Under Law

[8thdaypriest]

I do believe a part of "the law" has been "changed".  That is "the priesthood".   Hebrews 7:12  "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law".  This is the ONLY CHANGE I see - of the law.  I believe the priesthood was changed BACK to the original priesthood - "the firstborn".  Christ is the firstborn of God, and we (grafted into Israel) are God's firstborn.  Thus we are a "royal priesthood" - and will be "kings and priests". 

This would put "the priesthood" squarely into the "schoolmaster" (symbolic/prophetic) law, that would be rendered "obsolete" by the death of Christ "once for all".   

So how would a change of the priesthood affect folks back in the days of the Apostles - during the 40 years from Christ's resurrection until the Temple was destroyed in 70AD? 

(Deuteronomy Chapter 12)  The Torah prohibited the offering of burnt sacrifices, tithes, heave offerings, or firstfruits at ANY LOCATION other than "the place where the LORD your God chooses to make His name abide" - Jerusalem - on "the Mount".  Sin offerings also, were to be offered at the same location.  Only priests of the order of Aaron could offer those sacrifices, for justification (reconciliation). 

Dire curses had been pronounced against anyone who might take anything away from that Law, or add anything to that Law.  Blessings were to be enjoyed only by obeying the Law.   

According to the Law of Moses, only descendants of Aaron were to act as priests at the Temple.  During the time of the Apostles, the Sanhedrin and Temple guards held control of the Temple and the Mount.

It is no wonder the first Jews to accept Christ as Messiah, continued to obey the Torah.

I can understand why some folks believe the "Letter to the Hebrews" was not inspired, and does not belong in the Bible.  It is the ONLY book to identify Christ as our High Priest, in the heavenly realm.  It is the ONLY book to say that the priesthood has been changed.  It is the only book to say that the "first covenant" is obsolete and ready to pass away.  Its author is not identified.  (I don't believe that Paul wrote the letter.) 

So - if you were a believing Jew, living during those 40 years, would you stop bringing sacrifices to the Temple?  

Since the Temple was destroyed, sacrifices really have not been an issue.  But what if the Temple is rebuilt and cleansed, and sacrifices are resumed.  Then what?  The Book of Hebrews will certainly be hotly debated. 

 

[JoeMo]

17 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Where to put the 10 Commandments?  

Is the command to rest on the 7th Day part of the "schoolmaster" or part of the moral law of God - or both?

"Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory." (2 Cor. 3:7-10)

I agree that the 10 Commandments are eternally binding; and that they can be summed up by one command - love God and your neighbor.  But I have been bothered by the verses I quoted above.  These verses have been quoted to me frequently by believers who claim we have been set free from the Law.  My usual response if that once the Law is written on our hearts, we don't "need" the laws carved in stone anymore, because the Spirit will tell us right from wrong.

Whether one believes the Law is binding or not, the 10 still provide a clear moral compass that defines right from wrong.  As Paul said:

"I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” (Romans 7:7)

I believe there are those who truly love the Lord and depend on Him for salvation but do not follow our interpretation of the 10 will be in the Kingdom; and will instantly understand the intent of the 10 and willingly conform out of love for their Redeemer.  Maybe it will be us that have to conform.  Atany rate, God looks at the heart and not the outward action.

"The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”(1 Sam. 16:7)

[8thdaypriest]

It was a "ministry of death" BECAUSE the people could not obey it in their own strength alone.  Disobedience meant death. 

Most Evangelicals claim to be New Covenant Christians.  But they don't even know what the New Covenant says. 

"I will write My Law on their hearts."  "I will put my Spirit within them, and they will keep My Laws and do them." 

Folks I've said this to, get quiet for a few minutes.  Then they say something like, "Well that's the 'law of Christ', not the OT Law" as if God would have different moral law for different time periods. 

It is the "change" of the priesthood, that confuses everyone.  Leaves everyone confused about what goes away, and what remains.  SDAs put everything except The 10 and the dietary laws, into "ceremonial" and now "obsolete".   I'm not sure if it's that simple. 

Since the Temple was destroyed, Christians haven't had to figure that one out.  If that Temple is rebuilt one day soon, they will have to. 

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I'm not sure if it's that simple. 

Since the Temple was destroyed, Christians haven't had to figure that one out.  If that Temple is rebuilt one day soon, they will have to.

It's not simple.  There are robust Biblical arguments to support both sides.  Assuming I'm in the Kingdom (which I do assume), I'm okay with either scenario.  I just wanna be in the Kingdom.

Some people think we will all be vegetarians in heaven as well.  If so, why are fishermen casting their nets into the Dead Sea and the River of Life flowing from underneath the Temple?  I don't think it's a "catch and release" program.

"Then he led me back to the bank of the river.  When I arrived there, I saw a great number of trees on each side of the river.  He said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, where it enters the Dead Sea. When it empties into the sea, the salty water there becomes fresh. Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live.  Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets." (Ezek: 47:6-10)

[8thdaypriest]

I'm not sure those with the new "spiritual body" will actually need to eat - to maintain life. 

The "rest of the dead" would still need to physically eat - to maintain physical life. 

Revelation 22:1 "And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."  

It flows from the throne of God and the Lamb, and out from the restored Temple, to flow down to the Dead Sea - and everything comes back to life - including people.  This is what brings the earth back to life - after the lifeless 7th millennium.  This is the resurrection at the 8th millennium. 

This is like the water that flowed from the smitten Rock in the wilderness.  It was real water, but it symbolized the Spirit. 

Water symbolizes the Holy Spirit.  We are baptized in it.  We are "sprinkled" with the water (with the ashes of the red heifer).

Hebrews 10:22 "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

John 4:14 "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." 

The spirit gives life.  And the water gives life.  Hence its name - the "River of Life". 

John 7:38  "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them." 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

This is what brings the earth back to life - after the lifeless 7th millennium.

You and I have disagreed on this before.  I believe the millennium will be here on earth for reasons we have discussed many times in previous threads. I believe Ezekiel's Temple is a temple here on earth during the millennium.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I'm not sure those with the new "spiritual body" will actually need to eat - to maintain life. 

If we are to be like Christ was after His resurrection, we still may need to eat; or at least, we will still enjoy eating.  Jesus said He would once again drink the fruit of the vine with the Apostles in heaven. So why not enjoy a little fish with it?

[8thdaypriest]

18 hours ago, JoeMo said:

You and I have disagreed on this before.  I believe the millennium will be here on earth for reasons we have discussed many times in previous threads. I believe Ezekiel's Temple is a temple here on earth during the millennium.

I believe Ezekiel's Temple will be the Temple of the 8th millennium, for "the rest of the dead". 

[8thdaypriest]

If "the priesthood" was the only thing "changed" in the Torah, what about all the other laws?  There are other commands in the Torah, that didn't get carried over.  What about the command not to trim beards? 

Leviticus 19:27 `You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.

I don't see many Christians sporting full beards.  I realize the command not to "trim the edges" was a command not to look like Babylonians or Egyptians (narrow trimmed beards were their style), but could it also have been a command not to look like women?

[stinsonmarri]

On 8/18/2019 at 6:46 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

I can't agree that the weekly cycle, monthly cycle - from creation, "will become irrelevant". 

If I read it right, WITHIN THE HOLY CITY there is constant light.  So no sun/moon day/night.  Everywhere outside the city, there will be cycles of day and night.  The new moon will be visible, as will the full moon for the Feasts of Passover and Sakkot. 

Isaiah 66:23 "From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD. (NIV)

When this earth was created, the LORD called it "very good".  It turned on its axis.  The sun, the moon, the stars, were all part of the "very good" creation.  It appears the "new earth" will involve most of the same bodies. 

When will we stop calling the Holy Convocations feast days?

Feast day: c. 1200, "secular celebration with feasting and entertainment" (often held on a church holiday); c. 1300, "religious anniversary characterized by rejoicing" (rather than fasting), from Old French feste"religious festival, holy day; holiday; market, fair; noise, racket; jest, fun" (12c., Modern French fête), from Vulgar Latin *festa (fem. singular; also source of Italian festa, Spanish fiesta), from Latin festa"holidays, feasts, festal banquets." 

feast (v.)

c. 1300, "partake of a feast," from Old French fester "to feast, make merry; observe (a holiday)" (Modern French fêter), from feste "religious festival" (see feast (n.)). Related: Feasted; feasting.

The word feast was not used during the time of IsraEL! The Phonecians/Hebrews (Afroasiatic Language), the word is  mô‛êd and it means; (H3259); properly an appointment, that is, a fixed time. It is not an abundance of overeating! That is nonsense shame on us! You can look at the word and know what it means. The day is not a meal, what they had on the day was a meal. The meal Israel had was only on one evening the night before the day and it was not an abundant supper. It was eating roasted lamb, bitter herb and unleavened bread. YAHSHUA changed the meal to only unleavened bread and wine that was not fermented still once a year! Paul did it after MESSIAH return to Heaven it is in Acts! 

So all of the Appointed Times was called Holy Convocations including the Sabbath. They were not all called the Sabbath. Only one was called our sabbath, another called shabbâthôn, which means a special occasion day and not a Sabbath! If you notice the word "the," means specific and it is always used for the seventh day of the week only! Paul said your meat (bread) and drank (wine) for YAHWEH'S meal that YAHSHUA changed! New Moon (the Calendar of YAHWEH and worship was to be held once a month at evening and every week on Wed or Tues nites.), Holy Days were all the ones YAHWEH stated emphatically that they were HIS and not any earthly being! Prove that is was only for the Hebrews anyone? And finally the Sabbath (days was put in it is not in the original text). These are a shadow of things to come and you should know that these Appointed times all deal with Salvation and the sacrifices in the past were done every day including the Sabbath. Matter fact more animals were killed on the Sabbath then the other Holy Days and every day. I suggest that you read the Leviticus Outline in the SDA Commentary! If you can't find it I have it on Logos!

We need to study and stop saying pagan words. We also today observe a Catholic Calendar call the Gregorian Calendar. Why? The road is narrow that you must follow and broad following all of the pagan doctrines brought in by the Catholic Church. To who do you serve is my question? What law are you under? If you break the Commandments you are under the Law of THE MOST HIGH! The facts are clear! The choice is yours!

Happy Sabbath and be blessed!

 

[Ron Amnsn]

The theory that God's laws can be divided in to man-made categories called "ceremonial" and "moral" is not a Biblical theory.  It is just a man-made theory that some people superimpose over the Word of God.  Scripture does not make use of those man-made categories, nor does Scripture even hint that such categories might be legitimate.  There is no method taught in Scripture that tells us how one might distinguish between "moral" or "ceremonial" laws nor do the Scriptures suggest that such categories might be necessary for any reason.  When YHWH gave the time-span for how long some of the so-called "ceremonial laws" should be obeyed, YHWH said those instructions were to be followed throughout the generations of the Israelites -- a time-span that has not yet ended.

[8thdaypriest]

Welcome back Ron! 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/31/2019 at 1:00 AM, stinsonmarri said:

That is nonsense shame on us!

Moralizing again stinsonmarri? 

I think everyone here knows that  "Feasts of the LORD" used in most English translations, means "appointed times" for "holy convocations".  I'm not going to say "Shame" on the translators of every English version.  Some of those translators were executed for their work. 

CJB  Leviticus 23:2 "Tell the people of Isra'el: 'The designated times of ADONAI which you are to proclaim as holy convocations are my designated times'".

[stinsonmarri]

9 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Moralizing again stinsonmarri? 

I think everyone here knows that  "Feasts of the LORD" used in most English translations, means "appointed times" for "holy convocations".  I'm not going to say "Shame" on the translators of every English version.  Some of those translators were executed for their work. 

CJB  Leviticus 23:2 "Tell the people of Isra'el: 'The designated times of ADONAI which you are to proclaim as holy convocations are my designated times'".

Judging me again Rachel? I already knew you have stated that you observe the Holy Convocations, but there are others on this forum besides you and I! Feast do not mean Appointed Time!

The origin of the word 'festival' can be traced to the Latin 'festa' meaning ‘a religious holiday’. The adjective connected with 'festa' was 'festivalis', and that word came into English, via French, as the adjective 'festival' (‘relating to a religious feast’). Days that were celebrated as religious feasts were ‘festival’ days. Eventually, the adjective became a noun, as people stopped talking about ‘festival days’ and shortened this to ‘festivals.

We can even trace 'festa' back to two older Latin words: it was originally related to 'fanum' (‘temple’) and 'feriae' (‘rituals’). So although we now often associate festivals with secular culture, their origins lie very much in the religious sphere. Collins: Browse the English Dictionary

“The festive consumption of food and drink was an important social ritual in the Roman world. Known in general terms as the convivium (Latin: "living together"), or banquet, the Romans also distinguished between specific types of gatherings, such as the peplum (public feast), the cena (dinner, normally eaten in the mid-afternoon), and the comissatio (drinking party). Public banquets, such as the civic feasts offered for all of the inhabitants of a city, often accommodated large numbers of diners. Katharine Raff, Metropolitan Museum of Art

All feriae publicae were generally observed by prayers, sacrifices, and visits to temples; in addition, the feriae stativae and feriae conceptive usually included feasts. After the official recognition of Christianity, Christian holidays were substituted for the old system of feriae. Encyclopedia Britannica 

As you can see that the word feast is traced back to the Romans and adopted by all of the Christian's rituals of worship.

But conclude that everyone is aware of this, I feel you are stretching don't you think way to much! So you know everyone knows this and are aware of it?

I provided information where the word derived from Rome and nothing indicated that they understood the Appointed Times!  The Hebrews never used word feast and it also would not make sense. They had one meal known as the passover and it was to be eaten to start the Holy Convocation of Unleavened Bread. Matt 26: 17; Mark 14:12;  Luke 22:1, 7 It was changed by YAHSHUA and a New Covenant concerning the meal was introduced also what was eaten and drank with the New Covenant. The passover meal was part of a roasted lamb, bitters and unleavened bread. No drink was mention at this meal. YAHSHUA'S Meal was even less; unleavened bread and a drink of new wine! Luke 22:16-20

The passover meal was to point to THE MESSIAH becoming our PASSOVER. This took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and not on the tree! Luke 22:15  When HE died on the tree, HE was the burnt offering! Gen 22:2, 7, 13; Ex 29:42; John 1:29, 36; Act 8:32; 1Peter 1:19; Rev 5:6, 8, 12, 13

Paul stated clearly that YAHSHUA had become our PASSOVER. 1 Corth 5:6-8 The Corinthians were taken the YAHSHUA'S supper and the word feast is used. When looking up the word to its root, it states of uncertain affinity. Which is true the word is not related to the Hebrew word Appointed Set Time! YAHSHUA'S supper points to HIS coming and the final meal at the welcome table.

Now why would this word feast be used for the rest of YAHWEH'S Holy Convocation? The reason that you state, I am sorry does to relate because these days no meal were mention. However the Romans celebrated with a heavy and indulgence banquet at all of their annual feast days it was the center of their celebration. It also became the center of the Christian celebration as well. Saturnalia was a week celebration in December and the Catholic Church move the so call nativity from January 6th to December 25th which all their feast day deal with over eating especially a lot of unclean flesh, alcohol, sweets you name it!

I will not only say shame on each version but truly outright lies and Bible Scholars know it and states it without shame! You just don't seem to know that!

They have historical and religiously written that they knew that the Romans was where the feast day originated and they also state that the Christians adopted a lot of the pagan Roman and Greek religious rite and celebration. Exactly what the Bible said they would think to change HIS TIME (Appointed Set Times), and Law!

Standing for the right and for truth is something I am not ashamed of because it points to THE ALMIGHTY ONES and my love and obedience to THE FATHER!

No one said that all the writers knew all the truth and those were executed, then YAHSHUA knows who they were and he looked over their ignorance and saw their love for HIM. However, there were many things that some knew and covered it up, even more so today, like I said to you before because of prejudice. That also is recorded in Heaven as well. All truth must be revealed, it is all of the Bible that must be understood and not interpreted that's the problem! The Bible made it clear not to add or subtract from it! That has not been heeded and things have been hidden and many words are not correct.  Gen 9:27 enlarged (this word  does not mean what you think, the Hebrew word is totally different in spelling and meaning. The true word enlarge in Hebrew is totally different and is used in alot places in the OT and spell the same in the other places except the verse above); hell, easter, feast, man are just a few.

Everyone should research and do like the Bereans! I present the information it is up to each individual to make up in their own mind what they will accept it or not! I leave it to them and THE HOLY SPIRIT who will lead all of us to the truth of the entire Bible!

Blessings Rachel!

[JoeMo]

On 9/2/2019 at 11:39 AM, stinsonmarri said:

The origin of the word 'festival' can be traced to the Latin 'festa' meaning ‘a religious holiday’...

This is all very interesting, but I don't think it's really important (to me at least).  I'm still good with calling the "holy convocations" feasts and festivals.I don't think its a sin.

Words change meanings over the years.  Party was never a verb until recently.  Gay used to mean happy and fun.

[Gustave]

On 8/22/2019 at 11:09 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

For violent pagan head-hunting natives in the jungles, "might makes right".  "Right" is what he can do without too serious pay-back.  They do steal (even wives and other tribes children).  They do lie and murder.   So no - they do not "do the things of the law" instinctively.

Maybe they avoid eating brightly colored frogs, rather than shrimp or pork.  They have made the connection from those poisonous creatures, because it happens fast.  They have not yet made the connection from illness to shrimp or pork because it can happen more slowly. 

The dietary laws the LORD commanded for Israel, were for their HEALTH. 

That's an outlier 8thday and you know that. If I used the same logic I would say everyone in the world followed Jesus because of John 12, 19.  The "THINGS OF THE LAW" spoken of are MORAL or Natural Law - what the Holy Spirit commands an individual to do / not do. 

The dietary laws were to keep Israel SEPARATED from the other Nations 8thday - it has nothing to do with health. 

The eating of Chicken or fowl in general has killed far more people than all the foods you classify as unclean combined together. 

I realize it sounds more punchy and impressive to claim the food law were health driven but this is nothing more than a convenient fiction.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The idea that the dietary laws were intended to keep Israel separate from the other nations is worthy of consideration.  However, acceptance of that idea does not exclude other considerations.  Pagan worship issues could be a consideration.   [NOTE:   I am not saying that such is.  I am simply suggesting that it could be an issue.]  In addition, health could be an issue sometimes.  It may not be the only issue and it may not apply to every aspect of the issues.  So, I agree that Gustave has a point on some of what he has stated.  However, I will suggest that he has overstated his point, beyond what is reasonable.  Often when we think that we have a point to be made, we overstate it.

 

[JoeMo]

I did a search for the safest and most dangerous meats to eat.  According to data, chicken sickens more people than any other meat, followed closely by ground beef.  Strange as it sounds, pork was rated one of the safest meats to eat.

[8thdaypriest]

5 hours ago, Gustave said:

The eating of Chicken or fowl in general has killed far more people than all the foods you classify as unclean combined together. 

I realize it sounds more punchy and impressive to claim the food law were health driven but this is nothing more than a convenient fiction.

And you know just what "sickened more people" anciently - as nomads in a Middle Eastern desert?

[8thdaypriest]

4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

pork was rated one of the safest meats to eat.

Only if cooked to very high temp, which renders it not as tasty. 

I can't remember which issue of "Nutrition Action" magazine had a good article with lots of tables, etc. about this.  They dissed most meats.  Sited studies on grilled meats being linked to cancers. 

Was thinking about the ancient sacrifices, and the priests.  Those priests would have eaten meat frequently - mostly lamb and goat meat, because they got a portion of most sacrifices.  Chickens were not allowed in Jerusalem.  They were afraid they would scratch up something "unclean".  Chickens are not described as ever sacrificed. 

[Gustave]

18 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

And you know just what "sickened more people" anciently - as nomads in a Middle Eastern desert?

I don’t.

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/27/2019 at 3:18 PM, JoeMo said:

It's not simple.  There are robust Biblical arguments to support both sides.  Assuming I'm in the Kingdom (which I do assume), I'm okay with either scenario.  I just wanna be in the Kingdom.

Some people think we will all be vegetarians in heaven as well.  If so, why are fishermen casting their nets into the Dead Sea and the River of Life flowing from underneath the Temple?  I don't think it's a "catch and release" program.

"Then he led me back to the bank of the river.  When I arrived there, I saw a great number of trees on each side of the river.  He said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, where it enters the Dead Sea. When it empties into the sea, the salty water there becomes fresh. Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live.  Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets." (Ezek: 47:6-10)

Could these be "fishers of men" ? 

[JoeMo]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets."

There's nothing in the context that hints at that.  They are catching fish - probably to eat.I looked, but couldn't find the verse that says something like "the day is coming when one man will not need to say to another 'come meet the Lord, because everyone will know Him."

[8thdaypriest]

20 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

There's nothing in the context that hints at that.  They are catching fish - probably to eat.I looked, but couldn't find the verse that says something like "the day is coming when one man will not need to say to another 'come meet the Lord, because everyone will know Him."

KJV  Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Jeremiah 31:34

That's exactly the verse I was looking for.  Thanks!