The Fall feasts.

[probinson]

I covered Rom 14, and alot more, that which you ignored, the red above is a personal flame.

Actually the "red above" in my post was a direct quote from scripture.

Besides that, you don't really respond to anything anyone says. Someone posts something that is 5 paragraphs long, you highlight one or two small phrases in red, respond to your minimal highlighting and pretend like you've actually addressed what the person said while completely ignoring more than 95% of the content of what they said.

You just keep pushing this new law that says THOU SHALT NOT OBSERVE THE FEASTS. You get all worked up into a tizzy if someone says you SHOULD do something (which no one here has said up to this point) but don't see the glaring contradiction when you say you SHOULD NOT do something. But it's the same thing. It's a new law, dressed up in spiritual sounding words in direct opposition to the message of grace.

 

[rick357]

But the shadow word in Heb and Col, was used in a durogatory manner.

Besides, both books are showing the better, better is repeated in hebrews , and the fact is, that Paul who knew more than all of us, warned about the seduction of the false teaching, like I said, why did he fear it, if it was so wonderful to keep feasts? Why didn't he promote it?

Nope, in fact I have pointed out in several epistles, he fought it.

Here is another, he told Tim, get the law boys outta your church, the law is not for the justified.

1 Tim 1:7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,

So again, too much against it it all.

Read verse 8. Apply verse seven to yourself.

 

[probinson]

I posted plenty of text,

You act like this is some amazing feat of wonder. Anyone that knows how to copy and paste text on a computer can "post text". All it really does is demonstrates your astounding ability to search an online Bible for specific keywords and copy and paste the results. Color me impressed.

 

[rick357]

Paul did not go to Jerusalem for 14 years! Gal 2:1 gee....I guess he did not worry about feasts and rituals too much.

Watch out for the flesh mutilators he said in Phil 3...no joke, he meant it.

Oh my, more about the circumcsion.. "judging Paul" said SILENCE THEM!

Titus 1:10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. 11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.

Case closed, look to the head, Col 2:19, amen!

All that stuff cut them off from christ in Col 2, yet, we have feast promotion here, like it serves a purpose..

Lookie here, in Col, the false teachers told them they would be more spiritual!

They said it would kill flesh, but nope, it does not, in fact I read a commentator actually say, it means to indulge flesh.

Col 2:23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

No one in tis thread has made these claims or said we must become Jews to be saved....false aurgument

 

[rick357]

Oh, by the way, everyone likes to hang their hat on Rom 14, do bear in mind, that the weak need educating, so me personally, sure, there are times to repsect the weak, but the weak ones were not exactly the example of growth and faith, were they? They needed to learn!

Rom 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.

15:1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

You post show you lack the desire to have this verse living in you.

 

[Shimshon]

I've put frog on ignore. Anyone else care to discuss the OP topic? Seems when I put the frog on ice the whole thread became focused on one thing....the jumping frog. Jim, your thread was a success I take it? (wish I had participated in the fellowhship thread rather than this one)

 

[probinson]

As I was thinking about this topic today, I thought of this parallel.

I said earlier in the thread that I do not personally celebrate or observe the feasts. However, I understand the reasoning of people who choose to observe the feasts.

I have been happily married for over 15 years now. My wife and I have a great relationship. We Love each other and are very blessed to have each other. Still, once a year on or around July 10 (our anniversary), we try to find someone to watch our kids for a few days so that just the two of us can take a small vacation to get away from it all and just spend time with one another. "But Pete, don't you spend time with your wife every day?" Why yes, I do. But there's still something special about those getaways that sparks something in our relationship. We don't need to go away for our anniversary and we haven't been able to go away every year, but it sure does help us focus on one another when we get away from the daily grind and spend that time alone together.

I believe that the people who are choosing to observe the fall feasts (and you can certainly correct me if I'm wrong) would agree this is why they observe the feasts. It's not because they MUST follow some law, but rather because they desire to be closer to their Father, understanding the significance of the types and shadows God has implemented. They don't NEED to observe the feasts to have a relationship with God, but those times are special to them.

It's disturbing to me that people who scream GRACE®! all day long want to dissuade people from that. It demonstrates that they don't understand grace. At. All. It's also disconcerting that there are those that believe there are dangerous spiritual implications in choosing to observe one of these feasts. Think about that. These feasts were instituted by God. Why on earth would God implement something that had dangerous spiritual implications?

Telling someone that they CAN NOT observe the feasts because they already have a relationship with God is like telling a married couple they CAN NOT have a weekend getaway because they already have a relationship with one another. IOW, complete foolishness.

 

[murjahel]

Colossians 2:17 (KJV)
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Colossians 2:17 (Wescott-Hort)
17 α εστιν σκια των μελλοντων το δε σωμα του χριστου

Here, we see the word skia = σκια = shadow...

The word has no evil connotation... it does not suggest evil or corruption...

There are times it is used to refer to a 'shadow' of something evil, as in the Septuagint for Ps 23:4
Psalm 23:4 (KJV)
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Some who are not adept at translating or doing exegesis may jump at that kind of usage for 'skia' and think it is therefore an evil thing (skia)... but actually there it is 'death' that is the evil thing that needs comforting by the presence of the Lord...

In Acts 5:15 we see 'skia' referring to the 'shadow of Peter'...
Acts 5:15-16 (KJV)
... they brought forth the sick... that at the least the shadow (skia) of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them... bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

Jesus was in Peter, so Peter's shadow was likewise the shadow of Jesus, and as Peter passed by the sick and those vexed with evil spirits, they were healed and delivered...

So, was the 'skia' an evil thing there? No... of course not... a shadow is never an evil thing, it is the substance of which the shadow is conveying its nearness that is either evil or good. In the case of Peter, it was the shadow of good, in the case of Ps 23, it is the shadow of death, which is bad.

Likewise in Mark 4:32, we have the mustard seed likened to the 'kingdom of God', and it is small but grows into a huge tree that gives 'shadow' (skia) to flocks... Is the shadow (skia) bad??? No, it is the shadow (in this case) to one of the types of the Kingdom of God, which is good. So, the shadow of something good is not evil.

The word 'skia' does not taint at all what Paul is saying to the Colossians.

Colossians 2:17 (KJV)
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

So, if what the shadow prefigures is Christ, then the shadow (skia) cannot be bad... in fact, it is great.. for it is the shadow of what Christ came to do... it is His shadow....

 

[Frogster]

Read verse 8. Apply verse seven to yourself.

well the lawful use, was not for the church, so you may want to apply that.

 

[Frogster]

You act like this is some amazing feat of wonder. Anyone that knows how to copy and paste text on a computer can "post text". All it really does is demonstrates your astounding ability to search an online Bible for specific keywords and copy and paste the results. Color me impressed.

Sir...

Lets be fair, the frog offers top of the line analysis when he posts, he offers insights, brings out refreshing truths, he is exegetically correct, applying only the finest hermeneutics, and is all and all, a fine edition to the forum.

I would think you would be glad I am here...


PS, I have Galatians memorized, and many important grace chapters, and verses, I think I say them in my sleep!

ahhhh..it is fun to brag!


At least i don't have to put the word in to see what I might find, I put the verse in, to copy it to paste it, because the frog knows the issue. Unlike some, I know just what verse I need, I don't go fishing.



Lets see, well...I could boast more, but like Paul said, he did it for a point, as I did. See 2 Corinthians.

 

[Frogster]

No one in tis thread has made these claims or said we must become Jews to be saved....false aurgument

where in my post, do I say that?

 

[Frogster]

Colossians 2:17 (KJV)
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Colossians 2:17 (Wescott-Hort)
17 α εστιν σκια των μελλοντων το δε σωμα του χριστου

Here, we see the word skia = σκια = shadow...

The word has no evil connotation... it does not suggest evil or corruption...

There are times it is used to refer to a 'shadow' of something evil, as in the Septuagint for Ps 23:4
Psalm 23:4 (KJV)
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Some who are not adept at translating or doing exegesis may jump at that kind of usage for 'skia' and think it is therefore an evil thing (skia)... but actually there it is 'death' that is the evil thing that needs comforting by the presence of the Lord...

In Acts 5:15 we see 'skia' referring to the 'shadow of Peter'...
Acts 5:15-16 (KJV)
... they brought forth the sick... that at the least the shadow (skia) of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them... bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

Jesus was in Peter, so Peter's shadow was likewise the shadow of Jesus, and as Peter passed by the sick and those vexed with evil spirits, they were healed and delivered...

So, was the 'skia' an evil thing there? No... of course not... a shadow is never an evil thing, it is the substance of which the shadow is conveying its nearness that is either evil or good. In the case of Peter, it was the shadow of good, in the case of Ps 23, it is the shadow of death, which is bad.

Likewise in Mark 4:32, we have the mustard seed likened to the 'kingdom of God', and it is small but grows into a huge tree that gives 'shadow' (skia) to flocks... Is the shadow (skia) bad??? No, it is the shadow (in this case) to one of the types of the Kingdom of God, which is good. So, the shadow of something good is not evil.

The word 'skia' does not taint at all what Paul is saying to the Colossians.

Colossians 2:17 (KJV)
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

So, if what the shadow prefigures is Christ, then the shadow (skia) cannot be bad... in fact, it is great.. for it is the shadow of what Christ came to do... it is His shadow....

Using verses like the shadow of Peter etc, does not disprove my point, all it shows is that some words, have to be understood by their context, and anyone can see, that in Col 2, and Heb 10, the shadow is not exactly a compliment.


Yes, my oak tree casts a large shadow every morning on my car, it is good, in the summer it keeps it cool, upon my entry of the vehicle.

See, there we can tell that the shadow is good. However in Col 2,and Heb 10, that is not at all like our oak tree shadow example. Is it?

The substance was much greater, than the shadow in Col 2, and it is similar in Heb 10, it did not actually have the full reality. In both books, it is inferior big time, the shadow. Why do you think the writers drew the comparison?

Contents bro....contents...

 

[rick357]

Sir...

Lets be fair, the frog offers top of the analysis when he posts, he offers insights, brings out refreshing truths, he is exegetically correct, applying only the finest hermeneutics, and is all and all, a fine edition to the forum.

I would think you would be glad I am here...

PS, I have Galatians memorized, and many important grace chapters, and verses, I think I say them in my sleep!

ahhhh..it id fun to brag!

At least i don't have to put the word in to see what I might find, I put the verse in, to copy it to paste it, because the frog knows the issue..

Lets see, well...I could boast more, but like Paul said, he did it for a point, as I did. See 2 Corinthians.

The differance would be Paul had memorized the first five books of the Bible + large portions of the profits... could speak several languages... could read and write at least three languages... has excelled in the teaching of the law to the point of being at the feet of their greatest rabbi.... have been called by the Lord Himself to be an apostle.... had planted churches throughout Asia and going into Greece and Rome.... heading knowledge of Scripture which would have meant Old Testament far beyond memorizing one letter.....

other than that yes you are practically twins

 

[rick357]

where in my post, do I say that?

you do read the scriptures you post right

 

[probinson]

Lets be fair, the frog offers top of the analysis when he posts, he offers insights, brings out refreshing truths, he is exegetically correct, applying only the finest hermeneutics, and is all and all, a fine edition to the forum.

Thanks for the laugh.

PS, I have Galatians memorized, and many important grace chapters, and verses, I think I say them in my sleep!

ahhhh..it id fun to brag!

Careful. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Pride comes before a fall. But I'm sure you already know that from your exegetically [sic] correct hermeneutics.

 

[murjahel]

Colossians 2:17 (KJV)
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Colossians 2:17 (Wescott-Hort)
17 α εστιν σκια των μελλοντων το δε σωμα του χριστου

Here, we see the word skia = σκια = shadow...

The word has no evil connotation... it does not suggest evil or corruption...

There are times it is used to refer to a 'shadow' of something evil, as in the Septuagint for Ps 23:4
Psalm 23:4 (KJV)
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Some who are not adept at translating or doing exegesis may jump at that kind of usage for 'skia' and think it is therefore an evil thing (skia)... but actually there it is 'death' that is the evil thing that needs comforting by the presence of the Lord...

In Acts 5:15 we see 'skia' referring to the 'shadow of Peter'...
Acts 5:15-16 (KJV)
... they brought forth the sick... that at the least the shadow (skia) of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them... bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

Jesus was in Peter, so Peter's shadow was likewise the shadow of Jesus, and as Peter passed by the sick and those vexed with evil spirits, they were healed and delivered...

So, was the 'skia' an evil thing there? No... of course not... a shadow is never an evil thing, it is the substance of which the shadow is conveying its nearness that is either evil or good. In the case of Peter, it was the shadow of good, in the case of Ps 23, it is the shadow of death, which is bad.

Likewise in Mark 4:32, we have the mustard seed likened to the 'kingdom of God', and it is small but grows into a huge tree that gives 'shadow' (skia) to flocks... Is the shadow (skia) bad??? No, it is the shadow (in this case) to one of the types of the Kingdom of God, which is good. So, the shadow of something good is not evil.

The word 'skia' does not taint at all what Paul is saying to the Colossians.

Colossians 2:17 (KJV)
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

So, if what the shadow prefigures is Christ, then the shadow (skia) cannot be bad... in fact, it is great.. for it is the shadow of what Christ came to do... it is His shadow....

Hebrews 8:3-5 (KJV)
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

These shadows too were of good things, shadows of what the Lord would fulfill in type. They foreshadowed the sacrifice of the Lord.

Shadows can be scary to some... for they may prefigure a "boogey" man. As we mature in Christ, we learn that 'shadows' of our youth usually did not turn out to be 'boogey' men, but turned out to the pet dog, or mom checking on you in the night... The same with Colossians 2... some fear galatianism so much that they hate all shadows... In the case of the types of the feasts, and of sacrifices, they were foreshadowing Jesus, and are great teaching tools for us...

Some still jump at 'shadows', and some of us look beyond the shadow, to see if it is the shadow of something 'boogey man like' or something good.

 

[Frogster]

Hebrews 8:3-5 (KJV)
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

These shadows too were of good things, shadows of what the Lord would fulfill in type. They foreshadowed the sacrifice of the Lord.

Shadows can be scary to some... for they may prefigure a "boogey" man. As we mature in Christ, we learn that 'shadows' of our youth usually did not turn out to be 'boogey' men, but turned out to the pet dog, or mom checking on you in the night... The same with Colossians 2... some fear galatianism so much that they hate all shadows... In the case of the types of the feasts, and of sacrifices, they were foreshadowing Jesus, and are great teaching tools for us...

Some still jump at 'shadows', and some of us look beyond the shadow, to see if it is the shadow of something 'boogey man like' or something good.

Red above, But even there, Moses is seen as an inferior ministry..!


Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.


Gosh, the whole book is showing the inferior, compared to the new cov.You sure picked the wrong book to argue out of.

 

[probinson]

The differance would be Paul had memorized the first five books of the Bible + large portions of the profits... could speak several languages... could read and write at least three languages... has excelled in the teaching of the law to the point of being at the feet of their greatest rabbi.... have been called by the Lord Himself to be an apostle.... had planted churches throughout Asia and going into Greece and Rome.... heading knowledge of Scripture which would have meant Old Testament far beyond memorizing one letter.....

other than that yes you are practically twins

What? You mean to tell me Paul didn't just sit on his [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] constantly telling everyone how wrong they were from the comfort of his anonymous computer chair? Say it ain't so!

 

[Frogster]

Thanks for the laugh.



Careful. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Pride comes before a fall. But I'm sure you already know that from your exegetically [sic] correct hermeneutics.

Glad you enjoyed, at least say it was creative!

 

[Frogster]

nm...