Passover For Christians

Yeshua HaDerekh · Jan 17, 2022

Clare73 said:
Well done. . .however, Romans 5:18 says "brought condemnation."

Romans 5:18 is not referring to natural death, condemnation refers to eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46).

There are 2 births and 2 deaths...each having a physical and spiritual component...

Yeshua HaDerekh · Jan 17, 2022

Clare73 said:
We are born condemned by Adam's sin.

The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men. (Romans 5:18)

1 Corinthians 15:21

Filippus · Jan 18, 2022

HARK! said:
Leavened bread may not be eaten with the Passover lamb. The last supper was not a Passover seder.

Its only you who keeps on referencing this. Not once did I imply that He ate the Passover with leavened bread.

Filippus · Jan 18, 2022

HARK! said:
I've presented plenty of evidence.

Maybe you missed these two key pieces of evidence:

(CLV) Jn 18:28
They are, then, leading Jesus from Caiaphas into the pretorium. Now it was morning, and they did not enter into the pretorium lest they may be defiled, but may be (future tense) eating the passover.

The Passover is eaten on the night of the 15th, not the night of the 14th. Thou shalt not eat the Passover lamb before it is slaughtered. The Passover lamb is slaughtered during the day of the 14th.

(CLV) Jn 19:14
Now it was the preparation of the Passover; the hour was about the third. And he is saying to the Jews, "Lo! your king!"

(CLV) Jn 19:15
Yet they clamor then, "Away! Away! Crucify him!" Pilate is saying to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "No king have we except Caesar!"

This happened during the day after the last supper. Passover would be eaten the next evening.

(CLV) Jn 18:28
They are, then, leading Jesus from Caiaphas into the pretorium. Now it was morning, and they did not enter into the pretorium lest they may be defiled, but may be (future tense) eating the passover.

Lev 15:10 And whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until the evening. And whoever carries such things shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.

Numbers 19: 22 Furthermore, anything the unclean person touches shall be unclean, and anyone who touches it shall be ceremonially unclean until evening.’”

These Scripture cannot refer to the Pesach Seder meal of the previous night and does not refer to the Unleavened bread eaten that evening, because in both cases, they would only be unclean until the evening and therefore points to something held during the day during the week of unleavened bread.

(CLV) Jn 19:14
Now it was the preparation of the Passover; the hour was about the third. And he is saying to the Jews, "Lo! your king!"

This is not the Passover Seder and it was the sixth hour not the third, check the translation.

While the Passover, strictly, is only one 24-hour period within the Feast of Unleavened Bread (which lasts for seven days), the name Passover can be applied to the whole seven days.

Luke 22:1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover.

During the Feast of Unleavened Bread, they presented food offerings to the Lord for seven days, requiring them to remain ritually clean.

Lev 23:8 But you shall present a food offering to the Lord for seven days. On the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work.”

(CLV) Jn 19:15
Yet they clamor then, "Away! Away! Crucify him!" Pilate is saying to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "No king have we except Caesar!"

This occurring after the 15th during the Feast of Unleavened bread.

Der Alte · Jan 18, 2022

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
I DID read it. She is VERY relevant. Otherwise why do YOU think He said that to her? W is arabic.

The Samaritan woman's encounter with Jesus was probably important to her and perhaps her family and neighbors but virtually irrelevant to this thread topic. Not too interested in your unsupported opinion about the Samaritan language in the 1st century.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Jan 18, 2022

Der Alte said:
The Samaritan woman's encounter with Jesus was probably important to her and perhaps her family and neighbors but virtually irrelevant to this thread topic. Not too interested in your unsupported opinion about the Samaritan language in the 1st century.

I think it is very important, since we were discussing The Name and the Samaritan use of it...but if you want to stick your head in the sand then be my guest...

Yeshua HaDerekh · Jan 18, 2022

Filippus said:
(CLV) Jn 18:28
They are, then, leading Jesus from Caiaphas into the pretorium. Now it was morning, and they did not enter into the pretorium lest they may be defiled, but may be (future tense) eating the passover.

Lev 15:10 And whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until the evening. And whoever carries such things shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.

Numbers 19: 22 Furthermore, anything the unclean person touches shall be unclean, and anyone who touches it shall be ceremonially unclean until evening.’”

These Scripture cannot refer to the Pesach Seder meal of the previous night and does not refer to the Unleavened bread eaten that evening, because in both cases, they would only be unclean until the evening and therefore points to something held during the day during the week of unleavened bread.

(CLV) Jn 19:14
Now it was the preparation of the Passover; the hour was about the third. And he is saying to the Jews, "Lo! your king!"

This is not the Passover Seder and it was the sixth hour not the third, check the translation.

While the Passover, strictly, is only one 24-hour period within the Feast of Unleavened Bread (which lasts for seven days), the name Passover can be applied to the whole seven days.

Luke 22:1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover.

During the Feast of Unleavened Bread, they presented food offerings to the Lord for seven days, requiring them to remain ritually clean.

Lev 23:8 But you shall present a food offering to the Lord for seven days. On the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work.”

(CLV) Jn 19:15
Yet they clamor then, "Away! Away! Crucify him!" Pilate is saying to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "No king have we except Caesar!"

This occurring after the 15th during the Feast of Unleavened bread.

So you are saying that He was crucified some day AFTER the 15th? The 14th was a Friday, the preparation day. So when was the crucifixion? So IYO, He did not fulfill anything...not the death of the lambs on the 14th, the 15th or even Yom habikkurim???? What exactly is your timeline? Lambs were selected on the 10th and killed on the 14th.

Clare73 · Jan 18, 2022

HARK! said:
YHWH almighty himself said that Abraham obeyed his laws. That's good enough for me.

Please give book, chapter and verse of that statement.

If we follow your doctrine; what does this have to do with the OP?

I give up. . .what does it?

Perhaps you can explain why YHWH didn't accept Cain's Mincha, or for that matter why Cain was even offering a Mincha. That would be far more relevant to the topic.

That takes only a simply knowledge of the NT.

According to which authoritative NT teaching, it was because Cain's was without faith, and Abel's was with faith (Hebrews 11:4). . .it was about faith, not law-keeping.

Please give book, chapter, and verse of any given laws with penalties attached between Adam and Moses.

While the book, chapter and verse for apostolic teaching of no laws between Adam and Moses is Romans 5:12-13.

Clare73 · Jan 18, 2022

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
Were you in the garden? You cant be condemned, that is unjust. You can be when you sin though.

As is the righteousness of God (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21) being imputed to fallen man, as it was to Abraham, by faith and not by law-keeping (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3), and as is the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to fallen man by faith in Christ, all apart from faith's works (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28)--no law-keeping involved in righteousness of justification.

So, you simply don't believe the authoritative NT apostolic teaching of Romans 5:18?

Clare73 · Jan 18, 2022

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
I didn't think I needed to...it is pretty plainly stated in Genesis...maybe you should read it?

Rather telling when one avoids demonstrating his claim. . .

Clare73 · Jan 18, 2022

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
There are 2 births and 2 deaths...each having a physical and spiritual component...

We are spiritual beings. . .everything involving us involves our spirit.

What is the physical component of our second birth?

And your point with this?

Clare73 · Jan 18, 2022

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
1 Corinthians 15:21

Absence of application is absence of demonstration = absence of merit in your point.

HARK! · Jan 18, 2022

Clare73 said:
Please give book, chapter and verse of that statement.

As many times as it takes.

(CLV) Gn 26:5
inasmuch as your father Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My instructions, My statutes and My laws.

Clare73 · Jan 18, 2022

HARK! said:
As many times as it takes.

(CLV) Gn 26:5
inasmuch as your father Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My instructions, My statutes and My laws.

Thanks. . .

I was hoping for specification of what those laws were, because in their absence
the evidence suggests to me that
the book of Genesis being penned some 2,500 years after the fact, and some 85 years after the laws of Sinai, I'm thinking the language Moses used in Genesis, which strictly applied only to the Sinai covenant, was to emphasize to Israel, who was under that covenant, that their father Abraham had been obedient to God's will in his time, and that they must follow his example if they were to receive the covenant promises in their time.

ChetSinger · Jan 18, 2022

Clare73 said:
Death is not the consequences which Romans 5:18 states.

The consequences it states is condemnation; i.e., eternal punishment. . .sounds a lot like the consequences of guilt.

There is a fundamental difference between how the Eastern and Western churches interpret Romans 5:18. And Yeshua HaDerekh identifies as Eastern.

In the Western tradition we inherit guilt. In the Eastern tradition we inherit death. Strictly speaking, the consequence of sin described in Romans 5 is death, not guilt.

It might be why the Western church has the Immaculate Conception and the Eastern church doesn't. The Eastern church doesn't need it: Mary inherited no guilt from Adam's sin, only mortality.

Yeshua HaDerekh, if I'm wrong about this please correct me.

HARK! · Jan 18, 2022

Clare73 said:
According to which authoritative NT teaching, it was because Cain's was without faith, and Abel's was with faith (Hebrews 11:2). . .it was about faith, not law-keeping.

You would have done much better by quoting this verse:

(CLV) Hb 11:4
By faith Abel offers to God more of a sacrifice than Cain, through which he was testified to that he is just at God's testifying onto his approach presents, and through it, dying, he is still speaking.

Is not bringing forth a Mincha of produce, as the Torah (law) requires an act of faith?

It seems that you don't understand the Hebrew meaning of faith. It can better be described as faithfulness, such as in faithfully adhering to the Torah (law).

However you did lead on that the Mincha was being faithfully offered because it was a law (Torah, instruction).

Which law would require both an animal and produce to be offered?

Until you understand that; you might find it difficult to understand why YHWH might have rejected Cain's offering.

Where did Cain go wrong in his faithfulness?

Clare73 · Jan 18, 2022

ChetSinger said:
There is a fundamental difference between how the Eastern and Western churches interpret Romans 5:18. And Yeshua HaDerekh identifies as Eastern.

In the Western tradition we inherit guilt. In the Eastern tradition we inherit death. Strictly speaking, the consequence of sin described in Romans 5 is death, not guilt.

It might be why the Western church has the Immaculate Conception and the Eastern church doesn't. The Eastern church doesn't need it: Mary inherited no guilt from Adam's sin, only mortality.

Yeshua HaDerekh, if I'm wrong about this please correct me.

Interesting. . .to say the least. . .thanks.

However, in terms of Romans 5:12-15 death is only because of guilt.

Which is the central issue Paul raises and resolves there: where's the guilt of sin causing their deaths when there was no law to sin against?

HARK! · Jan 18, 2022

Clare73 said:
Thanks. . .

I was hoping for specification of what those laws were.

The book of Genesis being penned some 2,500 years after the fact, and some 85 years after the laws of Sinai, I'm thinking the language Moses used in Genesis, which strictly applied only to the Sinai covenant, was to emphasize to Israel, of that covenant, that their father Abraham had been obedient to God's will in his time, and that they must follow his example if they were to receive the covenant promises.

In the beginning was the word. And the word was made flesh. Are you denying that YHWH's word wasn't in the beginning?

YHWH doesn't change, nor does his word. His law is perfect. Marcion believed otherwise. He believed that there was a good god and a bad god. That's why he ripped almost everything out of his Canon but Paul's letters, so that he could twist them, to push his lawless doctrine.

If we take something that is already perfect, and change it; what happens?

Clare73 · Jan 18, 2022

HARK! said:
You would have done much better by quoting this verse:

(CLV) Hb 11:4
By faith Abel offers to God more of a sacrifice than Cain, through which he was testified to that he is just at God's testifying onto his approach presents, and through it, dying, he is still speaking.

Thanks. . .obviously that was a typo, since v.2 stated nothing relevant to the point.

I've corrected it in the post.

Clare73 · Jan 18, 2022

HARK! said:
In the beginning was the word. And the word was made flesh. Are you denying that YHWH's word wasn't in the beginning?

YHWH doesn't change, nor does his word. His law is perfect. Marcion believed otherwise. He believed that there was a good god and a bad god. That's why he ripped almost everything out of his Canon but Paul's letters, so that he could twist them, to push his lawless doctrine.

If we take something that is already perfect, and change it; what happens?

How does this specifically relate to my post?

Passover For Christians

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Active Member

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

שמע

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

שמע

Blood-bought

שמע

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Similar threads