Arkanjel said:
Ok, before this goes too much further, the history of the early church needs to come to the foreground. What was the early church like? Why did things happen the way they did?
The first 400 years, a history of misconceptions of the Torah
Please read this, it will be enlightening I assure you.
Well to start, this quote troubles me:
“Many attempt to say Sha’ul’s (Paul’s) teachings superceeded Yeshua’s (Jesus’s), but can the servant superceed the Master, G-d Himself in the flesh? To borrow from Sha’ul, G-d Forbid!”
I’m sure we both agree with 2 Tim. 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” The Berkowitz’ seem to assert that the Scriptures penned by Paul are somehow “beneath” the teachings of Jesus. The reality is, the Bible, including the 13 books penned by Paul are God’s inspired, infallible Word. Paul’s writings, which were “God breathed” have just as much authority as the Gospels, The Torah, The Prophets, and the Hagiographa. There’s no debating that fact.
It also appears that the Berkowitz’ are not applying proper hermeneutics. It appears that they have also passed over
Peter’s testimony in Acts 15. The key in this text comes when we consider Peter's testimony regarding the debate with the Pharisee-believers, "and He made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles cleansing their hearts through faith.
"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" (Act 15:9-10).
Does that sound like a man encouraging his Jewish brethren to continue in the practice of this futile Law observance? No. And recall that Peter had been entrusted with the Gospel to the circumcised (Gal 2:7). I’d appreciate it if you would address this in your next post. I’d rather not go into refuting the Berkowitz’ entire publication (I’m limited on time today, however I did read the document), but I will address this specific comment:
“For the record, let it be pointedly stated (as we did earlier in this book): Sha'ul chose to uphold the Torah of Moshe. He chose to follow it and to encourage-even teach-other believers in Yeshua to make it their lifestyle. Acts 21:23-26 makes this clear in no uncertain terms.”
There is no question that Paul preached the abrogation of the law of Moses, taught that it was impossible to be justified by it, and therefore we are not bound up any longer to the observance of it.
I have never said that he taught us to forsake Moses—the doctrine he taught did not destroy the law but fulfilled it. He preached Jesus (the end of the law for righteousness), and repentance and faith, in the exercise of which we are to make great use of the law. Where in the Scriptures does Paul encourage or teach others to make the vow he took their lifestyle? This is taking liberty with the text and sidestepping practically everything Paul wrote in the New Testament regarding Gentiles observing the Law.
The bottom line is that there is no mandate for Christians to observe the law. Since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, it has been impossible to fulfill the over 600 commandments under the Law that revolve around the Temple and the Levitical priesthood. There’s no getting around this fact.
It’s important that Acts 25 be read in context and understood as follows:
Paul met with the leaders of the church at Jerusalem and reported to them what God had done among the Gentiles. They were thrilled with the report and glorified the Lord. They reported to him that a rumor was making its rounds among the Christian Jews in Jerusalem (of whom vs. 20 says there were “many thousands,” indicating the gigantic size of the church there at the time) to the effect that he was telling all Jews who were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs of their forefathers.
In order to avoid misunderstanding and such a misrepresentation, Paul submitted himself to a vow (vs. 23) to show them that the charges were nothing and that he himself walked orderly in his own personal life. The leaders then reminded him that, as touching the Gentiles which believed, they would abide by their original decision. Therefore, it becomes obvious that while the church was large and the number of Christian disciples was great at this time in Jerusalem, there was still not yet a clear-cut break with their Jewish heritage. It should be observed, however, that the law is not evil in and of itself, but that it is insufficient to bring a man to salvation.
By retaining allegiance to the moral aspects of the law, these Christian Jews were retaining the good part of their cultural and spiritual heritage, while acknowledging Christ as Lord. After the destruction of the Temple and the subsequent dispersion these Jewish Christians eventually discarded the Jewish distinctions.
The believing Jews would later come to understand that it was unnecessary to retain outward observance of the ceremonies of Judaism, when the Temple no longer existed.
The future nature of the church in general was already being developed in the Gentile churches where Paul’s missionary efforts were bringing about the most significant results.
Here’s a letter written by a Messianic Jew/Christian to an Orthodox Jewish friend regarding observance of the law by Jewish Christians. It is also understood and accepted that Gentiles are excluded. Here’s an excerpt:
In Acts 21, many of those local Jewish believers in Jesus as the Messiah were "all zealous for the Law" (Act 21:20b) so they too may have been of the sect of the Pharisees (although speculative). When Paul agreed to proceed with the four men under the vow and wait until "the sacrifice was offered for each one of them" (Act 21:26) (it never says he himself made the sacrifice, but maybe it is implied; I am not enough of a scholar on the subject to know), it never speaks of his intent for the entire situation. After careful study and pondering (like I said, I found none of these answers in other study texts), and in light of all Paul preached on the subject, I can only conclude that he was appeasing those "zealous for the Law" and bringing calm to the dangerous situation through regarding his brothers higher than himself. As he said in Romans 14:21 "It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles."
My argument corroborates well with what Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all that I might win the more. And to the Jew I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law [!], that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without the law, as without the law, but not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without the law." (I Cor 9:19-21). In all this he clearly states that he himself was not under the Law!
Arkanjel said:
I think I missed where you pointed that out, could you please repost it for me.
Although the early church was no longer bound to a rigid code of laws or Sabbath keeping (Gal. 3:10-11, Col. 2:16), it is believed that the early church probably came to view Sunday as a combined observance of the Sabbath and the resurrection day of Jesus (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2). This day of Christian worship came to be called the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10), a day to fellowship in celebration of the resurrection, to worship, pray and study the Word together. The risen Jesus also appeared to the disciples on two Sundays (Jn 20:19, 26)
Arkanjel said:
Could you please show me the scriptures that tell us to color hard-boiled eggs and hide them for our children to find or to adorn our walls with pictures of rabbits on the anniversary of Jesus' ressurection. Ignorance in this day and age for Christians is a huge factor as to why this stuff still occurs. Assimilating pagan traditions and saying you do them to honor God is really not okay.
Eggs have always been a symbol for the renewal of life (as I’ve shown, eggs are also used during the Seder too). So I assume that you’re saying Jews have also assimilated the pagan tradition of using the egg in their honor and worship of God. See my original point which was God knows the heart of His children and only He is to judge their intentions—not you or me.
It seems this discussion has gotten a little side tracked. In your OP, you stated:
"Observing these feasts does not get you into heaven, only a relationsip with Christ will do that. However someone who does have a close personal relationship with Christ will observe these feasts out of obedience to Christ for telling us to observe them."
Would you please show me where Jesus instructed us to observe the feasts? Also, your original position seemed to indicate that "Easter" was a pagan tradition and I have shown that it is not. Easter, as celebrated by Christians, has always been a Christian tradition with Christian symbolism. Easter has never been about the rabbit and the egg for Christians and for you to assert otherwise is just plain wrong.
Again, hiding easter eggs, that have become a symbol for the renewal of life through Christ's death on the cross makes it no more pagan than the Jews' tradition in using the egg (with the similar symbolism) during the Seder. I don't see how you cannot or will not accept this fact.
I’ve already shown in the Scriptures where the early Church worshipped on Sunday…Constantine merely made the first "Sunday closure law", since it had already been the day Christians worshipped for over 300 years.