What is True Messianic Breaking of Bread?

Daniel Gregg said:

Yes I see that. The Jewish Encylopedia only rates this as very probable. However, I think it is certain after reviewing the texts, esp. these:

JPS Leviticus 24:7 And thou shalt put pure frankincense with each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial-part, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

ESV Leviticus 2:11 "No grain offering that you bring to the LORD shall be made with leaven, for you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the LORD.

Click to expand...

Daniel, what you, and many scholars miss, is that although the Showbread were called a "fire offering" and fire offerings offered on the altar to the Lord were to be unleavened, it was only the frankinsence from on top of the Showbread that went in the fire to God, the "breads" (lechem) were not offered in the fire, they were eaten by the higher order of priests.

Daniel Gregg said:

The passages I cited are from AFTER the resurrection. Mr. Tennent is unable to overcome these passages. They are fatal to his thesis that artos means only leavened bread.

Click to expand...

Daniel, it is humerous that you keep finding things that are fatal to my thesis, yet you don't even read the book where I explain this. Those verses you bring are covered in Course four of the book, for anyone who would like to see them explained.

I answer all your questions Daniel, why do you not answer mine? I will ask you again:

Daniel, you say it is fine for Yeshua and the apostles to say they ate "bread" at that supoposed Passover, so is it true that you would be fine going to the Rabbi's house in the Orthodox section of Jerusalem on Passover and saying "Shalom Rabbi, I have brought bread for us to eat tonight for Passover"? And then telling all your Orthodox friends around Jerusalem the same thing? (assuming you were Orthodox?).

And even though the Talmud was clear that if a high priest ate anything leavened at Passover he would be whipped, you would be fine telling everyone that you and the Messiah ate "bread" at Passover?

daq said:

And again, both the bread of the Presence, ("shewbread", KJV), and the manna were clearly unleavened even though both are called lechem and artos in their respective texts, (Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Septuagint).

Click to expand...

Daq, almost all scholars have taught that the Showbread were unleavened as you say, but I believe when the facts on both sides are carefully weighed it becomes clear that the Showbread were not unleavened in Moses or King David's time, and that's why they were never called Show-matzah. They were not once commanded by God to be made without leaven, and they are never called matzah, but always breads. It is rare that such a important offering in the Temple would be left unspoken by God (as to their make up, leavened or unleavened) but I believe He had His reasons (as my chapter below goes into).

Just as the one leavened bread the Messiah broke into pieces at the last supper (supper, not Passover) represented the not yet unleavened believers, the spiritual "body," so did the twelve Show-breads represent the not yet unleavened twelve tribes. Only the Messiah was unleavened, and only he could go directly in the fire to God (symbolically speaking).

The Hebrew and Greek both had only one word for unleavened (matzah/azumos) and one word for regular leavened bread (lechem/artos). It was only in English that the word for "bread" became joined with unleavened, so that we say "unleavened bread" for what previously had been matzah or azumwn in Hebrew and Greek. Hebrew and Greek (except for two or three rare exceptions) did not join unleavened to bread. My point is that the English, who had the belief that the last supper was the Passover, where they saw the Messiah eating "bread" needed to join unleavened with bread, so it became "unleavened bread."

The following chapter in my book I believe shows the true history of how these twelve breads became unleavened (matzah) when under Moses and King David they were always lechem. Here is that chapter if you or anyone is interested:

http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Course_7.pdf

All the best to you Daq,
Alex

Alex Tennent said:

Daq, almost all scholars have taught that the Showbread were unleavened as you say, but I believe when the facts on both sides are carefully weighed it becomes clear that the Showbread were not unleavened in Moses or King David's time, and that's why they were never called Show-matzah. They were not once commanded by God to be made without leaven, and they are never called matzah, but always breads. It is rare that such a important offering in the Temple would be left unspoken by God (as to their make up, leavened or unleavened) but I believe He had His reasons (as my chapter below goes into).

Just as the one leavened bread the Messiah broke into pieces at the last supper (supper, not Passover) represented the not yet unleavened believers, the spiritual "body," so did the twelve Show-breads represent the not yet unleavened twelve tribes. Only the Messiah was unleavened, and only he could go directly in the fire to God (symbolically speaking).

The Hebrew and Greek both had only one word for unleavened (matzah/azumos) and one word for regular leavened bread (lechem/artos). It was only in English that the word for "bread" became joined with unleavened, so that we say "unleavened bread" for what previously had been matzah or azumwn in Hebrew and Greek. Hebrew and Greek (except for two or three rare exceptions) did not join unleavened to bread. My point is that the English, who had the belief that the last supper was the Passover, where they saw the Messiah eating "bread" needed to join unleavened with bread, so it became "unleavened bread."

The following chapter in my book I believe shows the true history of how these twelve breads became unleavened (matzah) when under Moses and King David they were always lechem. Here is that chapter if you or anyone is interested:

http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Course_7.pdf

All the best to you Daq,
Alex

Click to expand...

Hi Alex, the Dove says in the famous John 6 passage that he is the bread of life which came down from the heavens in reference to the manna and quail. In the same passage he says the bread that he gives is his flesh. Then he says that his words are spirit and life. At the seder he offers up from this manna and it is exactly what he stated it would be, that is, Word, exactly as it is in Torah.

Deuteronomy 8:2-3 KJV
2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Not only lechem-artos but manna from Elohim, the Word, (which is to be unleavened).
.
.

daq said:

Hi Alex, the Dove says in the famous John 6 passage that he is the bread of life which came down from the heavens in reference to the manna and quail. In the same passage he says the bread that he gives is his flesh. Then he says that his words are spirit and life. At the seder he offers up from this manna and it is exactly what he stated it would be, that is, Word, exactly as it is in Torah.

Deuteronomy 8:2-3 KJV
2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Not only lechem-artos but manna from Elohim, the Word, (which is to be unleavened).
.
.

Click to expand...

Hi Daq!
And yes, I definitely agree, the Messiah and his teaching are unleavened!

At the same time I still feel that there is deeper meaning in why God never commanded the Show-bread to be made unleavened. He was always very careful to clearly state when an offering was to be unleavened (matzah at Passover, any offerings in the fire) and He was also very clear when an offering was to be made with leaven (such as the two loaves at Pentecost, and the thank offering in Lev 7:13). It is interesting that He calls these two leavened offerings "bread" (lechem) just as He calls the Showbread "bread." I think the deeper meaning parallels that of the last supper parables, where the one bread, broken into pieces, showed the apostles that we the believers are now the members of the Messiah's spiritual body:

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

daq said:

Hi Alex, the Dove says in the famous John 6 passage that he is the bread of life which came down from the heavens in reference to the manna and quail. In the same passage he says the bread that he gives is his flesh. Then he says that his words are spirit and life. At the seder he offers up from this manna and it is exactly what he stated it would be, that is, Word, exactly as it is in Torah.

Deuteronomy 8:2-3 KJV
2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Not only lechem-artos but manna from Elohim, the Word, (which is to be unleavened).
.
.

Click to expand...

Matthew and Luke 4:4

Alex Tennent said:

Hi Daq!
And yes, I definitely agree, the Messiah and his teaching are unleavened!

At the same time I still feel that there is deeper meaning in why God never commanded the Show-bread to be made unleavened. He was always very careful to clearly state when an offering was to be unleavened (matzah at Passover, any offerings in the fire) and He was also very clear when an offering was to be made with leaven (such as the two loaves at Pentecost, and the thank offering in Lev 7:13). It is interesting that He calls these two leavened offerings "bread" (lechem) just as He calls the Showbread "bread." I think the deeper meaning parallels that of the last supper parables, where the one bread, broken into pieces, showed the apostles that we the believers are now the members of the Messiah's spiritual body:

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

Click to expand...

This is perhaps where it turns into vegitarian(pescatarian)-vs-carnivore so I don't know how much further it would be worth it to proceed. However you may have noticed that the KJV and older English translations will often translate lechem as meat. This is because when the older translations were rendered the word "meat" did not specifically always mean the flesh of an animal as it now does today in the western mind. So it gets back to whether or not one believes and sees the sacrifices as the literal slaying of living creatures to appease Elohim or whether the sacrifices have spiritual and supernal meaning. The Psalms help expound the meaning and intention of animal sacrifices, (as well as clear statements from Isaiah and Jeremiah) which is that they are supernal in meaning. As we know, Elohim neither desires nor consumes the flesh of slain beasts; and at the same time we also have a commandment, "You shall not murder-kill", which does not specify that it only pertains to not killing mankind.

Numbers 28:2 KJV
2 Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, My offering, and my bread [lechem] for my sacrifices made by fire, for a sweet savour unto me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due season.

Numbers 28:16-25 KJV
16 And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:
19 But ye shall offer a sacrifice made by fire for a burnt offering unto the LORD; two young bullocks, and one ram, and seven lambs of the first year: they shall be unto you without blemish:
20 And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil: three tenth deals shall ye offer for a bullock, and two tenth deals for a ram;
21 A several tenth deal shalt thou offer for every lamb, throughout the seven lambs:
22 And one goat for a sin offering, to make an atonement for you.
23 Ye shall offer these beside the burnt offering in the morning, which is for a continual burnt offering.
24 After this manner ye shall offer daily, throughout the seven days, the meat [lechem] of the sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD: it shall be offered beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.
25 And on the seventh day ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work.

Numbers 28:24a YLT
24 according to these ye prepare daily, seven days, bread [lechem] of a fire-offering,

A sweet savor unto HaShem, (imho), is not the smell of the flesh of His living creatures roasting in fire but rather a contrite and broken heart having gone through a fiery trial offering up the calves and bullocks of the lips in repentance, (i.e. Hosea 14:2).

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Matthew and Luke 4:4

Click to expand...

Yeshua overcame the fiery trials of the tempter by quoting the scripture.
.
.

This is a useless argument

Alex Tennent said:

Daniel, it is humerous that you keep finding things that are fatal to my thesis

Click to expand...

You are just deceiving yourself and others by insisting that αρτος and לחם mean only leavened bread. Your thesis is false doctrine as well as your chronological teachings.

Daniel Gregg said:

This is a useless argument

Click to expand...

That is why I prefaced my previous comments the way I did. A meat eater will simply not be able to see things the same way because it is an entirely different paradigm. For instance most here would probably agree that there was no lamb at the Seder in the Gospel accounts but I say that indeed there was. And not only that but it was a temptation, and Yeshua overcame it, and the place where he makes this fairly clear is evident in the text: but a carnivore will never see it without someone pointing it out, and even when it is pointed out he will generally not believe it because of his, (or her), paradigm. However if Yeshua had partaken of the flesh of lamb his doctrine would be nullified; his teachings would have suddenly become no different from the Kohanim, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, because his doctrine would have become a physical and fleshly interpretation. Did he have justification to partake of the Pesach? That was the physical interpretation according to the Elders of the people, so yes, he did have justification: but if he did he would have contradicted his own Testimony elsewhere.

As for your comments I cannot see how they could have been a response to anyone else but myself, looking back at the previous posts, so I can only assume they are directed at my own previous statement. In response I would say that I eat whatsoever the Father puts before me at the table, bitter herbs and all, the good with the bad, leaving nothing till the morning come; and nothing of it is "useless" because the Word of Elohim enters into a man and accomplishes the will of the Father, and it will not return to Him void. But the Father never gives me anything dead for food to eat; so I eat what is alive, and not what is dead. This is true of most fruits, vegetables, grains, and herbs: when you eat them they are not dead but living. If you have to slaughter it, drain its blood, butcher it, and boil, bake, or roast it, then it is surely dead. So I suppose the carnivore may see many things as "useless" but I suspect that it is only because those things he deems useless do not satisfy the επιθυμια of a slow belly.
.
.

daq said:

This is perhaps where it turns into vegitarian(pescatarian)-vs-carnivore so I don't know how much further it would be worth it to proceed. However you may have noticed that the KJV and older English translations will often translate lechem as meat. This is because when the older translations were rendered the word "meat" did not specifically always mean the flesh of an animal as it now does today in the western mind. So it gets back to whether or not one believes and sees the sacrifices as the literal slaying of living creatures to appease Elohim or whether the sacrifices have spiritual and supernal meaning. The Psalms help expound the meaning and intention of animal sacrifices, (as well as clear statements from Isaiah and Jeremiah) which is that they are supernal in meaning. As we know, Elohim neither desires nor consumes the flesh of slain beasts; and at the same time we also have a commandment, "You shall not murder-kill", which does not specify that it only pertains to not killing mankind.

Numbers 28:2 KJV
2 Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, My offering, and my bread [lechem] for my sacrifices made by fire, for a sweet savour unto me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due season.

Numbers 28:16-25 KJV
16 And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:
19 But ye shall offer a sacrifice made by fire for a burnt offering unto the LORD; two young bullocks, and one ram, and seven lambs of the first year: they shall be unto you without blemish:
20 And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil: three tenth deals shall ye offer for a bullock, and two tenth deals for a ram;
21 A several tenth deal shalt thou offer for every lamb, throughout the seven lambs:
22 And one goat for a sin offering, to make an atonement for you.
23 Ye shall offer these beside the burnt offering in the morning, which is for a continual burnt offering.
24 After this manner ye shall offer daily, throughout the seven days, the meat [lechem] of the sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD: it shall be offered beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.
25 And on the seventh day ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work.

Numbers 28:24a YLT
24 according to these ye prepare daily, seven days, bread [lechem] of a fire-offering,

A sweet savor unto HaShem, (imho), is not the smell of the flesh of His living creatures roasting in fire but rather a contrite and broken heart having gone through a fiery trial offering up the calves and bullocks of the lips in repentance, (i.e. Hosea 14:2).



Yeshua overcame the fiery trials of the tempter by quoting the scripture.
.
.

Click to expand...

Hello Daq,

The reason there was no lamb at the last supper is because it was not the Passover, the Messiah was slain the following day on the day of the Passover sacrifice, so how could he have a lamb on the table the night before?

It was a sin before God to refuse to partake of the Passover at the proper legal time:

NAS Numbers 9:13 'But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and yet neglects to observe the Passover, that person shall then be cut off from his people, for he did not present the offering of the LORD at its appointed time. That man shall bear his sin.

Yeshua greatly desired to partake of the Passover with them (before his suffering) but he knew that his suffering and would come before they would be together to eat it:

NAS Luke 22:15 And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;

NAB Luke 22:16 for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God."

The NAB translation adds the word (again) in the parenthesis to show it is not in the original Greek. The English translators who all followed Rome’s teaching that the last supper was the Passover all insert this word, or something like it, to show that Jesus did of course eat it this night, but will not “again” eat it.

But the Messiah states very clearly that he will not eat it, until it is (spiritually) fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. He expresses great desire to eat it, but then says clearly that he will not eat it, because he knows he will no longer be with them at that time, his suffering would come before the time to eat it.

This chapter lists over 50 reasons why the last supper was not the Passover:

http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_50-Reasons.pdf

This is also why they are not ashamed to tell all Jerusalem and the whole world that they and the Messiah are all eating “bread” at this meal, because it was not the Passover, so bread was perfectly legal.

Alex Tennent said:

Hello Daq,

The reason there was no lamb at the last supper is because it was not the Passover, the Messiah was slain the following day on the day of the Passover sacrifice, so how could he have a lamb on the table the night before?

It was a sin before God to refuse to partake of the Passover at the proper legal time:

NAS Numbers 9:13 'But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and yet neglects to observe the Passover, that person shall then be cut off from his people, for he did not present the offering of the LORD at its appointed time. That man shall bear his sin.

Yeshua greatly desired to partake of the Passover with them (before his suffering) but he knew that his suffering and would come before they would be together to eat it:

NAS Luke 22:15 And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;

NAB Luke 22:16 for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God."

The NAB translation adds the word (again) in the parenthesis to show it is not in the original Greek. The English translators who all followed Rome’s teaching that the last supper was the Passover all insert this word, or something like it, to show that Jesus did of course eat it this night, but will not “again” eat it.

But the Messiah states very clearly that he will not eat it, until it is (spiritually) fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. He expresses great desire to eat it, but then says clearly that he will not eat it, because he knows he will no longer be with them at that time, his suffering would come before the time to eat it.

This chapter lists over 50 reasons why the last supper was not the Passover:

http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_50-Reasons.pdf

This is also why they are not ashamed to tell all Jerusalem and the whole world that they and the Messiah are all eating “bread” at this meal, because it was not the Passover, so bread was perfectly legal.

Click to expand...

Hi Alex,

What you say of Luke 22:16, concerning "again", I certainly agree with because that is the passage which I was referencing in my previous comments to Daniel Gregg. However Luke clearly informs the reader that this day is the first day of Unleavened Bread and the day in which the Pesach must be slain, (and Mark 14:12 is even more clear). The ASV is a better rendering for the Luke passage in that it gives a truer reading of Luke 22:16, (leaving out "again", or "any more", and that is because it does not follow the Textus Receptus which adds ουκετι).

Luke 22:7-16 ASV
7 And the day of unleavened bread came on which the passover must be sacrificed.
8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat.
9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we make ready?
10 And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house whereinto he goeth.
11 And ye shall say unto the master of the house, The Teacher saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.
13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him.
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16 for I say unto you, I shall not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

You should therefore know what is used herein for desire, that is, epithumia and epithumeo, the same words used concerning the lust of the flesh, but no doubt translators had to be very careful with this rendering for obvious reasons. I am not saying Yeshua lusted, neither do I believe the text is saying that, but I do believe it reveals the very temptation of which I was speaking in my previous post, (which Yeshua overcame). And that is the reason why the statement which follows has been conflated with other companion passages when, in fact, Luke is saying something different which was never meant to be harmonized with the other accounts. Note also that the lamb sacrifice itself was also called the Passover, Pesach, or Pascha, as well as the feast. This point is highlighted by the usage of pascha in Luke 22:7 quoted above. In this very passage the author employs pascha for the sacrificial lamb itself when he writes, "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the pascha must be sacrificed". Thus when Yeshua says what he does in the following it is more likely that he is also using pascha to mean the paschal lamb sacrifice. In other words the lamb is right there in front of them but Yeshua informs them once again that his doctrine and every word the he speaks are Spirit, and Life, and he will therefore not be partaking of the slain animal flesh of innocent living creatures of Elohim:

Luke 22:15-16 W/H
15 και ειπεν προς αυτους επιθυμια επεθυμησα τουτο το πασχα φαγειν μεθ υμων προ του με παθειν
16 λεγω γαρ υμιν οτι ου μη φαγω αυτο εως οτου πληρωθη εν τη βασιλεια του θεου

"And he said to them, with longing desire have I desired to eat this pascha (lamb) with you before my suffering: but I say to you that absolutely not will I eat of it until (when) it be fulfilled in the kingdom of Elohim."
.
.

Hi Daq,

I know that the English commentators inherited the belief from Rome that the last supper was the Passover, and so they translate Luke 22:7, Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12 etc as seemingly making it clear that the last supper was the Passover. But if you would like to see the proper way those Greek scriptures should have been translated, to fit within the Jewish laws and idioms for Passover, as well as the rules for Greek grammar, please consider this chapter:

http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Greek-Keys.pdf

And as for the Messiah overcoming a desire to eat meat, there is no proof he was a vegetarian, and as I showed in the last post, partaking of the Passover was a requirement from God, and Yeshua partook of previous Passovers. The risen Messiah also ate meat, a “dead” fish in your belief perhaps, but this was food given by God and there was nothing wrong with it:

Luke 24:39-43 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

I admit that I am a meat eater but I promise I am not a carnivore, I'm meek and lowly in spirit.

Alex Tennent said:

Hi Daq,

I know that the English commentators inherited the belief from Rome that the last supper was the Passover, and so they translate Luke 22:7, Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12 etc as seemingly making it clear that the last supper was the Passover. But if you would like to see the proper way those Greek scriptures should have been translated, to fit within the Jewish laws and idioms for Passover, as well as the rules for Greek grammar, please consider this chapter:

http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Greek-Keys.pdf

And as for the Messiah overcoming a desire to eat meat, there is no proof he was a vegetarian, and as I showed in the last post, partaking of the Passover was a requirement from God, and Yeshua partook of previous Passovers. The risen Messiah also ate meat, a “dead” fish in your belief perhaps, but this was food given by God and there was nothing wrong with it:

Luke 24:39-43 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

I admit that I am a meat eater but I promise I am not a carnivore, I'm meek and lowly in spirit.

Click to expand...

Neither is there any proof that Yeshua ever ate any kind of meat other than fish, (pescatarian). As for carnivore I suppose it was more or less for lack of a better word and I did try to tone it down with "meat eater" after that. But seeing how your response is also in a good natured spirit I think I will simply leave it here and give you the last word.
.
.

daq said:

However Luke clearly informs the reader that this day is the first day of Unleavened Bread

Click to expand...

Please explain Exodus 12:15 vs. Exodus 12:19. It seems to me daq that you do not believe in literal interpretation of Scripture. I note this because you seem to say it was Passover, but that Yeshua did not eat the required lamb.

Alex Tennent said:

But if you would like to see the proper way those Greek scriptures should have been translated

Click to expand...

Dative of reference on Mat 26:17, Mark 14:12?

Usage is 100% against using the dative of reference here.

Usage is also against rendering Luke 22:7 as "Comes the day of unleavened bread"

I thought it might be a dative of reference for a while, but when I saw that the usage was "on the day..." universally, I abandoned it.

The synoptic problem is codependent on Exodus 12:15 vs. 12:19. First you need a solution for that contradiction.

Daniel Gregg said:

Please explain Exodus 12:15 vs. Exodus 12:19. It seems to me daq that you do not believe in literal interpretation of Scripture. I note this because you seem to say it was Passover, but that Yeshua did not eat the required lamb.

Click to expand...

Are you confusing me with Alex? (I already agreed with you on the previous page about lechem and artos not necessarily being leavened bread). The verses you ask me to explain speak of consuming matzot and not consuming any form of leaven. Where did I say or suggest that Yeshua consumed leavened bread or anything leavened at all? In addition I see no reason to give my understanding of that passage in this thread a second time. However, if you understood it the way I do, you would understand that the etsem-body of the whole seven days are one body and therefore one great feast day, (even the seventh day is likewise called a chag-feast unto HaShem in Exodus 13:6).
.
.

Explain why the leaven is disposed of on the first day of unleavened bread (Exo. 12:15).
Why not the previous?

Daniel Gregg said:

Explain why the leaven is disposed of on the first day of unleavened bread (Exo. 12:15).
Why not the previous?

Click to expand...

It would help if you could be a little more clear about what you are getting at in your points, or, if you have a point to make, then why not just make your point? Most everyone knows that leaven had to be out of the houses and the land by about 11:00AM, (about the fifth hour), of the fourteenth. If you are suggesting that Exodus 12:15 is speaking of the fifteenth there are some other passages that need to be taken into account, as always, but I am not even sure what you are trying to get at to begin with. Neither do I see how this question has anything to do with what you call a "literal interpretation of Scripture" in your previous post to me; nor do I believe that you truly understand the differences between literal, supernal, spiritual, physical, and temporary, (which the physical certainly is temporary). Just because something is Spirit does not mean it is not literal. Elohim will come up in the midst of you and consume you in the blink of an eye: then you will know He is literal, but you will never have seen Him coming or going.
.
.

Daniel Gregg said:

It seems to me daq that you do not believe in literal interpretation of Scripture.

Click to expand...

Let us now see who really takes the more critical things as literal or not, shall we? Is there any reason not to take the following words of Messiah literally? Is there any reason not to fully believe what Messiah says in the following passage and fully apply it to our doctrine making our own doctrine conform to his? Yet if one does not do this with the following statements he or she will not truly understand anything that is being discussed in this entire thread or anything else for that matter. Yeshua says this concerning Yochanan the Immerser:

Matthew 11:7-15 ASV
7 And as these went their way, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to behold? a reed shaken with the wind?
8 But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft raiment are in kings' houses.
9 But wherefore went ye out? to see a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.
10 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, [Exodus 23:20a LXX] Who shall prepare thy way before thee.
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.
15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Point #1) Matthew 11:10b, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face", is a direct word for word quote lifted straight from the Septuagint version of Exodus 23:20a:

Matthew 11:10 W/H
10 ουτος εστιν περι ου γεγραπται ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ος κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμπροσθεν σου

Exodus 23:20 LXX-Septuagint (Old Greek)
20 και ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ινα φυλαξη σε εν τη οδω οπως εισαγαγη σε εις την γην ην ητοιμασα σοι

Show me one commentator who even recognizes this fact even though some of them do acknowledge the fact that μου (me/mine) and σου (you/your) are exchanged when compared to Malachi 3:1, (the quote does not match and yet they all still insist that this is a quote from Malachi 3:1 while ignoring Exodus 23:20!). According to the Testimony of Yeshua recorded here, by "Matthew", Yeshua is saying that Yochanan the Immerser is the Malak of Exodus 23:20. Do you accept and believe this Daniel Gregg? Do you take the Testimony of Messiah Yeshua literally? I do, and it completely changes everything in your doctrine when you first come to understand this and begin to realize how messed up your thinking really is. I hope you do indeed come to this point somewhere in your own walk but it will not be easy seeing that you will have to forfeit most of what you think you now know.

Point #2) "All the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yochanan."

I have already discovered from one of your other threads how you believe that nomos should be rendered as "norm" instead of "law" but can we put that aside for a moment and be realistic? The statement from point number two above, (Matthew 11:13) clearly and emphatically states that all the Prophets and the Torah, (Law) prophesied until Yochanan the Immerser. Do you accept and believe this statement from the Testimony of Messiah Yeshua or not? And if so do you fully accept it or do you get to pick and choose where you will apply it and where you need not? Are you only going to accept it half way and only when you feel "led" to employ it in your doctrine? There are no two ways about it: all the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yochanan, period. Is this to be taken literally according to your understanding of literal? I take it literally and apply it in all of my doctrine, (and what I do not yet understand I simply do not yet understand). If you do not accept this statement into your doctrine then how can you expect to understand what you are reading when you open up the Tanach? You may have your own way of understanding but if it does not incorporate the full Testimony of Yeshua then it is simply your own way and nothing more.

1) Yeshua quotes Exodus 23:20a and says it is written of Yochanan.
2) All the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yochanan.

Are you beginning to get the picture that is being painted for you with these words of the Master Teacher? Are you truly willing to receive these statements of the Master and force your own doctrine to comply? If you do not accept, believe, and incorporate the statements and doctrines of Yeshua into your own doctrine, making your own doctrine conform to his doctrine, then the veil cannot be lifted from your heart, mind, and eyes when you read the Tanach, (2 Corinthians 3:14-16). Perhaps this is why Yeshua says at the close of the passage quoted above, "He that has ears to hear, let him hear!"

"And he said to them, with longing desire have I desired to eat this pascha with you before my suffering: but I say to you that absolutely not will I eat of it until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of Elohim." (Luke 22:15-16).
.
.