It has been my experience that the answer is no. We all know and understand that HaShem is order, and that all things that truly show His Light and Love are as well. I ask that if you can't follow the simple request placed before you, please don't post on this thread.
Any debate on the Laws of HaShem, goes off the deep end, with passage after passage being posted. In just one post we may find as many as 15 if not more. This is an unproductive way to handle this, or any topic. As it can leave any one wishing to reply, with little option, Leave a post that is pages long, or leave a vague post filled with even more passages and little substance. This is what leads to endless debate with no answers, as well talking in circles.
For this reason, it is always best to look at ONLY ONE PASSAGE at a time. Now once that passage is called up, Both sides must look at it from both sides. i.e. Be ready and willing to argue the points you don't follow.
If the only thing we do is push one side of a topic, we fail to really look at the other side, and in most cases, fail to even hear the other side. So here is my propose, it is open to every one that truly wishes to open their hearts and minds to TRUTH. Not my truth, not your truth, and not your churches truth. Rather BIBLICAL TRUTH.
As almost all study of OT vs NT is centered around the Law of HaShem, (Know here after as TORAH) the first thing that must be found is, "How valid is Torah today?" Not an easy answer for many.
So here we go.
When it comes to Torah, the one passage that comes up more than other is Mat. 5:17. So lets look closely at this passage.
(NLT) Mat 5:17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
(KJ same passage) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
One must always take note of the passage opening. Here we are told not to think that something is Yeshua's reason for coming. From that we are safe to say that anything that follows, (until a change of topic) is what we shouldn't see as coming topass. After all He just THINK NOT, or in my words, (Don't put words in my mouth, or forget the important words I use.)
So let's do a full brake down of this passage. Looking at from both sides.
First we have THINK NOT, or Don't misunderstand. Both give the same thought behind the words. Just tell us not to entertain the idea that Yeshua came to do any of the following. So what is it he didn't come to do?
(KJ ) I am come to destroy the laws or the prophets:
(NLT) I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets.
If we read this passage for what it tells us, rather than what we wish it to say, we find that the Torah, and the Prophets are placed together. From this one should conclude that they work together, and we can not remove one from this passage with any hope of keeping the whole context of the passage.
Also, if we remove any part of this, then apply the new contextual meaning to the full passage, as well as any that may follow, do we not teach a lie, based on what we hope is true? SO any teaching on this passage must hold true to both Torah and prophets. With this understanding, one must walk carefully. If we say Yeshua removed the Law, nailed it to the cross, and so on, We also say that He has removed the prophecies that have not been fulfilled. Like His second coming, Judgment of all man kind, and many others.
(KJ) I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(NLT) No, I came to accomplish their purpose
Now the most common word to be pushed by them that stand in opposition to Torah is the word FULFILL. So lets take a look at that word.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fulfill Has this to say.
a : to put into effect : execute He fulfilled his pledge to cut taxes.
b : to meet the requirements of (a business order) Their order for more TVs was promptly fulfilled.
c : to measure up to : satisfy She hasn't yet fulfilled the requirements needed to graduate.
d : to bring to an end she came to install herself and fulfill her time at the house— Willa Cather
2a : to develop the full potentialities of He has a lot of talent, but he hasn't really fulfilled his potential.
b : to convert into reality a sense of the failure of life to fulfill its ultimate expectations— Leslie Rees
3 archaic : to make full : fill her subtle, warm, and golden breath … fulfills him with beatitude— Alfred Tennyson
Now in this we find both sides, we find that it can mean to being to an end, yet we must ask, has it all been brought to an end? Are we wrong to say Yeshua will be coming back? After all He has brought to an end the Prophets, then that would also mean all prophecy has been fulfilled, or removed as they no longer hold meaning. i.e. there is no need for them.
Yet if we now look at this from a more contextual view, we know He must return for the WORD to hold truth. After all if any part of what the WORD tells us is not true, then we place our salvation in the hands of sin. Just saying.
We also know from the fact that Yeshua must come again, we must understand that He is still working to FULFILL scripture.
On the flip side.
At best I can here, so I leave something our please let me know.
This passage is clear that Jesus FULFILLED the Law, nailed it the cross, and removed it. He know that man kind can not live up to it's standards, and that to be held to that standard would leave us all devoid of hope. The passage is clear in that it tells us Jesus removed law. As is clear in your own use of Webster.
“”””””The Catholic Chruch tries to mix pagan worship with the worship of God, christianity with babylonism, the Truth with a lie; But God will not mix with evil. What are we doing when we attempt to "Worship Jesus" with the traditions of Babylon?[ Mark 7:7-9] “”””””””
A direct quote from Is. 29:13-14. One must also look at Deu 12:4 “Do not worship the LORD your God in the way these pagan peoples worship their gods. Follow this up with, Deu 12:30-31, and Jer.10, the full chapter to see the context.
That however is a topic all its own, and will be looked at when we get to the end of the feast. It does however fit in part here. So answer if you will, If a thing has been done for 2000 years, (give or take) and it is the only given to us by the leaders of so many church’s, how can we be held accountable for not knowing the difference. The answer given here would define your stand.
“”””””””””””””Seems we both love puzzles Rain.”””””””””””””
I love them. True. This is a good one I think. Even Sherlock Holmes would have fun with it.
“””””””””I think from what I can gather that you are saying is how awfully obfuscated the truth is throughout history.”””””””””””
That’s about it yes. If one wishes to change history, they mix a little of how they wish it to end up, with what is already seen as fact. Little by little changing the story. Then one day you look up, and the world now sees it the way you wanted. Then that is a new topic, and one we will look at closely later.
Now what about Paul, did he keep Passover after his conversion?
Act 20:6 After the Passover ended, we boarded a ship at Philippi in Macedonia and five days later joined them in Troas, where we stayed a week.
Act 20:7 On the first day of the week, we gathered with the local believers to share in the Lord’s Supper.[fn] Paul was preaching to them, and since he was leaving the next day, he kept talking until midnight.
There you have it, a passage that tells us the sabbath has changed. And taking communion, i.e. the lords supper, has taken the place of passover.
Not so fast my friend, though this text has been used to push this idea, it over looks the historic, and true intent of Paul. You see this most likely is speaking of the Motza'ei-Shabbat, ( departure of Sabbath). It is clear this took place in the evening, as Paul went on to teach until midnight. This passage has also be used to show that the "Lords supper" is to take place on a Sunday. Yet the use of that phrase is more than likely a misunderstanding of the OAT, (Oldest Available Text) It may also be used as the churches way to remove the Jewish teachings, that Yeshua had followed. As was shown in early post, the last supper was the Passover.
Are you saying that Paul kept the Saturday Sabbath and that when the Sabbath had ended at evening, he stayed to preach until midnight because he was departing soon? So the verses are used by some to show that the Sabbath was changed because the Lord's supper was also included that particular day?...and most churches today have communion on Sunday ...right?
Hi Rain, I see you must have been using the New living translation.
I looked up the KJV:
Acts 20:6 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
From the web: In Israel, Passover is the seven-day holiday of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the first and last days celebrated as legal holidays and as holy days involving holiday meals, special prayer services, and abstention from work; the intervening days are known as Chol HaMoed ("Weekdays [of] the Festival").
Just for clarification for others on the forum as to Passover and Unleavened bread.
"""""From the web: In Israel, Passover is the seven-day holiday of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the first and last days celebrated as legal holidays and as holy days involving holiday meals, special prayer services, and abstention from work; the intervening days are known as Chol HaMoed ("Weekdays [of] the Festival").""""""
If we count Passover as a day of the second feast, as many do, Then we have an 8 day feast. As Passover is consist of around 3-4 hours and not a full day. It is often counted with the 7 days of unleavened beard.
I was in hopes you would have seen just what was really done 5 post up from this one. Though I really never said Passover must be kept, or that it is binding on us today. I did place the passage used back into it's historical, and cultural context.
As is done more often than not today, when the western world looks at the Word, we contextualize it into what we place in context with we have been told. Seldom is a passage seen from the life, and world in which it was written. Many times to our dismay, this leads one to working out how to stay with the whole of the Word. Then as is seen in many teaching, that doesn't really matter. If a passage is in conflict with another, it is simply put off as not having anything to do the passage we are looking at,even if both deal with the same subject matter.
Now can you see what I was doing? If so this may help to understand other post on the feast, as well as the Laws of HaShem. If not let me know and I will try to do a bit better job.
Oh yes, I have been saying that for years and just told a friend to ask himself what context it is in and who is the writer or speaker addressing and what group it is for and to remember the NT took place in the first century and involved those saints, etc. I had to unlearn the lies and rightly divide.
