Why do Many Christians Ignore YHWH's Moedim?

expos4ever said:

It is, of course, true that Jesus speaks of how the Law of Moses will last until "heaven and earth pass away". This seems to contradict the many times Paul clearly declares that the time of the Law of Moses has come to an end.

Well, there is a way to achieve consistence without committing any exegetical crimes.

There is a long Old Testament tradition of using images of cosmological collapse as a metaphor for socio-political upheavals in the here and now. Here is but one example.

From Jeremiah 4:

I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void;
And to the heavens, and they had no light.
I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
And all the hills moved to and fro.
I looked, and behold, there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were pulled down
Before the Lord, before His fierce anger.
For thus says the Lord,
“The whole land shall be a desolation,
Yet I will not execute a complete destruction.
“For this the earth shall mourn
And the heavens above be dark,
Because I have spoken, I have purposed,
And I will not change My mind, nor will I turn from it.”

Note that images of cosmological-scale destruction are all over the place in this passage. Does Jeremiah want to be understood literally? No, he does not. Read the material in Jeremiah 4 leading up to this passage - it is all about God's coming judgment on Israel (and not about the end of the world).

And if you know your history, Jeremiah wrote around 600 BC. What happened starting in about 598 BC?

In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 or 586 BC

Jesus lived in a culture where "end of the world" language was not to be taken literally.

So when Jesus says the Law will not pass away until heaven and earth pass, we cannot simply assume that since we are obviously still here, that the Law is still in force.

Click to expand...

And yet it says: For thus saith YHVH, The whole land shall be a desolation; yet will I not make a full end.

HARK! said:

We can't simply assume that Yahshua made such an extreme, long term, statement; then within a year or two that it came to pass.

Click to expand...

Why not? Jeremiah used such end-of-the-world language to almost certainly describe an event that happened very shortly afterward. In any event, my point was that one cannot argue that since "heaven and earth" have not passed away that the Law of Moses thereby remains in effect.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

And yet it says: For thus saith YHVH, The whole land shall be a desolation; yet will I not make a full end.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I assume you are implicitly arguing that Jesus does not add such a qualifier. So your reasoning appears to be that while Jeremiah does use "end-of-the-world" language, he makes it clear to us that he does not expect to be taken literally since he adds "yet will I not make a full end". Fair enough.

On the other hand, Jesus's full statement is this: For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

To me, this opens the door to a non-end-of-the-world reading since, for other Scriptural reasons, I certainly do not believe Jesus really believes that "heaven and earth" will really ever come to an end.

Deade said:

See how you give walls of scripture...

Click to expand...

Another personal attack that has nothing to do with the actual op-relevant content. And those scriptures are related. Not recognizing that is a problem to be solved, not a basis for dissent.

Deade said:

Tell me, how do you relate to the prophecy in Rev. 11:15 ...

Click to expand...

Don't change the topic. This conversation isn't about Revelation 11; it's about the moedim and the premise the moedim is related to some future literal 1000 year reign. You don't get to jump around from scripture to scripture to scripture ad nauseam without first dealing with the subject at hand.

And don't ask questions already answered. Everyone's time is wasted when you do that.

You're on record stating you don't think I'm interested. That is another personal attack. My op-reply is sitting in this thread ignored so don't be telling me I have no interest when I have repeatedly redirected everyone back to the op and my op-reply.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

You have attacked others...

Click to expand...

Tu quoque

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

I HAVE commented on what you write.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I have acknowledged it when you have. Sadly, little or none of it has anything to do with moedim.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

I don't think we share the same views on all scripture, I think we agree on that one thing that I posted.

Click to expand...

The salient point was we agree on something and yet the choice was made to unnecessarily assume negative attributions that have nothing to do with moedim. I don't expect us to agree on everything. I do expect posters to stay op-relevant and form some semblance of op-relevant cohesiveness from post to post to post.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

I don't think you want to discuss anything, I think you just want to be right and argue...

Click to expand...

Go back through the posts. My op-reply is completely op-relevant and I attended to the actual content of every post received. If all those posts are read it will be seen that at some point the posts began to attack me personally. What mentions of posters by their handles I have posted have all had to do with specific content actually posted. At no point will I be found to have said, "You are...." in a derisive and dismissive manner.

Whereas I can quote specific comments about me personally that not only are not true, but no one in the internet could possibly know what I think unless and until it is posted.

And this very post to which I now reply is a case in point because there is not a single word in it related to this op or what I have posted about the moedim. If you, Yeshua HaDerkh, want to discuss the subject of this op then do so. No one is stopping you.....


... but you.


But if I read another personal attack I'll be moving on.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Zch 14:16 definitely is in the future, that has never happened yet...although many from the Nations are doing that now...

Click to expand...

No, Zecheriah 14 is reported in the context of the Messiah's coming. The Messiah came inthe first century. Don't pick out individual verses from the chapter; read the chapter in its entirety in the context of its larger narrative. When Zecheriah was written it did not come with chapter and verse numbering.

Zechariah 14 begins with the statement, "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..." When did that happen? Is that not what happened in 70 AD? Why look for another fulfillment of something that has already transpired?

Near the middle of the chapter we read, "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." I have already quoted and cited several New Testament passages unequivocally stating Jesus is currently enthroned. Before he ascended he told the eleven ALL authority in heaven AND earth had been given to him (Mt. 28:18). John 3 tells us the one from above is above all and the Father has placed everything in his hands. Ephesians 1 states in raising His Son from the dead and seated him, "far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come." In 1 Peter 3 we are told Jesus "is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him." Zec. 14:9 has been fulfilled according to the NT. Not according to me; according to the NT!

A few verses later we read how after the nations have come against Jerusalem the survivors will "go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths." John 7 tells us the following,


So we learn from Jesus himself the Festival of Booths or Tabernacles is about Jesus, the living bread of life and the life-giving water he brings in the Holy Spirit. All the law and the prophets (and Psalms) testify about Jesus. You're looking for something that has already been accomplished and while looking you're not living in the power of its fulfillment.

HARK! said:

I haven't spent very much time studying prophesy; so my bias is minimal; and this question is sincere in that I don't believe I am studied enough to change your mind...

Click to expand...

Are you studied enough to know your mind? Are you studied enough to change your mind? If you were shown sufficient study would your mind be changed? How is a self-confessed lack of study a basis for 1) thinking you have the answers and 2) dismissing someone who has studied?

HARK! said:

How do you reconcile this:

(CLV) Ho 3:4
For many days shall the sons of Israel dwell without king and without chief official, And without sacrifice and without altar, And without ephod or Urim and Thummim.

(I view this as current.)

With this:

(CLV) Zch 14:16
And it will come to be that everyone left of all the nations coming against Jerusalem, they will also go up, as often as year by year, to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts, and to celebrate the festival of booths.

( I view this as future)

Click to expand...

I have already addressed the Zechariah text. I've got clients arriving this minute so I'll get back to you about Hosea when I'm done in a couple of hours but in the interim go back and read the whole of Hosea looking for the markers related to the incarnation of first coming. Do a little study now and maybe we'll have greater agreement when I return.

HARK! said:

How do you reconcile this:

(CLV) Ho 3:4
For many days shall the sons of Israel dwell without king and without chief official, And without sacrifice and without altar, And without ephod or Urim and Thummim.

Click to expand...

I got a few minutes.

Here's the Hosea 3 text in its entirety.


Notice the chapter begins with "Then..." Chapter 3's events are contingent upon chapter 2's events. Verse 3:4 does not occur in a vacuum, separate and distinct from all its surrounding text. One of the significant events in chapter 2 is the making of a (new covenant). When did that happen? Hasn't it already happened? Is there going to be another newer covenant, one other than the one existing in Christ crucified and resurrected?

Notice how the chapter concludes: They will return to David their king. This is clearly figurative because David is dead. It isn't literally David. Christians have understood this is about Jesus. It's not about David. It's not about David coming back from the dead and re-instituting his old monarchy.

Before proceeding give 1 Samuel 8 a read and tell me what you make of that event and how it related to David, the Davidic throne and what Hosea says. Keep in mind what I have already quoted from Acts 2.

Hosea 2's comment about the sons of Israel returning to David occur with the two contexts of 1 Samuel 8 and Acts 2.

I'll check back with you after my next client.

HARK! said:

Rome came against Israel, not all the nations.

Click to expand...

Rome's army was made from many nations. Look it up.

HARK! said:

Sin is transgression of the law. If Yahshua didn't keep all of the law; he sinned. What proof do you have that Yahshua didn't keep all of YHWH's law?

Click to expand...

I said He was not a DOER of all the Law. He could not possibly have been a DOER of many laws, such as the Law pertaining to a woman while menstruating, nor could He be a DOER of the Law governing tithes as He possessed no producing livestock nor lands, and yet He kept ALL the Law perfectly.

You or someone WAY back also had asked about what it means to be "under the Law." Romans 6:14 is a good verse and context to address that. The genitive and lingual usage of "under" in that verse, with context considered, has to do with positionally being under (the Law), i. e. subject to the power of, any person or thing.

[Rom 6:14 KJV] 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Now, I'm sure there are those, such members of the loose knit Hebrew Roots movement and other pursuers of the parts of the Law they have picked and chosen for themselves to follow, and who deem themselves higher authorities than Thayer's and many other scholars of the Greek language, so I leave that to those individuals to believe whatever they want.

Jr

HARK! said:

Please, no more unrelated philosophical questions. I asked you the question because you created the impression that you were studied in these matters.

If you don't care to engage in meaningful dialogue; I won't ask you again.

Shalom

Click to expand...

Look, I appreciate your self-disclosure pertaining to the limits of study. I do. I don't autmatically assume I know more than anybody in the forum. Just not my thing. I assume that as we walk through scripture I may learn things from you. I anticipate that and look forward to it no matter who it is with whom I trade posts.

The problem is this is a text-based format and you can't see the sign pasted to my forehead that says, "I LOVE LEARNING FROM OTHERS!" or " CAN'T WAIT TO READ WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY!" I assume some guy who initiates an OP on the moedim knows something about the moedim and if his handle is in Hebrew then he probably knows more than me, at least from a Hebrew perspective.

So..... given your self-disclosure that may not be the case. No worries. Phil. 2:3, Eph. 4:29 and Romans 12:9-18 are all still applicable.

If you can do that then so can I and if we're going to compete it would be best if we competed to outdo one another in those regards because when all is said and done about the moedim we're each gonna go our separate ways more informed.

Will we have been better believers in practice?

HARK! said:

If you don't care to engage in meaningful dialogue; I won't ask you again.

Click to expand...

Well there's a pile of op-relevant content I've posted that's awaiting an op-relevant response. I've done my part. I've engaged in meaningful dialogue and for the effort I was labeled and derided and.....

So take any one of the many meaningful op-relevant posts and engage me because there's not a single word in the post to which I am now responding to that has anything in it op-related. It's just more of the same digression avoidant dross I've already read.



The moedim are fulfilled in Christ. Jesus is currently enthroned. The Davidic throne is the resurrection and the millennium isn't a literal thousand years. No, not all prophesy is fulfilled, but the moedim are. Jesus is coming back but Zec 14 and Hos 3 are related (primarily) to his incarnation and earthly ministry and the eventual destruction of 70 AD, not a subsequent return. I've contributed quite a bit to this discussion and have note received parity.

Waiting on you.

HARK! said:

What does this mean?

Click to expand...

What "spoil" do you read scripture saying was taken from Israel?

HARK! said:

Rome came against Israel, not all the nations.

Click to expand...

Re-read the text. The text states 1) "I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured...," and 2) "Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle..." Two different battles, one that is "all the nations" against Jerusalem; the other is God against all the nations. Israel is not fighting all the nations; God is.

The angel is in the details.

HARK! said:

The evidence doesn't seem to support that.

Click to expand...

The evidence does in fact support that conclusion.

Rome's own army was an amalgam of Roman citizens and and conscripts. In addition a portion of the army known as the "numeri" was made of those from allied nations. During the siege of Jerusalem Rome hired mercenaries from just about every country known to exist at the time. It was literally an army of many nations.

It should be noted Jerusalem was a center of trade and a locus between Africa, Europe, and Asia. All the surrounding trade routes met in Jerusalem. There were always Gentiles from many nations doing business there so when the Zealots took over all that wealth was jeopardized. Those are some of the geo-political factors surrounding God's judgment of Israel in 70 AD.

As many as there are who hate reading and accepting the scriptures for what they say, and assuming into (superimposing upon) other scriptures the exact opposite of what is said below, many of us remain steadfast as to what the apostles in Jerusalem collectively and CLEARLY stated when they made their determination based upon what they KNEW was the meaning behind ALL that Yeshua said while among them:

[Act 15:5, 7, 9-11, 13, 19-20, 23-24 KJV] 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses. ... 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. ... 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. ... 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me: ... 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. ... 23 And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:

The CONTEXT clearly lays down the FACT that it is the Torah (LAW) that was not to be placed upon the Gentiles, given that it was a yoke that not even the Jews could uphold, live, abide by, or whatever else one may describe from Peter's words, therefore their need for that continuous flow of animal blood as a COVERING, not as a REMISSION.

You legalists can harangue all you want, but you will never be able to force other scriptures that SEEM to uphold the idea for Gentiles AND Jews still being bound to adherence to Torah. Even those in the Hebrew Roots Movement are inconsistent in their picking and choosing as to what they will follow from the Torah.

Like I said before, they and anyone else here can follow whatsoever they and you choose. Go for it. Be warm and well fed. However, all the EISEGETICAL, shuck and jive and slight of hand parlor tricks in the world will never take away from the above CONTEXT, SCOPE and MEANING within its clear language.

The Law is indeed still vital and alive, for the Law is the ultimate accuser and condemnation of all unbelievers since they are not covered and cleansed by the Blood, nor are they born again. (Yeshua commanded being born again, and that item was never penned into Torah.)

For the rest, you have probably been hit with questions rooted in trickery to try and wrap you up around the axle. "Oh yeah, well what about....." Don't be fooled by the legalists. They will ask such things as, "Well, there it is. It says "commandments," or "statutes," or "teaching." Well, Yeshua was fully capable of NAMING the Torah if that had been the scope of what He was teaching them when not specifically addressing some element within Torah. They will side-track you as best they can with all manner of tid-bits pulled from their contexts. It's a trap!

The Lord did indeed say to some He had healed to go and show themselves to the priests, and to offer up the sacrifices commanded within the Torah. Was that an instruction to Gentiles? No! There was a temple, there was a preisthood, and there was not yet the establishment of the NEW COVENANT by way of the passing of that cup from the Hand of Yeshua.

[Jhn 8:36 KJV] 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Jr

I also recall being asked how one can live apart from Torah. Scripture speaks for itself to those who have an ear to hear:

[Jhn 1:17 KJV] 17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

[Rom 7:4 KJV] 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

The practice of some who try to tie every mention of the word "law" throughout the NT as always referring to Torah is pure nonsense.

Jr

expos4ever said:

Fair enough. I assume you are implicitly arguing that Jesus does not add such a qualifier. So your reasoning appears to be that while Jeremiah does use "end-of-the-world" language, he makes it clear to us that he does not expect to be taken literally since he adds "yet will I not make a full end". Fair enough.

On the other hand, Jesus's full statement is this: For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

To me, this opens the door to a non-end-of-the-world reading since, for other Scriptural reasons, I certainly do not believe Jesus really believes that "heaven and earth" will really ever come to an end.

Click to expand...

With Israel there has always been a punishment/forgiveness type scenario between God and His people. The 70 yr exile in babylon...then a return and the building of a new Temple, etc. Heaven and earth do pass away when it says a new heaven and a new earth come in Rev 21:1 so at some point that does become true. "Behold, I make all things new."