Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your claim that the ark was not present during Messiah's time is also based on tradition. There is no way to know for certain either way. What I do know is that Temple services were held during Messiah's time, and the Ark is necessary to properly fulfill all the ritual functions of the moedim. Thus, I conclude and believe that the Ark was present then. You're free to believe otherwise.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Yes, I follow some of the commandments, all the ones I can do today as I understand them, to the best of my ability. Which ones do you follow? Or, perhaps, since you believe that the Law is done away with and fulfilled in Messiah, is it sinful to follow any part of the Law?
Your claim that the ark was not present during Messiah's time is also based on tradition.
There is no way to know for certain either way.
Yes, I follow some of the commandments, all the ones I can do today as I understand them, to the best of my ability. Which ones do you follow? Or, perhaps, since you believe that the Law is done away with and fulfilled in Messiah, is it sinful to follow any part of the Law?
First, 2Chr 36:10 does not say that all the "vessels" (כליThat's not true. My view is based on Scripture. The last mention of the Ark is in 2 Chronicles 35:3 when Josiah had it placed in the Temple. Then in 2 Corinthians 36:10 the “vessels of the house of the Lord” were taken away to Babylon, and afterward the temple was destroyed. The ark is never again mentioned in Scripture.
Your view on the whereabouts of the Ark after its last mention in Scripture is also based on tradition and conjecture, not Scripture. You choose to believe your tradition, I choose to believe mine for reasons as I've stated.So there is certainly no Scriptural evidence to support your view about the Ark, neither is there any historical evidence. And a good student should not base such a fundamental issue on something that is not supported by Scripture.
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. " Eze 36:26,27“Believe me, the hour is coming, when you shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father … but the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
The Judaizers tried to give their perspectives in Galatia, Corinth, Crete, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, and for the most part, scripture used Abraham, to keep all that stuff out of the churches.First, 2Chr 36:10 does not say that all the "vessels" (כליwere taken away. Second, the "vessels" (tools, כלי are identified separately from other Temple articles of greater importance (ark, altar, laver, etc.) in Scripture itself (e.g. Ex 31:7, etc.). Just because Nebuchadnezzar brought back a number of valuable tools (כלי from the Temple does not mean that he took the Ark.
Your view on the whereabouts of the Ark after its last mention in Scripture is also based on tradition and conjecture, not Scripture. You choose to believe your tradition, I choose to believe mine for reasons as I've stated.
We have radically different perspectives on Scripture, its relative authority, and doctrine. I fully comprehend your doctrine, as I was steeped in Baptist and evangelical theology for the past 20 years, so I've heard it before. After intensely studying the Judaic perspective for the past two years, I can say that I comprehend both perspectives. Can you?
You'll understand if I follow the Word of God, which states that Sabbath day is a shadow, the reality is in Christ (Col 2:16-17).... if this is so, why would you arbitrarily end the reference at verse 22?
If Sabbath ended at the cross, then Joseph of Arimathaea and the Galilean women must have sinned when they observed the Sabbath day after the death of Messiah on the cross: "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment." Lk 23:56, Mk 16:1.
So must have the early believers in Asia Minor also sinned, when they observed Sabbath: "the Sabbath or Saturday (for so the word sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the fathers, when speaking of it as it relates to Christians) was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the Eastern parts [Asia Minor] honoured with all the public solemnities of religion. For which we are to know, that the gospel in those parts mainly prevailing amongst the Jews, they being generally the first converts to the Christian faith, they still retained a mighty reverence for the Mosaic institutions, and especially for the sabbath, as that which had been appointed by God himself, (as the memorial of his rest from the week of creation,) settled by their great master Moses, and celebrated by their ancestors for so many ages, as the solemn day of their public worship, and were therefore very loth that it should be wholly antiquated and laid aside. For this reason it seemed good to the prudence of those times, (as in others of the Jewish rites, so in this,) to indulge the humour of that people, and to keep the sabbath as a day for religious offices. Hence they usually had most parts of the divine service performed upon that day; they met together for public prayers, for reading the scriptures, celebration of the sacraments, and such like duties. This is plain, not only from some passages in Ignatius and Clemens's Constitutions, but from writers of more unquestionable credit and authority. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, tells us, that they assembled on Saturdays, not that they were infected with Judaism, but only to worship Jesus Christ, the Lord of the sabbath" (William Cave, Primitive Christianity)
The Apostle John was the elder overseeing the Asia Minor churches at the time. John's prominent disciple, Polycarp, observed Sabbath, and protested Rome's substitution of Sunday for Sabbath.
Christ's apostles do not agree with you.From my perspective, you're both correct ... Paul was both speaking for and against the Torah ... this was exactly the characteristic of a Balaam (Rev 2:14). The Tanach records Balaam as both a true and a false prophet.
Disobedience manifests unbelief.Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein , and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Hebrews 4:6
In the New King James it is rendered DISOBEDIENCE.
Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
Unbelief is disobedience to God.
You either believe the NT Word of God, or you don't.Trying to get people to go back under the Law is heresy!
Is all Scripture God breathed?Messiah did not distingush between any of the books of the Law, the Prophets, or the Writings. Since He referred to them as a whole, they are all to be taken as Scripture, with varying degrees of authority.
But the principle he stated is permanent.If I may jump in to correct something here ... Yehoshua explained the meaning of what He said to Peter in Mt 15:20. In Mt 15:1-20, Messiah was addressing man-made traditions (see Mt 15:3), specifically in this case, of eating "with unwashed hands" (cf. Mt 15:20, compare Mt 15:2). As this tradition is not a Torah commandment, but man's tradition, He concluded that it does not defile a man to eat with unwashed hands. This has nothing to do with clean or unclean foods, and Messiah did not contradict or overturn Torah (cf. Mt 5:17) by declaring all foods clean. If He did, He would have to be considered a false prophet (Deu 13, Deu 18, etc.)
And there you have it, the false gospel.Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is yet to happen. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we won't receive atonement. Those who walk in His narrow Way will indeed receive atonement. It's just something we're waiting for.
That's a unique religion.Yes, there is ... it involves repentance, fasting, prayer, abstaining from work, and a scapegoat, etc. (FYI, I believe we are currently under the "Old" Covenant, which has been renewed by Messiah.)
So when Jesus said the cup was his blood of the new covenant (Lk 22:20), what blood was he talking about?The final atonement will happen on a future Yom Kippur ... Messiah is our atonement, and if we continue to walk in trust, repentance, and obedience, we have that guaranteed atonement to look forward to.
So what is the blood of the new covenant (Lk 22:20) about?Wedding supper always happen after the wedding.. it will be part of the things that happen during the 1000 year break.
That is contrary to the NT Word of God, and an invention of the mind of man.We are the betrothed, or engaged. We are the virgins waiting with our lamps filled and lit for the day and the hour which no one knows (Yom Teruah) for the bridegroom to return, for His final atonement (Yom Kippur) and our marriage and eternal rest (Sukkot).
The seven moedim are not merely "Jewish holidays" - they are also guideposts and they are His appointment days with us, to show us the Way of Salvation. We must walk with Messiah along His narrow Way:
Passover: We must trust Messiah and enter into His Way, taking His shed blood upon ourselves.
Unleavened Bread: We must repent of our sins, and die with Messiah to the world.
Firstfruits: We must live again in obedience, producing fruit for Messiah and the Father.
Shavuot (Pentecost): We must embrace His Spirit Who teaches us Torah and His Ways.
Yom Teruah: We must wait patiently for His return, on the day which no man knows the day or the hour.
Yom Kippur: We will stand in judgment, and receive His redemption.
Sukkot: We will be married, and rest eternally with Him.
I believe Messiah's parables were designed to bring our attention to His Path and these guideposts along His Path.
Do you have a Biblical basis for this?so there is a confusion regarding atonement I see.. Let's remember that God has appointed a Day of Judgment and it is called the Day of Atonement... There are those by faith with the sacrifice and Priest in the temple and those who just see what is outside in front of the temple... Choose this day whom you will serve.
Of the verses in Lev 16 on the Day of Atonement, 75% of them relate to atonement for the tabernacle.Law of God needs no atonement.. It is perfect as it is.
... and you'll understand that I follow the Scriptures which Messiah Himself identified as the Word of YHWH, which states that Sabbath was (Ex 20:8), is (Ex 31:16), and will be celebrated by His people in the future (Isa 66:22-24).You'll understand if I follow the Word of God, which states that Sabbath day is a shadow, the reality is in Christ (Col 2:1617).
Sources, from two or more first-hand witnesses, please?Christ's apostles do not agree with you. The apostles believed Paul received his revelation from Jesus Christ and did not regard Paul as a false prophet.
The apostles themselves were already commissioned by Messiah to preach to the Gentiles. You're suggesting that they disobeyed Messiah by delegating this responsibility to Paul instead.Instead they commissioned him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?