The pagan tradition was originally in early December and was not based on the solstice. Given the solstice date was well known, being off by 4 days would be a thing.
But you appear to be trying to make the date pagan, which it isn’t.
1 Like
Gotcha, so that makes you a Torah observant. First I’m even more curious to know your view about Dispensationalism, if you don’t mind of course. Second, how do you receive the following verse :
“For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ”
Romans 10.v2-9
Does it leave room for the works of the Law as a way to salvation? The works of the Law are mostly supposed to be the good fruits we bear out of faithfulness from a renewed heart and mind in Jesus. Not through a legalistic outlook of the Christian faith, that compels you to perform the Law (including ceremonial laws and festivals) out of fear.
1 Like
Arvis, thank you. I don’t mind the question about dispensationalism, although that probably deserves a separate discussion. I would describe my framework more specifically as Messianic Sinaiticism rather than simply “Torah observant.”
Regarding Romans 10, however, I think we have to be very careful not to make Paul say something stronger than the passage itself says.
I agree completely that obedience to Torah is not a means by which a person earns salvation. But that is not the same proposition as saying that salvation by faith abolishes obedience to Yah’s commandments. Those are two very different questions.
Romans 10:4 is often translated, “Christ is the end of the law.” The Greek word is telos. It can denote an end, but also a goal, culmination, or outcome. That is why some translations render the verse, “Christ is the culmination of the law,” and even translations using “end” acknowledge “goal” as a possible sense. The question, therefore, cannot be settled merely by placing the English word end in bold type.
More importantly, look at what Paul does immediately afterward. In Romans 10:6–8, the language Paul uses for “the righteousness based on faith” comes directly from Deuteronomy 30:11–14. And what does Moses actually say there? He has just told Israel that Yah’s commandment is not too difficult, is not in heaven, and is not beyond the sea. Rather, “the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.”
Paul therefore takes language from a Torah passage concerning the accessibility of Yah’s commandment and applies that language to the proclamation of Messiah. That is very difficult to reconcile with the claim that Paul’s purpose is to portray Torah and faith as opposing systems.
There is another contextual problem. Paul has already written in the same epistle: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31). He calls the law “holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Romans 7:12), and says, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Romans 7:22).
So I would distinguish justification from obedience. Torah does not redeem the sinner from sin; Yah does. Faith does not purchase salvation through accumulated works. On that point I don’t think we disagree. But after Yah redeems someone, the next question is: How does the redeemed person live?
That question cannot be answered by turning obedience into “legalism.” Scripture itself repeatedly distinguishes obedience from attempting to earn righteousness. Yahshua says, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). John later writes, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3).
That is why I would also question the characterization of the festivals as “ceremonial laws” performed “out of fear.” Scripture calls them Yah’s appointed times (Leviticus 23:2). The categories “moral,” “civil,” and “ceremonial” may be useful later theological classifications, but the text does not introduce Leviticus 23 by saying, “These are temporary ceremonial laws until Messiah arrives.” It says they are Yah’s appointed times.
And this returns directly to the question in my article. Even if, for argument’s sake, I granted the strongest possible reading of Romans 10:4 and said that Messiah ended Torah as a means of attaining righteousness, that still would not answer the issue I raised.
Where does Paul say that Yah’s appointed times have been abolished and that believers or the later church have authority to replace them with another religious calendar?
Romans 10 doesn’t say that.
Salvation through faith and obedience to Yah are not enemies. The question is whether obedience is the price of redemption or the life of the redeemed. I argue for the latter.
One additional point about telos. Yahshua said plainly that “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). That principle matters when interpreting Paul. If we make telos in Romans 10:4 mean that Messiah brought Yah’s Torah to an end, we immediately create tension not only with Yahshua’s testimony, but with Paul’s own statements that faith does not make void the law (Romans 3:31) and that the law is “holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Romans 7:12). Then, in the very passage under discussion, Paul proceeds directly into Deuteronomy 30, using Moses’ words concerning Yah’s commandment to explain the righteousness of faith. Scripture cannot be broken; therefore, when an English rendering produces an apparent contradiction, we must return to the text and ask whether we have understood the word correctly. In this context, telos as goal, culmination, or intended outcome makes coherent sense: Yahshua is not the destruction of the Torah but the one toward whom it points. That is the method I use in apologetics—not beginning with a theological conclusion and forcing Scripture into it, but allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture and requiring the interpretation to withstand the testimony of the whole record.
Yup it all comes down to dispensationalism, whether the Church is the New Israel or not.
Romans 11 might be helpful on that one.
I’d argue Jesus points to Him not to the Torah.
It depends on what we put behind the word obedience. If by obedience we mean the works of the Law (circumcision, festivals ect.), it’s legalistic in essence and set up righteous performance as a way to please God. If obedience comes from the teachings Jesus and the Holy Spirit gave to the Apostolic Church, it follows that the works of Law doesn’t fulfill God’s intent for the Church because God’s intent is to preach the Gospel not the Torah.
“Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.”
Isaiah 1.v14
2 Likes
“Yahshua” is not a Hebrew name, it is not even a Hebrew word. Please have enough respect to get the Savior’s name right.
This is an incorrect use of “Yah”, which is always a poetic term. Please have enough respect for the scriptures to use such terms properly.
Acts 15, which reduces all of ‘Moses’ – i.e. the Pentateuch – to four admonitions.
Arvis, I think Romans 11 actually brings us directly to the question I am raising.
Paul does not describe Gentile believers as a new tree established alongside Israel, much less as a tree replacing Israel. He describes Gentiles as wild branches grafted into an already-existing cultivated olive tree, becoming partakers of its root. He then warns the Gentile branches not to boast over the natural branches: you do not support the root; the root supports you (Romans 11:17–18). And the natural branches remain capable of being grafted back into “their own olive tree” (11:24). Bible Gateway
So before concluding that Torah belonged to Israel while a different body of divine instruction belongs to “the Church,” I think we first have to demonstrate that distinction from Paul. Romans 11 describes incorporation, not the creation of a second covenant people detached from the first.
That is also why I don’t think we can simply define obedience to circumcision, Sabbaths or appointed times as “legalistic.” Legalism concerns the function assigned to obedience. If I claim that keeping a command earns justification, that is one proposition. If I obey because Yah commanded it after redemption, that is another. Calling the second “legalism” assumes the very conclusion under dispute.
And Isaiah 1:14 is especially important here because its context prevents it from functioning as an abolition text. Yah also rejects their sacrifices, incense, Sabbaths, assemblies—and even refuses to hear their prayers. Why? Isaiah tells us: their hands are full of blood. They are commanded to wash themselves, cease doing evil, seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless and plead for the widow (Isaiah 1:15–17). Bible Gateway
Surely the conclusion isn’t that Yah abolished prayer because He refused to hear their prayers.
The indictment is against worship joined to rebellion. Indeed, Scripture originally calls these observances Yah’s appointed times (Leviticus 23), whereas Isaiah indicts Israel’s corrupt observance as your appointed feasts.
That brings me back to the question I’ve been asking throughout this discussion. I am not arguing that Torah obedience purchases redemption. It does not. I am asking something much narrower:
Where does Yah, Yahshua, or an apostle actually say that commandments Yah established as His appointed times ceased to be commandments for His redeemed people?
Saying that the Church’s mission is to preach the Gospel rather than Torah doesn’t yet answer that question, because the two propositions are not mutually exclusive. Yahshua commissioned His disciples not merely to make disciples, but to teach them to observe what He commanded. Paul can preach justification by faith while also saying, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31).
So I think the burden remains where it began: not whether Torah observance justifies, because we agree that it does not, but where Scripture authorizes the transition from Yah’s appointed times to their non-observance.
St.Roymond, that interpretation seems to require Acts 15 to say something it never actually says.
The council does give Gentile converts four immediate requirements. But where does the text say that these four “reduce all of Moses” to those four commands?
If that were the meaning, the consequences would be rather striking. The decree says nothing about murder, theft, false witness, coveting, honoring one’s parents, or numerous other obligations. Surely Acts 15 is not teaching that Gentile believers are therefore accountable only for idolatry, sexual immorality, strangled meat, and blood.
More importantly, James does not stop at verse 20. He immediately explains:
“For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” (Acts 15:21) Bible Gateway
That is a curious thing to say if his preceding sentence means, “Moses has now been reduced to these four requirements.”
And notice the actual dispute that brought the council together. Certain men were teaching Gentile converts, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Later the demand is stated as requiring them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the Law of Moses (15:5). Bible Gateway
The council therefore rejects imposing Torah observance upon Gentiles as a prerequisite for salvation and entry into the community. That is not the same proposition as declaring the Torah abolished.
Acts itself gives us a useful check on that interpretation. Later, in Acts 21, James and the elders explicitly reject the allegation that Paul was teaching Jews to forsake Moses. They have Paul publicly demonstrate that he himself “observes and guards the law,” while separately reiterating the earlier ruling concerning Gentile believers. Bible Gateway
So I don’t think Acts 15 can simply be asserted as the biblical authorization for abandoning Yah’s appointed calendar. That is precisely what still needs to be demonstrated.
Where does Acts 15 say that Yah’s Sabbaths and appointed times ceased to be His appointed times?
- Regarding’s dad’s insistence on a Young Earth creationist’s view of Genesis, I wrote: "The Gospel according to Not-my-dad: “There is no salvation under heaven for anyone who does not accept a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis.”
- Looks like much the same thing can be said about Messianic Sinaiticism: "The Gospel according to the New Covenant Congregation of Israel: “There is no salvation under heaven for anyone who does not accept a Messianic Sinaiticistic interpretation of the Old and New Testament.”
1 Like
But I also want to keep this discussion tied to the actual subject of the article. My question was not whether Acts 15 addresses the obligations of Gentile converts generally. The question was much narrower: what is the biblical basis for setting aside the calendar?
Acts 15 does not mention Passover, Unleavened Bread, Weeks, Trumpets, Atonement, or Tabernacles. It does not establish a replacement calendar, change the dates of Yah’s appointed times, or state that those appointed times ceased to be observed.
So even if, for the sake of argument, I granted your interpretation of Acts 15, how does that establish the abandonment or replacement of the biblical calendar?
That is the question raised by the article, and I would prefer that we stay with it. If there is a biblical text that actually authorizes the change, that is the text I am asking to examine.
Terry, I don’t believe I have made that claim anywhere in this discussion, nor is it the argument of the article.
I have not said, “There is no salvation for anyone who does not accept Messianic Sinaiticism,” and I would prefer not to have a position attributed to me that I have not stated.
The question raised by the article is considerably narrower: Yah established specific appointed times in Scripture; Yahshua and the apostles lived and worshiped within that biblical framework. Where does Scripture authorize setting those appointed times aside or replacing that calendar with another one?
Whether someone agrees with my conclusion is not the same question as whether that person is saved.
We now seem to be moving from the biblical calendar, to dispensationalism, to Acts 15 and the entirety of Torah, and now to whether people outside Messianic Sinaiticism can be saved. Those may all be worthwhile discussions, but they are not the question this article raised.
So I would like to bring us back to the actual issue:
What biblical text authorizes the abandonment or replacement of Yah’s appointed calendar?
If there is such a text, let’s examine it. If there isn’t, then that absence is relevant to the argument I actually made.
Did you or did you not respond in this thread to Arvis’ inquiry with a declaration of your self-acknowledged label of Messianic Sinaiticism?
It certainly looked to me like you did. And when you did, I did a little leg-work and found these:
-
The Culture Center of The New Covenant Congregation of Israel
-
Seems highly unlikely that you would disassociate yourself from the “framework” of Messianic Sinaiticism having publicly, in this thread, affirmed it.
-
I read in the first link:
- “Thus, Messianic Sinaiticism is a system that practices the Torah without human traditions, including manmade holydays, such as Purim, Rosh Hashanah and Chanukah. Our system of belief and faith acknowledges Yahoshua as the author and perfecter of this faith (Heb. 12:2).”
-
In the second link, I read this:
- We are now under the leadership of Elder Priest Yosef Ben Yisrael.In accordance with the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-37; Heb. 8:6-13), the Messianic Hebrew Israelite nation by Divine authority of YHWH, are the rightful inheritors of the covenants (the promise) and also the administrators (servants) of the giving of the law. (Romans 3: 1-2, 9: 1-5, 11: 1-8)
- “Being allied or worshipping with any other nation outside this sanctified body constitutes a violation of the oracles of YHWH.Upon baptism members must vow allegiance to the Elohim of Israel. It is an absolute necessity that the members of the holy body apply the oracles of YHWH(Deut. 6: 4-5).”
- “We believe that through obedience of the law and the prophets that many will receive salvation, to the Jew first, then to the rest of the nations who become spiritual Jews.
(Rom. 2:10-13)” - “We Believe that the Messiah Yahshua taught and practiced the culture of our forefathers which include Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the holy prophets. The Messiah Yahshua did not teach Christianity as the world has been led to believe, but walked perfectly in the Law of Moshe (Moses) among men. (1 Peter 2:21-25)”.
-
Sorry, Michael, I struggle to see any of the salvation you proclaim in the Gospel which I affirm.
1 Like
Gentiles clearly aren’t taught to practice the Jewish law, none of that conforms to the truth of the Gospel.
“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”
Galatians 2.v14-16
Those appointed times do not apply to Gentiles and we can’t use Scriptures to state otherwise.
“But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.”
Galatians 4.v9-11
“So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. ”
Colossians 2.v16-17
Ask yourself this, if Christ fulfilled the Law why should we return to the works of the Law ? If the answer is that the Gentiles inherit the Jewish covenant, it is not biblical because the Church rests on Apostolic teachings under the covenant of Grace. If the point you’re trying to make is that holiness implies a conformity to the Torah, then yes it becomes legalistic as it focuses on outward appearance of holiness, instead of inner renewal by the Holy Spirit leading us to fulfill the Great Commission, which is not to preach or practice the Torah.
2 Likes
Arvis, I think we have now reached the actual point of disagreement, so I will make my position clear and leave it there rather than turn this thread into an endless debate over Paul.
Galatians 2 does not say that Torah was abolished. It says that no one is justified by works of law. I agree. Neither circumcision, festivals, Sabbath observance, nor any other act of obedience purchases redemption. But “this does not justify you” and “therefore Yah no longer requires it” are two entirely different propositions. Paul states the first. You are asking the text to establish the second.
Galatians 4 does not identify Yah’s appointed times as pagan bondage. Paul explicitly reminds these Gentiles that before they knew Elohim they were enslaved to beings “that by nature are not gods,” and then asks why they would “turn back again” and become enslaved “once more.” These Gentiles could not “turn back again” to Torah observance they had never previously possessed. Whatever precisely Paul means by the stoicheia, the immediate context makes simply identifying Yah’s commandments with their former pagan slavery highly problematic. ESV Bible
Colossians 2 does not tell believers to stop observing festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths. It says, “let no one pass judgment on you” concerning them. The same passage proceeds to condemn ascetic regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch”—as human precepts and teachings. Turning “do not let anyone judge you concerning a festival” into “do not observe the festival” requires an inference that Paul himself does not state. ESV Bible
And this is where your argument ultimately becomes circular. You say that Yah’s appointed times “do not apply to Gentiles,” and then interpret Paul’s statements through that premise. But that is precisely the proposition the article asks to be demonstrated.
Nor does Romans 11 describe Gentile believers as forming a new covenant people disconnected from Israel. Paul tells Gentiles that they are wild branches grafted into an existing cultivated olive tree, sharing its root, and specifically warns them that they do not support the root—the root supports them. ESV Bible
Most importantly, however, we are discussing the calendar.
Even if I granted, solely for the sake of argument, your entire interpretation of Galatians and Colossians, you would at most have argued that Gentile believers were not obligated to observe Yah’s appointed times. You still would not have established biblical authority for replacing them with another sacred calendar.
Those are two different propositions:
“Gentiles are not obligated to observe Yah’s appointed times.”
is not the same proposition as:
“The apostles authorized Christianity to replace Yah’s appointed times with a different religious calendar.”
The second proposition is the subject of my article, and none of the passages you have cited says that.
So I think we have reached the appropriate place to conclude our exchange. You interpret these Pauline passages as releasing Gentile believers from Torah observance. I do not believe the texts say what you are assigning to them, for the reasons stated above. But even your interpretation still does not identify the apostolic authorization for the calendar change the article is examining.
That remains the question.
If someone can produce a text in which Yah, Yahshua, or the apostles actually authorize replacing the scriptural appointed times with the later Christian sacred calendar, I am quite willing to examine it. But continually broadening the discussion into justification, legalism, Acts 15, dispensationalism, or the entirety of Torah does not supply that text.
I am therefore going to leave the argument there and allow readers to examine the passages and reach their own conclusions.
Terry, yes, I identify with Messianic Sinaiticism. But you are now drawing conclusions about my beliefs and my understanding of salvation from selected statements on websites without actually knowing what I believe.
For example, I do not believe that everyone outside Messianic Sinaiticism is condemned. Paul specifically addresses Gentiles outside the Torah covenant:
“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” — Romans 2:14–16
That passage is directly relevant to my understanding of how Yah judges those outside the covenant. So the position you attributed to me is simply not my position.
More importantly, you have repeatedly moved away from the subject of the article and toward judgments about my theology and religious identity. I have no interest in defending myself against beliefs I do not hold.
You are certainly entitled to disagree with me. But please disagree with what I actually say, not with conclusions drawn about me from a website.
I am going to end our exchange here.
1 Like
@moderators I don’t see how this thread comes anywhere near the purpose of the forum.
2 Likes
Hence my question about Dispensationalism.
I agree let’s stop here