Where in scripture are instructions to cancel the feasts?

[bojack]

The Lords Supper is all I know of

 

[Blik]

In order to properly observe those holy days, one would need to STRICTLY obey every injunction connected with them. And that cannot be done honestly by anyone today. As far as God is concerned, it must be all or nothing, since these are His commandments. Don't forget that Nadab and Abihu tried to circumvent those commandments and died and went to Hell.

THE FEASTS WERE FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts. (Lev 23:2)

Why can no one observe those feasts today? Because there is NO temple in Jerusalem, NO tabernacle on earth, NO Levitical priesthood, NO Aaronic priests, and NO Levites.

THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD WAS REQUIRED (INDEED ESSENTIAL)
But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. (Lev 23:8) [BY THE PRIESTS]

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. (Lev 23:10,11)

And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD. (Lev 23:12) [BY THE PRIESTS]

And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave offering before the LORD, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the LORD for the priest. (Lev 23:20)

Those are just a few examples. I already told Blik to study Leviticus carefully (which she ignored). You can study chapter 23 and see how you (or she, or anyone else) will circumvent the temple and the Levitical priesthood while you observe those feasts. And unless you stick to the letter and the spirit of the Law, God will REJECT your Torah observance.

Furthermore, to observe these feasts is to TRAMPLE on the finished work of Christ. He already fulfilled the feasts of Passover, First Fruits, Pentecost, and the Day of Atonement. He already became the Whole Burnt Offering, the Meal Offering, the Sin Offering, the Trespass Offering, the Passover Lamb, and any other sacrifice recorded in the Law of Moses. That is why the Old Covenant has been ABOLISHED. (Not the Ten Commandments but the Old Covenant). So going back means rejecting Christ. A very serious matter.

And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament [Covenant]; which vail is done away in Christ.

Do you actually think that if God takes away one part of an instruction God means us to scrap the entire shebang? Perhaps you are right, but it is a new idea to me, have to think about it.


That God gave scripture that we are to read as a race, so some of it is for Israel and some off limits for gentiles I cannot begin to accept. If you will go to your concordance and search for strangers, scripture tells us that this is not the case at all. His instructions are for ones who believe in God as God tells us over and over. Scripture states that God is equally a God of man, not just of His race He created to show the world what God is like.

The Jewish priest showed us what Christ would do as our priest when Christ took over, everything done was fulfilled, brought to life, in Christ.

I don't think your understanding of Christ as a fulfillment is as God wants us to understand. You feel that fulfilled means ended, and that is the opposite of what Christ did. Christ stated that he ended nothing.

 

[Blik]

In order to properly observe those holy days, one would need to STRICTLY obey every injunction connected with them. And that cannot be done honestly by anyone today. As far as God is concerned, it must be all or nothing, since these are His commandments. Don't forget that Nadab and Abihu tried to circumvent those commandments and died and went to Hell.

THE FEASTS WERE FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts. (Lev 23:2)

Why can no one observe those feasts today? Because there is NO temple in Jerusalem, NO tabernacle on earth, NO Levitical priesthood, NO Aaronic priests, and NO Levites.

THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD WAS REQUIRED (INDEED ESSENTIAL)
But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. (Lev 23:8) [BY THE PRIESTS]

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. (Lev 23:10,11)

And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD. (Lev 23:12) [BY THE PRIESTS]

And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave offering before the LORD, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the LORD for the priest. (Lev 23:20)

Those are just a few examples. I already told Blik to study Leviticus carefully (which she ignored). You can study chapter 23 and see how you (or she, or anyone else) will circumvent the temple and the Levitical priesthood while you observe those feasts. And unless you stick to the letter and the spirit of the Law, God will REJECT your Torah observance.

Furthermore, to observe these feasts is to TRAMPLE on the finished work of Christ. He already fulfilled the feasts of Passover, First Fruits, Pentecost, and the Day of Atonement. He already became the Whole Burnt Offering, the Meal Offering, the Sin Offering, the Trespass Offering, the Passover Lamb, and any other sacrifice recorded in the Law of Moses. That is why the Old Covenant has been ABOLISHED. (Not the Ten Commandments but the Old Covenant). So going back means rejecting Christ. A very serious matter.

And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament [Covenant]; which vail is done away in Christ.

You state that I ignore Leviticus, when I spent months doing a special study of this book. I do not speak giving personal opinions, I speak as explaining scripture. If I am wrong in what I say, then I am not understanding scripture but it is scripture I tell of, not an opinion. Scripture tells us to honor the feasts for all generations. That means as long as we have children, all are to honor them. We are not to honor fleshly circumcision, we are not to honor using special diet to teach us to keep only clean things in our minds, we are to do this via the Holy Spirit. But there is nowhere that we are told not to honor the feasts, there are instructions to honor them for all generations. It doesn't give us threats for if we don't, it tells us to honor them. Why there are such negative reactions to what it says I wonder at.

 

[posthuman]

it was clearly understood that in 1st. cent. Judaism that the 'letter of the law could not always be kept -
a good example is that in many of the sacrifices and especially the 'sprinkling of the blood' on the
'Ark of the Covenant', on the day of Atonement could not be done, simple because there was not
an ARK at the Time because it had been taken away in the Babylonia captivity...
so,
what they did, was they sprinkled the blood on the 'floor' of the Holy of Holies, and so,
the general principle was, if they could not keep the exact letter of the Law, that they would
do the very best that they could with the circumstances at hand...
and they also understood that the blood of the goat or a lamb sprinkled upon a piece of metal
had 'no power at all' IF NOT ACCOMPAMIED with TRUST IN YESHUA and OBIENDIENCE from the HEART'...

​

On the second day the heads of fathers' houses of all the people, with the priests and the Levites, came together to Ezra the scribe in order to study the words of the Law. And they found it written in the Law that the Lord had commanded by Moses that the people of Israel should dwell in booths during the feast of the seventh month, and that they should proclaim it and publish it in all their towns and in Jerusalem, “Go out to the hills and bring branches of olive, wild olive, myrtle, palm, and other leafy trees to make booths, as it is written.” ​

(Nehemiah 8:13-15) ​

​

this sounds like when they came back from captivity, they largely didn't even know what the law had required them to do?

while they were in exile, unable to keep the feasts, unable to operate as a nation how the law had instructed them to, they were under God's judgement - as though for neglecting Him when they lived in the land, He caused them to become ignorant of Him, like the veil still over their hearts whenever they read Moses today, because they refuse to come to Christ. knowledge of Him is life -- the glory departed because of their idolatries, and knowledge of Him passed away too, except for a remnant.

 

[wattie]

Are you actually saying that God is to be listened to only as He spoke after Christ was crucified and never before?

No just saying the OT system of faith in God had been done away with the New Testament system of faith in God. So it is service in the local church rather than the synagogue. Serving thru the ten commandments without the OT system of laws

 

[Dino246]

I am as sure that you are completely incorrect in your individual interpretation of God as you are that I am incorrect. I have had more study of scripture, besides. Yes, I am deeply offended by your accusations of me, I believe scripture discussions should be done respectfully and in a Christian way and that doesn't seem to be what you think. If you actually had 2 plus 2 equal 4 your accusations would not be so off base but they don't.

Dear Blik... please understand that it is never my intention to offend you, just for the sake of doing so. However, I do not pull punches, and if I think your ideas are wrong or your reasoning is flawed, I will say so without hesitation. Entertaining poor reasoning is enabling delusion.

Take my "red herring" comment from page 1. It's not even remotely a personal insult or "accusation", as you call it. Rather, it's an observation about the relevance of your statement. You apparently don't understand the term, so you feel offended... needlessly. Should a child feel offended when they get red X's on their incorrect maths? No. They should learn their maths better. In the same way, you should not get offended when you are told that your reasoning is flawed, but rather, you should improve your reasoning.

 

[Jimbone]

Awesome way to point out a HUGE problem with believing all these things aren't fulfilled. That the judgement didn't already come, and that we still need a temple, these things are finished for ALL time. If these things didn't happen when Gods temple was on earth then it's all false unless scripture is still open. This is a HUGE whole in the word of God when you believe in a coming 3rd temple.

Oh my goodness, I can't believe I used the wrong version of "hole" in this comment. that looks really dumb and undermines my comment, the hole thing. I QUIT!!!!


I'm just playing, but man I don't like it when I do things like that.

(p.s. the "hole thing" was a joke on purpose, this was also the incorrect one for the sentence)

 

[Dino246]

That's because there were no such thing as Christians , a label, when God was inspiring His Truth to be recorded for all time.

Paul wrote to believers in Jesus Christ. Do I need to type "believers in Jesus Christ" repeatedly, or can I just use the concise and precise term, "Christians"? There were no instructions to "believers in Jesus Christ" to celebrate the Jewish feasts.

 

[Dino246]

What would be the harm if a Christian observed those holy days.

Here's the problem with your question...

I did not say anything at all about there being harm in observing them.

Here is your two-part question again:

"Do you think God would not approve a Christian honoring the feasts?
If you think not, where is it written that God would condemn the Christian if they did choose to celebrate the remaining feasts? "

I said nothing about God "not approving" a Christian honouring the feasts. You introduced that idea.

I said nothing about God condemning Christians who do choose to celebrate the feasts. You introduced that idea.

So... you're wanting me to defend the ideas that you introduced. It ain't gonna happen. I'll continue my comment in my next post.

Here's another thing: your questions are built on a false dichotomy: that either God approves the Christians who celebrate the feasts, or He condemns them.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

No we are not. Read my post above.

I am leaning towards no as well rather than well if they want to what harm does it do

I do remember well the wars we had months back on this very subject

basically, people said and I agree, that they seem to think the blood shed on the cross was not enough

do we thumb our nose at God's sacrifice on our behalf?

maybe.

if a person wants to learn about how the Jews were instructed, actually they should do so. Christians seem to lack understanding of that covenant and understand there was actually another covenant before that one..Abraham and further, the illustration of him being asked to sacrifice his beloved and only son...pointing actually to Jesus

there is a dire lack of knowledge among those who think we can do whatever we want

 

[7seasrekeyed]

What a strange occurrence that a member of a Messianic congregation would arrive at such a thought. (keep the law, save themselves).
I won't judge the OP's motives for this post. I think there has been enough back and forth concerning certain Old Testament practices and their application, yes, no, to the Christian today, that a feasts thread was likely inevitable.And when I saw it I thought it was a natural outcome as OT practices have been discussed thus far, such as keeping the law (yes/no), observing the Sabbath(yes/no), and I think there was something as I recall about women dressining
I look forward, if you would indulge me, as to your elaborating more on your statement about the Gospel is not based on how we feel. Knowing how the Gospel came to us, what do you mean about it not being based, beyond how it arrived, on how we feel?

I also think it is a natural thing for people to find themselves conflicted in understanding the context of scripture. I don't think it is a holdover from the garden in so much as it is representative of, as I've noted prior in other matters, our being influenced by Denominational interpretations. Or, if we are nor have ever been a member of a Denomination per say, then our own efforts to comprehend the message in scripture.

it really is not a natural thing, IMO, for people to be conflicted. it is a holdover from the garden

the question was and still is: Has God really said?

well did He or didn't He?

we do not agree on this subject which is one reason I wanted to let it go because otherwise I think we have a good rapport...but I will say what I believe and think...as do you, I think

as far as judging the op's motives, he is not a troll. he is not here to cause trouble. he obviously believes what he posts

he is wrong

 

[Dino246]

This post is not to address the subject matter of the questions below, but the style of the questions. It's a pattern I've seen many times with one particular contributor, and a few times with others. I'm hoping that we can all learn from this... and avoid doing it.

Are you actually saying that God is to be listened to only as He spoke after Christ was crucified and never before?

Do you actually think that if God takes away one part of an instruction God means us to scrap the entire shebang?

Both questions take a grain of another person's post, distort it, and respond to the distortion instead of the actual words. It's a poor way to interact, because it does not actually address the person's statement at all. Instead, it is rooted in error and takes the conversation off on rabbit trails, making it unfruitful.

This style of question is essentially a strawman argument... an informal logical fallacy that oversimplifies or distorts another's position in an attempt to discredit it. It is logically flawed, because you aren't addressing the person's assertions at all. It also demonstrates disrespect for others, because it shows that the questioner is not interested in understanding the other's position, but rather wants to portray it as ridiculous.

Instead of paraphrasing another person's statement, quote it directly. Address the content of their statement, not your paraphrase (or, more commonly, distortion). Do not, by your paraphrase, assume the other person is asserting something they have not actually asserted.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I look forward, if you would indulge me, as to your elaborating more on your statement about the Gospel is not based on how we feel. Knowing how the Gospel came to us, what do you mean about it not being based, beyond how it arrived, on how we feel?

will get to this later

thanks

 

[7seasrekeyed]

This post is not to address the subject matter of the questions below, but the style of the questions. It's a pattern I've seen many times with one particular contributor, and a few times with others. I'm hoping that we can all learn from this... and avoid doing it.




Both questions take a grain of another person's post, distort it, and respond to the distortion instead of the actual words. It's a poor way to interact, because it does not actually address the person's statement at all. Instead, it is rooted in error and takes the conversation off on rabbit trails, making it unfruitful.

This style of question is essentially a strawman argument... an informal logical fallacy that oversimplifies or distorts another's position in an attempt to discredit it. It is logically flawed, because you aren't addressing the person's assertions at all. It also demonstrates disrespect for others, because it shows that the questioner is not interested in understanding the other's position, but rather wants to portray it as ridiculous.

Instead of paraphrasing another person's statement, quote it directly. Address the content of their statement, not your paraphrase (or, more commonly, distortion). Do not, by your paraphrase, assume the other person is asserting something they have not actually asserted.

a complete quote, as you say, would eliminate those who reply that way on purpose and those who actually tend to view responses through their own lens

either way, a quote, even a partial one, would eliminate that

I totally agree with your observation but I'm not gonna hold my breath

 

[7seasrekeyed]

You continue to amaze me with not only your humbleness, but your knowledge of scripture. Much love and appreciation for what the Lord as done for you and through you!

people need to make it clear when they source something otherwise it is plagiarism. the source at the bottom of that post is so tiny you can miss it .

the article she supposedly wrote, is from Got Questions

 

[7seasrekeyed]

To believe this you need to believe that hundreds of scripture verses are incorrect.

We are to understand that love sums up the law, and there is no instructions given to us for how to live that isn't about love.

Disobedience of a law does not mean death for us, we have Christ who saves us from death. But when we put Christ in our life we put love. You can not love and still gossip, lie, steal or disobey the law.

reading minds now? you think you know what I or others are thinking? do you have a problem accepting that Christ accomplished the fulfillment of all of the law because He never sinned?

the rest of your post has nothing to do with anything I have said in this or any other thread

I prefer not to post to you, but your false accusations are such that they should be addressed

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Wow and again Wow!
First, over and over posters say that something God says in the OT needs to be verified by Christ, they believe the NT is right and because so many commands of the OT is now obsolete through the new covenant they question all the OT. The God of the NT is the very same God as the God of the NT. Some things in the OT are said to be true for all generations. That means until Christ comes again.

Paul was opposed to people believing that the rituals given in the OT were to be followed instead of listening to the Holy Spirit within us. Paul did not say that he was against anything Jewish.

When people try to convince me scripture is incorrect and wrong, no I will not follow man instead of following God. If someone shows me I have misinterpreted what scripture says, I listen.


With deeper study of scripture, spending hours and hours at this, I found that I was very wrong about what I thought scripture taught. I was following church doctrine, not scripture. So wrong it brought me to tears. I WANT to simply follow God's ways and if that means change I have done that and would again. Are YOU open to learning about the true God?

yes wow indeed

apparently you find fault with the New Covenant and have no knowledge of the covenant God made with Abraham BEFORE the commandments were given

many people here have spent many hours studying scripture. some get it right and some do not

you can play at being Jewish, but those who understand prefer to follow Christ because they have a correct understanding of scripture which does NOT include playing at being Jewish

 

[Locoponydirtman]

she didn't do the work

it is sourced from 'Got Questions'

you might note the itsy bitsy source that is highlighted at the end of her post?

I am mentioning it because the title to the article was left out and it is actually important.

here it is:

How did Jesus fulfill the meanings of the Jewish feasts?

the article is illustrating why we do not have to keep the feasts


SOURCE

One could argue that the 70AD total destruction of the temple, and the scattering of Israel hence forth into the world could be a direct order to end all of the traditions and laws surrounding Judaism.

 

[garee]

Scripture clearly tells us that we are to be guided by the Holy Spirit, not by the fleshly commands of fleshly circumcision or special diet. It explains why God did this. I don’t find the commands for cancelling the Sabbath or the feasts. These instructions are about worship and praising God very different from what circumcision and diet are about.

I would offer, not by the fleshly commands of fleshly circumcision or special diet and also . . ."special days". They all come under the same shadow or cloud of the good things to come.

The word sabbath is not a time senititive word .It is used two ways in the Bible. One to represent the temporal as a sign to the whole world. The other that comes by mixing faith the eternal. . . as long as today is today.(under the sun) The non-observable sabbath our rest we do have. . . yoked with Him who works in us.

It would seem you are making a division between the days (time period) of the fleshly ordinances and certain foods used to signify the clean as redeemed, or unclean food or animals, as unredeemed .They all work together as one ordinance that looked ahead to a suffering Savior and the glory that did follow . The time or reformation.

Neither the time set apart nor the food are the true unseen substance .

Cerinimoinal law are shadows that could not make them that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; The sign is a representative of the unseen glory of God was to the whole world. The demonstration of that not seen was not to their own self or flesh .(look at us we are the light of the world)

Hebrews give us some information

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the "time of reformation". Hebrews 9:8-10

I studied history to discover when and how these cancellations came about.I searched information from the dead sea scrolls as well as established ancient history as Harvard and Yale teaches it. I found that it is probable that these decisions were based on what was happening in the secular world at that time rather than scripture teaching.

They are not cancelations they never did do anything to the one that did service .Again as shadows they represented the unseen eternal .

Colossians 2 gives more insight. Warning us of worshipping shadows.

So don’t let anyone make rules for you about eating and drinking or about Jewish customs (festivals, New Moon celebrations, or Sabbath days). In the past these things were like a shadow that showed what was coming. But the new things that were coming are found in Christ. Colossians 2:16-17

History tells us that when the Jews rebelled against Rome in 70 and 132 the Romans killed so many Jerusalem Jews the blood ran in the streets. Before this the Jews headed the Christian church councils, men like James the earthly brother of Jesus. They only had the OT, and the Jews knew it well, the gentiles didn’t. The gentile church heads were familiar with their pagan worship and they only changed gods, keeping a lot of their customs like Sunday church. They felt God wanted them to oppose Jews who denied Christ, they were against anything Jewish.

It would seem you are putting a division between the Jew and Gentile as if as new creatures we did wrestle against flesh and blood and the Kingdom did come by observation.

What you offered I would think is a "oral tradition of men" called the "witness of men". Blood running down the streets would only seem to add drama . Same with the beheading . They could be true but not as the witness of God . . the greater.

Cannon was complete long before the witnesses of men came later.

The two witnesses of God the law and the prophets. signified by Moses and Elias make up the living word of God.It as it is written is still doing its work of quickening the souls of men giving us his unseen understanding .

 

[posthuman]

No just saying the OT system of faith in God had been done away with the New Testament system of faith in God. So it is service in the local church rather than the synagogue. Serving thru the ten commandments without the OT system of laws

What you're saying doesn't justify including the 10 commandments. You are simultaneously saying they are done away for us with and that they remain a law for us.