tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post5213854956049308021..comments2024-03-28T16:55:57.201-04:00Comments on AS BEREANS DID: New Moons - What Josephus Says They Were Really DoingMarthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-66243291159105785352015-01-03T20:14:47.267-05:002015-01-03T20:14:47.267-05:00I'm not saying the COGs should start doing fir...I'm not saying the COGs should start doing fires. It's extrabiblical, anyway. But then perhaps they should do something, anything, named in the Old Testament. The sons of Aaron were commanded to blow the silver trumpets. There were sacrifices. There were feasts, which died out later. Sacrifices are obviously out, but what about the other stuff? Surely someone could find a trumpet. <br /><br />Incidentally, this is part of the reason I tend to believe the New Moons (and other elements listed in Colossians 2) are obsolete. We don't have priests to blow trumpets, or to do many other things outlined in the Sinai Covenant. We have totally made up ways to keep the Holy Days, adding stuff, taking away stuff. We have no idea how to keep New Moons, so we just skip them, making up reasons why we don't have to do them. Then we criticize anyone who claims the law has been changed, in spite of the fact that Hebrews 7:12 specifically tells us the law has been changed. In my mind, this, combined with other passages, give weight to the argument that Colossians 2:16-17 tells us these practices foreshadowed Christ and, now that He has come, are obsolete; as opposed to them being as binding as ever. <br /><br />Incidentally, I am wary of reading Isaiah 66:23 as meaning that New Moons will be celebrated after Jesus' return. The language in that passage indicates a perpetual state of worship, not specific worship on these specific days. Yes, they would be worshiping on the days of the New Moon, because they would be worshiping every day. From Sabbath to Sabbath, from New Moon to New Moon. It's inclusive, not setting apart those occasions. Isaiah was an Israelite writing in terms he and other Israelites would understand. It's not a slam dunk either way.<br /><br />I can definitely appreciate your desire to be consistent on these issues. And completely agree with your either-or interpretation. Would that we all take Philippians 3:8 to heart! Blessings to you.Marthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-45194150303043971652015-01-03T20:09:36.178-05:002015-01-03T20:09:36.178-05:00John,
Thanks for reading, and for being so willin...John,<br /><br />Thanks for reading, and for being so willing to search out the scriptures for yourself!<br /><br />I would agree with you that Colossians 2:16-17 appears to be either all or nothing - either all are no longer required or all are still required. The one thing it CAN'T mean is that some of the things listed there are required and some of them are not. Which is exactly what that the mainstream COGs argue. I know of smaller splinters that try to address some of the disparities you mentioned. Some will build a Sukkot at the Feast of Tabernacles (I've seen a few sites do one big one, although not one per family, like Israel did). Some will try to gather together every day in some manner - for meals or Bible study - each day during the Days of Unleavened Bread. Some argue that New Moons should be kept, although they usually flounder in finding a way to do it. Some will plan their monthly Bible study for that day, if it's mid-week. I know a family that was convicted of this for a while and would faithfully go outside and look at the sky. They said, ok, great, we observed (saw) it, now what? They were still at a loss of how to observe (commemorate) it. They gave up this practice after a few months. This didn't even address the issue that it is the New Moon in Jerusalem that the Bible is concerned with - not in Anywhereville, USA. <br /><br />It's my understanding that many in the COGs argue they don't need New Moons because modern science can calculate the New Moon and they can go from there on the Holy Days. Here they make the same mistake I often do - viewing anything that occurred before the 1500's AD together as uneducated scientific darkness. We often think the poor Israelites had to go out and look at the sky because they didn't have modern science. We're beyond that. But Babylonian astronomy was pretty amazing, and long before Christ's day the Jews could pretty well predict when the New Moon would be. This sounds crazy to me, who in 2015 still has trouble operating my TV remote. My hat's off to them. But that strikes a blow against the argument that modern science makes the New Moon unnecessary.<br /><br />Then some COGs will change the argument and say that no one was marking the New Moon anymore by Christ's day, or that they don't know how people marked it. Neither of these is true, as I've shown in this post. Yet not a single COG web site mentions the hilltop fires. I checked. It's not a secret. This practice went on for centuries on a monthly basis. The way Josephus describes these things, it sounds like a collaborative, if not community, effort. To make a fire visible at a relay station 26 miles away, large enough that the whole countryside looked like it was ablaze. This doesn't sound like the work of a lone priest on each hill.<br /><br />After saying no one marked the New Moon by Christ's day, the COGs then assert that the early church randomly started keeping New Moon meals/feasts again, and ascetics condemned them for doing so. I suppose it's possible they randomly started common meals again, but doesn't it make more sense to go with what Josephus himself tells us was going on?<br /><br />Marthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-3830800914018234782015-01-01T22:13:50.662-05:002015-01-01T22:13:50.662-05:00I’ve been reading your posts of late Martha and ha...I’ve been reading your posts of late Martha and have found it both surprising and disappointing how the various churches originating from Herbert Armstrong's ministry claim they're faithful to God and are keeping all of His Law and Holy Days. <br /><br />But, when you experience what is demanded by them over time you come to realise, as you have so rightly pointed out, they're actually no better than other religious institutions that follow man-made traditions. Armstrong's fans have in the past accused other Christians of cherry-picking with the Bible and yet, in truth, they are guilty of the same offence!<br /><br />You looked at Colossians 2:16-17 as an example in the post about New Moons. I understand there is ongoing debate in Christian circles over these verses. <br />1) Some interpret them to mean that all the weekly, monthly and annual holy days are abolished and no longer mandatory.<br />2) Some interpret them to mean the same, but they claim the weekly Sabbath isn't meant in these verses.<br />3) While some interpret them to mean that all the weekly, monthly and annual Sabbaths are still mandatory observances.<br /> <br />I interpret these verses to imply an "either-or" situation i.e. either Paul meant to say all weekly, monthly and annual holy days are abolished or all are still in effect. Even though I'm inclined to agree with the latter interpretation, similar to the churches of God, I am open to correction. <br /><br />And yet, looking at the splintering churches of God one notes that they don’t observe the New Moons, which begs the question why? Further, you wisely noted they don’t blow the shofar on the “Feast of Trumpets,” which also begs why? Neither do they build booths at the Feast of Tabernacles, which again begs why? They observe the latter as a “pilgrim feast,” yet, according to my understanding all three festival seasons in the Old Testament were pilgrim feasts and to be observed in Jerusalem, where God had placed His name! Even Herbert Armstrong admitted such when in the early days of the Worldwide Church of God they observed the spring festivals the same as the Feast of Tabernacles. But, the economic burden of vacationing twice in the year was too much for the membership and so he decided to limit travel to the fall festivals. In all of their practices they claim to be following God’s Law, but in truth they’re not. They’re actually following Herbert W. Armstrong’s interpretation and American-centric application of Old Testament Law to post-WWII society. This has created so much ignorance and inconsistency within the churches of God!<br /><br />In my opinion, their practice only proves Isaiah 64:6 and Matthew 5:20 true! All of our attempts to measure up to God will fall short by adding to or taking from His instructions. Either we will claim we’re keeping the Law and fall into self-righteousness or we will rightly admit as Paul did, “…I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Philippians 3:8).<br />Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-55233663910764442952014-10-13T04:37:59.065-04:002014-10-13T04:37:59.065-04:00Hi Martha,
Rest assured those were rhetorical que...Hi Martha,<br /><br />Rest assured those were rhetorical questions. But for a COGer they aren't. I agree that circumcision was a gateway to the Mosaic Covenant just as baptism is a gateway to the New Covenant. For a COGer this poses a problem because God's Law is eternal and unchanging. That's why they talk of "renewed covenant." But if God's Covenant is renewed, then it means God has changed His Law. If keeping Sukkot in palm branch booths is no longer needed then we should rename Sukkot to Hotellot (as they celebrate the F.O.T. in hotels.) If they can change an elephant to a horse then they can also change a butterfly to a wasp. You said,"with physical elements we now lack." To some degree this is not so. We do have material for making sukkahs today just as the ancient Hebrews did. Besides the Law is the Law and if the Law says palm booths we cannot add modern innovations to God's feasts. Such is adding and taking away from God's Word. Such is serving man not God. A hotel room is luxury while a sukkah is a crude shelter. Sukkot is a solemn occasion as well as a joyous one. The "joyous" in Hotellot, OOPS I mean Sukkot does not mean merriment and boisterous eating. Sukkot is more of a reminder of hardship in the wilderness than a vacation. <br />Dillonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-23812093989783906892014-09-24T00:29:45.714-04:002014-09-24T00:29:45.714-04:00Thanks, Dillon! I just wanted to comment to get an...Thanks, Dillon! I just wanted to comment to get an idea of whether your questions about Timothy and the festivals were rhetorical or actual questions for me. <br /><br />As far as Timothy goes, it's unclear why he was circumcised - peer pressure or what. But remember, when it comes to law-keeping, circumcision is never just about circumcision. It was the gateway to joining Israel and keeping the Sinai Covenant. That is what the follow up was in Acts 15:5 - "it is necessary to circumcise them AND to command them to keep the law of Moses." <br /><br />So unless Timothy is getting circumcised to join physical Israel and keep the Sinai Covenant, I don't think he's cut off from Christ. Which, as someone whom Paul exhorts, is very unlikely.<br /><br />Why did the Apostles go to Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost? Do you mean right after Jesus ascended, when they were already in Jerusalem and He told them to stay there? Well, He directly told them to stay there in Jerusalem, where they already were. That sounds like a pretty good reason to me. I'd say at approximately 50 days past the crucifixion, they were still figuring out how Christianity worked. They just barely had received the Holy Spirit. That day. <br /><br />If you refer to Paul talking about Pentecost, well, all we have is Acts 20:16 telling us he was trying to get to Jerusalem to Pentecost. If possible. "If possible" doesn't sound like an imperative or a matter of sin and righteousness to me. Total speculation, but a pilgrimmage Feast in Jerusalem would be a great time to share the gospel with all the extra travelers. I seem to remember something about Paul's route actually taking him away from Jerusalem, but I am having a hard time substantiating that at this hour. At any rate, the New Testament does not criticize Jews for continuing in their worship practices, but makes it clear that the Sinai Covenant was not to be imposed upon Gentiles. This is a very common theme. <br /><br />I address the Zechariah issue in an upcoming post. Suffice it to say that the mentions made of celebrating the Feasts in Zechariah also involve many other things we don't have now, like a temple and a Levitical priesthood. It seems to be in a millenial setting, so the game is a lot different then. At this point, I'm not comfortable letting speculation about how worship practices may be carried out in the future (with physical elements we now lack and Jesus Christ on earth to make sure those who are human get it right) supersede direct statements about how I, as a Gentile, am to live in this age, such as Galatians 4:21-5:1.<br /><br />If those were rhetorical questions, well, then, hey, the comment is on the house. :) Thanks for reading.Marthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-47534809266601047942014-09-22T15:27:18.700-04:002014-09-22T15:27:18.700-04:00Keep preaching my sister. Yes, the UCGs like to as...Keep preaching my sister. Yes, the UCGs like to assert that they can observe the Law any way they like. If Jews did not observe New Moons during the time of Jesus, why would Paul bother to mention New Moons? If New Moons are no longer needed then so is the custom of clean and unclean meats. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Law to observe and which to reject. If you claim that circumcision will cut you off from Jesus, does that mean that Timothy is accursed? Since you say that going to Jerusalem is no longer necessary for keeping the Law, then why did the Apostles go to Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost. If Jesus changed "the necessity of going to Jerusalem" as you speak, why does Zech 14:17 say otherwise?Dillonnoreply@blogger.com