…he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease… (Daniel 9:27)

For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim. (Hosea 3:4).

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13).

Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices… Which stood only in… carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands… (Hebrews 9:9-11).

Moses…put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. (2 Corinthians 3:13-14).

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Romans 10:4).

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Galatians 3:23-25).

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross… Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:14, 16-17).

Acts 10:11-16 (ESV) St. Peter's vision.

11 and saw ithe heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common." 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

The scaffolding which was necessary at one time for the people of God has been removed and qualified in the New Testament.

For Jesus touched and healed lepers. The ceremonial law said not to touch lepers. A sign that those laws were now void. And how we have antibiotics and anti-viral medicines.

Jesus didn't rebuke the woman with the issue of blood for touching the hem of his garment. She wasn't supposed to do that according to the ceremonial law. She was healed as a sign that those laws were now void.

Matthew 27:52 states that the curtain in the temple was torn in two.

First off, scripture does not call anything you've listed as a ceremonial law. It can't. Because there is no such description anywhere in scripture.

But from your list, I'll take it you think the temple services and sacrifices are declared by you as ceremonial laws, for a start. And because you added Acts 10, I think you consider the food laws ceremonial as well. And the lady touched Yeshua's fringe, which was surely the tzitzit given in Numbers 15:38, so you're calling that ceremonial as well. That's enough of a list to start considering as your ceremonial laws to be abolished.

Your first scripture reference is to Daniel 9:27, where the Anti-Christ cuts off the temple services for a time that was fulfilled 167BC to 165BC. This was only temporary, and the temple services were resumed by God's grace and Paul and all the Apostles in Jerusalem agreed it was a righteous thing to make sacrifices in the temple in Acts 21:26, but that's really just a side note. However, it appears your point is that because the Anti-Christ desires to stop Elohim's sacrifices, then we also aught to desire to stop Elohim's sacrifices as our doctrine? You are suggesting out doctrine ought to be to help the Anti-Christ complete his work? The Anti-Christ didn't put and end to the tzitzit of Numbers 15:38, but you are saying we should banish such things as "ceremonial" in continuing support of the Anti-Christ's desires? What a horrible doctrine! Your doctrine is the same doctrine as Anti-Christ!

(To be fair, it's not just your doctrine, but the doctrine of the vast majority of Christianity. But the Torah predicts Yeshua's bride would go off into paganism such as this, so it shouldn't be as surprising as it seems.)

Even if Yeshua hadn't opposed such nullification of the Law, it would seem self-evident that we don't want to do the work of the Anti-Christ. Yeshua said He did not come to abolish even the least of the Commandments and that anyone who teaches abolishing the least of the commandments will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But what Yeshua condemns, you celebrate as your doctrine. May it never be!

Again, Yeshua says in Matthew 23:23 that you should follow all the weightier matters of the law (Moral for you?) WITHOUT ignoring the other (ceremonial for you?). I submit to you that any law you want to consider abolished; no matter how trivial; no matter it be called ceremonial by you, is a clear contradiction to Yeahua's teaching that makes Him out to be a liar and a hypocrite.

All the other scriptures you've listed also have plausible interpretations that are consistent with Yeshau's perfect law keeping and His own Word to that effect. If such plausible interpretations exist, wouldn't those be your preferred interpretations? But Christianity has already decided it want's to go in the direction of paganism apart from Elohim's laws, so they twist the scriptures and run with them in the direction they have already decided they want to go. 2 Peter 3:16 says believers in his day were already twisting Paul's epistles to their own destruction by being "unlearned". Unlearned in Calculus? Unlearned in accounting? No. Unlearned in Elohim's Torah; His Laws, His scripture. The evil lying doctrine that Paul taught against keeping the Law was refuted emphatically in Acts 21:24 with righteous sacrifices in the temple, but that lie is still around and has sadly become Christian doctrine such as you are presenting.

How is it possible that so many people can't see the clear directions of Elohim's Word? It's as if an evil spirit has gone out into the world to blind all mankind from the simple truth of God's Word. Come out of her my people.

Is Yeshua a priest after the order of Aaron or Melchizedek?

Neither is the word Trinity found in the Bible, which is the high point of all revelation in Matthew 28.

Neither is the term Messianic Jew. All Christians are Jews.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Is Yeshua a priest after the order of Aaron or Melchizedek?

---

Exactly. Jesus overturns the decision of Aaron's priesthood confirmed in the letter to the Hebrews.

Romans 15:16 (ESV)

"…to be a MINISTER of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the PRIESTLY service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

See how minister and priest are interchangeable?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Neither is the word Trinity found in the Bible, which is the high point of all revelation in Matthew 28.

Neither is the term Messianic Jew. All Christians are Jews.

---

I don't believe in the complete description of the Trinity as stated by the originating source of the Catholic Catechism, because there's a lot of man-made description in there that doesn't come directly from scripture, but that is a Red Herring fallacy of misdirection that doesn't address even the first point. I'm willing to work with you, if you are honest enough to take them one at a time, without shotgun blasting other scriptures that are not directly related to the point being discussed.

To that end, let's go back to your first scripture of Daniel 9:27 and work through that first before moving on to others. Please explain how your doctrine and desire to abolish the temple sacrifices is not making your doctrine the same as the Anti-Christ's desires.

Jesus was speaking to the generation in attendance hearing him prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of Herod's temple would occur before that generation passed away (Matthew 24).

In fact, the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70Ad.
Jesus was around 30-33 when he prophesied this would happen.

The Christians in Israel remembered Jesus' prophecy that their generation would see fulfilled.
The Romans surrounded the northern part of Israel and then left. The Jewish Christians left and fled out of their into what was known Asia Minor. When the Romans came back, they slaughtered and destroyed the temple. The Zionist got humbled by God or should have been if they didn't die.

And what you claim is some kind of antinomianism in our Reformed theology is way way way uniformed.

Please read through the Death, Hell, and the Grave in which I am accused of being a legalist for supporting the continuation of God's holy law in Matthew chapter 5.

Win At Life said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Neither is the word Trinity found in the Bible, which is the high point of all revelation in Matthew 28.

Neither is the term Messianic Jew. All Christians are Jews.

---

I don't believe in the complete description of the Trinity as stated by the originating source of the Catholic Catechism, because there's a lot of man-made description in there that doesn't come directly from scripture, but that is a Red Herring fallacy of misdirection that doesn't address even the first point. I'm willing to work with you, if you are honest enough to take them one at a time, without shotgun blasting other scriptures that are not directly related to the point being discussed.

To that end, let's go back to your first scripture of Daniel 9:27 and work through that first before moving on to others. Please explain how your doctrine and desire to abolish the temple sacrifices is not making your doctrine the same as the Anti-Christ's desires.

---

Yes and many Messianic Rabbis deny the deity of Christ and or the full atonement of sins as a result.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Win At Life said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Neither is the word Trinity found in the Bible, which is the high point of all revelation in Matthew 28.

Neither is the term Messianic Jew. All Christians are Jews.

---

I don't believe in the complete description of the Trinity as stated by the originating source of the Catholic Catechism, because there's a lot of man-made description in there that doesn't come directly from scripture, but that is a Red Herring fallacy of misdirection that doesn't address even the first point. I'm willing to work with you, if you are honest enough to take them one at a time, without shotgun blasting other scriptures that are not directly related to the point being discussed.

To that end, let's go back to your first scripture of Daniel 9:27 and work through that first before moving on to others. Please explain how your doctrine and desire to abolish the temple sacrifices is not making your doctrine the same as the Anti-Christ's desires.

---

Yes and many Messianic Rabbis deny the deity of Christ and or the full atonement of sins as a result.

---

I can't speak for what many Messianic Rabbis say, because I'm not one of them and that is another Red Herring misdirection argument fallacy again. There are lots of things "others" say that are in contradiction to scripture, so let's avoid going off into those and stay on the point of what scripture actually says about the topic of this thread.

So do you hold to a limited atonement for God's people who will respond or does the atonement save everyone?

Moreover, do you believe that Jesus was both fully man and fully God in order to complete his atoning work on the cross and resurrection?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

So do you hold to a limited atonement for God's people who will respond or does the atonement save everyone?

Moreover, do you believe that Jesus was both fully man and fully God in order to complete his atoning work on the cross and resurrection?

---

Not sure about those, but let's stay on the topic at hand.

Yep. Just what I thought and I went to the root of the issue.

Do you remember the Jewish religious leaders complaining that Jesus' disciples weren't going through the enormous development of how to wash one's hands before they ate?

Psalm 86:9 (ESV)

"All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name."

And how exactly are the nations going to come and worship before the Lord?

1% in the world
2% in the US

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Jesus was speaking to the generation in attendance hearing him prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of Herod's temple would occur before that generation passed away (Matthew 24).

In fact, the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70Ad.
Jesus was around 30-33 when he prophesied this would happen.

The Christians in Israel remembered Jesus' prophecy that their generation would see fulfilled.
The Romans surrounded the northern part of Israel and then left. The Jewish Christians left and fled out of their into what was known Asia Minor. When the Romans came back, they slaughtered and destroyed the temple. The Zionist got humbled by God or should have been if they didn't die.

And what you claim is some kind of antinomianism in our Reformed theology is way way way uniformed.

Please read through the Death, Hell, and the Grave in which I am accused of being a legalist for supporting the continuation of God's holy law in Matthew chapter 5.

---

Trying to stay on point here: Is this your response to Daniel 9:27, being our directive to abolish laws not associated with the temple? Because I'm not getting that understanding from this response at all.

Dear sir, God destroyed the 1st Temple by using the Babylonians aggression.
In God's divine providence, they could have just taken people like Daniel into exile without destroying the temple.

And Daniel also foreshadows that the temple is not where God will ultimately build his church (ecclesia meaning gathering not too different from the word synagogue).
For in light of the temple being destroyed burnt offerings suspended, Daniel says these things.

And is Jesus the antichrist for ordaining with the Father that the 2nd temple be destroyed?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Dear sir, God destroyed the 1st Temple by using the Babylonians aggression.
In God's divine providence, they could have just taken people like Daniel into exile without destroying the temple.

And Daniel also foreshadows that the temple is not where God will ultimately build his church (ecclesia meaning gathering not too different from the word synagogue).
For in light of the temple being destroyed burnt offerings suspended, Daniel says these things.

And is Jesus the antichrist for ordaining with the Father that the 2nd temple be destroyed?

---

That's a lot of stated facts that I don't necesaryl disagree with for the moment, but am still struggling to understand the meaning of in relation to ceremonial laws. So, the point of God destroying the temple was for us to understand that other laws such as wearing the tassels commanded in Numbers 15:38 should also be abandoned?

My Priest wears a robe and a type of tassel.

Reformed Presbyterians sometimes wear black academic robes.

I have no problem with a visual signal of those of whom are set apart.

But it's really a liberty of conscious issue to me. Not worth arguing about. Maybe they wear a 5K suit that sets them apart? Hahaha.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

My Priest wears has a robe and a type of tassel.

Reformed Presbyterians sometimes wear black academic robes.

I have no problem with a visual signal of those of whom are set apart.

But it's really a liberty of conscious issue to me. Not worth arguing about. Maybe they wear a 5K suit that sets them apart? Hahaha.

---

I get that you personally feel, meh, take it leave it about the commandment to wear the tzitzit. And that any tassel works for you, even if it does not have the cord of blue like the commandment says. And the truth is, I don't always wear the tzitzit either. But let's not look to ourselves for how we feel about the commandment, or how we keep it, because we are not the standard by which righteousness is judged. Elohim's Word is the standard of righteousness. Has Elohim, in His Word,made a commandment to stop following this ceremonial commandment?

Did Jesus or the Apostle Paul wear blue tassels?

Is this close enough in the spirit of the wisdom?

Notice the white robe as physical-Jewish priests wore…

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Did Jesus or the Apostle Paul wear blue tassels?

---

If Jesus refused to wear blue tassels, would He have been the perfect Law
keeper and sinless sacrifice for our transgressions?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Is this close enough in the spirit of the wisdom?

Notice the white robe as physical-Jewish priests wore…

---

I've got a white robe from a Matisyahu concert, but neither that, nor the one you posted are the same as those the scripture prescribe for YHWH's temple priesthood. But what's your point about this?

My point is that Christ fulfilled these things and none of your suggestions on ordinances of the ceremony law are of importance to the inspired writers of the New Testament.

You're not even a Christian. You've already rejected the creeds which reflect the Scriptures.

You're either a physical-Jew, a skeptic, or a Muslim.

Here are some things wrong with Messianic Judaism.

"(the use of eggs, bread broken in three pieces and hidden in cloth, etc.). These customs arose after the birth of the church, and do not preserve Old Testament ritual at all. Moreover, to try to place a Christian interpretation on the various features of these rituals is most misguided and artificial. Clever as such presentations are, they are grossly misleading."

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/reading/article.cgi?ID=1

But I find nothing wrong with communities of the church following the Hebrew Bible traditions and feasts of our ancestors. So long as the believe in the deity of Christ…
And in order to do that Messianic Jews must hold to the historic Trinity.

What I am is not of any great importance. God's scripture is what's important. But I am skeptical about man's doctrine that create contradictions in scripture. There are actually many things we agree on, like the inspiration of the scripture, the divinity of Yeshua, His keeping the Law perfectly without sin and the Apostles not perverting His Gospel in their Epistles. But it's not interesting to discuss things we agree with, so we focus on the differences. And I'm willing to listen to reason that makes sense, or I wouldn't be where I am now. If you can explain scripture to me in a non-contradictory fashion that makes sense, then I'll accept that.

To that end, let's make sense of your assertion that "Christ fulfilled these things" so some of the Laws (called ceremonial by you) have been abolished for us to follow. By saying this, I believe you are paraphrasing Yeshua's statement in Matthew 5:17.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to _____"

I left the last word blank for the moment, because that seems to be troublesome for translations. Based on what Yeshua has stated, we don't know for sure what the definition of this final word should be. But we know only one thing that it CANNOT be; that being to "abolish", void, annul, etc. Shockingly that is the ONLY definition you are insisting it must be. Your translation of this verse would read:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to abolish"

That is an absurd interpretation. The meaning of the Greek word in that spot is to fill up, to make full; that is to make our understanding completely full. So, a translation of this from Greek to English might be:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fill up your understanding"

Or more directly:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fill full"

But if we want to stay to a word for word translation as much as possible, we need to find a single English word that means to fill full. Perhaps the English word "expound" would be a good fit.
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to expound"

However, with word-for-word constraint the English word "fulfill" is not a horrible choice, especially given the filling up connotation of the original Greek. However, given the way "fulfill" is also used in English related to past prophecies that have already taken place and have no direct future fulfillment for us to look towards (although many have repeating themes we should not ignore), perhaps it's not the best word to use. But then again, what rational English speaker would presume the word "fulfill" as used in Matthew 5:17 could mean "abolished", because Yeshua clearly states that can't be the meaning in that very verse (twice no less!)?

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfil"

Certainly, we are safe in using the English word "fulfill" to end this sentence without the entire English word believing "fulfilled" means "abolished", aren't we? Is there any possible way this could be misunderstood as meaning abolished? They would have to have eyes but not be able to see. They would have to have ears, but not be able to hear. They would have to have minds, but not be able to understand.

But even so, to be more certain, just 2 verses later (in the same train of thought), Yeshua says whoever teaches annulling even the least of the commandments is least in the kingdom of heaven. Certainly, now, nobody can misunderstand Matthew 5:17-19, can the? The only way this could be misunderstood as abolishing even the least of the Law is if some great evil spirit would go out and deceive mankind from something so obvious. Has there been an evil spirit gone out into the world to deceive mankind from the simple truth of God's Word?

I fine with all of that. Thank you.

The meticulous hand washings, the dietary laws, and other distinguishing requirements from the pagans are liberty of conscience issues because Jesus and St. Peter overrule them as requirements. I will never get a tattoo, for instance. I'm not marking myself like a slave. But I'm not going to judge anyone in food or drink type applications. I think it falls under those categories.

And Hebrews describes that the blood of bulls and goats will not atone for sins. Jesus has in that sense fulfilled in in a once and for all times completion. And so there are many examples of the ceremonial law of cleansing and dietary laws which are types and shadows. For they foreshadow something greater. So if you want to follow all the ceremonial law, then you of course must be for the third temple.

There are several problems with that ideology.
For one, Christ sacrifice is once and for all done.

Next, there isn't a single prophecy in the Hebrew Bible or New Testament that prophecies to build a 3rd temple.

And whatever symbolism the temple that the anti-Christ will take a seat in should definitely not be encouraged, prayed for , nor advocated for its building.

Lastly, there is no such thing as two peoples of God. And if you doubt that then interact with the texts and small commentary on them on the "What is a Jew? And what is Israel in the New Covenant" thread.

But I will state this. Jews in the Old Testament were saved just like we are today namely by grace through faith.

Do you actually believe that (if Jews didn't believe in the godforsaken Talmud) that physical- Jews can receive salvation by the works of the law?

But Christians receive salvation by grace through faith?

There are not two peoples of God. Interact with me on the other thread, please?

Next, Christ had to be fully human and fully God simultaneously in order for the atonement to cover those whom he has chosen as his new people, no?

You keep couching Jewish practices in Christian theological terms. I guess it works for Messianics, but Jews aren't worried about grace and salvation in the same sense as Christians.

I believe in the full authority of both the civil and moral law.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I fine with all of that. Thank you.

The meticulous hand washings, the dietary laws, and other distinguishing requirements from the pagans are liberty of conscience issues because Jesus and St. Peter overrule them as requirements. I

---

You say you are fine with the proper understanding that Yeshua did not annul even the least of the commandments in Matthew 5:17-19, but then say Jesus and St Peter overrule them as requirements. What? Those statements cannot coexist at the same time in any logical way. If you believe the dietary laws (Mostly Leviticus 11) have been annulled, then Yeshua is a liar and a hypocrite in Matthew 5:17-19. Worse yet, that would make Yeshua a sinner against the Law in Deuteronomy 4:2 that say you cannot take away anything from the Law. If Yeshua sinned by taking away Laws, then He did not keep the Law perfectly, cannot be our perfect sin sacrifice, we remain in our sins, and all is lost. May it never be!

You doctrine is illogical nonsense. And it's that same illogical nonsense that drove me to accept the logic of Yeshua's perfect Law keeping that by the Law itself and His own words has not abolished even the least of the commandments. It's really that simple. Once you truly accept that Jesus kept the Law perfectly, it's just that simple. No contradictions, unless you insist on creating contradictions with that simple truth that don't actually exist in scripture. But mankind will not accept the simple truth of God's Law and Yeshua's perfect keeping of the Law. The truth is mankind doesn't WANT to follow God's Word. They never have. It's always only been a remnant that have stayed true to God's word; even to this day. Accept God's simple words.

You read like a Muslim.

That's not how the New Testament works. In John 17, Jesus told his disciples (future Apostles) that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.

If all the truth was only in the Gospels, then the Gospel itself in John 17 , declared by Jesus, establishes that these future Apostles will lead the elect into all truth.

All the texts reach back and forth from each
other. But the general rule is based upon a general timeline as well. The Gospels and Epistles interpret the Law and the Prophets. The Epistles interpret the Gospels. All of which are authoritative.

If you reject this as illogical, then you and your pseudo-tradition can have a nice day ripping out all the Epistles and the book of Acts, which is basically Luke Part 2.

And Win at life, just because your pseudo-prophet Muhammad couldn't read Greek or Hebrew to know what the Scriptures taught; doesn't mean that he can descend from heaven and sit in the Temple on your Temple Mount.

For that is what Revelation reveals that the the Antichrist will do. And the Bible was kept in house in that time from being translated into Arabic for the masses.

Next, stop saying that you so-called prophet went to Jerusalem to try to win the ethnic Jews over. He loved sex too much by the way..
For he made up a sorry about his spirit flying to Jerusalem.
Then forced others with the sword to convert.
And I feel bad for Moslems whose ancestors had to submit to this hijacked Christianity or die, or be enslaved, or be taxed heavily, or be made to remain silent about your faith. And yes…I am talking about what your ancestors did to the Eastern Orthodox Church in Arabia.

You are descending into weirdness and using the ad hominem fallacy to attack a Moslem figure that is not even me. You've accused me in three of your post now of being Moslem, which is a bizarre accusation for someone who has professed believing in the divinity of Yeshua and the God-inspired nature of the Bible. Also, it seems as if it's impossible for you to believe that a Christian can think logically, so I must be a Moslem? That's insulting to Christians. Just stop that. If my background is that important to you, then I've spent most of my life as a Baptist. And if labels are also that important to you, then label me a Messianic Torah Keeper. However, none of that changes what God's Word says. Now, come let us reason together an see what the scriptures say.

I will go back to your original post and address Colossians 2:14, 16-17. This is one of your proofs in an attempt to prove certain parts of God's Words have been annulled. And I'll remind you, yet again, that your preferred interpretation of these verses is one that makes Yeshua in Matthew 5:17-19 & 23:23 out to be a liar and a hypocrite and in Deuteronomy 4:2 to be a sinner; an enormous problem for your preferred doctrine that you refuse to address.

Your bias is one of hating God's simple instructions for you and rebellion against doing the simple things He's told you He wants you to do, that He has also said they are not hard for you to do (Deut 30:11). So, you've already decided to interpret anything you can out of context to support and run with it in that directional bias that you've already decided to go, while ignoring contradictions and other plausible interpretations that have no such contradictions. I have a bias too. I'll readily admit that. My bias is that I love God's instructions in His Word and don't believe He's horribly contradicted himself in His inspired Bible.

Quote:

---

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross… Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:14, 16-17).

---

Your bias is that you want Colossians 2:14 to be a blotting out of Laws that you have already told God you don't want to keep. But the word "Law" (Greek nomos) is nowhere in Colossians 2:14-7. Your bias assumes it must be there to make it say what you want it to say and not what it actually says. The written record that is against us is the list of our sins. You deserve eternal death for that list of sins that stand against you. But it is that list, or better yet, the punishment we deserve for those sins that has been taken off us and nailed to Yeshua on His cross. Hallelu-YAH!

As for the remainder, you have again used your hate for God's simple instructions to make is say something that's exactly the opposite of what it says. The congregation of Colossians was an entirely Gentile (previously pagan) group of people who had recently converted out of the pagan society that surrounded them. By converting, you of course stop doing the things of your old pagan religion and start doing the things of the new Jewish based religion like keeping Sabbath, eating clean foods and celebrating the Biblical festivals like Passover instead of the pagan Spring fertility rituals. Try following God's appointed times yourself and you will see exactly what the Colossians saw. Your friends and family will criticize you and judge you. They will ask why you are keeping all those weird "Jewish" festivals. "You're not Jewish" they will say. Paul is telling both the Colossians, and you, and all who will listen to ignore those judgmental friends and family. Don't let them judges you. That is, ignore them and keep on keeping Elohim's Word no matter how "weird" the world tells you it is. It is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Elohim's feast are buried with prophetic symbolism that Yeshua brought out of the Spring feasts, and if you keep His fall feast you will live through, and better understand, the prophetic symbolism buried in those about Yeshua's second coming.

And for the shadow - For a brief period in human history, there were men who could look directly on the face of Yeshua. We can't do that now. But if Yeshua was to appear so close to you today, that you could actually see His shadow, would you consider that something to be ignored and dismissed? Would you walk away from Yeshua's very shadow in indifference, or defiance? May it never be! I would run to stand so close to Yeshua that His very shadow falls on me. What a wonderful experience that would be. And Paul say you can have that experience today. How? By keeping His Sabbaths and feasts. Hallelu-YAH! May all of Elohim's children seek the opportunity to rejoice in His Word as He tells you so plainly to do.

It's the same Unitarian argumentation earlier.

Moslems are Unitarians and you are a Unitarian.

That's your position?. Now that helps me out.

If not, then what is your position?

Second, do you hold to all 66 books of the Bible being authoritative?

Do you agree with these verses?

2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)

"16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

And I will go home to check out Colossians with my Greek NT and find why it is translated as law.


And it is recorded that Sunday became the new Sabbath for Christians so they could witness in the Synagogues on Saturday until they were kicked out. And Sunday is resurrection day, no?

I'm at work and it's slow. Sorry for the edits. I'm going back and forth and have finished all my side work and someone else's, too!

More labels. I use a Ryrie NASB study bible since about 1991. I've stated several times I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and you ask me if I believe the Bible when the Bible says all scripture is inspired? Is this bizzarro land? And THOU ART THE MAN who does not believe the Bible is the sole authority, because your belief that Saturday has been replaced by Sunday comes solely from the men of the Catholic Church who claim authority to change God's Word.

https://www.hullquist.com/Bible/bib-ld5.htm

Archbishop Reggio of Calabra spoke on 18 January, 1562. He suggested that Protestantism could be totally discredited by using the very scriptures they embrace and defend as evidence against them. John Eck, the Catholic priest who debated with Martin Luther in 1533, used the same argument: If you Protestants really believe the Bible, and the Bible only, then why don't you keep the Bible Sabbath instead of honoring Sunday, the day Rome chose to replace it?

His speech is recorded in Heinrich Julius Holzmann's Kanon und Tradition , published in Ludwigsburg, Germany, in 1859, p. 263. In the excerpt cited here he observed that...
"The written Word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it! If they do truly hold the scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the scripture throughout! Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church... The doctrine of "scripture and tradition" as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being the judges."
"The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord's day.... These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ's teaching (for He says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the church."
(Archbishop Gaspare de Fosso, quotes from the Council of Trent preceedings in Sacrorum Conciliorum nova amplissima Collectio, 1902, vol. 33, pp. 529,530.)

"It is curious to recall that this observance of Sunday, which is the only principle of Protestantism, not only does not rest upon the Bible, but is in flagrant contradiction with the letter of the Bible requiring the rest of the Sabbath, or Saturday. It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest to Sunday."
(Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, 1868 ed., p. 207.)

"The Catholic Church, ... by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday... Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible."
(Catholic Cardinal James Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, Dec. 23, 1893.)

"You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."
(Catholic Cardinal James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, 1917 ed., pp. 72, 73.)

"If protestants were following the Bible, they would worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."
(Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, letter of Feb. 10, 1920.)

"Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday.... Now the Church instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship."
(Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About, 1927 ed., p. 136.)

"If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday."
(John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 ed., vol. 1, p. 51.)

"The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant, claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh Day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant."
(The Catholic Universe Bulletin, Aug. 14, 1942, p. 4.)

"Since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent. The custom of Sunday observance rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair." (Roman Catholic scholar John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, 1974, p.400,401.)

"We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
(Peter Geiermann, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, 1977, p.50.)

If you follow what your bible says, you will keep the God's Sabbath.