Keeping Feasts

[StormyOne]

Thanks Tall for your post... you are the 1st pastor who has admitted that tithing is no longer mandated... I am not suggesting that the work is not supported, I am suggesting a bit of honesty when it comes to asking people to contribute...

A simple statement indicating that the work needs support and that tithing is the method the .org has chosen to promote would be fine....

 

[tall73]

Thanks Tall for your post... you are the 1st pastor who has admitted that tithing is no longer mandated... I am not suggesting that the work is not supported, I am suggesting a bit of honesty when it comes to asking people to contribute...

A simple statement indicating that the work needs support and that tithing is the method the .org has chosen to promote would be fine....

I seriously doubt I am the first. It is just that you need a lot more than a few to address it at a denominational level. And since tithe has been THE key issue with independent ministries, they are not likely to back track on that concept now.

 

[StormyOne]

I seriously doubt I am the first. It is just that you need a lot more than a few to address it at a denominational level. And since tithe has been THE key issue with independent ministries, they are not likely to back track on that concept now.

I am sure that pastors know it.... but to admit it? Not many...

 

[TrustAndObey]

Tall, I completely agree about Colossians 2. That chapter is not where I got the idea that ceremonial law was done away with though actually, and I never stated that. Daniel 7 promises that Christ would do away with sacrifices and offerings. Not only that but there are many, many references in Galatians (and other books) to Mosaic Law, and how we are not under that law anymore.

As Adventists we know how people like to use Colossians 2 to say that only the 4th commandment was done away with, so this inspired me to research Colossians 2 a lot for myself. Besides the fact that the ark of the covenant would have to be opened and ONE commandment would have to be chiseled out of the stone...which is....so against God's character....it's not what that verse says at all anyway. It's telling us that other people are not allowed to judge us anymore (and happy day they can't stone us anymore either)! The debt of sin was canceled.

I read a lot of books of the Bible yesterday and I can't tell you how many times circumcision is mentioned, the fact that the necessity of it had changed. Circumcision was part of Mosaic Law. So if the Sabbath day, a commandment written on stone by God, had changed to Sunday, I imagine there would be not only verses about it, but entire BOOKS written about it. If circumcision was significant enough to almost overkill, people need to realize that a change in one of God's Ten Commandments would be even more significant.

That being said, I'll get back on topic. If you read Galatians, Romans, Acts, etc they are filled with Paul telling the people that they are not restricted by Jewish ceremonial law anymore, that law pointed to the coming Messiah. Paul was a Pharisee (before becoming a Christian), he knew the law, and he knew that the Pharisees thought it would save them. He was warning everyone that the law would not save them.

Also in Galatians you'll notice that Paul references the law about being hanged from a tree (Galatians 3:13 - Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree)...that was Mosaic Law. Deuteronmy 21:23 shows where that law came from and it was in the book of the law.

We all know circumcision was not part of the Ten Commandments, and there are many other plain truths in those books that show Paul is not not not referring to the Ten Commandments written on stone. Paul refers to the "book of the law" (Mosaic Law) many times. Acts 15:5 - 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.

I do tend to hear Adventists give the "easy" answer about Colossians 2 a lot, and I admit at one time I did too. However, in conjunction with all the other verses about the ceremonial law, I do believe that when you study it line upon line, precept upon precept, it does fall in line with the rest of the Bible telling us not to put ourselves under bondage with ceremonial law anymore. I mean for pete's sake, look how many sacrifices were involved IN the Feast of Tabernacles....if that's not bondage, I don't know what is.

People can accuse me of having a "neat package" for my faith, but nothing could be further from the truth. When you accuse someone of that you are a stumbling block. Stumbling blocks never helped anyone and I would appreciate a little more credit. I gave a quick answer before because I didn't want to fall over stumbling blocks.

I'm not studying the Bible to impress anyone or "know" more than anyone, I just want to know the truth. If my opinion doesn't matter then let me know now so I don't waste the skin on my fingers here.

If I were guilty of using ONE verse to support what I believe, then God help me, I would be guilty of doing my own biggest pet peeve. I just recognize a "bait" when I see it and I won't play that game.

There are many, repeat many, verses in the Bible that tell us that God's Ten (not just nine) Commandments still stand. It just takes some knowledge of the Bible to know which laws are being discussed in Galatians, Acts, etc. Knowledge that even a blonde girl from Arkansas can "get" and comprehend.

I'm going to stop now before I get in trouble for a long post, lol, but it's my opinion that we should start another thread about tithing if that is what this thread is going to be about anyway. I'm trying to stay on topic but I'm not sure what the topic is since it seems to change.

Also, I'll be discussing the feasts in the non-debate area from now on.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Also, it's important to note that Christ Himself said there would be laws concerning Him specifically that would have an end. The Mosaic Laws that pointed to Him did have an end.

 

[payattention]

People can accuse me of having a "neat package" for my faith, but nothing could be further from the truth. When you accuse someone of that you are a stumbling block. Stumbling blocks never helped anyone and I would appreciate a little more credit. I gave a quick answer before because I didn't want to fall over stumbling blocks.

When you said you would bow out of the discussion because of something with two other posters you gave yourself as much credit as you deserved.

The issue of the feasts is settled by the cross of Christ, whcih also settled the issue of the Levitical priesthood. My point is simple. There is as much authority to extend the feasts beyond the cross as there is to extend the authority of the Levitical system and its support system of tithing beyond the cross. We have no authority to separate the tithing system from the Levitical priesthood. To do so would be to challenge God's authority.

 

[tall73]

When you said you would bow out of the discussion because of something with two other posters you gave yourself as much credit as you deserved.

And how much credit did you give her when you spoke to her in a condescending way?

If you are going to abuse the discussion participants, then it is not surprising that they drop out.

As for neat packages, we all tend to do that. Some packages just look less like the traditional.

 

[payattention]

And how much credit did you give her when you spoke to her in a condescending way?

If you are going to abuse the discussion participants, then it is not surprising that they drop out.

As for neat packages, we all tend to do that. Some packages just look less like the traditional.

I said I was amazed at the number of truth-seeking Christians who refuse to study further. How is that condescending and how is that addressed to her. She chose to take that simple statement of mine and claim that I did not give her credit. Now, you wish to accuse me of abusing discussion participants. We should keep true to the facts.

I did not disparage neat packages. There you are mistaken. I disparaged the tendency to refuse to study further from a desire to preserve those packages. Is it too much to ask that my statements not be mangled beyond recognition?

 

[tall73]

It's a pity because you have woefully misinterpreted that passage concerning the law being added because of transgression. I am amazed at the number of truth-seeking Christians who prefer to stop studying an issue because it messes up the neat package they have already accepted.

in this context neat packages was not used in a positive way. Or if you intended it that way it certainly didn't come across. It seemed to be a summary of the not studying further issue.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Thanks for getting my back Tall. I'm used to people telling me what they think I think or know (lol), but it doesn't make it any less of a stumbling block.

If I were to quit studying or thought I knew it all, may God have mercy on my soul.

Galatians 5:26 - Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Galatians 6:3 - For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.

Galations 6:10 - As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

I've read Galatians before (this ain't my first time to the rodeo as my mother would say), but I continue reading the Bible and trying to comprehend it from different standpoints. I'm almost positive I'll never feel totally secure in what I believe, so I keep studying. Anyone that says differently is a stumbling block to my faith and doesn't know me. Period.

God help me also if I felt I did know everything and tried to tell others what they should think and feel. That would make me no better than a Pharisee.

 

[payattention]

in this context neat packages was not used in a positive way. Or if you intended it that way it certainly didn't come across. It seemed to be a summary of the not studying further issue.

I think it is dangerous when a Christian decides he won't study an isssue because he does not like it. That attitude is dangerous for all of us, and it amazes me when it happens. That is not condescension, and that is the word you chose to use.

 

[tall73]

It is condescension to assume someone has not studied, when you have no idea what they have done.

And don't you refuse to accept anything from Paul because you don't like him? why are you now thinking that Paul's words mean anything. Again, you are quite inconsistent here. Paul's feast keeping would mean nothing, if, as you frequently say, he saw throgh a glass dimly.

You accept Paul on nothing else seemingly, so why accept him here? Because it agrees with you? Are you refusing to look into what you don't like?

 

[TrustAndObey]

I think you both missed my post on page three.

A rose by any other name....is still a rose.

 

[tall73]

I think you both missed my post on page three.

A rose by any other name....is still a rose.

Actually I did miss your post. And I am afraid I don't get your rose reference in this instance. But maybe you can clarify.

But I was addressing payattention, across three posts at this point, on another point, his seeming inconsistency in accepting or rejecting Paul's writings. The whole premise of this thread is based on evidence from Paul's actions. But he has already stated several times that Paul had a dim understanding. So why would we make Paul's actions a test of anything by his standard?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Actually I did miss your post. And I am afraid I don't get your rose reference in this instance. But maybe you can clarify.

I was just stating that you can change your name on a forum, but if you say the same things consistently, with the exact same wording, it's pretty obvious.

But I was addressing payattention, across three posts at this point, on another point, his seeming inconsistency in accepting or rejecting Paul's writings. The whole premise of this thread is based on evidence from Paul's actions. But he has already stated several times that Paul had a dim understanding. So why would we make Paul's actions a test of anything by his standard?

Yeah, I got that. It is odd to take someone's word on certain topics but not others. I guess when it suits them they decide someone is an authority. Who knows.

 

[tall73]

Oh I see, yeah I missed that you were tying the two forum names together.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Well it's the same forum, just different names used by posters in it.

 

[payattention]

It is condescension to assume someone has not studied, when you have no idea what they have done.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I commented on a statement she made. I did not assume anything.

And don't you refuse to accept anything from Paul because you don't like him?

I don't know where you got this . Please deal with what I say not what I sound like. It is possible my ideas will sound like someone you have heard before. Don't assume we share the same philosophy. Can you do me that favor?

why are you now thinking that Paul's words mean anything. Again, you are quite inconsistent here. Paul's feast keeping would mean nothing, if, as you frequently say, he saw throgh a glass dimly.

You accept Paul on nothing else seemingly, so why accept him here? Because it agrees with you? Are you refusing to look into what you don't like?

Paul commended the Bereans for taking the same posture. Why should you object to it?

 

[payattention]

Thanks for getting my back Tall. I'm used to people telling me what they think I think or know (lol), but it doesn't make it any less of a stumbling block.

If I were to quit studying or thought I knew it all, may God have mercy on my soul.

I don't understand why you have misunderstood my comment. There must be something else at work here for which I am not responsible. I never suggested you have stopped studying. You said you were done with this particular subject because of something with two other posters, which may explain this problem. I then expressed a concern I have always had. The first time I really formed it was about 11 years ago when a friend told me she did not want to hear anything else about what happens when we die because the only thing that helped her deal with her grandmother's death was the belief that she had gone to heaven. I may have erred in putting the two ideas together but you err in insisting on placing yourself exclusively in a general comment.

 

[TrustAndObey]

It's a pity because you have woefully misinterpreted that passage concerning the law being added because of transgression. I am amazed at the number of truth-seeking Christians who prefer to stop studying an issue because it messes up the neat package they have already accepted.

You quoted me specifically (your post #18), that took it out of the realm of "general" comment in my opinion. You specified "you", meaning you were talking to ME, that again took it out of the realm of "general."

I did not misinterpret what you said, and I am telling you now that I have not stopped studying and I never will.

I then expressed a concern I have always had. The first time I really formed it was about 11 years ago when a friend told me she did not want to hear anything else about what happens when we die because the only thing that helped her deal with her grandmother's death was the belief that she had gone to heaven.

I deal with this exact same thing all the time. That is why I refuse to stop studying and avoid becoming "comfortable" with what I believe.

It's odd but the people that are accusing me and others of being in a "cookie cutter" religion all seem to believe the exact same things. For instance, that nature is the true way to study God, that Paul was a false teacher, etc. It's just a little coinky dinky that we are being accused of following the crowd when it's obvious that is what others are doing (if they are indeed separate people). So perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

Here's an idea, how about you don't assume anything about me and I'll show you the same respect?