worthy of having some share of the tongue of fire which God sends.


Ecxellent quote from Origen. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean Christians should be celebrating as Jews under the Old Covevant, and he himself did not or any of the Church leaders at the time of this writing.  But good try!

Are you saying that Origen is a Church Father who worshiped like the Hebrew Roots Movement?

----------


## TER

> "When the brazen serpent became a fetish in Israel, and the people burned incense to it, the good king Hezekiah contemptuously called it a piece of brass, and broke it in pieces. And since `the Church' has become an idol and an enemy to Christianity, it becomes a duty to expose the falseness of its pretensions. *The position accorded to it in the religion of Christendom is itself a mark of the apostasy*" - Sir Robert Anderson


So because Sir Robert Anderson said so, it must be true!  lol

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Ecxellent quote from Origen. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean Christians should be celebrating as Jews under the Old Covevant, and he himself did not or any of the Church leaders at the time of this writing.  But good try!
> 
> Are you saying that Origen is a Church Father who worshiped like the Hebrew Roots Movement?


Polycarp keeps the Passover while Anicetus prefers Easter

And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points…For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect (Irenaeus. FRAGMENTS FROM THE LOST WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS, Chapter 3. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors); American Edition copyright © 1885. Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Apollinaris commends the Passover to his congregation in Hierapolis in Phrygia of Asia Minor

The fourteenth day, the true Passover of the Lord; the great sacrifice, the Son of God instead of the lamb, who was bound, who bound the strong, and who was judged, though Judge of living and dead, and who was delivered into the hands of sinners to be crucified, who was lifted up on the horns of the unicorn, and who was pierced in His holy side, who poured forth from His side the two purifying elements, water and blood, word and spirit, and who was buried on the day of the passover, the stone being placed upon the tomb (Apollinaris. From the Book Concerning Passover. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors; American Edition copyright © 1885. Copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Melito of Sardis prefers the Passover 

Now comes the mystery of the passover, even as it stands written in the law...The people, therefore, became the model for the church, and the law a parabolic sketch. But the gospel became the explanation of the law and its fulfillment, while the church became the storehouse of truth...What is the passover? Indeed its name is derived from that event–"to celebrate the passover" (to paschein) is derived from "to suffer" (tou pathein). Therefore, learn who the sufferer is and who he is who suffers along with the sufferer. Why indeed was the Lord present upon the earth? In order that having clothed himself with the one who suffers, he might lift him up to the heights of heaven...So indeed also the suffering of the Lord, predicted long in advance by means of types, but seen today, has brought about faith, just because it has taken place as predicted. And yet men have taken it as something completely new. Well, the truth of the matter is the mystery of the Lord is both old and new–old insofar as it involved the type, but new insofar as it concerns grace. And what is more, if you pay close attention to this type you will see the real thing through its fulfillment. Accordingly, if you desire to see the mystery of the Lord, pay close attention to Abel who likewise was put to death, to Isaac who likewise was bound hand and foot, to Joseph who likewise was sold, to Moses who likewise was exposed, to David who likewise was hunted down, to the prophets who likewise suffered because they were the Lord's anointed. Pay close attention also to the one who was sacrificed as a sheep in the land of Egypt, to the one who smote Egypt and who saved Israel by his blood. For it was through the voice of prophecy that the mystery of the Lord was proclaimed. And David said: Why were the nations haughty and the people concerned about nothing? The kings of the earth presented themselves and the princes assembled themselves together against the Lord and against his anointed. And Jeremiah: I am as an innocent lamb being led away to be sacrificed. They plotted evil against me and said: Come! let us throw him a tree for his food, and let us exterminate him from the land of the living, so that his name will never be recalled. And Isaiah: He was led as a sheep to slaughter, and, as a lamb is silent in the presence of the one who shears it, he did not open his mouth. Therefore who will tell his offspring? And indeed there were many other things proclaimed by numerous prophets concerning the mystery of the passover, which is Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen. When this one came from heaven to earth for the sake of the one who suffers, and had clothed himself with that very one through the womb of a virgin, and having come forth as man, he accepted the sufferings of the sufferer through his body which was capable of suffering. And he destroyed those human sufferings by his spirit which was incapable of dying. He killed death which had put man to death. For this one, who was led away as a lamb, and who was sacrificed as a sheep, by himself delivered us from servitude to the world as from the land of Egypt, and released us from bondage to the devil as from the hand of Pharaoh, and sealed our souls by his own spirit and the members of our bodies by his own blood. This is the one who covered death with shame and who plunged the devil into mourning as Moses did Pharaoh. This is the one who smote lawlessness and deprived injustice of its offspring, as Moses deprived Egypt. This is the one who delivered us from slavery into freedom, from darkness into light, from death into life, from tyranny into an eternal kingdom, and who made us a new priesthood, and a special people forever. This one is the passover of our salvation. This is the one who patiently endured many things in many people: This is the one who was murdered in Abel, and bound as a sacrifice in Isaac, and exiled in Jacob, and sold in Joseph, and exposed in Moses, and sacrificed in the lamb, and hunted down in David, and dishonored in the prophets. This is the one who became human in a virgin, who was hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from among the dead, and who raised mankind up out of the grave below to the heights of heaven. This is the lamb that was slain. This is the lamb that was silent. This is the one who was born of Mary, that beautiful ewe-lamb. This is the one who was taken from the flock, and was dragged to sacrifice, and was killed in the evening, and was buried at night; the one who was not broken while on the tree, who did not see dissolution while in the earth, who rose up from the dead, and who raised up mankind from the grave below. This one was murdered (Melito. Homily On the Passover. Verses 11, 40,46-47, 58-72. Translation from Kerux: The Journal of Online Theology , http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV4N1A1.asp 09/14/05).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Your own Orthodox Church rejects actual Church Fathers because they preferred the Passover.  Polycrates tells Rome to get stuffed.

193 A.D. - Council of Rome, presided over by Bishop Victor, condemns the celebration of Pascha on Nisan 14, and addresses a letter to Polycrates of Ephesus and the Churches in Asia.

193 A.D. - Council of Ephesus, presided over by Bishop Polycrates, and attended by several bishops throughout Asia, reject the authority of Victor of Rome, and keep the Asian paschal tradition (Markou, Stavros L. K. An Orthodox Christian Historical Timeline. Copyright © 2003 OrthodoxFaith.com).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

You could learn a lot from the Roman Bishop Victor I, who refrained from condemning Polycrates, and who councilled the churches to not ram Easter down the throats of those who chose to keep the Passover.

14. VICTOR I, ST. (189-199) An African...Victor tended not to advise other churches but to impose Rome's ideas on them, thus arousing resentment at times in bishops not inclined to accept such impositions. This was the case of Polycratus, the Bishop of Ephesus, who felt offended at this interference. The question was again that of Easter. Victor reaffirmed the decisions of Soter and Eleutherius both with regard to the date, which had to be a Sunday, and with regard to several customs of Jewish origin which were still practiced in some Christian communities...Polycratus justified himself before the pope with a letter containing the phrase "...it is more important to obey God rather than men" (Lopes A. The Popes: The lives of the pontiffs through 2000 years of history. Futura Edizoni, Roma, 1997, p. 5).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

These Church Fathers who kept the Passover, held a common refrain for those who would oppose them.  The same as the one I have been holding.  "We would rather obey God than men."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said _' We ought to obey God rather than man'_ (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapter 24. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight; also Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book 5, Chapter XXIV. Digireads.com, 2005, p. 115).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Tertullian, likewise had something to say on the matter


"Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened." The unleavened bread was therefore, in the Creator's ordinance, a figure of us (Christians). "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." But why is Christ our passover, if the passover be not a type of Christ, in the similitude of the blood which saves, and of the Lamb, which is Christ? Why does (the apostle) clothe us and Christ with symbols of the Creator's solemn rites, unless they had relation to ourselves? (Tertullian. Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter 7. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

There were so darn many of those pesky Christians keeping the Passover by 325AD, obeying God and flouting humanly authority, that Constantine decided to start putting them to death.

Epiphanius and Theodoret of Cyrus writing about how much Constantine hated it that those pesky God-obeyers refused to bow to his authority...

...the emperor...convened a council of 318 bishops...in the city of Nicea...They passed certain ecclesiastical canons at the council besides, and at the same time decreed in regard to the Passover that there must be one unanimous concord on the celebration of God's holy and supremely excellent day. For it was variously observed by people... (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verses 1,1 and 1,3. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp.471-472). A Sunday date was selected, instead of Nisan 14 (which can fall on any day of the week).

The commemoration of the most sacred paschal feast being then debated, it was unanimously decided, that it would be well that it should be everywhere celebrated upon the same day. What can be more fair, or more seemly, than that that festival by which we have received the hope of immortality should be carefully celebrated by all, on plain grounds, with the same order and exactitude? It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. By rejecting their custom, we establish and hand down to succeeding ages one which is more reasonable, and which has been observed ever since the day of our Lord's sufferings. Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. For we have received from our Saviour another way... (Theodoret of Cyrus. Ecclesiastical History (Book I), Chapter IX. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1892. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Oh! But they voted at Nicea to outlaw the Passover!!!

Pretty easy to do when you neglect to invite any Christians who chose to keep the Passover...

Bellarmino Bagatti wrote:

…the inhabitants of Syria, of Cilcia and of Mesopotamia were still celebrating Easter {Passover} with the Jews…

The importance of the matters to be discussed and the great division that existed had led Constantine to bring together a big number of bishops, including confessors of the faith, in order to give the impression that the whole of Christendom was represented.

In fact…_the churches of Jewish stock had had no representation…From this we can conclude that no Judaeo-Christian bishop participated in the Council.  Either they were not invited or they declined to attend._  And so the capitulars had a free hand to establish norms for certain practices without meeting opposition or hearing other view points.  Once the road was open future Councils would continue on these lines, thus deepening the breach between the Christians of two-stocks.  The point of view of the Judaeo-Christians, devoid of Greek philosophical formation, was that of keeping steadfast to the Testimonia, and therefore not to admit any word foreign to the Bible, including Homoousion (Bagatti, Bellarmino.  Translated by Eugene Hoade.  The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine. Nihil obstat: Ignatius Mancini, 1 Februari 1970. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari, 26 Februari 1970. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 28 Februarii 1970.  Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1971, pp. 47-48).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Still, those pesky God-obeyers kept at that whole Passover think even with Constantine putting them to death

Epiphanius noted a few decades after the Council of Nicea:

The Quartodecimans contentiously keep Passover on one day, once per year...They keep the Passover on whichever day the fourteenth of the month falls...Christ had to be slain on the fourteenth of the month in accordance with the law (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section IV, Verses 1,3;1,6;2,6. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp. 23-25).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Audians...they choose to celebrate the Passover with the Jews--that is they contentiously celebrate the Passover at the same time as the Jews are holding their Festival of Unleavened Bread. And indeed that this used to be the church's custom (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verses 8,11; 9,2. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp. 410-411).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Since Constantine went about killing all those pesky God-obeyers some folks became concerned that he was only doing so out of his own will, and not per a proper law or decree.  Instead of stopping the killing of God-obeyers, Theodosius decided to up and pass a decree to kill us.

Edicts of Theodosius against the heretics, A.D. 380-394...Theodosius...decreed that...by the death of the offender; and the same capital punishment was inflicted on the Audians, or Quartodecimans, who should dare to perpetrate the atrocious crime of celebrating on an improper day the festival (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume III, Chapter XXVII. ca. 1776-1788).

The various enactments against heretics are contained in the Code of Theodosius (16. tit. 5. s. 6—23 ; and the commentary of Gothofredus): the Eunomians, whose guilt consisted in denying any resemblance between the two sub- tances, and who were accordingly Anomoeans, were also deprived of the power of testamentary disposition, and of taking by testamentary gift: they seem, in fact, to have been deprived of all the rights of citizens. The Manichaean heresy was punishable with death; and the same penalty threatened the Audians or the Quartodecimans, who celebrated the festival of Easter on the wrong day. To the reign of Theodosius belonged the glory or the infamy of establishing Inquisitors of Faith, who seem to have been specially enjoined to look after the crime of the Quartodecimans (Smith W. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology : Oarses-Zygia. J. Murray, 1890 Item notes: v. 3 Original from Harvard University Digitized Jul 8, 2008, p. 1064).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Still, even with all that killing, and now even a formal decree that Christians who kept the Passover should be put to death.......

It just kept on going in the fifth century.  

In Asia Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon...Moreover the Quartodecimans affirm that the observance of the fourteenth day was delivered to them by the apostle John (Socrates Scholasticus. Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter XXII. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

By the seventh Century, Rome was still, desperately, trying to eradicate any Christians who kept the Passover

Pope Vitalin...supported efforts of the king of Northumbria, following the Synod of Whitby (664), to establish in England the Roman, as opposed to the Celtic, date for Easter (that is the Sunday after the Jewish Passover, rather than the Passover itself) and other Roman practices as well (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., p. 109).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

It seems Rome just couldn't quite manage to kill all of us, no matter how hard they tried.  

John of Otzun’s language perhaps implies that the old believers in Armenia during the seventh century were _Quartodecumans_, as we should expect them to be (Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. clii).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

But of course, I'm just making all of this up, and my kind of Christianity only started about 10 years ago. 

For some unknown reason, those pesky God-obeyers just won't stay dead.

----------


## jllundqu

> 'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ


From TER's Sig Line.... thought it was appropriate in this case.  The bitterness and arguing over really trivial things that mean nothing when it comes to the teachings of Jesus, is disappointing.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> From TER's Sig Line.... thought it was appropriate in this case.  The bitterness and arguing over really trivial things that mean nothing when it comes to the teachings of Jesus, is disappointing.


I couldn't possibly agree more.  I am, however, sick and tired of being labeled a heretic by the holier-than-thous.

----------


## jllundqu

> I couldn't possibly agree more.  I am, however, sick and tired of being labeled a heretic by the holier-than-thous.


Agreed

----------


## TER

Gunny, the passover those Church Fathers were celebrating and referring to is the fulfilled Christian Passover also known as Pascha which is Greek for the word Passover.  The Feast was Christenized by the Church, just as the Feast of Pentecost was Christianized by the Church.  This did not happen over night, and the Scriptures only reveal a snippet of this process which happened in time through the Church in its bishops and community of believers. 

As for my sig line, I do love you and that is why I am trying to stop you from judging the Saints and cutting at the root of your own spiritual tree which is the Christian Church.  If I can't help you see your errors, perhaps others will learn.  That is why I labor in doing this, so that you and others might benefit.  As for me, I don't believe myself be holier than thou just because I am defending the Orthodox faith which came way before me, will last way after me, and has as its members people much much greater then me.

----------


## TER

> From TER's Sig Line.... thought it was appropriate in this case.  The bitterness and arguing over really trivial things that mean nothing when it comes to the teachings of Jesus, is disappointing.


As an avowed denier of Christ as Lord, your opinion of what is trivial and whether doctrines and which doctrines matter to the Church is quite lacking.  Me and Gunny have exchanged hurtful words, but I still know He is loved by Christ and that he loves Christ and is my brother in the faith and I would defend him from enemies who deny the Lord like you every day of the week.  So let the Christians debate and keep your unwanted commentary to yourself.  Thank you!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There's not a problem with celebrations.   We celebrate birthdays.   There is nothing wrong with that.   There is everything wrong with celebrating something in regards to worship that the Bible doesn't authorize.


What about thanksgiving?

----------


## Aratus

Gunny... do forgive me...  I'm picturing poor Auld Constantine the Great in a big Bunny Wabbit costume 
explaining our esoteric symbolism to all the good Bishops at the Council of Nicaea as to why & how this 
is something that both Gaius Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar would never have done or thought of!!!
I had to vote YES on the poll becuz both LAZARUS gettin' up & the EPHESUS CAVE OF THE SLEEPERs has
its ties into our Resurrection Day & Judgement Day conceptualizations.  Its a difficult quiz, indeedy YES!!!

----------

