NT Christians are not to keep the jewish annual feasts

[OntheDL]

The Act 15 conclusion of Council of Jerusalem:

Act 15
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
…
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
…
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

James’ conclusion was that the gentiles don’t have to keep the law but they should do the 4 things. Apparently, there had been some problems with these issues. And it also seemed this was a compromise.


Where Paul stood on this issue is very clear, particularly in the books Galations:

Galations 4
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
…
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Here Paul said we are not under the law. We are under the Covenant of Grace or Promise not the Covenant of Bondage.

• We are not under the law for salvation.

God really never intended the law to save us. But the law points to the our sins and our need of a savior.

• We are not under the law for obligation.

Paul was obviously not talking about the Ten Commandments. After all 10 commandments define our duties to God(1-4) and to man(5-10): our obligation. Then what he talking about?

Again this is found in the book of Galations:

Galations 3
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
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:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 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.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Vs1-18 reinforce Paul’s stand on this issue: we are not saved by keeping the law. Then what is the purpose of the law?

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Paul here clearly said the law served its time because of transgressions TILL Jesus came. Paul gave another analogy that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster, vs24, 25.

Back to the question: which law was Paul saying we are not under?

Vs19 says the law was added because of trangressions. Were the 10 commandments added because of sin? No. We know 10 commandments are eternal and are a reflection of Christ’s character. And the Sabbath commandment was instituted after the creation before the sin entered the world.

When Moses came down from the mount, the Israelites were having orgies, worshipping Egyptian gods. Because of their unbelieve, the law of Moses were added to close all the ‘loopholes’.

Furthermore,
vs17 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.

Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

The law was added 430 years after God made a covenant (concerning the promise) with Abraham. This brings us to the time of Mount Sinai. The 10 commandments were written down on tablets. But they had been in effect long before that. It was at that time, the law of Moses was also given. Clearly, the law that was added 430 years after God made a pact with Abraham was the law of Moses.

This was a serious issue. After Paul evangelized a place, he would go somewhere else, but then the judaizors would come and taught the new gentile believers that they had to keep the law of Moses.

Galations 2
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
…
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

After Jesus’s ascension to heaven, the disciples resisted christ’s command to evangelize the gentile and maintained it was for a later time. Jesus commissioned Paul to do the job. But apparently they were still very zealous of the law and treated the new gentile believers like second class citizens.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he (Peter) did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews

Yes, God only made covenants with Israel and we are to be grafted into the vine. But who is the vine?

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Jesus is the true vine. And His true believers are the branches.

What does the bible say about those who are outwardly jews according to the flesh but do not believe in Christ: they are not the children of God.

Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

The word ‘israel’ means a prince who has power with man and God. Who is it? That is Jesus Himself. Jacob was a type of Christ. The true Israel or spiritual Israel was Jesus and His true believers. Does the nation of Israel of now still have power with God and man? No.

Galations 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

If you (jew or gentile) are a believer of Jesus Christ, you are a jew and a heir of all the promises God made to Israel.

James wrote to the new Christian (jews and gentiles) all over the Roman empire as the new spiritual Israel:

James1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

We, the believer of Christ, are the new Israel. Anyone that knows anything about grafting knows this: you first have to cut off the branch you don’t want, you then graft in the new (different) branch in. 70 weeks prophecy also confirms this. So the new branch replaces the old and dead branch. This is labeled as the ‘replacement theology’ by some. But the bible is very clear on this.

 

[Koey]

This post states that NT Christians are NOT to keep the feasts. I might dispute that. I agree that it is no longer a requirement, à la Romans 14, but to take the opposite tack, to ban it for Christians, makes a legalism out of non-observance.

In fact new covenant meanings of the 3 seasons of the years (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles) are still observed by Christians. Passover is what Easter is called in most languages. Pentecost is obvious. Tabernacles? When God tabernacled with men, by becoming flesh, is the main meaning of Xmas.

 

[Jon0388g]

This post states that NT Christians are NOT to keep the feasts. I might dispute that. I agree that it is no longer a requirement, à la Romans 14, but to take the opposite tack, to ban it for Christians, makes a legalism out of non-observance.

In fact new covenant meanings of the 3 seasons of the years (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles) are still observed by Christians. Passover is what Easter is called in most languages. Pentecost is obvious. Tabernacles? When God tabernacled with men, by becoming flesh, is the main meaning of Xmas.

I don't think you realise what you are saying......

Jon

 

[Koey]

Galatians and Romans take two opposite tacks on the topic of days. Galatians takes the tack that if you are keeping days, food laws or circumcision as a "requirement" you are on the wrong track. Romans says that we are free in Christ to observe ANY days, with the attitude that we do so to honor God. Perhaps you don't realize what I am saying.

 

[OntheDL]

This post states that NT Christians are NOT to keep the feasts. I might dispute that. I agree that it is no longer a requirement, à la Romans 14, but to take the opposite tack, to ban it for Christians, makes a legalism out of non-observance.

In fact new covenant meanings of the 3 seasons of the years (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles) are still observed by Christians. Passover is what Easter is called in most languages. Pentecost is obvious. Tabernacles? When God tabernacled with men, by becoming flesh, is the main meaning of Xmas.

1. passover was replaced by christian communion. Consider the central theme of passover was the sacrifice of the passover lamb, sacrifices are no longer required. And furthermore, passover is Nisan 14th, Nisan 16th is the feast of first fruit. That is the third day, the day of resurrection.


2. What christian holiday is Pentecost that Protestants and catholics celebrate? I have yet to figure out.

3. The feast of Tabernacle falls on Tishri 15th. That's the jewish month in late october time frame. Jesus was not born in late December. The Feast of Tabernacle and Christmas are not connected.

 

[Koey]

1. passover was replaced by christian communion. Consider the central theme of passover was the sacrifice of the passover lamb, sacrifices are no longer required. And furthermore, passover is Nisan 14th, Nisan 16th is the feast of first fruit. That is the third day, the day of resurrection.

2. What christian holiday is Pentecost that Protestants and catholics celebrate? I have yet to figure out.

3. The feast of Tabernacle falls on Tishri 15th. That's the jewish month in late october time frame. Jesus was not born in late December. The Feast of Tabernacle and Christmas are not connected.

1. Passover and Communion are certainly related, but Christian Passover is Easter. Communion is only that part of Passover (the Lord's Supper) that is observed as often as we do so (1Co 11:26), whether weekly, quarterly or annually. Easter commemorates the sacrifice of the true Passover lamb.
2. Pentecost is observed by some Christian churches, but not all. It is seen as variously the birthday of the Church, the coming of the Holy Spirit, etc.
3. While you are correct that Xmas and Tabs are not the same feast, they do have a connection in the theme that God tabernacled with man in the form of Jesus, Immanuel, God with us. The flesh is also referred to as a tabernacle (2 Co 5:1-4; 2 Pet 1:13-4). In a separate analogy, Jesus' flesh is also likened to a specific part of the temple, the veil (Heb 10:20).

The point is that many theologians will point to the fact that the 3 seasons approach is somewhat preserved, although in as you noted, different feasts.

On the "feast of the first fruits," that is a disputed area. Pentecost is called Firstfruits by the Jews, although I have seen many Protestant ministers refer to the Sunday wave sheaf offering during the Passover season or days of Unleavened Bread as the same.

 

[OntheDL]

1. Passover and Communion are certainly related, but Christian Passover is Easter. Communion is only that part of Passover (the Lord's Supper) that is observed as often as we do so (1Co 11:26), whether weekly, quarterly or annually. Easter commemorates the sacrifice of the true Passover lamb.
2. Pentecost is observed by some Christian churches, but not all. It is seen as variously the birthday of the Church, the coming of the Holy Spirit, etc.
3. While you are correct that Xmas and Tabs are not the same feast, they do have a connection in the theme that God tabernacled with man in the form of Jesus, Immanuel, God with us. The flesh is also referred to as a tabernacle (2 Co 5:1-4; 2 Pet 1:13-4). In a separate analogy, Jesus' flesh is also likened to a specific part of the temple, the veil (Heb 10:20).

The point is that many theologians will point to the fact that the 3 seasons approach is somewhat preserved, although in as you noted, different feasts.

On the "feast of the first fruits," that is a disputed area. Pentecost is called Firstfruits by the Jews, although I have seen many Protestant ministers refer to the Sunday wave sheaf offering during the Passover season or days of Unleavened Bread as the same.

Easter and Christmas are not christianized biblical jewish holidays.

Easter is the saxon name for goddess Ishtar. Easter was original celebrated at vernal equinox, the day when the lengths and day and night are equal.

Christmas falls after winter solstice a day when the length of the day begins to increase. The feast was celebrated for the birth of the Sun god.

Both holidays have nothing to do with Jesus. They along with other pagan relics creeped into the early church as baptized paganism.

 

[Koey]

Easter and Christmas are not christianized biblical jewish holidays.

Easter is the saxon name for goddess Ishtar. Easter was original celebrated at vernal equinox, the day when the lengths and day and night are equal.

Christmas falls after winter solstice a day when the length of the day begins to increase. The feast was celebrated for the birth of the Sun god.

Both holidays have nothing to do with Jesus. They along with other pagan relics creeped into the early church as baptized paganism.

Those are only your theories. There are many others, including that Easter also comes from the word east. Easter is called Passover in most languages, only Easter and Ostern in English and German, possibly from Astarte, but also possibly from East/Ost. It does not matter, because Easter does not venerate a pagan goddess.

The simple fact is that it used to be held according to the Jewish calendar. The Quartodeciman controversy was not about whether to observe Passover OR Easter, because Easter was not a word in their language at the time. It was a controversy as to whether or not Passover ought to be held on the Jewish calendar, whereby the days of the week would vary, or a varied date, whereby a Friday-Sunday observance could be held.

And as far as Xmas is concerned, some authorities actually believed that Jesus was born in December. In fact some authorities can be found for just about any month of the year. The early church too lamented the coincidence with Brumalia and Saturnalia, but that was not their intent at all. Their intent was to find a date to celebrate the incarnation of the Messiah.

This puritanical objection to the date is really rather legalistic and Pharisaic. The date is not important. NO Christian worships the resurrection of the sun god, but the incarnation of the Son of God.

To say that both holidays have nothing to do with Jesus, is really a denial of the obvious. Neither day is commanded or forbidden in the New Testament. People who worship on those days, and set them aside to honor Jesus, are not honoring a pagan god. Their worship has EVERYTHING to do with Jesus. So, to claim that these days have nothing to do with Jesus, betrays a prejudice that is a denial of the principles of Romans 14.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

i have to agree with Koey on this one. I recently read Samuel Bacchiocci's books on the feast and I do see both value in having them as memorials to events, Like Christmas and Easter.
Each one has a historical jewish connitation, but they also have a Christilogical meaning as well
I think it would be very approprate to have 1 day a year that we corprately make amends and final end of sin Satan getting his due. (Day of atonement) celebrate going to heaven, (tabernacles) , and foucs on the judgement. (trumpets) the spring feast are prett much the same way
Pentecost (christ assending and beginning to regin)
Ulevend bread (christ in the tomb ) i thist the ressurection might fit in here
Passover (Christ sacrifice on the christ)

 

[Koey]

I'm not sure that is what I meant. The OT feast days celebrated OT events. While they foreshadowed Christ, they did not celebrate two of the greatest events of his life. There is no OT day celebrating his resurrection and his birth. While I certainly see value in the shadow, as they point to Christ, the reality is Christ. That is why the Church, in the spirit of Romans 14, added worship days which celebrate the great events of the birth and ressurrection of our Savior.

Some puritanical churches actually do celebrate OT feasts and refuse to celebrate Xmas and Easter. However, there is a missing ingredient in their logic. While under the schoolmaster of the OT law, we followed the teacher exactly, copying his lessons exactly. Now that we have fully matured, graduated from law school, we now apply the principals, rather than the letter of the law.

The principles of the OT days were to celebrate great OT encounters with God. In the NT, we have now graduated and I believe that in the principle of Romans 14, the schoolmaster sits back and observes his graduates, seeing what they will do with the principles he has taught them.

Those who still want to have their every decision guided by the letter, have not graduated to the spirit. They focus on the letter and not the spirit, making up rules composed of some but not all OT laws, where neither Christ, nor his apostles did.

 

[OntheDL]

Those are only your theories. There are many others, including that Easter also comes from the word east. Easter is called Passover in most languages, only Easter and Ostern in English and German, possibly from Astarte, but also possibly from East/Ost. It does not matter, because Easter does not venerate a pagan goddess.

The simple fact is that it used to be held according to the Jewish calendar. The Quartodeciman controversy was not about whether to observe Passover OR Easter, because Easter was not a word in their language at the time. It was a controversy as to whether or not Passover ought to be held on the Jewish calendar, whereby the days of the week would vary, or a varied date, whereby a Friday-Sunday observance could be held.

And as far as Xmas is concerned, some authorities actually believed that Jesus was born in December. In fact some authorities can be found for just about any month of the year. The early church too lamented the coincidence with Brumalia and Saturnalia, but that was not their intent at all. Their intent was to find a date to celebrate the incarnation of the Messiah.

This puritanical objection to the date is really rather legalistic and Pharisaic. The date is not important. NO Christian worships the resurrection of the sun god, but the incarnation of the Son of God.

To say that both holidays have nothing to do with Jesus, is really a denial of the obvious. Neither day is commanded or forbidden in the New Testament. People who worship on those days, and set them aside to honor Jesus, are not honoring a pagan god. Their worship has EVERYTHING to do with Jesus. So, to claim that these days have nothing to do with Jesus, betrays a prejudice that is a denial of the principles of Romans 14.

To say Easter is the old Passover is a stretch. The Passover was a symbol of Christ's death. Easter is supposed to celebrate His resurrection. The two are not the same.

The English and German names, "Easter" and "Ostern", are not etymologically derived from Pesach and according to the 8th century Christian historian Bede are instead related to ancient name for the Saxon goddess, Eostre, who was celebrated at the spring vernal equinox, and whose name is associated with the month of April (Eostremonat (Eosturmonath) and Ostaramanoth respectively). Bede wrote: "Eosturmonath, which is now interpreted as the paschal month, was formerly named after the goddess Eostre, and has given its name to the festival."

"Inanna, the Sumerian astral deity representing the planet Venus, was known throughout the Mesopotamian world; the Akkadians (and later the Assyro-Babylonians) called her Ishtar. For both the Sumerians and the Akkadians, she was the principal goddess in their respective pantheons. Inanna-Ishtar's closest counterparts to the west are the Canaanite Astarte (called Ashtoreth by the Hebrews) and the later goddesses of Greece and Rome, Aphrodite and Venus.
One of the most important myths about Inanna-Ishtar concerns her relationship to the shepherd god Dumuzi-Tammuz, who is probably a divination of an actual early ruler of Uruk (Erech, the city Enoch of Genesis 4). Although the myth has many variations, its basic outline can be reconstructed from the Sumerian 'Inanna's Descent to the Netherworld,' the Akkadian parallel 'Ishtar's Descent,' and recently translated fragments of the 'Death of Dumuzi,' as well as various laments for Dumuzi and a large set of 'Sacred Marriage' texts.
According to these sources, Inanna and Dumuzi have a passionate love affair and marriage. Subsequently the goddess wants to visit the underworld ruled by her enemy and sister Ereshkigal, probably to rule there as well as in heaven. After bedecking herself with jewels and finery, Inanna descends and is met at the gate by a servant of Ereshkigal, who at various stages removes her garments. Finally she approaches her sister naked and humiliated. Ereshkigal fastens on her the 'eyes of death,' turns her into a corpse, and hangs her body on a stake.

Inanna's servant, worried after three days of her absence, fashions creatures who descend with revivifying materials. They bring her back to life and she reascends to earth, accompanied by frightened demons who wander with her from city to city in Summer. When she returns to Uruk she finds her lover Dumuzi not bewailing her plight in the underworld, but actually celebrating it. She sets after him the demons, who after a long chase overtake and torture him and drag him down to the underworld.

There are many variations of this myth, but its importance lies in the love affair between Dumuzi-Tammuz, who comes to represent the annual dying and regenerated vegetative cycle, and Inanna-Ishtar, the embodiment of the generative force in nature. In their intercourse she fecundates the growth cycle of spring.
This came to be ritualized in an annual ceremony in which the king, representing Dumuzi-Tammuz, entered into a hieros gamos, a sacred marriage, with a sacred temple prostitute, representing Inanna-Ishtar, and thus sympathetically brought regeneration to the land. Their intercourse was, in a sense, the resurrection of the dead god, and lamenting turned into rejoicing. The popularity and geographical spread of this myth and its ritualization are attested in Ezekiel 8:14, where the prophet condemns the practice followed by some Jerusalem women lamenting for Tammuz." (The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 7)

The following is quoted from Alexander Hislop, the pioneer archaeologist who spend entire life on tracing the pagan religions.

"Then look at Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar.

The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain, along with the Druids, "the priests of the groves." Some have imagined that the Druidical worship was first introduced by the Phoenicians, who, centuries before the Christian era, traded to the tin-mines of Cornwall. But the unequivocal traces of that worship are found in regions of the British islands where the Phoenicians never penetrated, and it has everywhere left indelible marks of the strong hold which it must have had on the early British mind." --- The Two Babylons, Chp 3 Festivals, 3.2 Easter, Alexander Hislop.

Alexander Hislop is a christian scientist who discovered many of the biblical cities which were thought to be myths of the Old Testament during the time when the Origin of Species was just published.

"And first, as to the festival in honour of the birth of Christ, or Christmas. How comes it that that festival was connected with the 25th of December? There is not a word in the Scriptures about the precise day of His birth, or the time of the year when He was born. What is recorded there, implies that at what time soever His birth took place, it could not have been on the 25th of December.
At the time that the angel announced His birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, they were feeding their flocks by night in the open fields. Now, no doubt, the climate of Palestine is not so severe as the climate of this country; but even there, though the heat of the day be considerable, the cold of the night, from December to February, is very piercing, and

it was not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October. *
* GILL, in his Commentary on Luke 2:8, has the following: "There are two sorts of cattle with the Jews...there are the cattle of the house that lie in the city; the cattle of the wilderness are they that lie in the pastures.
On which one of the commentators (MAIMONIDES, in Misn. Betza), observes, 'These lie in the pastures, which are in the villages, all the days of the cold and heat, and do not go into the cities until the rains descend.' The first rain falls in the month Marchesvan, which answers to the latter part of our October and the former part of November...From whence it appears that Christ must be born before the middle of October, since the first rain was not yet come." KITTO, on Deuteronomy 11:14 (Illustrated Commentary), says that the "first rain," is in "autumn," "that is, in September or October." This would make the time of the removal of the flocks from the fields somewhat earlier than I have stated in the text; but there is no doubt that it could not be later than there stated, according to the testimony of Maimonides, whose acquaintance with all that concerns Jewish customs is well known.
​

It is in the last degree incredible, then, that the birth of Christ could have taken place at the end of December. There is great unanimity among commentators on this point. Besides Barnes, Doddridge, Lightfoot, Joseph Scaliger, and Jennings, in his "Jewish Antiquities," who are all of opinion that December 25th could not be the right time of our Lord's nativity, the celebrated Joseph Mede pronounces a very decisive opinion to the same effect.
After a long and careful disquisition on the subject, among other arguments he adduces the following;--

"At the birth of Christ every woman and child was to go to be taxed at the city whereto they belonged, whither some had long journeys; but the middle of winter was not fitting for such a business, especially for women with child, and children to travel in.

Therefore, Christ could not be born in the depth of winter.
​

Again, at the time of Christ's birth, the shepherds lay abroad watching with their flocks in the night time; but this was not likely to be in the middle of winter. And if any shall think the winter wind was not so extreme in these parts, let him remember the words of Christ in the gospel,

'Pray that your flight be not in the winter.' If the winter was so bad a time to flee in, it seems no fit time for shepherds to lie in the fields in, and women and children to travel in." Indeed, it is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties * that the day of our Lord's birth cannot be determined, **

and that within the Christian Church no such festival as Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance.
​

* Archdeacon WOOD, in Christian Annotator, LORIMER's Manual of Presbytery. Lorimer quotes Sir Peter King, who, in his Enquiry into the Worship of the Primitive Church, &c.;, infers that no such festival was observed in that Church, and adds--"It seems improbably that they should celebrate Christ's nativity when they disagreed about the month and the day when Christ was born." See also Rev. J. RYLE, in his Commentary on Luke, who admits that the time of Christ's birth is uncertain, although he opposes the idea that the flocks could not have been in the open fields in December, by an appeal to Jacob's complaint to Laban, "By day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night." Now the whole force of Jacob's complaint against his churlish kinsman lay in this, that Laban made him do what no other man would have done, and, therefore, if he refers to the cold nights of winter (which, however, is not the common understanding of the expression), it proves just the opposite of what it is brought by Mr. Ryle to prove--viz., that it was not the custom for shepherds to tend their flocks in the fields by night in winter.
** GIESELER, CHRYSOSTOM (Monitum in Hom. de Natal. Christi), writing in Antioch about AD 380, says: "It is not yet ten years since this day was made known to us". "What follows," adds Gieseler,

"furnishes a remarkable illustration of the ease with which customs of recent date could assume the character of apostolic institutions."
​

Thus proceeds Chrysostom: "Among those inhabiting the west, it was known before from ancient and primitive times, and to the dwellers from Thrace to Gadeira [Cadiz] it was previously familiar and well-known," that is, the birth-day of our Lord, which was unknown at Antioch in the east, on the very borders of the Holy Land, where He was born, was perfectly well-known in all the European region of the west, from Thrace even to Spain!
​

How, then, did the Romish Church fix on December the 25th as Christmas-day?
Why, thus: Long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen, at that precise time of the year,

in honour of the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that,
in order to conciliate the heathen,
and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity,
the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church,

giving it only the name of Christ.
​

This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half-way was very early developed; and we find Tertullian, even in his day, about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples of Christ in this respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the Pagans to their own superstition. "By us," says he,

"who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year's day presents are made with din,

and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar;
oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians."
​

Upright men strive to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts, the apostacy went on, till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under Pagan superstition.
That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival, is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin.
In Egypt, the son of Isis, the Egyptian title for the queen of heaven, was born at this very time, "about the time of the winter solstice." The very name by which Christmas is popularly known among ourselves--Yule-day --proves at once its Pagan and Babylonian origin. "Yule" is the Chaldee name for an "infant" or "little child"; * and as the 25th of December was called by our Pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors, "Yule-day," or the "Child's day," and the night that preceded it, "Mother-night," long before they came in contact with Christianity, that sufficiently proves its real character.

* From Eol, an "infant." In Scotland, at least in the Lowlands, they are also called Nur-cakes. Now in Chaldee Nour signifies "birth." Therefore, Nur-cakes are "birth-cakes." The Scandinavian goddesses, called "norns,"

who appointed children their destinies at their birth, evidently derived their name from the cognate Chaldee word "Nor," a child. Far and wide, in the realms of Paganism, was this birth-day observed. This festival has been commonly believed to have had only an astronomical character, referring simply to the completion of the sun's yearly course, and the commencement of a new cycle. But there is indubitably evidence that the festival in question had a much higher reference than this--that it commemorated not merely the figurative birth-day of the sun in the renewal of its course, but the birth-day of the grand Deliverer. "
​

---The Two Babylons, Chp 3 Festivals, 3.1 Christmas, Alexander Hislop.

I can go on and quote volumns from encyclopedias, respected subject authorities...These are not theories.

These pagan festivals (Easter, lent, Christmas) largely depend on the cycle of the sun and were abnominations condemned by the LORD as the weeping of Tammuz, Ezekiel 8:14.

Choose to whom you will serve.

 

[Koey]

deleted

 

[Koey]

deleted

 

[Koey]

Oh baloney! Easter includes Good Friday. Now you're just quibbling!

 

[OntheDL]

Oh baloney! Easter includes Good Friday. Now you're just quibbling!

Which one are you calling 'baloney'? The encyclopedia or the scientist who founded archaeology?

 

[Koey]

Which one are you calling 'baloney'? The encyclopedia or the scientist who founded archaeology?

Quibbling is that illogical form of debate which seeks to distract us from an oponents point of view by picking at his definition of terms, rather than his arguments themselves. You were doing exactly that, quibbling about the use of the term Passover for Christian Passover or Easter.

The fact remains that Easter is called Passover in most languages. This does not mean that it is Jewish Passover, or even the Old Testament Passover. It has been transformed by the death of a more important Lamb. To be more precise, we may term it Christian Passover, and many do exactly that.

Easter, also known as Pascha (Greek Πάσχα: Passover)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter

[Easter] Name given by Anglo-Saxons to the Christian Passover as the Feast of Resurrection, and rather incorrectly used for the Jewish Passover (Acts xii. 4, A. V.)...http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=10&letter=E

Easter Sunday: The Christian Passover http://publicaffairs.cua.edu/comment/01lent7.htm

The Passover-Easter-Quartodeciman Controversy http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/holidays/passover.htm

 

[OntheDL]

Quibbling is that illogical form of debate which seeks to distract us from an oponents point of view by picking at his definition of terms, rather than his arguments themselves. You were doing exactly that, quibbling about the use of the term Passover for Christian Passover or Easter.

The fact remains that Easter is called Passover in most languages. This does not mean that it is Jewish Passover, or even the Old Testament Passover. It has been transformed by the death of a more important Lamb. To be more precise, we may term it Christian Passover, and many do exactly that.

Easter, also known as Pascha (Greek Πάσχα: Passover)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter

[Easter] Name given by Anglo-Saxons to the Christian Passover as the Feast of Resurrection, and rather incorrectly used for the Jewish Passover (Acts xii. 4, A. V.)...http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=10&letter=E

Easter Sunday: The Christian Passover http://publicaffairs.cua.edu/comment/01lent7.htm

The Passover-Easter-Quartodeciman Controversy [URL="http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/holidays/passover.htm"]http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/holidays/passover.htm[/URL]

Even the jewishencyclopedia says Easter is celebrated by Christian for the Resurrection.

It comes down these few things:

1. The OT feasts were shadows of the ministries of Jesus now in heaven.

2. Christ instituted two rites for the christians: Communion and Baptism.

3. Acts 15 council determines these rituals are no longer required on the NT christians.

 

[a_ntv]

I think that the point of this thread is: have the Christians copied and modified the OT Jewish feasts?

This question is a trick question.
Actually the Jewish feasts are only the figures (imitations) of the Christian feasts.

God prepared for his Jewish people the feasts without explaing them the full meaning. Now that the veil of Moses is off, we can see the true meanings, that is Christ.

So the Christians Easter, Pentecost, Xmas (or Epiphany) are the ORIGINAL feasts, and the Jewish Passover, Pentecost, Tabenacle are the FIGURES of the Christian ones: that is bc Christ is the center of everything: before, durning and after the 0-33 ad

PS:
Easter is in Latin: Pascha
Passover is in Aramaic: Pascha

 

[Koey]

Even the jewishencyclopedia says Easter is celebrated by Christian for the Resurrection.

It comes down these few things:

1. The OT feasts were shadows of the ministries of Jesus now in heaven.

2. Christ instituted two rites for the christians: Communion and Baptism.

3. Acts 15 council determines these rituals are no longer required on the NT christians.

I'm a little confused by your seemingly conflicting posts. You think that we ought not to keep OT feasts and therefore no NT feasts either, even ones which have an updated NT meaning? Do you think that Easter has nothing to do with Passover? Do you think that Good Friday has nothing to do with Easter? Do you think that no Christian feasts are required or even desirable?

 

[Splayd]

Onthe DL - you might find this book interesting: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0916938174/catholchristcoge

The author wrote a modern-day version of Hyslops works first... This is the follow-up where after more research he acknowledges that he got it all wrong.