Feast Days And Sabbath Days. Are They Still Binding?

[Castaway57]

I would like to make a few posts from something Joe crews wrote years ago on this subject; as well as discuss this with others.

Feast Days and Sabbaths
By Joe Crews

ARE THEY STILL BINDING? (Part 1)

How many commandments are contained in the Ten Commandments? Does that sound like a foolish question? Then consider the fact that thousands of religious people would give an answer like “94” or “110.” You see, there is a strange belief on the part of many that the great God-written law of the Ten Commandments was actually a part of the ceremonial law of Moses which contained scores of specific regulations. They do not see the decalogue as being distinct and totally unique because of its divine authorship.

Neither do they see the clear limitation which the Bible sets for this moral code by calling it the TEN Commandments.

It seems quite obvious that one would effectively do away with the “Ten Commandments” by mingling them with ninety or a hundred others and calling them “ordinances” instead of commandments. Such a radical effort has been made to dilute the force of the only words of the Bible which God wrote with His own hand. Furthermore, the claim has been advanced that since the Ten Commandments were a part of the mosaic law of ordinances which ended at the cross, we are no more obligated to obey the decalogue than we are to offer lambs in sacrifice.

Is there proof positive in the Scriptures that there was no such blending of the ceremonial and moral law into one? Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!

God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb. “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it” (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).

Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which “he commanded you,” from the statutes which “he commanded me” to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct “law.”

God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain. “Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them” (2 Kings 21:8). Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a “law.” Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law “I commanded” and also the “law ... Moses commanded.” Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.

Daniel was inspired to make the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation. “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him” (Daniel 9:11).

Once more we see “thy law” and “the law of Moses,” and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the Ten Commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgments.

The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses’ statement that God “wrote them (the Ten Commandments) upon two tables of stone” (Deuteronomy 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18, “two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.”

No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. “And Moses wrote this law ... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26). This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a book was placed in a pocket on the side of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on tables of stone was placed inside the ark of the covenant. “And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee” (Exodus 25:16).

At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written on different material, were placed in different locations and had totally different content.

 

[Castaway57]

One of the things that I wassurprised to learn from the Bible when I read this booklet on the feast days was how the so dubbed "ceremonial law" was/is totally against us; and this is in direct contrast to the TEN commandments:

Feast Days and Sabbaths
By Joe Crews

ARE THEY STILL BINDING? (Part 2)

THE CEREMONIAL LAW IS AGAINST US

Now let’s take a closer look at the ceremonial ordinances that Moses wrote in the book. They were to repose in the “side of the ark ... for a witness against thee.” It is interesting to note that the curses and judgments of this law spelled out penalties for transgression which were totally missing from the Ten Commandments. For this reason, the ceremonial law was considered to be a law which was “against” them. Even in the New Testament we read the same descriptive language in reference to that law. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Colossians 2:14).

Certainly there was nothing in the Ten-Commandment law that could be defined as “contrary” to Paul and the church to whom he was writing. It was not “against” those early Christians to refrain from adultery, theft, lying, etc. On the other hand, that moral law was a tremendous protection to them and favored every interest in their lives. We have only to read Paul’s exalted description of the Ten-Commandment law to recognize that those eternal principles were never blotted out or nailed to the cross. After quoting the tenth commandment of the decalogue in Romans 7:7, Paul wrote these words, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (verse 12). Then he continued in verse 14, “For we know that the law is spiritual ...”

If the Ten-Commandment law had been blotted out at the cross, would Paul have spoken in such glowing language of its perfection and spirituality? He did not speak of a past law. He said, “the law IS holy ... the law IS spiritual.” In other words, it was very much alive and operating when Paul wrote to the Roman church. In contrast he described the handwriting of ordinances in the past tense:

“WAS against us ... WAS contrary to us.” It is certain he was not speaking of the same law. One was present and one was past.

Interestingly enough, Paul spoke of the fifth commandment as being in effect when he wrote to the Ephesians. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honor thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth” (Ephesians 6:1-3). Again, we find the great apostle affirming that this commandment “IS” not “WAS.” Had it been a part of the ordinances described by the same writer in Colossians, he would have said, “... it WAS the first commandment with promise.”

In the New Testament Church there was a lot of contention over the subject of circumcision, which was a major requirement of the ceremonial law. In Acts 15:5 we read, “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.” As all recognize, this could not be referring in any sense to the Ten Commandments. They do not even mention circumcision. Yet Paul declared, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Corinthians 7:19). If the law dealing with circumcision was now NOTHING (abolished), then what “commandments” was he exalting as being still binding? One would have to be blind not to see two laws here. The moral law remained, while the law of circumcision (ceremonial law) was abolished.

The truth is that there are numerous references in the Bible which prove that the law of types and shadows, because of its

temporary application, was never considered on an equality with the eternal moral law. Its system of sacrifices, human priesthood and feast days were instituted after sin entered the world and always pointed forward to the deliverance from sin which would be wrought through the true Lamb and Priest who was to come—Jesus.

The writer of Hebrews spends much time proving that the law of the Levitical priesthood would have to change in order to accommodate the priesthood of Jesus. He did not spring from the tribe of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, we have reference to Jesus “Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life” (Hebrews 7:12,16).

This “carnal commandment” dealing with a human priesthood is found in the handwritten law of Moses. It contrasts sharply with Paul’s description of the Ten Commandments as “spiritual” and “holy” and “good.” Nothing could be carnal and spiritual at the same time. Neither could anything be “good” and “not good” at the same time. Yet in Ezekiel we read these words:

“Because they ... had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live” (Ezekiel 20:24, 25). Observe carefully how the prophet identifies the Sabbath law, and then immediately says, “I gave them ALSO statutes that were not good.” Keep in mind that the Ten Commandments were called “holy, and just, and good” (Romans 7:12).

Because of its curses and judgments against their continual disobedience, the law of Moses was “against” them and was “not good.”

 

[Castaway57]

And here is another surprise, atleast to me when I first read it:

THE MORAL LAW EXISTED IN EDEN

The Mosaic Law is never equated with the eternal moral code which operated from the very beginning of human history. Although they were not written down until Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments were understood and honored by the earliest patriarchs. Even Cain knew that it was a sin to kill, because God told him that “sin lieth at the door” (Genesis 4:7) after he murdered his brother.

It is impossible for sin to exist where there is no law. The Bible teaches, “for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). Again we are told, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). This principle is amplified further by Paul’s statement that “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Romans 7:7).

These verses nail down the truth that no sin can be imputed where the Ten-Commandment law is not in effect. God’s statement to Cain about sin lying at the door was in reference to his plan to kill Abel, a violation of one of those commandments. This is absolute proof that the moral law was in effect at that early date. Later, Joseph revealed that he was aware of the binding claims of that same law. He said to Potiphar’s wife, “how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). He knew
adultery was sin.

Abraham was commended by God in these words: “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my tatutes, and my laws” (Genesis 26:5). It is very obvious that the law which Abraham faithfully obeyed was not the law of Moses, because that law was not given until 430 years later. And we have just established that the Ten Commandments existed before Abraham, condemning even Cain for murder. Neither is it possible for us to conceive that great, godly Abraham was not acquainted with the basic issues of right and wrong contained in the Ten Commandments.

It is absolutely certain that another law was added 430 years later, and it was in addition to the one Abraham kept so diligently. “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect” (Galatians 3:17).

The context of this verse indicates that Paul is talking about the ceremonial law rather than the moral law of the Ten Commandments. In verse ten, he refers to the curses “which are written in the book of the law.” We know this had to be the mosaic law because, as we have already noted, there are no curses recorded in the law written on stone.

Can we find further confirmation that this later law was indeed the law of Moses? The answer rests in Galatians 3:19. “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made ...” Here we have two significant facts set forth concerning the law which was added. We are told why it was given and also how long it would remain in effect. These two bits of information will be considered very carefully since they contain compelling evidence in the case.

FIRST: WHY WAS IT GIVEN? The verse clearly states that it was “added because of transgressions.” This is most revealing because we have just established that “where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). One can’t be guilty of transgressing a law which does not exist. In this case one law obviously did exist; and it had been “transgressed,” making it necessary to add another law 430 years after God’s covenant with Abraham. And since it is recorded that “Abraham obeyed ... my laws” (Genesis 26:5), we have to believe that that earlier law, which Abraham observed, was the Ten Commandments. Moses had not yet been born, and it could not have been his law.

So what must we conclude from this evidence? The Ten Commandments had been transgressed, making it necessary to add the ceremonial law. Upon reflection, this makes a lot of sense. If a law is made forbidding murder, and it is broken, then another law would have to be enacted to prescribe the penalty or punishment for breaking that first law. We have already established that the Ten Commandments contained no curses (penalties) or judgments (punishments), but the mosaic law was characterized by those very things.

SECOND: HOW LONG DID THIS “ADDED” LAW REMAIN IN EFFECT?

The Scripture says, “Till the seed should come.” There is no controversy over the identity of that seed. It is Christ. But do we have evidence that the law which was blotted out and nailed to the cross was indeed the law of Moses? Whichever law it was, it is designated as the “handwriting of ordinances.” Nowhere are the Ten Commandments identified as ordinances. That term is applied to local legal codes which are very narrow and limited, such as “town ordinances” which extend only to the city limits. In comparison, the Ten Commandments are more like the constitution of the United States.

 

[Castaway57]

And here is another surprise, atleast to me when I first read it:
THE MORAL LAW EXISTED IN EDEN

The Mosaic Law is never equated with the eternal moral code which operated from the very beginning of human history. Although they
were not written down until Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments were understood and honored by the earliest patriarchs. Even Cain knew that it was a sin to kill, because God told him that “sin lieth at the door” (Genesis 4:7) after he murdered his brother.

It is impossible for sin to exist where there is no law. The Bible teaches, “for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). Again we are told, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). This principle is amplified further by Paul’s statement that “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Romans 7:7).

These verses nail down the truth that no sin can be imputed where the Ten-Commandment law is not in effect. God’s statement to Cain about sin lying at the door was in reference to his plan to kill Abel, a violation of one of those commandments. This is absolute proof that the moral law was in effect at that early date. Later, Joseph revealed that he was aware of the binding claims of that same law. He said to Potiphar’s wife, “how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). He knew
adultery was sin.

Abraham was commended by God in these words: “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my tatutes, and my laws” (Genesis 26:5). It is very obvious that the law which Abraham faithfully obeyed was not the law of Moses, because that law was not given until 430 years later. And we have just established that the Ten Commandments existed before Abraham, condemning even Cain for murder. Neither is it possible for us to conceive that great, godly Abraham was not acquainted with the basic issues of right and wrong contained in the Ten Commandments.

It is absolutely certain that another law was added 430 years later, and it was in addition to the one Abraham kept so diligently. “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect” (Galatians 3:17).

The context of this verse indicates that Paul is talking about the ceremonial law rather than the moral law of the Ten Commandments. In verse ten, he refers to the curses “which are written in the book of the law.” We know this had to be the mosaic law because, as we have already noted, there are no curses recorded in the law written on stone.

Can we find further confirmation that this later law was indeed the law of Moses? The answer rests in Galatians 3:19. “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made ...” Here we have two significant facts set forth concerning the law which was added. We are told why it was given and also how long it would remain in effect. These two bits of information will be considered very carefully since they contain compelling evidence in the case.

FIRST: WHY WAS IT GIVEN? The verse clearly states that it was “added because of transgressions.” This is most revealing because we have just established that “where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). One can’t be guilty of transgressing a law which does not exist. In this case one law obviously did exist; and it had been “transgressed,” making it necessary to add another law 430 years after God’s covenant with Abraham. And since it is recorded that “Abraham obeyed ... my laws” (Genesis 26:5), we have to believe that that earlier law, which Abraham observed, was the Ten Commandments. Moses had not yet been born, and it could not have been his law.

So what must we conclude from this evidence? The Ten Commandments had been transgressed, making it necessary to add the ceremonial law. Upon reflection, this makes a lot of sense. If a law is made forbidding murder, and it is broken, then another law would have to be enacted to prescribe the penalty or punishment for breaking that first law. We have already established that the Ten Commandments contained no curses (penalties) or judgments (punishments), but the mosaic law was characterized by those very things.

SECOND: HOW LONG DID THIS “ADDED” LAW REMAIN IN EFFECT?

The Scripture says, “Till the seed should come.” There is no controversy
over the identity of that seed. It is Christ. But do we have evidence that the law which was blotted out and nailed to the cross was indeed the law of Moses? Whichever law it was, it is designated as the “handwriting of ordinances.” Nowhere are the Ten Commandments identified as ordinances. That term is applied to local legal codes which are very narrow and limited, such as “town ordinances” which extend only to the city limits. In comparison, the Ten Commandments are more like the constitution of the United States.

 

[Castaway57]

This post will conclude in establishing, among other things, the feast days have been done away with, and are no longer binding/mandatory for Christians:

WHAT LAW WAS BLOTTED OUT?

But let’s look closer at that text in Colossians 2:14-16 to get the real picture. After describing the “blotting out” and “nailing” of the ordinances, Paul wrote, “Let no man THEREFORE judge you in meat, or in drink.” The word “therefore” means “based on what has just been said, we must come to this conclusion.” In other words, he was saying, “Based upon the fact that the ordinances have been blotted out, THEREFORE let no one judge you in meat or drink.”

Now we begin to see clearly which law was under discussion. Is there anything in the Ten Commandments about meat and drink? But let us read the rest of the text before us: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16, 17).

Question: Could these sabbath days be talking about the Seventh-day Sabbath of the ten-commandment law? No. Because they are clearly defined as “shadows of things to come.” Please keep in mind that the weekly Sabbath was instituted by God before sin came into the world. THERE COULD NEVER BE TYPES OR SHADOWS BEFORE SIN EXISTED! All the shadows were introduced because of sin and pointed forward to the deliverance from sin through Christ. For example, all the lambs slain represented Jesus, the true LAMB, who would die for the sins of the world. If sin had not entered the world, there would have been no need of a Saviour, and therefore, no lambs or shadows pointing to a Saviour.

So these “sabbath days which are a shadow” could not possibly be referring to the Seventh-day Sabbath. But what other sabbaths could they be talking about? Were there “sabbaths” other than the weekly Sabbaths? Yes, there were yearly sabbaths which had absolutely nothing to do with the Seventh-day Sabbath of the decalogue. And they were definitely a part of the “ordinance” system which ended at the cross.

For proof of this, let us go back to the law of Moses and read about these annual feast days which were shadowy sabbaths. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation” (Leviticus 23:24). Again we read, “Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement ... It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest” (verses 27, 32).

As you can clearly see, these annual sabbaths fell on a different day of the week every year, and God specifically explained that they were not to be confused with the weekly Sabbath. “These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, everything upon his day: BESIDE THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD” (verses 37, 38).

Now we can understand what Paul was referring to in Colossians when he wrote about meat and drink and sabbath days which are shadows. There were certain prescribed offerings for each of those yearly feast days, and they were shadows pointing to the future sacrifice of Jesus. But the Bible says these were “BESIDE THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD,” or the Seventh-day Sabbath.

Now it is fully established which law was blotted out and nailed to the cross. At the moment of Christ’s death, the veil of the temple was ripped from top to bottom by an unseen hand (Matthew 27:51). The most holy place of the sanctuary was exposed where the sprinkled blood recorded all the sins of the people. But no more blood needed to be sprinkled; no more lambs needed to be slain; the true Lamb had come to which all those sacrifices pointed. From henceforth, it would be a denial of the Saviour to bring animals. It would be denying that He was the fulfillment of all the shadows and types. Therefore, it would be “against us” or “contrary to us” to continue observing that mosaic law.

To clarify this issue further, let’s ask a very simple question or two. On the day before Jesus died, would it have been a sin for a man to refuse to bring a lamb in order to have his sins forgiven? The answer, of course, is yes. It would have been a sin, because that was the only way to be forgiven. Another question: Would it have been a sin to refuse to bring that lamb, THE DAY AFTER JESUS DIED? No, because the true Lamb had died, the veil had been rent, and the ordinances blotted out. A law had been abolished by being nailed to the cross—the ceremonial law of Moses. Paul referred to the same law in Ephesians 2:15, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances ...”

Now let’s ask another question: On the day before Jesus died, was it a sin to steal? Undoubtedly it was. On the day after He died, was it a sin to steal? The answer is yes; it was just as wrong as the day before He died. Obviously, all the blotting out of ordinances, types and shadows did not affect the great moral code of the Ten Commandments in the slightest degree—they all applied afterward as much as before Christ died.

There are Christians today who still insist that the yearly sabbaths should be observed along with the weekly Sabbath. If such is required, then what were the sabbath days which were blotted out and nailed to the cross? And what was the “holyday” mentioned by Paul as being abolished along with those “sabbath days which were shadows of things to come?” The Greek word for “holyday” is heorte, which is also used to designate one of the yearly festivals of the Jews: “After this there was a feast (heorte) of the
Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” John 5:1. This is unquestionably one of the holy days that Paul spoke of as being abolished.

In contrast, the weekly Sabbath is never referred to as a “feast,” neither is it ever connected to the Jews by such terms as “sabbath of the Jews.” It is only designated as the “sabbath of the Lord.”

It is of more than passing interest that some of the most noted Bible commentators (including Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes) agree that Paul is not talking about the Ten Commandments being abolished at the cross. Dwight L. Moody, Dr. C. I. Schofield and Billy Graham also strongly affirm that the law abolished was the ceremonial law.

There is much more to say on this subject but I am all out of internet time for now.

 

[stinsonmarri]

Castaway:

Joe Crew is not ELOHIM! I cannot on earth see how SDA's will read this man articles where he clearly states that these were pagan customs to justify observing them because of some crazy belief to honor YAHSHUA Birth!!!! IT IS A LIE AND A LIE BREAKS THE COMMANDMENTS:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Ex 20:16 ​

YAHWEH hates a lie it is an abomination unto HIM and you want to perpetuate a lie. Now I maybe a little harsh but not mean Castaway. You have condemn me for things you claim I am completely off about. But this is very clear and cut dry you cannot serve two masters. Christmas means to worship Mithras mass read your history. Plus the information both Redog and I have provided in the forum on the symbols IHS. How long will you be halt between the truth and a lie.

Hear ye the word which YAHWEH speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith YAHWEH, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. Jer 10:1-5

Placing wreath on our church door which represent death it is sad and you get upset with me?

MY people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to ME: seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy ELOHIM, I will also forget thy children. As they were increased, so they sinned against ME: therefore will I change their glory into shame. Hosea 4:6, 7 ​

I know you will again chew me out but I can only pray for you!

Blessings and prayer on this Sabbath Day and to the children and teachers killed horrible by the shooter in Conn my old home state,
stinsonmarri

 

[Castaway57]

Castaway:

Joe Crew is not ELOHIM! I cannot on earth see how SDA's will read this man articles where he clearly states that these were pagan customs to justify observing them because of some crazy belief to honor YAHSHUA Birth!!!! IT IS A LIE AND A LIE BREAKS THE COMMANDMENTS:

stinsonmarri

Well; I see no need to "chew you out" every time I disagree with you. lol. But I do know one thing; I did not say; or even hint, that Joe Crews was God.

All I am doing is presenting the many scriptural points he makes, I personally enjoyed his thoughts on this topic; and do not, at this time see any problem with what I posted, so perhaps you could give exact quotes from the above posts I made, and tell me where you disagree and why?

I have some more to post in a bit when I get time. I think that once all the scriptures Joe or I mention in these posts are read, it will be seen that the feast days are a part of what has been done away with on the cross.

 

[Castaway57]

This post will conclude in establishing, among other things, the feast days have been done away with, and are no longer binding/mandatory for Christians:There is much more to say on this subject but I am all out of internet time for now.

Continuing with Joe's message on Feast days and Sabbath days; we come to this very interesting portion of his study:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN HEAVEN

Perhaps we should ask right at this point, what is the significance of the tables of God’s law being placed inside the ark of the covenant?Remember that this spot was the most holy on the earth because it represented God’s throne. God had said, “there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the cherubims” (Exodus 25:22). Below that shekinah glory, symbolizing the presence of God, lay that holy law by which sin was to be defined. And there, as we know from the Scriptures, Jesus, our High Priest, was to plead His blood for sinners.

The earthly sanctuary was copied by Moses from the pattern in heaven. All its priestly ministry was a type and shadow of the work of Jesus, the true High Priest, in the holy and most holy places of the heavenly sanctuary. “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:24). John the Revelator beheld the original sanctuary in heaven where Christ now ministers as High Priest to make atonement for sin. What is sin? “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). Which law? John gives the answer in Revelation 11:19, “... the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament.”

Think of it for a moment! This is the real thing from which all the Old Testament was patterned. Here is the real Priest, the real mediation, and IN THE ARK OF THE COVENANT, the real Ten Commandments. But please consider this horrendous scenario—IF THE LAW THAT WAS IN THE ARK WAS ABROGATED AT THE CROSS, CHRIST IS MEDIATING FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF AN OBSOLETE LAW! Keep in mind that John is beholding this heavenly scene years and years after the cross. It is still there today! In the throne room of God, over the mercy seat, where His blood is now sprinkled for the blotting out of sin. Sin is still what it has ever been, and Christ ministers His blood for sin. No wonder the mercy seat is located just above the broken law. Remove the ark containing God’s law and you remove the foundation of His throne, His government. You also remove the law by which sin can be defined and judged. If there be no law, there can be no transgression, and therefore, no need of an Intercessor or a Saviour.

With the heavenly sanctuary located so definitely in the throne room of God over the ark containing the Ten Commandments, there is not a shred of evidence remaining against the validity of that law. The truth is that all men will be judged on the basis of that eternal code which forms the foundation of God’s government. James wrote, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:10-12).

Do not by any means miss the tremendous truths contained in these verses. This is the law we will be judged by! Which law is it? James leaves no room for doubt. He quotes two of the Ten Commandments. But notice how he defines this law as a complete unit in itself. He states that we are responsible for keeping “the whole law.” How many commandments are contained in “the whole law”? Exactly ten! What do we become if we break any one of the ten? “A transgressor of the law,” James answers. And that is what sin is called in the Bible. “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).

Why did Jesus come? “Thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Notice that Jesus came to save us from breaking the law, but “... if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). Here we have a picture of our High Priest, our Advocate, interceding with His own blood in the heavenly sanctuary before the Father’s throne in behalf of those who break His law. Where is the throne located? Over the ark of the covenant containing the law by which James says all “shall be judged.”

Is there any validity to the argument that the Ten Commandments were all abolished at the cross, and then nine of them restored in the New Testament? This is a specious invention to attempt evasion of the fourth commandment. No Christian has ever found fault with nine of the commandments. Why would they want to get rid of the fourth? Obviously because they are breaking it and do not want to believe that they stand condemned by it. Can they annul the entire decalogue, and then reinstate nine of them? We have proven already that only the mosaic law was annulled—not the Ten Commandments. Further, James has declared that the whole of that law is binding, and breaking any one of them is sin. How can anybody extract the fourth commandment from the Ten Commandments and still call it a “whole law”?

Incidentally, the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament more than any of the other nine. This could be tied to the fact that God has apparently chosen the fourth commandment to be the great test issue in His law. In Exodus 16 He used the Seventh-day Sabbath to “prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no” (Exodus 16:4).

Is there reason to believe that the Sabbath contains a testing quality that cannot be found in any of the other nine commandments? It is an interesting question to contemplate. Besides being worded in a totally different manner (“remember” instead of “thou shalt not”), the fourth commandment is the one which does not have a stigma attached to breaking it. One might abstain from stealing for fear of going to jail, and from adultery for fear of getting shot by an angry spouse. In fact, it is illegal to break some of the Ten Commandments, so they might be obeyed simply to avoid the negative consequences of disobedience. BUT CONSIDER THIS: IN OUR WORLD TODAY, THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT ACTUALLY CARRIES A STIGMA FOR KEEPING IT! In fact, the only reason one would choose to obey it is out of love for Christ and choosing His will above our own. Therefore, it would constitute a special test of genuine love for Christ.

 

[Castaway57]

Is there reason to believe that the Sabbath contains a testing quality that cannot be found in any of the other nine commandments? It is an interesting question to contemplate. Besides being worded in a totally different manner (“remember” instead of “thou shalt not”), the fourth commandment is the one which does not have a stigma attached to breaking it. One might abstain from stealing for fear of going to jail, and from adultery for fear of getting shot by an angry spouse. In fact, it is illegal to break some of the Ten Commandments, so they might be obeyed simply to avoid the negative consequences of disobedience. BUT CONSIDER THIS: IN OUR WORLD TODAY, THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT ACTUALLY CARRIES A STIGMA FOR KEEPING IT! In fact, the only reason one would choose to obey it is out of love for Christ and choosing His will above our own. Therefore, it would constitute a special test of genuine love for Christ.

Continuing then, from this last post; I will include the final portion of Joe's study on Feast Days and Sabbath Days. The reason I enjoy these studies is because of the fact he uses only scripture to support his ideas.

PROOF THAT THE SABBATH REMAINS

Although there is a wealth of proof that the Ten-Commandment law and the Sabbath were confirmed by an obedient New Testament Church, I would like to focus on one area of evidence that is often overlooked or misinterpreted. We find it in Hebrews 4, and it probably constitutes the most convincing single reference in favor of Sabbath-keeping to be found in the Bible.

As a little background, we need to examine the thrust of the whole book of Hebrews. The writer of this letter is showing how many of the elements of the old covenant have been taken away. We can almost feel the anguish of the Hebrew believers as Paul explains to them how the sacrificial system has been taken away, having been fulfilled in Christ. The Levitical priesthood has been removed, being replaced by Christ our High Priest. Were they waiting fearfully to hear him take away the Sabbath also? If so, they must have been tremendously relieved when he wrote these words, “There remaineth therefore a ‘keeping of the sabbath’ (see margin) to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9). I am using the marginal reading of the King James Version because that is the exact, literal meaning of the original statement.

The context of Hebrews three and four does not indicate that Paul was trying to convince the Hebrew Christians which day to keep holy. They already knew that. His great burden was for them to enter into a spiritual relationship with Christ—to have an experience of rest from the works of sin. He proved that the children of Israel did not find that true rest because of their lack of faith and disobedience in the wilderness. Although the Greek word for rest, KATAPAUSIS, means simply “cessation from work,” the context seems to indicate that the author is talking primarily about finding a spiritual rest in their experience.

Nevertheless, the two chapters definitely tie the spiritual rest to the Seventh-day Sabbath-keeping initiated and commanded by God in the beginning. Otherwise, we would not find in verse four a direct quote from Genesis 2:2. “For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works” (Hebrews 4:4).

The reason for citing God’s resting on the Sabbath from His work of creation is revealed only when we analyze verses nine and ten. Paul says that what remains for God’s people is not KATAPAUSIS (a spiritual rest), but SABBATISMAS, meaning a literal keeping of the Sabbath. Then in verse ten we find the real key which proves beyond a question that the SABBATISMAS rest was not spiritual only, but a cessation from physical work. “For he that is entered into his rest (KATAPAUSIS—spiritual rest), he ALSO (in addition to the spiritual rest) hath ceased from his own works, AS GOD DID FROM HIS.”

The big question about this verse focuses on the works which one ceases from. Are they works of sin? Are they works to obtain salvation? Or are they the physical works from which we cease on the Sabbath? The answer is plainly revealed by the phrase “AS GOD DID FROM HIS.” Go back to verse four and we begin to understand why this quote from Genesis is included in Paul’s discourse. It is necessary to establish which works God did rest from. God ceased from His physical work of creation on the seventh day, and we are admonished to cease from ours, as He did from His. He did not just enter into a spiritual rest on the seventh day or we might conclude that He was not at spiritual rest on the first six days. The fact is that God is always at spiritual rest. Neither did He have any works of sin or the flesh to cease from. He simply rested on the seventh day from His work of creation, and we are being told by Paul that the ones who truly have received the spiritual rest of salvation will ALSO cease from their physical works on the Sabbath, AS GOD DID FROM HIS.

Don’t you see how this lends a tremendous new spiritual dimension to the keeping of the Sabbath? It memorializes our personal salvation experience. It stands as a blessed weekly reminder of the continual rest from sin that we may have through Christ. No wonder the Sabbath “remains” for the people of God! Our Creator has made it a symbol of the sweetest spiritual blessings available to the human family.

We can understand why God did this when we pause to think how Sabbath-keeping parallels the salvation experience. What really makes something holy? In Isaiah 58:13 God calls the Sabbath “my holy day” and “a delight.” Listen! It is the presence of God in something which makes it holy. (Remember the burning bush?) God’s presence is in the Sabbath just as His presence is also manifest in the life of a genuine Christian. So why should not true Sabbath-keeping be made a memorial of true salvation in Christ?

It is no happenstance that the same Hebrew word, CHASID, is used in Isaiah 58:13 to describe the Sabbath (“my HOLY day”) and also in Leviticus 19:2 to describe God’s people (“Ye shall be HOLY”). He dwells in the Sabbath, and He dwells in His people as a sanctifying influence, hence both are called “holy.” This is why God made the Sabbath, from the beginning, a sign of sanctification. “Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them” (Ezekiel 20:12). The New International Version says, “so they would know that I the Lord made them holy.”

Lest someone raise the stale argument that the Sabbath is only a sign of holiness for the Jews, let me hasten to add this inspired text: “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). All born-again Christians are the true Israel today, and have been sanctified unto God. therefore, the Sabbath is for them.

This sign of sanctification has been reaffirmed in the New Testament by Paul’s dramatic statement in Hebrews 4:9, 10 that the keeping of the Sabbath remains for God’s people. Because we have entered into His spiritual rest of salvation (“Be ye holy”), he declares that we should ALSO rest from our works, “AS GOD DID FROM HIS” (“my holy day”).

Someone might suggest that after we enter into spiritual rest there would be no need to observe the memorial of it by keeping the Sabbath physically. But if that were true, we would have to also stop practicing water baptism. Immersion memorializes our death to the old man of sin. We experience that conversion BEFORE entering the water to be baptized. If the physical observance is unnecessary just because we have had the spiritual symbolism fulfilled in us, then we should abandon the physical custom.

Further, we would have to renounce the practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. It also memorializes an experience of the heart in receiving the sacrifice of our Lord by faith. But should we give up the physical observance of the communion just because we have already entered into the spiritual joy of what it represents? Of course not! Then why should anyone suggest that the Sabbath not be observed physically just because it is used as a memorial of union with Christ? Paul says that it REMAINS as a Sabbath rest for the people of God. In their monumental Commentary On the Whole Bible, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown make this comment on Hebrews 4:9, “This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still” (page 449). It is most interesting that these Sunday-keeping theological scholars, with the highest of linguistic credentials, make such a statement. Yet the relationship of the spiritual rest of salvation and the physical Sabbathkeeping is undeniable in the context.

So how can we summarize our discoveries about the two laws? Surely it has been established that the Ten Commandments were in a different category than the temporary mosaic law of ordinances. That moral code, encased in the ark of testimony, like the rest of the wilderness sanctuary, was a copy of the true pattern in heaven. So we affirm that it not only was repeated and reinforced in the New Testament but was identified in John’s vision beneath the mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary, from which Christ ministers His own blood for the transgression of that holy law. From that foundational position, it continues to be the basis for Christ’s intercessory ministry for us in the throne room of heaven. Therefore, it is established as the most unmovable and unchangeable of all God’s decrees.

 

[Mr Pickles]

Romes Christianity has no problem keeping the seven pagan days on the witches wheel.

Christmas easter day of souls ect

what are the dates of the seven feast days you observe and what does each feast day sabbath represent. ?

 

[E.T.Elijah]

The feast days here discussed are the seven annual feast days of the Old Testament. The spring feasts (Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits) , Pentacost, and the fall feasts (Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles).

 

[Mr Pickles]

Thankyou

what are the dates of these annual feast days,? what does each feast represent ?

how do you keep these days. ?

MJ say the way they keep the Sabbath is different from your selves, is there a difference how they would keep these feast dates to how your selves do. ?

 

[E.T.Elijah]

To be honest most SDA's do not observe the feast days. I personally do not keep them (still praying and studying), but I do see great benefits in understanding them. They were a visual plan of Christ's ministry. They all point to a different aspect of Christ work in the plan of salvation.

Here is a great link to what each feast points to and lessons that can be learned from it.

Jewish Festivals
Jewish Festivals

 

[Castaway57]

Romes Christianity has no problem keeping the seven pagan days on the witches wheel.

What on earth do you mean by this; and does it even belong in this topic?

what are the dates of the seven feast days you observe and what does each feast day sabbath represent. ?

I believe that the OP and my other posts here show that Seventh-day Adventists do not teach in any of their official fundamental beliefs that we must "keep" the feast days and sabbath days mentioned in my above posts. If there are some who are "keeping" these feast days; they are doing it independently, and not because the church teaches it.

 

[Castaway57]

I do see great benefits in understanding them. They were a visual plan of Christ's ministry. They all point to a different aspect of Christ work in the plan of salvation.

Amen to that! I agree, this is part of what I also hope we can discuss more of in this topic. I will check out those links asap.

 

[stinsonmarri]

Castaway:​

You quoted: As you can clearly see, these annual sabbaths fell on a different day of the week every year, and God specifically explained that they were not to be confused with the weekly Sabbath. “These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, everything upon his day: BESIDE THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD” (verses 37, 38).​

Can you please explain to me if someone is telling you to keep some special gifts they have for you annually beside the gift that is special every week never ever call them sabbaths of YAHWEH? The only day is a sabbath is the Day of Atonement which when the SAVIOR went into the MOST HOLY to start HIS HIGH PRIEST Ministry. It was on that day that we believe in the Investing Judgment so did it stopped being nailed to cross and then somehow return being nailed to the cross? Now tell me what sense is that because I surely do not see one? Now it was because of the lunar/solar calendar that ELOHIM gave to man and reintroduce to the Israelites showing that the Feast of YAHWEH were still biding is what we used to fully understand the Sanctuary and they still did not understand. It took a vision given to Hiram Edison to show man the truth. The Adventists were so close in keeping the Feast Days then and when Jones and Waggoner return to provide the message we turned away from-"the Seven Month Message! How can you turn your back on YAHWEH'S Feast Days and celebrate pagan feast days is beyond me Castaway it just do not make sense.

In contrast, the weekly Sabbath is never referred to as a “feast,” neither is it ever connected to the Jews by such terms as “sabbath of the Jews.” It is only designated as the “sabbath of the Lord.”​

This is definitely not true it is right here:​

And YAHWEH Spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the Feasts of YAHWEH, which ye shall proclaim to be Holy Convocations, even these are MY Feasts. Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, a Holy Convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the Sabbath YAHWEH in all your dwellings.[FONT='Georgia','serif'] [/font]These are the Feasts of YAHWEH, even Holy Convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. Lev 23:1-4

These are the fixed Feasts of YAHWEH, the Holy days of worship which you will keep at their regular times. (BBE)​

These also are the Holy days of YAHWEH, which you must Celebrate in their seasons. (DRB) ​

In addition to the Sabbath, these are YAHWEH appointed Festivals, the Official days for Holy Assembly that are to be celebrated at their proper times each year. (NLT)

The Sabbath is different from all the other feasts and holy convocations in that it originated at creation (Gen. 2:1–3), whereas the annual feasts and “sabbaths” had their origin with the Jewish nation. SDA Bible Dictionary Vol. 1 p. 800​

This is a lie as well because YAHWEH has never given anything to just one ethnic group of people. That is a bias and prejudice statement and the Bible will back up the truth that Feast Days which include the Sabbath was before this earth was created.​

Bless YAHWEH, ye his angels that excel in strength, that do HIS Commandments, hearkening unto the Voice of HIS Word. Psa 103:20 ​

Then ELOHIM commanded, "Let lights appear in the sky to separate day from night and to show the time when days, years, and Religious Festivals begin; (GNB) ​

Then ELOHIM said, "Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs and will mark Religious Festivals, days, and years. (GW)​

Then ELOHIM said, “Let there be lights in the sky. These lights will separate the days from the nights. They will be used for signs to show when Special Meetings begin and to show the days and years. Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)​

Job 1:6:​

And it came to pass, when on a certain day the sons of ELOHIM came, and stood before YAHWEH, and Satan came amongst them, and stood in his sight, (DRB)​

Again it fell upon a day, that the sons of ELOHIM came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. (JPS) ​

Now the event that happen in Job is so misunderstood that other created beings and not angels came as Adam did before he sinned and present their offerings before the FATHER.

Present: (tsab [yaw-tsab']); A primitive root; to place (anything so as to stay); reflexively to station, offer, continue. Strong Dictionary​

This was a Feast Day because angels are already in Heaven returning daily from their missions also working with other beings or sons of ELOHIM. The angels are not sons of ELOHIM read Heb 1:5.​

I saw that ELOHIM had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of ELOHIM, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of ELOHIM plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the HOLY SPIRIT is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed. EW 220

Daniel 7:25​

And he shall speak words against the MOST HIGH [ELOHIM] and shall wear out the saints of the MOST HIGH and think to change the time [of Sacred Feasts and Holy Days] and the Law; and the saints shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time [three and one-half years]. (AMP)​

He will speak words against the MOST HIGH and oppress the holy ones of the MOST HIGH. He will intend to change Religious Festivals and Laws, and the holy ones will be handed over to him for a time, times, and half a time.Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)​

He will speak against the SUPREME ELOHIM and oppress ELOHIM'S people. He will try to change Religious Laws and Festivals, and ELOHIM'S people will be under his power for three and a half years. Good News Translation (GNT)​

(CEV) "This king will speak evil of ELOHIM'S MOST HIGH, and he will be cruel to ELOHIM'S chosen ones. He will try to change ELOHIM'S Law and the Sacred Seasons. And he will be able to do this for a time, two times, and half a time.

Change times — the prerogative of God alone (Dan_2:21); blasphemously assumed by Antichrist. The “times and laws” here meant are those of religious ordinance; stated times of feasts [Maurer].[FONT='Georgia','serif'] [/font]A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown​

"Question: How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?"​

"Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church."​

"Question: How can you prove that?"​

"Answer: Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the Church's power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin: and by not keeping the rest [of the Catholic feasts] by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power." (Rev. Henry Tuberville's, (D.D.R.C.) "An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine", p.58. New York: Edward Dunigan and Brothers, approved 1833)​

Gen 1:14:​

Feast Days, or Holy Days, are days which are celebrated in commemoration of the sacred mysteries and events recorded in the history of our redemption, in memory of the Virgin Mother of Christ, or of His apostles, martyrs, and saints, by special services and rest from work. A feast not only commemorates an event or person, but also serves to excite the spiritual life by reminding us of the event it commemorates. At certain hours Jesus Christ invites us to His vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15); He is born in our hearts at Christmas. . . CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA ON:Ecclesiastical Feasts​

Until 350 A.D., when Pope Julius I proclaimed Dec. 25 as the date of the nativity, almost every month in the year had, at one time or another, been named by reputable scholars as the likely date of Christ's birth.​

Christians, for whom Christ was the new beginning and the new light of the world, celebrated his birth in a seasonal tradition which crosscut a number of cultures. During the winter solstice, ancient Mesopotamians performed rites to aid their god Marduk. . . At that season the Greek Zeus began anew his battle against Kronos and the Titans. The followers of Mithras, a Persian sun-god whose cult was brought to Rome by returning Legionaires and became the chief rival of Christianity, celebrated Dec. 25 as Dies Solis Invicti Nati (Birthday of the Unconquered Sun). The Romans themselves had long celebrated the solstice season as the Saturnalia, honoring Saturn, the god of agriculture. During Saturnalia, normal life turned upside down...Lord of Misrule...lavish banquets...exchange of gifts. Life Book of Christmas, Vol. 2, the Pageantry of Christmas, 1963, article, "Turning Pagan Rites to the Praise of God."​

Valentine's Day: The association of love and courtship with St. Valentine's Day may have arisen from the coincidence of the date with the Roman festival of Lupercalia. Lupercalia was a Roman festival believed to have been in honor of Faunus, the god of flocks and fertility. Celebrated on Feb. 15, it was intended to ensure fertility of people, fields and flocks for the coming year. After sacrificing goats and a dog on the Palatine Hill, young men called Luperci raced around the borders of the hill striking those they met with whips made of the goatskins. Women who were struck were ensured of fertility and of easy delivery of children. The festival survived until the 5th century, A. D. Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia​

Wake up and see that from the beginning man kept the Sacred Feasts of YAHWEH that included the Sabbath which is found in Lev Chapter 24. It is absurd not to think that man went away from the sacrifices and oblations to sacrificing unclean animals and even humans. They also changed the Feast Days as well starting with the Sabbath worshiping the Sun then Nimrod, Tammuz and Sermerisis, all of the Laws and Statues of ELOHIM were changed into pagan customs and feast days even now in this day and time!​

Blessings,​

stinsonmarri

 

[E.T.Elijah]

Stinson -
You got one thing right, in Job it was the representatives of the unfallen worlds that came together to present themselves to God. However, it is very unlikely it was on one of God's feast days (holy days). It was more than likely a new moon. The reason I say this is because those Holy Days all point to Christ's ministry on behave of fallen man. They show us the plan of salvation. So they then would have been instilled after the garden exile. There would be no need to have them if sin had never entered into the world. So by the same train of thought, why would the unfallen beings come together at one of those times. There is no seperation from them and God. Plus it would reason to say that this type of get together would have been something that was done since before the earth was created. Thus probably a new moon.
However I do believe that it was representatives of each world God has created and not angels. More than likely the first created of each world. That is why Satan came. Not because He was to do so, but because He usurped Adams place as the representative of this planet. He stole that right from Adam when Adam sinned. And when Christ gave His perfect sinless life for us, or became the second Adam, He took the right back. Thus Satan was cast out of Heaven.

just my humble thoughts anyways

 

[E.T.Elijah]

I did find this article interesting.

Feast Days

 

[Castaway57]

Castaway:​

Wake up and see that from the beginning man kept the Sacred Feasts of YAHWEH that included the Sabbath which is found in Lev Chapter 24. It is absurd not to think that man went away from the sacrifices and oblations to sacrificing unclean animals and even humans. They also changed the Feast Days as well starting with the Sabbath worshiping the Sun then Nimrod, Tammuz and Sermerisis, all of the Laws and Statues of ELOHIM were changed into pagan customs and feast days even now in this day and time!

Blessings,​

stinsonmarri

It seems quite obvious that one would effectively do away with the “Ten Commandments” by mingling them with ninety or a hundred others and calling them “ordinances” instead of commandments. Such a radical effort has been made to dilute the force of the only words of the Bible which God wrote with His own hand. Furthermore, the claim has been advanced that since the Ten Commandments were a part of the mosaic law of ordinances which ended at the cross, we are no more obligated to obey the decalogue than we are to offer lambs in sacrifice.

Is there proof positive in the Scriptures that there was no such blending of the ceremonial and moral law into one? Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!

God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb. “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it” (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).

Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which “he commanded you,” from the statutes which “he commanded me” to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct “law.”

God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain. “Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them” (2 Kings 21:8). Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a “law.” Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law “I commanded” and also the “law ... Moses commanded.” Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.

Daniel was inspired to make the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation. “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him” (Daniel 9:11).

Once more we see “thy law” and “the law of Moses,” and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the Ten Commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgments.

The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses’ statement that God “wrote them (the Ten Commandments) upon two tables of stone” (Deuteronomy 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18, “two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.”

No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. “And Moses wrote this law ... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26). This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a book was placed in a pocket on the side of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on tables of stone was placed inside the ark of the covenant. “And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee” (Exodus 25:16).

At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written on different material, were placed in different locations and had totally different content.

 

[Jake1958]

Greetings,
Actually, the "added law" is the ceremonial and moral law. If you would like to discuss that would be a blessing for both of us.

Cordially,

Jake