Shar

I agree with Q. I have been in Messianic Judaism for a good part of my life. Beware of the Two House Theory. Beware of some of these congregations that believe Gentiles should become more Jewish and actually encourage them to participate in a Mikvah (baptism) and try to follow all the mitzvot (the collective 613 commandments). Shy away from those congregations that do not consider Jew and Gentile as one in Messiah and both are equally important.

Why are prayers offered to her? - (a form of worship); Why ask her to pray for you? (only ONE mediator between God and man, Jesus who intercedes in the heavenly temple); why lift her up on pedestals and carry her through the streets on special Catholic celebrations? ( a form of worship); why referred to her as "The Queen of Heaven" (a known pagan reference to a Babylonian goddess)? So, there is some legitimate cause for some on this forum to see her as a goddess or substitution for the role only Jesus as our Savior and Great High Priest distinctively holds in the Heavenly Temple and at the right hand of our Father. I know this belongs on another forum, and that forum got shut down for discussions becoming ugly, so I DON"T wish a reply to further it's discussion, in honor to keep that discussion closed. I am just asking, please look at why they would think that based on practices. If you look at that, then you can understand where they are coming from, whether you agree with it or not. This is not a condemnation of Catholics, especially those of our brethren who believe in the sin atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Thank you, Q. My point too, beautifully associated with the legal system. My course of study, interest and practice throughout most my life. I should have thought of using that analogy.

Old Covenant is not the designation in scripture for the Mosaic covenant. The term old covenant in all mentions is a relative term. In 2 Cor 3, the words are written to Gentiles. The differences are compared, and an emphasis is on Jesus, the Messiah, and how different the New Covenant is from the Mosaic covenant. Gentiles were never under the Mosaic covenant, but were brought into the New Covenant. In Hebrews, the words are addressed to Jewish people, who had the 'first' covenant, and now had the second/New Covenant. Throughout the gospels and into the epistles, what is now called the Old Testament was not referred to using that terminology. What is called the OT today, was actually three books, the books of Moses (Torah), the Prophets (Neviim) and the Ketuvim (writings such as Psalms). 2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: So, there is no real division of scripture. The NT could not exist without the OT, but the OT stood alone until the time of Jesus. Jesus is spoken of in prophesy throughout the OT. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable. The term Old Testament has given the message that it is old and less usefull, but scripture itself disagrees. Old Covenant is used in a doctrinal way to explain the New Covenant or an explanation to Gentiles concerning the differences, not a label. Old Testament is a designation not used in reference to the books of Moses, Prophets and Writings, which is inaccurate and caused a lower view of scripture inspired by God. You are not getting the logic behind their arguments. Just like it has been said many, many times before, what pagans used in common with other cultures was not unique to the culture of pagans. Like the ring example. However, God does not want his people to do anything that is associated with pagan worship. History clearly shows that the modern day practices of Easter, the bunnies, eggs, the actual day it is celebrated, etc., were born out of the pagan worship of the fertility goddess. I don't want to be associated with that. My point being, why even want to substitute the biblical Feast of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and First Fruits, for Easter in the Church? The church history clearly bore this substitution out of anti-Semitism and the mandate to separate from anything deemed Jewish. Just because, over time, this was accepted and now widely practiced does not mean it is the best expression of his death, burial and resurrection. You can actually not approve of a practice, and still approve of your brethren, who choose to believe differently.

Ok I understand you now. I have never liked the term "Old Testament" for the first 66 books of the Bible that comprise over 60% of the Bible. When Jesus and all the disciples referenced the word "Scriptures", they were only speaking of it. What do you believe is the correct term for it? I hear Jewish believers call it "The Tanakh" (for the Law, Prophets and Writings). Is there a better term to call it? I believe, as I have witnessed in many Christian denominations throughout my life, that the term "Old" have brought a concentration of study to the New Testament while ignoring or invalidating the Old Testament. I believe this designation may greatly contribute to this.

Good post, Q.

You still don't read my words. I said I would not condemn people. I do personally condemn the practice, as I do not practice it myself, but I don't condemn you. Big difference. I am Not having it both ways. In my short time back, I have found in many posts throughout, that if someone does not agree with another, words are thrown back against them personally in attack in some form of condemnation. This is quite disturbing, as one should not talk to others in such manner, much less a fellow believer. Some of these conversations pick at minor words or phrases of their posts in an effort to simply be contrary, instead of trying to understand another's point. I have received replies accusing me of participating in doctrine of demons, deceived, Judaizer, false doctrine, liar, etc. I wonder with those types of responses, if we are grieving our Father in Heaven. I believe this is not productive and particularly concerning when we may have guests who are searching. Are we showing true love in Christ for one another? Shalom and Goodbye

I did not say that. I said I would not condemn. I understand the logic. I don't agree with it.

I, in error, said 4th. Did not have my facts before me. It is the 3rd cup. Just substitute my reference to 4 as 3. The argument is not effected.

Thanks. I understand your logic. I personally don't like that Easter was substituted for anti-Semitic reasons, but I would never condemn a brother and sister in the Lord who wishes to keep it today. I just ask they do the same for those who wish not to acknowledge it as our Lord's death, burial and resurrection.

You missed the point that Abraham gave a ring to celebrate a special event. This was long before the pagans you mentioned did so. God turned the Egyptians to favor the Jews before their exodus and they gave them these gold items. If gold rings were only identifiable with this pagan culture, which they were not, He would not have moved the Egyptians to give them. God would have given another way. We are done with this post, as it has become tediously repetitive.

I did say Paul told us to celebrate the Passover, but make sure we did not have malice in our hearts. Even Paul supported it, so it is not in error to keep it. Yes, when you do the Seder it is rich with Biblical understanding and the evidence of Messiah. My point is not just that the Easter celebration was taken from a pagan celebration, but more that we departed from those 3 Feasts for the remembrance of His death, burial and resurrection because of anti-Semitism. This is not a justifiable reason to adopt a different ceremony. Hatred of Jews was the reason of the change. Not God's command.

Quite incorrect conclusion. Abraham's servant gave a ring to Rebekah to secure a wife for Isaac Ge.24. This was not from a pagan. The Jews gathered all their rings and articles of gold and made a wave offering to the Lord for the Tabernacle needs, Ex. 35. God tells how he will take away all finery from the women of Zion, a long listing including rings, Is.4. God speaks of how He adorned Israel with great finery and the mention of rings are included, Ez.16. The point I have made, now for three times, is that rings were not unique to the pagan nations to mark special events. It was practiced even before Pharaoh gave Joseph a ring. Our forefather, Abraham, whom God referred to as His friend, practiced this. Rings marked special events, no matter what part of the body they rested. That is a fact.

Thanks for confirming that. I believe that is basis of my whole point. Coming to the 4th cup of wine, the cup of Redemption, during His last Passover Seder, Jesus commanded "do this in remembrance of Me". He was exclusively speaking of this time in the Passover Seder. Paul, in I Corinthians, advises us to keep the Passover and make sure we do it without malice in our hearts. Why would we ever want to do anything else than what our Lord commanded? Why would we follow the mandates of mere men in history, centuries later, who switched God's festivals and Sabbaths for festivals taken from pagan worship and supported by reason of their hatred of Jews and anything Jewish?

I appreciate the love, Spock. Yes, I agree

I don't understand your question. Pharaoh was pagan. Simply stating, the act of giving a ring to mark a special occasion was not unique to that culture. It was also practiced in the Bible. Hence, my examples of Joseph and the prodigal son.

I agree with thereselittleflower. That is true and sighted so within the Scriptures. It also says the breath returns to God upon death.

I have heard the possibility of Chanukah as well. I am always skeptical when historical figures make claims when He was born. I want those issues to be proved out in Scriptures. Maybe it is not so clear for a reason. Is it not true that then, historically, Jews did not celebrate birthdays. That birthdays were normally celebrations for pagan kings?

Joseph, who worshipped the one true God of Israel, accepted a ring from Pharaoh as a symbol of his high office. The prodigal son that Jesus spoke of was given a ring by his father to celebrate his returning son. Pagans did not own the idea of giving a ring to symbolize an important event or covenant.

I noticed the article did support the priestly duties as you stated. Yes, definitely, Succoth is tied to the end times and the complete fullness is yet to come. But, I also find it interesting that there is a reference to His name meaning "God tabernacles with us". There was also no room in the inn, which could be a good reason, because Succoth is one of the pilgrimage feasts Jewish males must make to Jerusalem. Joseph could have most likely wanted to "kill 2 birds with one stone" and make the trip to complete the required census, along with the required Feast. In that case, it would not be December, but late September, early October. There is some logic to assume so. Thanks for reading it and giving me your opinion.

In regard to this last quote. Just curious, not being argumentative, but if I adopt this requirement for it to be truly considered pagan, would it then be OK for me to adopt a modern day Pagan celebration as long as I substitute God for Their False God in their liturgy and pray to God instead of Their False God?

Thanks. It worked this time. Thanks for the steps to complete.

Q, I looked up the temperatures and weather for Israel in late September, early October (time of Succoth). Their high is between 75-85. Later in October, they have some rain, but not any large amount. The shepherds would have been out with their flock during that time. Q, this is a great article that shows how He was most likely born on the 1st day of Succoth and then circumcised on the 8th day of Succoth. God's festivals are called His appointed times. After this study, you can clearly see that it is more likely that our Messiah was born on God's appointed time of Succoth and not an appointed time of a pagan festival. The article is called. "On What Day was Jesus born?" Give it a read and tell me what you think http://biblelight.net/sukkoth.htm

That is my whole point. On these posts, you have your interpretation and others have theirs. My point is they will differ. All these posts go around in circles without resolution. We never will have final answers here when the nature of differing opinions exist. I am advocating for respecting each one's posts and do not become unloving or accusatory. State you opinion and move on.