"The fear of יהוה is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Set-apart One is understanding"

Dwelling in the land

Moderator: Watchman555

kickme
Posts: 132
Joined: 29 Dec 2007, 18:48

Dwelling in the land

Postby kickme » 02 Apr 2008, 23:17

OK, here's something that's been a big question on the back of my mind, and it was brought to the forefront again during a discussion.

In Joshua 22 the children of Reuben, of Gad and half the tribe of Manesseh built and altar as a witness but the rest of the Israelites misunderstood it's importance and were planning to battle them for it, accusing them of leaving Yahweh.
It seems to have been of significance that they were not to be slaughtering their offerings anywhere but at the tabernacle, which was to reside in the physical land of Israel. From the dialogue, it seems both sides understood this the same way.

Now, again, in John 4 in the dialogue between Yahushua and the Samaritan woman she acknowledged the Jews said Jerusalem was the place to worship. Yahushua seems to agree, then elaborates that at a later point in time people would worship not on that moutain the Samaritan woman referred to, nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit and in truth.

Now, I dare not disagree with Messiah, I know he spoke the truth. Here's the dilema:
Some groups I hang with go only off of their sighting of the new moon, totally ignoring what happens in Jerusalem. So some people keep the feasts a day ahead of Jerusalem in this manner.
Other groups are in another hemisphere entirely, so keep all the feasts 6 months off of schedule with Jerusalem.
There's a few other things that have come up, but those are the two basics that I wish to deal with here.

Now, if Yahushua said not 1 jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled, and people believe it's right to keep Torah, then indeed it appears they make themselves transgressors. Because if the children of Israel correctly understood that tithes, peace offerings and sin offerings as well as the offerings for vows and such were to be done at the temple, which Yahweh finally directed to rest in Jerusalem, then that's where it should be done. All males were required to show themselves 3 times a year at the place where Yahweh put his name. That place eventually was established in Jerusalem, and Yahushua confirmed it while showing that at a later time it would change. Question is, heaven and earth do still remain, the new Jerusalem, the new heaven and earth are not yet here, so why do people do whatever they like in the meantime?
Yes, yes, I know there isn't a temple at the present time so there are limitations in the present, but the essence of time/distance has not changed. The first month is still the first month, and while we cannot go to present ourselves physically before Yahweh at his physical house during the appointed times, we still recall those times and present ourselves where we are.
Here's the difficulty, if we were to actually go present ourselves at the appointed times while doing what some today to, many would come a day early, or a day late, or a half year off schedule. Where's the following of Torah in all this?

LittleKangaDrinkingWine
Posts: 31
Joined: 01 Feb 2008, 03:02
Location: Flintstone GA, Israel

Postby LittleKangaDrinkingWine » 03 Apr 2008, 02:11

Kick,

Good questions and points. Many here disagree with me on this and that's fine, but this is the way I see your delima.

Torah is the foundation to all law and commands, but Torah is not the end of the law, meaning that there is much more than just the ridgid understanding of Torah,which is the foundation. It is my opinion that YHWH is building upon Torah (the foundation), a spiritual house that has so much more detail to it than just a foundation.

The physical always comes before the spiritual. Type comes first, then anti-type (the fulfillment fo type). Torah and the old covenant (the Levitical priesthood) was the type and the New Covenant, which is an improvement over the old (Hebrews 8:6-13), like a house built upon a foundation, it is the next step in YHWH's plan to reap His firstfruits of the Kingdom, which will train and teach those who are to follow in future resurrections, how to build perfect righteous character, which will begin with an understanding of Torah.

In other words Torah does not disapear and is not abolished at all.

Now that's a mouth full, but it is very true and it is the plan of YHWH as I understand it anyway.

The circumstances in Joshua that you quoted fell under the old covenant (under the levitical priesthood) and the circumstances in John 4 fell right on the cusp of the change from the old to the new covenants, when Messiah died on the tree.

Hebrews 7;12 and Galatians 3:19-24 tells us that there was a change in the law when the change over from the levitical priesthood to the priesthood of Yeshua (in the order of Melchizedek) took place. The laws that were changed went from the physical type to the spiritual anti-type, without doing away with the type, for that type will not be abolished fully until all flesh have went through the type to get to the anti-type, which is where we are now, as firstfruits, the called out of YAH.

Thus the law is not at this time abolished as the Protestants would have us believe, but rather it is in a sort of transition period depending upon who you speak of. For the called out ones (what some would call the true church), it is a spiritual new covenant law that we are to keep today, which has it's foundation in Torah. It is a higher form of YHWH's law and it in no way does away with that law, for if the foundation does not agree with the house, the structure will fall.

Those of Israel who are not called at this time are still under the old covenant (the Levitical priesthood), even if there is no temple. YHWH will once again establish that temple and they will have to pass through that stage (the physical type) before moving on to the place we should be now.

That's my thoughts anyway.

Baby Kanga

Luneee
Posts: 107
Joined: 12 Jan 2008, 02:45
Location: Acts 17:28

Postby Luneee » 04 Apr 2008, 01:21

Kickme,

What's the difference in this, and keeping the Sabbath at a different starting time from the [Saturday] Shabbat keepers in Jerusalem?

Do you start your Shabbat at the same time Jerusalem does?

Just curious,

Jay Vincent.

;)

kickme
Posts: 132
Joined: 29 Dec 2007, 18:48

Postby kickme » 04 Apr 2008, 01:28

That's what I'm talking about Jay, I'm looking for input on this.
I wanna know why, when, how and where.
Seriously, I've seen so much of this and that I think we are all going to hell in a handbasket

chuckbaldwin
Posts: 334
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 13:44
Location: East Ridge, TN

Postby chuckbaldwin » 08 Apr 2008, 04:37

kickme wrote:That's what I'm talking about Jay, I'm looking for input on this.
I wanna know why, when, how and where.
Seriously, I've seen so much of this and that I think we are all going to hell in a handbasket
Hi Kickme,

I can empathize with your feelings, as i seem to be in the same boat. Here's some thoughts that came to me related to your post.

Those in the southern hemisphere (e.g. Austrailia/NZ) keep their Feasts in harmony with Jerusalem's seasons, even though it puts their Passover in the fall and Tabernacles in the spring. Are they doing it wrong? How will this anomaly be resolved in the Kingdom? Beats me. :?: It seems that if they kept the Feasts by their own seasons, it would cause confusion from a worldwide perspective. (i.e. We couldn't go to Austrailia for Tabernacles, because they would be observing Passover at that time.)

Your post caused me to think on this, and i now consider it an additional reason for using Jerusalem as the starting point for the beginnings of months.

IOW, if the start-of-year is tied to Jerusalem (for the "southerners"), then why not the start-of-months for us "westerners" and "far easterners"?

The start-of-day is a different "animal", and must remain unique to each location, being inexorably tied to sunrise or sunset. It simply wouldn't make sense to change dates (i.e. start the Sabbath) at say 2pm or 3am, just because that's the instant it started in Jerusalem.

Also, even if we agreed on anchoring the month to Jerusalem, it still wouldn't resolve the dispute over HOW to use the moon to determine the New Moon Day -- by conjunction or by sighting. I doubt if this will ever be resolved unitl Yahweh Himself clarifies it for us.

BTW, i think Joey gave some very good insights regarding the "change in the Law". I will give him "cautious agreement". 8)
Chuck Baldwin
By this shall all men know you are my disciples: if you have love one for another.


Return to “Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron