fulfilled feasts

[Shar]

9 minutes ago, Willa said:

Historicly I believe that John the Baptist was a 

 

 

I thought that John the Baptist was a Zealot, and historicly Jesus was also considered to be a Zealot.  This is why the people thought He was going to set up His kingdom at the triumphal entry into Jeruselem.  They expected Him to lead the revolt against the Roman oppression.  So instead He was crucified and mockingly called the King of the Jews.   He has yet to come again to fulfill those prophesies.

Judas was considered a Zealot (known by his surname Iscariot, meaning dagger men, which were a group of ultra-Zealots) and Simon the Zealot, who was a different Simon, not Simon Peter.

[Qnts2]

14 minutes ago, Joline said:

20  Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Synagogue in the first century was not for worship but places of study and learning. They did not become places of worship until after the temple was destroyed and the new Sanhedrin was established at Yavneh. Beside all that, it has nothing to do with worship according to the law. The destruction of the temple was a major concern because of its importance.

In my view, study and learning about God, is a form of worship. As I said, both the synagogue and Temple were places of worship. They were different with differing purposes but both involved worship.  

 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

Ok, I said prejudice against the Pharisees, but I never said anti-semitism. So, you are wrong. 

When a person makes generalized negative statements, against a group of people, which are all so negative and without any substantiation, as I've said before, they are making prejudicial statements.

Now, you are making a few statements which are a little more accurate concerning the Pharisees who were believers.. Yes, some Pharisees were believers. Among the Pharisees who were believers, some wanted the Gentile believers to be circumcised and become Jews, obligated to the Mosaic law, and others did not think Gentile believers needed to be circumcised, not obligating themselves to the Mosaic law. Unfortunately, you statement that they were still among the believers at that time, implying once again that they either were not believers (against what Acts says), or they left being believers which scripture never says.  

I am not name calling. I have been discussing the issues and I have been quoting scripture. Do you believe that all Pharisees who were believers (except Paul), were faking it or later left and were no longer believers?

They have been substantiated. And the reality remains that "Judaism" from the time of the temple destruction is learning from that sect. The sect of the Pharisees had become corrupt in Christ's day. It does not mean all rabbis are corrupt today. What it does mean however is they are following their erroneous teachings. That Generation Qnts was an extremely crooked and perverse generation. No differently than some might see certain Church rulers.

[thereselittleflower]

5 hours ago, Shar said:

Mt.23:2  From the Greek Interlinear ..."The scribes and the Pharisees sat down on Moses' seat.  Then all things, whatever they tell you to keep, keep and do.  But not according to their works, for they say and do not do."     In other words, truly keep them.  Don't be like some who are hypocrites and say to keep them, but do not.

The Scribes and Pharisees were the keepers of the law, both written and oral.  They made sure it was protected and accurately transcribed.  That was another distinction of the Pharisees from the other sects of Judaism, besides believing in the physical return of the Messiah.

I agree someone should start another thread if we wish to continue this discussion.  There is plenty to say and discuss that can be quite interesting.  This forum is about fulfilled feasts and I don't want to take from that discussion. 

That doesn't say to learn the traditions of the pharisees.  It says to obey them, to do what they say to do because of their position of authority  - this is speaking of actions, works.  He was speaking of their position of AUTHORITY and because they sat in the position of the Authority of Moses, they were to be obeyed.

I can see where you get the logical connection between the two, but it's not because Jesus was a Pharisee, but because of their authority in Israel.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

In my view, study and learning about God, is a form of worship. As I said, both the synagogue and Temple were places of worship. They were different with differing purposes but both involved worship.  

 

Again, that is not law, so it is irrelevant to scripture. That is what Rabbinic Judaism made it post temple. They usurped the authority of the priesthood, transferred things of the temple to synagogue. Even to the point of some sects today calling the synagogue the temple. In Christs day they were places of study and learning.

 

[thereselittleflower]

2 hours ago, WilliamL said:

And I disagree. Yom Kippur is not fulfilled until he comes back out of the sanctuary, and fulfills all the appointed tasks. Including putting the sins upon the head of Azazel, and banishing him. Only then is the ceremony completed.

There is absolutely NOTHING in Christian teaching, EVER that teaches Jesus is going to put the sins on the head of anyone.

JESUS took our sins upon Himself.   HE bore them on the Cross. 

HE said   IT IS FINISHED.

 

He meant exactly that.  

IT IS FINISHED.

 

 

[Willa]

On 2/9/2016 at 5:14 PM, thereselittleflower said:

I don't see that at all.

 

My understanding is that the Catholic church, Lutheran, Calvinistic churches and most main line protestants in general have been amillinial so deny that Jesus will come back to reign on earth for 1000 years before the great white throne judgement and the establishment of the New Jeruselem.  

So we understand why you and others fight tooth and nail to uphold the belief of Augustine that the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ is all symbolic.  That way they can believe that 1/3 of the world has already been destroyed and the water has already turned to blood when Jeruselem was destroyed.  Really???  Oh, that's right, it is all symbolic.  So you can imagine that all the feasts are already fulfilled and nothing is future.  Jesus can't return to rule for 1000 years because that is all symbolic of His reign through the Catholic Church and the Popes?  Sorry, such theology nulifies too many prophesies in the old and new testaments that Jesus has yet to fulfill.

I prefer to interpret Scripture literally,  so I am free to accept other interpretation.  Mine may not be exact or perfect, but I consider them to be that held by much of the first century church, though not all, prior to Augustine.  He got it right in much of his theology, but his spiritualizing Revelation and other prophecy in The City of God, seems to me to be error and I reject this philosophy which lead to the torture and discrimination against the Jewish people for the last 2000 years.

We will once again have to agree to disagree.

 

GOT QUESTION?

Question: "What is amillennialism?"

Answer: Amillennialism is the name given to the belief that there will not be a literal 1000-year reign of Christ. The people who hold to this belief are called amillennialists. The prefix “a-” in amillennialism means “no” or “not.” Hence, “amillennialism” means “no millennium.” This differs from the most widely accepted view called premillennialism (the view that Christ’s second coming will occur prior to His millennial kingdom and that the millennial kingdom is a literal 1000-year reign) and from the less-widely accepted view called postmillennialism (the belief that Christ will return after Christians, not Christ Himself, have established the kingdom on this earth).

However, in fairness to amillennialists, they do not believe that there is no millennium at all. They just do not believe in a literal millennium—a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth. Instead, they believe that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this present church age is the kingdom over which Christ reigns. There is no doubt that Christ is now sitting on a throne, but this does not mean that it is what the Bible refers to as the throne of David. There is no doubt that Christ now rules, for He is God. Yet this does not mean He is ruling over the millennial kingdom.

In order for God to keep His promises to Israel and His covenant with David (2 Samuel 7:8-16, 23:5; Psalm 89:3-4), there must be a literal, physical kingdom on this earth. To doubt this is to call into question God’s desire and/or ability to keep His promises, and this opens up a host of other theological problems. For example, if God would renege on His promises to Israel after proclaiming those promises to be “everlasting,” how could we be sure of anything He promises, including the promises of salvation to believers in the Lord Jesus? The only solution is to take Him at His word and understand that His promises will be literally fulfilled. 

Clear biblical indications that the kingdom will be a literal, earthly kingdom are:

1) Christ's feet will actually touch the Mount of Olives prior to the establishment of His kingdom (Zechariah 14:4, 9);

2) During the kingdom, the Messiah will execute justice and judgment on the earth (Jeremiah 23:5-8);

3) The kingdom is described as being under heaven (Daniel 7:13-14, 27);

4) The prophets foretold of dramatic earthly changes during the kingdom (Acts 3:21; Isaiah 35:1-2, 11:6-9, 29:18, 65:20-22; Ezekiel 47:1-12; Amos 9:11-15); and

5) The chronological order of events in Revelation indicates the existence of an earthly kingdom prior to the conclusion of world history (Revelation 20).

The amillennial view comes from using one method of interpretation for unfulfilled prophecy and another method for non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy. Non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are interpreted literally or normally. But, according to the amillennialist, unfulfilled prophecy is to be interpreted spiritually, or non-literally. Those who hold to amillennialism believe that a “spiritual” reading of unfulfilled prophecy is the normal reading of the texts. This is called using a dual hermeneutic. (Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation.) The amillennialist assumes that most, or all, unfulfilled prophecy is written in symbolic, figurative, spiritual language. Therefore, the amillennialist will assign different meanings to those parts of Scripture instead of the normal, contextual meanings of those words.

The problem with interpreting unfulfilled prophecy in this manner is that this allows for a wide range of meanings. Unless you interpret Scripture in the normal sense, there will not be one meaning. Yet God, the ultimate author of all of Scripture, did have one specific meaning in mind when He inspired the human authors to write. Though there may be many life applications in a passage of Scripture, there is only one meaning, and that meaning is what God intended it to mean. Also, the fact that fulfilled prophecy was fulfilled literally is the best reason of all for assuming that unfulfilled prophecy will also be literally fulfilled. The prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were all fulfilled literally. Therefore, prophecies concerning Christ's second coming should also be expected to be fulfilled literally. For these reasons, an allegorical interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be rejected and a literal or normal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be adopted. Amillennialism fails in that it uses inconsistent hermeneutics, namely, interpreting unfulfilled prophecy differently from fulfilled prophecy.

 

© Copyright 2002-2016 Got Quest

[thereselittleflower]

6 minutes ago, Willa said:

My understanding is that the Catholic church, Lutheran, Calvinistic churches and most main line protestants in general have been amillinial so deny that Jesus will come back to reign on earth for 1000 years before the great white throne judgement and the establishment of the New Jeruselem.  

So we understand why you and others fight tooth and nail to uphold the belief of Augustine that the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ is all symbolic.  That way they can believe that 1/3 of the world has already been destroyed and the water has already turned to blood when Jeruselem was destroyed.  Really???  Oh, that's right, it is all symbolic.  So you can imagine that all the feasts are already fulfilled and nothing is future.  Jesus can't return to rule for 1000 years because that is all symbolic of His reign through the Catholic Church and the Popes?  Sorry, such theology nulifies too many prophesies in the old and new testaments that Jesus has yet to fulfill.

I prefer to interpret Scripture literally,  so I am free to accept other interpretation.  Mine may not be exact or perfect, but I consider them to be that held by much of the first century church, though not all, prior to Augustine.  He got it right in much of his theology, but his spiritualizing Revelation and other prophecy in The City of God, seems to me to be error and I reject this philosophy which lead to the torture and discrimination against the Jewish people for the last 2000 years.

We will once again have to agree to disagree.

 

GOT QUESTION?

Question: "What is amillennialism?"

Answer: Amillennialism is the name given to the belief that there will not be a literal 1000-year reign of Christ. The people who hold to this belief are called amillennialists. The prefix “a-” in amillennialism means “no” or “not.” Hence, “amillennialism” means “no millennium.” This differs from the most widely accepted view called premillennialism (the view that Christ’s second coming will occur prior to His millennial kingdom and that the millennial kingdom is a literal 1000-year reign) and from the less-widely accepted view called postmillennialism (the belief that Christ will return after Christians, not Christ Himself, have established the kingdom on this earth).

However, in fairness to amillennialists, they do not believe that there is no millennium at all. They just do not believe in a literal millennium—a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth. Instead, they believe that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this present church age is the kingdom over which Christ reigns. There is no doubt that Christ is now sitting on a throne, but this does not mean that it is what the Bible refers to as the throne of David. There is no doubt that Christ now rules, for He is God. Yet this does not mean He is ruling over the millennial kingdom.

In order for God to keep His promises to Israel and His covenant with David (2 Samuel 7:8-16, 23:5; Psalm 89:3-4), there must be a literal, physical kingdom on this earth. To doubt this is to call into question God’s desire and/or ability to keep His promises, and this opens up a host of other theological problems. For example, if God would renege on His promises to Israel after proclaiming those promises to be “everlasting,” how could we be sure of anything He promises, including the promises of salvation to believers in the Lord Jesus? The only solution is to take Him at His word and understand that His promises will be literally fulfilled. 

Clear biblical indications that the kingdom will be a literal, earthly kingdom are:

1) Christ's feet will actually touch the Mount of Olives prior to the establishment of His kingdom (Zechariah 14:4, 9);

2) During the kingdom, the Messiah will execute justice and judgment on the earth (Jeremiah 23:5-8);

3) The kingdom is described as being under heaven (Daniel 7:13-14, 27);

4) The prophets foretold of dramatic earthly changes during the kingdom (Acts 3:21; Isaiah 35:1-2, 11:6-9, 29:18, 65:20-22; Ezekiel 47:1-12; Amos 9:11-15); and

5) The chronological order of events in Revelation indicates the existence of an earthly kingdom prior to the conclusion of world history (Revelation 20).

The amillennial view comes from using one method of interpretation for unfulfilled prophecy and another method for non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy. Non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are interpreted literally or normally. But, according to the amillennialist, unfulfilled prophecy is to be interpreted spiritually, or non-literally. Those who hold to amillennialism believe that a “spiritual” reading of unfulfilled prophecy is the normal reading of the texts. This is called using a dual hermeneutic. (Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation.) The amillennialist assumes that most, or all, unfulfilled prophecy is written in symbolic, figurative, spiritual language. Therefore, the amillennialist will assign different meanings to those parts of Scripture instead of the normal, contextual meanings of those words.

The problem with interpreting unfulfilled prophecy in this manner is that this allows for a wide range of meanings. Unless you interpret Scripture in the normal sense, there will not be one meaning. Yet God, the ultimate author of all of Scripture, did have one specific meaning in mind when He inspired the human authors to write. Though there may be many life applications in a passage of Scripture, there is only one meaning, and that meaning is what God intended it to mean. Also, the fact that fulfilled prophecy was fulfilled literally is the best reason of all for assuming that unfulfilled prophecy will also be literally fulfilled. The prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were all fulfilled literally. Therefore, prophecies concerning Christ's second coming should also be expected to be fulfilled literally. For these reasons, an allegorical interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be rejected and a literal or normal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be adopted. Amillennialism fails in that it uses inconsistent hermeneutics, namely, interpreting unfulfilled prophecy differently from fulfilled prophecy.

 

© Copyright 2002-2016 Got Quest

At least Got Questions got it right that ammillennialism does not deny the millennium, but rather sees the number 1000 as symbolic of a great expanse of time, and that we are in the millennium now.

The interesting thing is, we never see the number 1000 used literally in all the bible.  Yet somehow, in the most symbolic book of the bible, it is supposed to mean a literal 1000 years.

I'm sorry, I don't see the logic in such a position.

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

48 minutes ago, Willa said:

Historicly I believe that John the Baptist was a 

 

 

I thought that John the Baptist was a Zealot, and historicly Jesus was also considered to be a Zealot.  This is why the people thought He was going to set up His kingdom at the triumphal entry into Jeruselem.  They expected Him to lead the revolt against the Roman oppression.  So instead He was crucified and mockingly called the King of the Jews.   He has yet to come again to fulfill those prophesies.

You bring up a good point.

Never did the pharisees claim Jesus as one of their own.

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

42 minutes ago, Joline said:

20  Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Synagogue in the first century was not for worship but places of study and learning. They did not become places of worship until after the temple was destroyed and the new Sanhedrin was established at Yavneh. Beside all that, it has nothing to do with worship according to the law. The destruction of the temple was a major concern because of its importance.

Thank you.

  

1 hour ago, Qnts2 said:

First century Jewish worship occurred in 2 places. The synagogue and the Temple. Non-liturgical churches follow a pattern closer to 1st century synagogues.

As far as liturgical churches, I have visited 2 to see what happened in them. The RCC and a Lutheran church. While both claim to follow the Temple pattern, in my view they were more like an anti-Temple pattern, which so thoroughly distort what occurred in the Temple and violated the law. The Lutheran church was a more liberal group and not LCMS or WELS.

At the time, visiting differing churches was an assignment given to me to become more familiar with the differing kinds of services in churches. I also visited a Congregational church, and a Unitarian Universalist church. The Unitarian Universalist church, I would not call a Christian church at all. 

 

I have to say that when I first started reading your posts, they seemed well informed.  But as I have been catching you in errors in what you say the scriptures day and do not say, and what happened in Judaism in the time of the ancient Church, I can no longer read what you say and believe I am getting accurate information.