Paradigm Posted April 5, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 142 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 165 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/26/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2016 3 hours ago, Joline said: We are told Christ our passover has been sacrificed, therefore let us keep the feast. The feast spoken of here is unleavened bread. We who are in Christ are not to keep the feast according to the old leaven (teaching). We are to keep the feast of unleavened bread Void of the old malice. What does that mean to you? Firstly, in cultural context, it probably includes the sectarian divisions over when the first wave sheaf was to begin the count to Pentecost. As this day was in dispute among the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essesnes. Therefor you could say, the day of Christ's resurrection was in dispute, long before Jesus came to fulfill it. I believe Paul here warns concerning this malice in keeping the feast of his resurrection. He does not want these divisions to be taken hold of in the Church. It is really pretty much impossible to completely separate Passover from Unleavened Bread. Unleavened Bread, Shavuot (Pentecost) and Tabernacles were all "regalim" or Pilgrimage Feasts. Since the Passover is killed between the evenings on the 14th and Unleavened begins at the beginning of the evening on the 15th, they definitely would have been there for Passover as well. 1 Corinthians 5:6-11 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. Yes leaven does symbolize doctrinal error. Hence, the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees and of Herod. However, in this passage this assembly is referred to as "unleavened" or from the context should be. There congregation is suppose to be unleavened bread. We have the contrast of the "old leaven" with the "new lump" and the "leaven of malice and wickedness" contrasted with the "unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." The topic before and after the Passover/Unleavened Bread themes is mainly fornication. Paul even specifically mentions a guy involved with his father's wife. Therefore in this passage it seems that he is not only admonishing them to keep Passover/Unleavened Bread properly, but it using its symbolism to illustrate that the congregation must purge out the fornicators from their assembly as well as the bad leaven within. They cannot be the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth if they fail to purge out the leaven of malice and wickedness from their hearts and congregation. Yes, there were definitely divisions concerning the dates of the "head of the harvest/firstfruits" after Passover as well as the date of Shavuot as continues today. I don't think that was really his focus here though. I think that kind of thing is more his focus in Col 2:16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 On 4/5/2016 at 4:11 PM, Paradigm said: It is really pretty much impossible to completely separate Passover from Unleavened Bread. Unleavened Bread, Shavuot (Pentecost) and Tabernacles were all "regalim" or Pilgrimage Feasts. Since the Passover is killed between the evenings on the 14th and Unleavened begins at the beginning of the evening on the 15th, they definitely would have been there for Passover as well. 1 Corinthians 5:6-11 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. Yes leaven does symbolize doctrinal error. Hence, the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees and of Herod. However, in this passage this assembly is referred to as "unleavened" or from the context should be. There congregation is suppose to be unleavened bread. We have the contrast of the "old leaven" with the "new lump" and the "leaven of malice and wickedness" contrasted with the "unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." The topic before and after the Passover/Unleavened Bread themes is mainly fornication. Paul even specifically mentions a guy involved with his father's wife. Therefore in this passage it seems that he is not only admonishing them to keep Passover/Unleavened Bread properly, but it using its symbolism to illustrate that the congregation must purge out the fornicators from their assembly as well as the bad leaven within. They cannot be the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth if they fail to purge out the leaven of malice and wickedness from their hearts and congregation. Yes, there were definitely divisions concerning the dates of the "head of the harvest/firstfruits" after Passover as well as the date of Shavuot as continues today. I don't think that was really his focus here though. I think that kind of thing is more his focus in Col 2:16. I am sorry if I was not clear. My intent was not to separate Passover from unleavened bread. It was to distinguish the Passover as a sacrifice, from the feast in which the Passover was consumed. I do think you are correct concerning immorality in this passage. But I also think the Malice comment refers to other divisons as specific to Col though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted April 8, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 142 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 165 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/26/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 8, 2016 4 hours ago, Joline said: I am sorry if I was not clear. My intent was not to separate Passover from unleavened bread. It was to distinguish the Passover as a sacrifice, from the feast in which the Passover was consumed. I do think you are correct concerning immorality in this passage. But I also think the Malice comment refers to other divisons as specific to Col though. Gotcha Joline. Thanks for the explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 On 3/28/2016 at 3:05 PM, Paradigm said: Yes, Messiah is our Passover. Therefore we keep the feast as Paul says. 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Messiah our Passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. However, Israel individual or collectively accepting the Messiah does not determine the length of time the feast is to be kept. For it is written that it is to be done for ever. Exodus 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Yes, Easter is derived from Ishtar the goddess. but there is no but... The NT does not teach us to do anything on the Lord's day. Although the phrase "Day of the LORD" appears a number of places in scripture. As far as I know, the only time that the term "Lords day" appears is here: Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, The Lord's day is not Sunday and there is nothing in scripture stating that. The Sabbath is still the eternal sign. Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. We are told how to show the Messiah's death. 1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. We must understand though that 1 Corinthians 11:26 is speaking of Passover. This is what Y'shua was doing when he said "As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me." The gospels in a number of places tell us why Y'shua and his disciples were assembled that night. There is no scriptural passage telling us to keep Easter. I have already addressed "Lord's day." Y'shua died, was buried and rose on Biblical feasts. He was born on a feast, began his minsitry on a feast and will return on a feast. Pentecost is merely the Greek name for Shavuot (Feast of Weeks). Yes, the Spirit was also poured out on a biblical feast. The disciples did not begin celebrating pagan festivals and customs after the resurrection. They continued to keep the Sabbath, festivals, etc as we see in a number of places. They were adamantly against practices of paganism. I'm not condemning anyone about any of these things. I use to keep easter and the rest of it too until I found out the truth about these things. I was shocked as I really began to pour through the scriptures and study a little history. There is a passage in the KJV that could throw some people. The word "easter" does appear once in that translation. However, if you check to see what the Greek word was we see that it paschal which is the same as pesach (Passover). The Greek is Pascha, and the Greek Orthodox (and other Orthodox) did and do call Passover Pascha. Also, I am not seeing any distinction being made in your post concerning the Passover and the feast as a memorial to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant to his seed? Passover is a feast which memorializes the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, not the law of Moses. We are all Abrahams seed in Christ. He is the Passover promise to all Abraham's seed. Jesus made an atonement for our sins at Passover, yet it was not the day of atonement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted May 9, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 142 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 165 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/26/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted May 9, 2016 On 5/7/2016 at 11:14 AM, Joline said: The Greek is Pascha, and the Greek Orthodox (and other Orthodox) did and do call Passover Pascha. Also, I am not seeing any distinction being made in your post concerning the Passover and the feast as a memorial to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant to his seed? Passover is a feast which memorializes the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, not the law of Moses. We are all Abrahams seed in Christ. He is the Passover promise to all Abraham's seed. Jesus made an atonement for our sins at Passover, yet it was not the day of atonement. Yes, that is the Greek name. The original being in the Hebrew "Pesach." I'm sorry, but I do not understand how your comments related to my post. You post seemed to be showing disagreement with a statement or statements that I had made. Perhaps you could quote my specific statement so I would know what statement of mine that you believe is erroneous. You could say: "You said such n such and these verses from scripture show that it is error." Or something like that. That way I could understand where you think that I misspoke and become more aware of particular Bible verses that are at odds with a particular statement i may have made. It has been quite a while since I had posted anything in this thread so my memory might be a little fuzzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 the promises made to 3 hours ago, Paradigm said: Yes, that is the Greek name. The original being in the Hebrew "Pesach." I'm sorry, but I do not understand how your comments related to my post. You post seemed to be showing disagreement with a statement or statements that I had made. Perhaps you could quote my specific statement so I would know what statement of mine that you believe is erroneous. You could say: "You said such n such and these verses from scripture show that it is error." Or something like that. That way I could understand where you think that I misspoke and become more aware of particular Bible verses that are at odds with a particular statement i may have made. It has been quite a while since I had posted anything in this thread so my memory might be a little fuzzy. N/a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Just now, Joline said: the promises made to Hi Paradigm. I am sorry if my points were not clear to you. My point was....The early Catholic church did keep Pascha. What some later called it does not affect that IMO. Easter or pascha, Christianity celebrates the death and resurrection of Christ. Which death served as an atonement for sin. Christ did not atone for our sin on the day of atonement, but Passover. Therefore strict keeping of Mosaic feasts are not given as an example for what Christ did. The feast of unleavened bread and Passover are celebrations given to memorialize the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant promises, made 430 years Before Moses law. We, Jew and Gentile are seed of promise to Abraham, in Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 On 5/9/2016 at 3:58 AM, Paradigm said: On 5/9/2016 at 3:58 AM, Paradigm said: Yes, that is the Greek name. The original being in the Hebrew "Pesach." I'm sorry, but I do not understand how your comments related to my post. You post seemed to be showing disagreement with a statement or statements that I had made. Perhaps you could quote my specific statement so I would know what statement of mine that you believe is erroneous. You could say: "You said such n such and these verses from scripture show that it is error." Or something like that. That way I could understand where you think that I misspoke and become more aware of particular Bible verses that are at odds with a particular statement i may have made. It has been quite a while since I had posted anything in this thread so my memory might be a little fuzzy. Yes, that is the Greek name. The original being in the Hebrew "Pesach." I'm sorry, but I do not understand how your comments related to my post. You post seemed to be showing disagreement with a statement or statements that I had made. Perhaps you could quote my specific statement so I would know what statement of mine that you believe is erroneous. You could say: "You said such n such and these verses from scripture show that it is error." Or something like that. That way I could understand where you think that I misspoke and become more aware of particular Bible verses that are at odds with a particular statement i may have made. It has been quite a while since I had posted anything in this thread so my memory might be a little fuzzy. I just finished one video here. The one titled "BO" as it relates to the Passover.. It was disturbing to me to hear someone say they had become a new creature when they came out of Christianity............? It was hard to hear as it was from someone without the microphone in hand, but the teacher agreed????? None the less A mistake is made when speaking of firstborn as heirs. And heirs are not properly defined that I could hear? Thereby leaving out some very important ideas in both the old and new covenants.............IMO This video teaching makes Isaac as a firstborn like Israel????????????????????? 1. Isaac is not spoken of as a firstborn in relation to an heir of Abraham. He is an only born. Ge 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. Ge 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Ge 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 2. This title should not be confused with Jacob, or Israel, which are firstborn. Isaac as sole heir, as an only born son Gen 25:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. 6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. {be: or, be brought in } Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 3. A firstborn however is a fellow heir. As firstborn he receives a double portion.......among his brethren Christ likewise as Isaac as an only born Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted May 11, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 142 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 165 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/26/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted May 11, 2016 6 hours ago, Joline said: I just finished one video here. The one titled "BO" as it relates to the Passover.. It was disturbing to me to hear someone say they had become a new creature when they came out of Christianity............? It was hard to hear as it was from someone without the microphone in hand, but the teacher agreed????? None the less A mistake is made when speaking of firstborn as heirs. And heirs are not properly defined that I could hear? Thereby leaving out some very important ideas in both the old and new covenants.............IMO This video teaching makes Isaac as a firstborn like Israel????????????????????? 1. Isaac is not spoken of as a firstborn in relation to an heir of Abraham. He is an only born. Ge 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. Ge 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Ge 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 2. This title should not be confused with Jacob, or Israel, which are firstborn. Isaac as sole heir, as an only born son Gen 25:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. 6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. {be: or, be brought in } Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 3. A firstborn however is a fellow heir. As firstborn he receives a double portion.......among his brethren Christ likewise as Isaac as an only born Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Hi Joline, Believe it or not, I normally am not easily confused, but again I am not understanding what you are referring to. I don't know of a video on the portion "Bo" that I have available. I have audios that discuss that portion. Did you listen to an audio of me discussing "Bo?" I'm trying to understand what your posts are responding to. Are you just telling me about a video that you watched of someone else and thought I might be interested? Once I understand the answers to those questions, hopefully I'll better understand your basis and the relevance of your posts. Regarding some of what you have written, in the last couple of posts. Exodus 12:12-14 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. 13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. 14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. 25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lordwill give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. 26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? 27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. Easter is not Passover. Regarding firstborn status, as important as this is, the natural firstborn is not the one that ultimately inherits, but the spiritual. For as we read, the natural is first, then the spiritual. Here are some examples: Cain/Abel Ishmael/Isaac Esau/Jacob Reuben/Joseph Manasseh/Ephraim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 17 minutes ago, Paradigm said: Hi Joline, Believe it or not, I normally am not easily confused, but again I am not understanding what you are referring to. I don't know of a video on the portion "Bo" that I have available. I have audios that discuss that portion. Did you listen to an audio of me discussing "Bo?" I'm trying to understand what your posts are responding to. Are you just telling me about a video that you watched of someone else and thought I might be interested? Once I understand the answers to those questions, hopefully I'll better understand your basis and the relevance of your posts. Regarding some of what you have written, in the last couple of posts. Exodus 12:12-14 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. 13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. 14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. 25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lordwill give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. 26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? 27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. Easter is not Passover. Regarding firstborn status, as important as this is, the natural firstborn is not the one that ultimately inherits, but the spiritual. For as we read, the natural is first, then the spiritual. Here are some examples: Cain/Abel Ishmael/Isaac Esau/Jacob Reuben/Joseph Manasseh/Ephraim Hello Keith? I did not realize it was you in those recordings. Nice to meet you. As for Easter, a rose by any other name is still a rose. When I spoke of the issue of heirs, as only born and firstborn. When I opened your link I seen a list of teaching tapes. Each one having a particular focus. The names of those tapes in the order I seen them are Vayakhel terumah beshalach Bo vayechi vayeshev vayeitzei beresheet vayelech kitavo It is the fourth tape on the list, I am speaking of. If you would like I could try and listen again to find the minute marks for the comments I am speaking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts