tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post4555288221651195766..comments2024-03-16T02:12:38.325-07:00Comments on God cannot be contained!: Another look at the Law of the Central SanctuaryMiller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-57182424437108761862017-01-06T07:13:31.306-08:002017-01-06T07:13:31.306-08:00No, I am unable to do that, and there are good rea...No, I am unable to do that, and there are good reasons. First, we have a scarcity of church writings from the period immediately following the temple's destruction when we would expect the issue to have been addressed. Second, the epistles are where one would expect this, but they are someone else's mail, and each deals with issues of the day and of the recipients. "The day" happens to be prior to the destruction of the Temple, so there was not yet an issue of adapting the festivals. Indeed, I would be surprised if such discussion had occurred in the epistles.<br /><br />As to the Jerusalem council, we ought to look at the reason given for the judgment. It's verse 21 of Acts 15. The gentiles were already learning about these traditions through the synagogues. We must keep in mind that the church was a part of Judaism. Even their tithes would still have been paid to the Jewish priesthood until much later. And this was somewhat offset by the the fact that "a great many of the priests" had become believers and no doubt were collecting tithes from non-believing Jews. When a gentile came into the church, I do not believe he assembled on sabbath alone with believers; I think he went to synagogue, and then on the first day assembled with believers if they held an assembly (e.g.: Acts 20:7; I Co 16:2).<br /><br />The rest of your comment seems to be on the notion that the law was fulfilled in Christ, and you seem to take the position that this means we don't need to keep it. It's a common teaching, and it is one that goes over my head. I don't get it. When I read that he fulfilled the law, to me the plain meaning is that he kept it. <br /><br />And there is nothing wrong with shadows. Marriage is a shadow of the wedding supper of the Lamb. Baptism is a shadow of faith in the messiah. The festivals are shadows also, and they have shapes that reminds us of the realities they portray, but not the fullness of the reality just like baptism doesn't have the fullness of the reality it portrays.Gordon Feilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16920970799354430732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-32400876121805158472017-01-05T15:50:41.643-08:002017-01-05T15:50:41.643-08:00Thanks, Gordon. As you know, the church was ENTIRE...Thanks, Gordon. As you know, the church was ENTIRELY Jewish at its founding (and for many years thereafter). Hence, everyone (including the apostles) continued to keep the Holy Days. Christ had kept them and had never said anything about not keeping them. Nevertheless, he had told them that the temple would one day be destroyed and had alluded to the fact that he would eventually FILL TO THE FULL ALL things relative to the Law. These were a shadow of the reality found in Christ. Even the ACOGs understand that these all pointed to him, and God's plan to redeem man through him. When the apostles and disciples actually began to fulfill the commission which Christ had given them (to take his message to the entire world), people came into the church in great numbers who were not Jewish. As you have noted, they were adopted into Israel through Christ and were accounted by God as having fulfilled the requirements of the Law through Christ. The Jerusalem council (Acts) demonstrates that Jewish Christians made the decision not to impose on them Jewish modalities and traditions. Jewish Christians continued to observe these days, but it is clear that most Gentile Christians NEVER observed them. Finally, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple (as Christ had predicted), it became impossible for Jewish Christians to continue to observe them in accordance with the instructions given in the Torah. My point is: No one told them to adapt and change the modalities when that happened. Can you cite any scriptural or historical evidence to contradict that?Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-55593042514164859762017-01-05T11:46:07.896-08:002017-01-05T11:46:07.896-08:00There is more power to my argument than meets the ...There is more power to my argument than meets the eye. If you were a Jew on the Day of Pentecost covered by Acts 2, what would YOU have done in the matter of keeping those festivals? You would have kept right on keeping them until someone told you otherwise. You are asking the wrong question. You should ask where do we read not to observe those days? You aren't going to read an exhortation to keep them when the church already was doing so.Gordon Feilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16920970799354430732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-71090957146290575102017-01-04T13:07:08.092-08:002017-01-04T13:07:08.092-08:00Cathy and Gordon, thanks for your comments. Gordon...Cathy and Gordon, thanks for your comments. Gordon, as you know, my thesis is that the Holy Days were not done away with, but they were transformed by Christ who filled them to the full. As you suggest, it is no longer possible to keep them in the manner prescribed in the Old Testament. That should be plain to everyone. And, although you are correct to point out that Christians were never explicitly told not to observe the Holy Days or that they wouldn't benefit from keeping them, we must also acknowledge that they were never explicitly told to change the modalities for their observance (with the notable exception of the Passover). Hence, I'm still looking for a scripture-based argument that refutes my thesis. Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-63671166284242765802017-01-04T12:40:49.414-08:002017-01-04T12:40:49.414-08:00We know that some aspects of worship change withou...We know that some aspects of worship change without the underlying observance changing. For example, tithing. Hebrews 7 explains that the law changed: tithes were no longer to be paid to the levitical priesthood (verse 12). Interesting that in Numbers 25:13 we read that it was a "perpetual priesthood", but for now it is gone, yet a system is still in place for people to support preachers (I Cor 9:14). <br /><br />Dt 12:8 was given to the people about to enter the promised land. The temple was not yet to be destroyed, so this audience was told that they wouldn't depart from the modalities prescribed for them. But later comes a new covenant with Israel that is then comprised largely of people that have been adopted into Israel. Never are we told that adoptees don't benefit from the observance of the festivals. <br /><br />This is a quick save-time response.Gordon Feilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16920970799354430732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-44697849288222069932017-01-04T06:10:03.609-08:002017-01-04T06:10:03.609-08:00I found this really interesting. Not having been ...I found this really interesting. Not having been raised in a "Saturday church," I kind of accepted what John told me about the Sabbath and the feast days. You're right; you can't have it both was.Cathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04574268843230811961noreply@blogger.com