fulfilled feasts

[Omegaman 3.0]

45 minutes ago, Reinitin said:

I only have quote and edit. No options button.

perhaps you are particapating with a device that does not support that feature

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

Ok, not sure what you mean by Pharisaic notions about the role of Israel in the Abrahamic promises. I think the role of Israel in Abrahamic promises is pretty clear. God promised Abraham a chosen son, Isaac. Isaac also had a chosen son named Jacob, who was renamed Israel. God promised Abraham land which went thru Isaac and Jacob. God promised that his linage, thru Isaac and Jacob would be the line of the Messiah.

And God promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations, which I believe includes to physical nations and one spiritual nation. The spiritual nation is called the sons of Abraham. The children of Israel have the forefathers of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. All believers in Jesus are sons of Abraham. The children of Israel are sons of Israel/Jacob. 

Unfortunately, I think you throw around the term Pharisaic way to much.  

I say Pharasaic because that is what the Talmud is made of mostly. Their traditions and ideas.

one spiritual nation? In what capacity is the nation of Israel spiritual apart from other nations in Christ? Do you believe the nation of Israel to be a priesthood to the nations?

[Shar]

14 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

You're simply presenting your personal interpretation.   

I disagree your personal interpretation is correct, and you disagree mine is.

But this is what we are indeed discussing when we use the scriptures here - our respective personal interpretations.

I am asking you for solid, expert scholarly sources that document your interpretation with evidence.

 

 

Therese, there are too many to list here, but I will list a few.  Jesus the Pharisee by Dr. Harvey Falk.  This is written by an Orthodox Rabbi and published by a Catholic publishing house.  This is where you see the distinction between the two main schools of thought in the Pharaisic Sect.  You see that Jesus consistently upheld the school of Hillel teachings, as did Paul the Apostle.  This school was the more gracious, loving and tolerant group of Pharisees.

The other school was the teachings of Shammai.  This is the group that Jesus directed most of His criticisms.  The School of Hillel and the School of Shammai were mostly at odds with each other.

King of Jews by Dr. Thomas Lancaster

Yeshua: Guide to the Real Jesus by Dr.Ron Moseley, a professor at Jubilee Christian College

Meet the Rabbis:  Rabbinic Thought and Teachings of Jesus by Dr. Brad Young, Professor of Biblical Studies in the Graduate School at Oral Roberts University

There are numerous historical sources too.  Dr. Amy-Jill Levine is Jewish and the Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt.  While she is not a Jewish believer in Jesus, she is proficient in the actual history.  She has written, "The misunderstood Jew:  The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus", "The Historical Jesus" and the Jewish Annotated New Testament.

I could go on and on.  The matter is that my presentation of argument is not based on conjecture.  However, even if I did not have many scholarly sources, one could easily surmise by how he practiced and taught the disciples and masses.  What He taught and believed fell into the camp of the Pharisees.  Some of what He taught and practiced fell distinctly to only the Pharisaic Sect.  As a Jew he was raised up in Judaism and would have been in one of the Sects.

[Shar]

4 hours ago, Joline said:

I say Pharasaic because that is what the Talmud is made of mostly. Their traditions and ideas.

one spiritual nation? In what capacity is the nation of Israel spiritual apart from other nations in Christ? Do you believe the nation of Israel to be a priesthood to the nations?

They will be.  Read the later chapters 53 - the end of Isaiah.  The male representative from each nation will have to travel to one of the pilgrim feast, Feast of Tabernacles, each year to celebrate this Feast.  If they do not show, that land will not get rain for one year. (Ze.14:16). 

God claimed Israel to be a Holy nation and a kingdom of Priests, out of all the nations of the earth. (Ex.19:6)  I Peter was written about A.D. 62-64 to Jewish Believers who had been driven out of Jerusalem and scattered throughout Asia Minor.  He reminds them in chapter 2:9 that they are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation..."

[Qnts2]

6 hours ago, Joline said:

I say Pharasaic because that is what the Talmud is made of mostly. Their traditions and ideas.

one spiritual nation? In what capacity is the nation of Israel spiritual apart from other nations in Christ? Do you believe the nation of Israel to be a priesthood to the nations?

One spiritual nation refers to single body of Messiah. Not the nation of Israel. Other then the one spiritual nation, there are other nations in Messiah. People from various nations are born again into the assembly of believers. There is only one universal spiritual assembly of believers. There is no ethnicity which is saved in it's entirety.

While the Talmud was written by the Pharisees, and Jewish traditions draw partially from the Talmud and partially from the Torah (which was not written by the Pharisees), following the ethnic traditions does not make Messianic Judaism Pharisaic. For example, Protestant Christian churches brought forward some practices from the RCC but that does not make Protestant churches RCC in practice or belief.

Every church from every ethnicity uses traditions from the culture. As long as the traditions do not violate scripture, there is nothing wrong with traditions.

People who grow up in a certain tradition, usually do not recognize the traditions until they see or live in another culture and see how things are done in the other culture. In many Christian churches, passing the basket to collect donations is the tradition. Others have a box in the back. And others have people come forward during service to drop in a basket.

Another tradition is the metal plates with thimbles of grape juice and broken up bits of matza or wafers. The way communion is done is based on a tradition.      

[WilliamL]

15 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

No, I mean christian teaching from everywhere.   This is a novel invention and not christian. It is based in an assumption based on how you've interpreted scripture, which all of christian history contradicts.  

Jesus fulfilled the scapegoat.   It has long been understood the scapegoat prefigured Christ.

You teach a fraud. NO scripture teaches that Jesus became the scapegoat/goat-for-Azazel. Any so-called church(ianity) history that says so is heretical.

15 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

A red ribbon was tied to the scapegoat, and would miraculously, would turn white.  IMMEDIATELY after Christ's death and resurrection that ribbon stopped turning white. That's because Jesus took our sins upon Himself.    

Backwards logic. Why was the Temple goat-for-Azazel no longer accepted? Because the Temple goat of the sin offering was no longer accepted by God, because Jesus was the goat of the sin offering, which they had rejected. After Jesus' blood of the sin offering was accepted in the heavenly sanctuary, the efficacy of all of the Temple sacrifices ceased.

15 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

40 years before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was the year Christ was led out into the wilderness and crucified.

• "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3: 14-15  

Jesus was led outside of Jerusalem, to Golgotha,  'in the wilderness,' where He was "lifted up" and crucified and where He took upon Himself all our sins.

And Paul tells us the signification for this:

Heb. 13:11 For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

So here again, we see Jesus being the fulfillment of the goat for the sin offering, not the goat-for-Azazel.

16 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

I am sorry, but you are simply introducing heretical ideas here.

The heretical ideas belong to you and your church.

16 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

According to Paul in Hebrews, Jesus has yet to fulfill all of the duties that were acted-out in the mikraw/rehearsal of Lev. 16's Day of Atonement. For why indeed would he fulfill some of the duties as they are written, but not all of them?

I'll leave this question for you all to consider, not just Therese.

You have utterly failed to answer this question.

[thereselittleflower]

4 hours ago, Shar said:

Therese, there are too many to list here, but I will list a few.  Jesus the Pharisee by Dr. Harvey Falk.  This is written by an Orthodox Rabbi and published by a Catholic publishing house.  This is where you see the distinction between the two main schools of thought in the Pharaisic Sect.  You see that Jesus consistently upheld the school of Hillel teachings, as did Paul the Apostle.  This school was the more gracious, loving and tolerant group of Pharisees.

The other school was the teachings of Shammai.  This is the group that Jesus directed most of His criticisms.  The School of Hillel and the School of Shammai were mostly at odds with each other.

King of Jews by Dr. Thomas Lancaster

Yeshua: Guide to the Real Jesus by Dr.Ron Moseley, a professor at Jubilee Christian College

Meet the Rabbis:  Rabbinic Thought and Teachings of Jesus by Dr. Brad Young, Professor of Biblical Studies in the Graduate School at Oral Roberts University

There are numerous historical sources too.  Dr. Amy-Jill Levine is Jewish and the Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt.  While she is not a Jewish believer in Jesus, she is proficient in the actual history.  She has written, "The misunderstood Jew:  The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus", "The Historical Jesus" and the Jewish Annotated New Testament.

I could go on and on.  The matter is that my presentation of argument is not based on conjecture.  However, even if I did not have many scholarly sources, one could easily surmise by how he practiced and taught the disciples and masses.  What He taught and believed fell into the camp of the Pharisees.  Some of what He taught and practiced fell distinctly to only the Pharisaic Sect.  As a Jew he was raised up in Judaism and would have been in one of the Sects.

Thank you for the sources.    I will have to check them out.

 

[thereselittleflower]

3 hours ago, WilliamL said:

You teach a fraud. NO scripture teaches that Jesus became the scapegoat/goat-for-Azazel. Any so-called church(ianity) history that says so is heretical.

Backwards logic. Why was the Temple goat-for-Azazel no longer accepted? Because the Temple goat of the sin offering was no longer accepted by God, because Jesus was the goat of the sin offering, which they had rejected. After Jesus' blood of the sin offering was accepted in the heavenly sanctuary, the efficacy of all of the Temple sacrifices ceased.

And Paul tells us the signification for this:

Heb. 13:11 For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

So here again, we see Jesus being the fulfillment of the goat for the sin offering, not the goat-for-Azazel.

The heretical ideas belong to you and your church.

You have utterly failed to answer this question.

I'm sorry William, but no.   You're unnecessarily splitting hairs where no hairs need to be split.   Jesus fulfilled both the Temple goat and the scapegoat just as He fulfilled the role of the High Priest.  You are simply limiting God by saying it was only one and not the other.   In order to support your particular pov, you are ignoring other scripture that contradict it.  I am not worried if you feel I have "utterly failed to answer" any particular question.  Just because you refuse to accept any answer that does not agree with your pov doesn't mean one has failed to answer.  Your question is a false dilemna for it offers a false choice.   There is no question as to why Jesus didn't act out certain aspects of something.   It' not a valid question.   If everything had to be acted out in detail, then Jesus could not be our sacrificial lamb, for the passover lamb had to be outwardly perfect, yet Jesus was beaten and whipped and bloodied before he sacrificed.  The mistake you are making is in thinking he could not be both at the same time.    The scriptures clearly state our sins were put on Him to take them away.   

• 1 John 3:5 And you know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

• 1 Corinthians 5:21:

  For he, (God the Father), hath made him, (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

• Hebrews 9:26
  Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
• 1 Peter 2:24
  "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."
• Leviticus 16:10
  But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat.

The scapegoat took "away" the sins of the people into the wilderness.  The scapegoat was used for making atonement for sins.    Jesus was manifested to take way our sins.   Jesus made atonement for our sins.   He did so William.   He already took away our sins.   In doing so He fulfilled the scapegoat.     Christ is not returning to have our sins put on Him again or to go out in the wilderness to die again (for the scapegoat died in the wilderness).   To teach there is anything left to the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus who said  "IT IS FINISHED" - is heresy.

Again, The scapegoat was used for making atonement for sins.   

To teach satan is that scapegoat that makes atonement for our sins is rank heresy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

One spiritual nation refers to single body of Messiah. Not the nation of Israel. Other then the one spiritual nation, there are other nations in Messiah. People from various nations are born again into the assembly of believers. There is only one universal spiritual assembly of believers. There is no ethnicity which is saved in it's entirety.

While the Talmud was written by the Pharisees, and Jewish traditions draw partially from the Talmud and partially from the Torah (which was not written by the Pharisees), following the ethnic traditions does not make Messianic Judaism Pharisaic. For example, Protestant Christian churches brought forward some practices from the RCC but that does not make Protestant churches RCC in practice or belief.

Every church from every ethnicity uses traditions from the culture. As long as the traditions do not violate scripture, there is nothing wrong with traditions.

People who grow up in a certain tradition, usually do not recognize the traditions until they see or live in another culture and see how things are done in the other culture. In many Christian churches, passing the basket to collect donations is the tradition. Others have a box in the back. And others have people come forward during service to drop in a basket.

Another tradition is the metal plates with thimbles of grape juice and broken up bits of matza or wafers. The way communion is done is based on a tradition.      

Ok qnts,the issue of the Pharisees having teachings concerning the next world the next life, is distinct to that sect. The Sadducees concerned themselves with matters of this world this life, so everything about the Messiah, his rule, his work ETC. would be Pharasaic. So, I agree with you concerning protestants and rcc. I think Messianic Judaism shares some Pharisaic tendencies concerning Israels role in the Messianic kingdom, distinct from the nations.

I am not concerned with keeping traditions at all.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Shar said:

They will be.  Read the later chapters 53 - the end of Isaiah.  The male representative from each nation will have to travel to one of the pilgrim feast, Feast of Tabernacles, each year to celebrate this Feast.  If they do not show, that land will not get rain for one year. (Ze.14:16). 

God claimed Israel to be a Holy nation and a kingdom of Priests, out of all the nations of the earth. (Ex.19:6)  I Peter was written about A.D. 62-64 to Jewish Believers who had been driven out of Jerusalem and scattered throughout Asia Minor.  He reminds them in chapter 2:9 that they are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation..."

Acts 8:1   And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
2  And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
3  As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
4   Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

To the Samaritans

14  Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15  Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16  (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

In the desert

26   And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27  And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
when laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Azotus until Caesarea

39  And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
40  But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

Peter preaches to Cornelius, the gospel goes out to the nations

11:19   Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
20  And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
21  And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
22  Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

I do not understand why you think it  has not happened already?