Where in scripture are instructions to cancel the feasts?

The Lords Supper is all I know of

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

will get to this later

thanks

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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 .

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.