All the Feasts are fulfilled? That's Full Preterism!

[tetelestai]

Abolish and fulfill in your writing both have the same meaning

No they don't.

Once the Law and Prophets were fulfilled by Christ Jesus they are no longer in place.

To abolish the Law and Prophets would be to get rid of the Law and Prophets before they were fulfilled.

Christ Jesus fulfilled the Passover, He didn't abolish it.

Those who have faith in Christ Jesus are not required to observe the Passover because it was fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

The Passover, was a shadow of the reality that was to come. The reality is Christ Jesus.

(Col 2:16-17) Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

 

[iamaberean]

Jews.. even messanic ones are scared to death of Preterism... because it nullifies their entire religion and their false hope of clinging onto Jews being the 'chosen ones'.

Abraham was given the promise... the Jews were given a task, at which they failed miserably at each and every step... and the purpose of that task is no longer relevant (to point to the coming messiah).

It's over for the Jews... finished... done... you can stick a fork in them.

All prophecies have been fulfilled by Jesus, that includes to Jews of faith today.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

 

[JonahofAkron]

"heaven and earth" is the old covenant.

"the new heavens and the new earth" are the new covenant.

Moses said the following:

(Deut 4:26) I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.

As we see above, Moses referred to the Law and Prophets (old covenant) as a witness. Moses called the Old Covenant "heavens and the earth"

That's ridiculous; a stretch if I've ever seen one. Calling someone a witness to something does not make their name that thing........ Where did you pick all of this up?

 

[steko]

Not according to Strongs:

Word: cilioi

Pronounce: khil'-ee-oy

Strongs Number: G5507

Orig: plural of uncertain affinity; a thousand:--thousand.

Use: TDNT-9:466,1316 Adjective

Heb Strong:

1) a thousand

That means that the origin of the word has no known connection etymologically. It doesn't mean that the word 'chilioi' is used hyperbolically in the NT.

The word is used in the NT as an exact number.

For instance it is used here of the precise number 'five-thousand' but changed to an approximation by the use of the word 'about'.

Mat_14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

Same here:

Act_2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

In this verse the word 'thousand' in Greek is 'murias', meaning an indefinite number:

Act 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

In these verses, 'dodeka chilias' is a precise measurement, just as 'cubit' is a precise measurement:


Rev 21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

Do you really believe that the intention is to communicate that the measurement of the city was of an indefinite length?

Are we to take it that when it was said twelve thousand furlongs, we are to just interpret it as any number that each reader can imagine?
In that case, words and numbers don't really mean anything.

 

[tetelestai]

That's ridiculous; a stretch if I've ever seen one. Calling someone a witness to something does not make their name that thing........ Where did you pick all of this up?

Jesus said until heaven and earth pass away not one jot or tittle shall not pass from the law until the Law and Prophets are fulfilled.

Notice it says "UNTIL heaven and earth pass".

Has the heaven and earth passed away?

 

[tetelestai]

Are we to take it that when it was said twelve thousand furlongs, we are to just interpret it as any number that each reader can imagine?
In that case, words and numbers don't really mean anything.

"twelve thousand" is specific.

"about three thousand" is an estimate that's close to actually 3,000.

"A thousand years" is hyperbole.

The same Greek word "cilioi" is used in the following verse:

(2 Peter 3:8) But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

As we see above "thousand years" is once again used as hyperbole the same way it is used in Rev 20.

Also, John uses lots of OT symbolism in Revelation. "thousand years" is used as hyperbole many times in the OT.

That means that the origin of the word has no known connection etymologically. It doesn't mean that the word 'chilioi' is used hyperbolically in the NT.

That's my point. The origin has no connection.

The word is used in the NT as an exact number.

Not when it is written "a thousand".

 

[JonahofAkron]

No they don't.

Once the Law and Prophets were fulfilled by Christ Jesus they are no longer in place.

That sentiment is stated NOWHERE in the Torah, Prophets, Histories, or Apostolic writings. Purely speculative interpretation.

To abolish the Law and Prophets would be to get rid of the Law and Prophets before they were fulfilled.

You are semantically arguing for the same thing if you say that 'fulfill' means we don't do it anymore; it's the same thing either way you try to slice it.

Christ Jesus fulfilled the Passover, He didn't abolish it.

A point that you and I agree on.

Those who have faith in Christ Jesus are not required to observe the Passover because it was fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

Interesting point of view. I have heard that one a lot. It leads me to wonder why Paul and Peter never got that memo. They continued to live by Torah after His resurrection....seems like a key point that they were not given. If you have questions about their living of the Torah, I'll address them as they come. I don't exactly have time to write them yet.

The Passover, was a shadow of the reality that was to come. The reality is Christ Jesus.

So, the shadow is made obsolete when the object making the shadow comes into view?

(Col 2:16-17) Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

The context of the verse is not whether you should follow the Torah or not; it's about ignoring the judgement of the pagans that disagree with Gentiles coming to Messiah-there is not a mention of Jewish people in this passage.

 

[tetelestai]

"a thousand years" - hyperbole for a really long time.
"a thousand hills" - hyperbole for a lot of hills.

"one thousand years" - 1,000 literal years.
"one thousand hills" - 1,000 literal hills.

 

[JonahofAkron]

Jesus said until heaven and earth pass away not one jot or tittle shall not pass from the law until the Law and Prophets are fulfilled.

Notice it says "UNTIL heaven and earth pass".

Has the heaven and earth passed away?

Right. That's what I'm saying. Did we get our points confused? You did say that heaven and earth passed away, right?

 

[tetelestai]

You are semantically arguing for the same thing if you say that 'fulfill' means we don't do it anymore; it's the same thing either way you try to slice it.

It's not the same thing, but you are correct that after it was fulfilled, we don't do it anymore.

I didn't have to be circumcised, I don't have to sacrifice animals, I don't have to refrain from certain foods, I don't have to make annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, etc. because they were all shadows of what was to come, and were fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

When the priesthood changed, the law changed.

Yet for some reason, you think the priesthood changed, but the law stayed the same.

 

[tetelestai]

Right. That's what I'm saying. Did we get our points confused? You did say that heaven and earth passed away, right?

Correct, Jesus said UNTIL.

That means one of two things.

If you think "heaven and earth" is the literal physical planet earth and the literal physical heavens, then they haven't passed away, which means ever jot and tittle of the law is still in place right now, and will be until planet earth literally/physically passes away.

If you think "heaven and earth" is symbolic for the old covenant/Law & Prophets, then the old covenant/Law & Prophets has passed away (because it was fulfilled by Christ Jesus), we now live in the new covenant and don't have to observe the Mosaic Law.

Those are the only two choices.

 

[tetelestai]

Interesting point of view. I have heard that one a lot. It leads me to wonder why Paul and Peter never got that memo. They continued to live by Torah after His resurrection....seems like a key point that they were not given. If you have questions about their living of the Torah, I'll address them as they come. I don't exactly have time to write them yet.

Just like when Moses was given the old covenant, there was a 40 year transition before it became 100% fully in place. For example, none of the Israelite men born for 40 years in the wilderness were circumcised. Therefore, these men couldn't participate in the feasts, but the men who were circumcised (i.e. Moses, Aaron, Joshua) did.

Same thing with the new covenant. After it was put in place at the cross, the old covenant still existed, but was gradually getting faded out. Hebrews tells us the old covenant was obsolete, and would soon disappear.

Come 70AD, the old covenant came to a complete end, and the new covenant was 100% fully in place.

The NT gets confusing because Peter was preaching to people born under the law, while Paul was preaching to people who never even heard of the law.

To make it even more confusing, Paul at times preached to Jews under the law, and Paul said the following:

(1 Cor 9:20) To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.


Paul stopped observing the law when he placed his faith in Christ Jesus. Paul was a minister of the new covenant. However, as we see above, Paul at times acted like a Jew and observed the law only to win those under the law.

They continued to live by Torah after His resurrection

See 1 Cor 9:20

 

[jzeidler]

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

There you go. None of these feasts or holy days matter. Who cares?! The only important thing is Christ.

 

[JonahofAkron]

It's not the same thing, but you are correct that after it was fulfilled, we don't do it anymore.

I didn't say that as a point that I agree with; I said it in hopes that you would realize that your position is one without continuity and error.

I didn't have to be circumcised, I don't have to sacrifice animals, I don't have to refrain from certain foods, I don't have to make annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, etc. because they were all shadows of what was to come, and were fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

Paul's declaration of there being a circumcision of the heart fulfills that aspect of the Law being followed in your life. His discussion on that proves it from Scripture-as far as the claims on food, I'll need you to point to the specific verses you use.

When the priesthood changed, the law changed.

Yes. The laws regarding the priesthood.

Yet for some reason, you think the priesthood changed, but the law stayed the same.

There was obviously a change regarding the priesthood, but that doesn't scrap the whole thing. Nothing in the bible indicates this.

 

[JonahofAkron]

Correct, Jesus said UNTIL.

That means one of two things.

If you think "heaven and earth" is the literal physical planet earth and the literal physical heavens, then they haven't passed away, which means ever jot and tittle of the law is still in place right now, and will be until planet earth literally/physically passes away.

If you think "heaven and earth" is symbolic for the old covenant/Law & Prophets, then the old covenant/Law & Prophets has passed away (because it was fulfilled by Christ Jesus), we now live in the new covenant and don't have to observe the Mosaic Law.

Those are the only two choices.

I agree that there are only two choices: claiming that the earth and moon are synonymous with the 'old covenant'; or believing that the covenant had two witnesses that would stand for a long time as proof of what things God said in His Law. If the Law is a physical representation of God (it's called perfect and righteous and true in the Psalms multiples of times), then why would it need to go away?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I agree that there are only two choices: claiming that the earth and moon are synonymous with the 'old covenant'; or believing that the covenant had two witnesses that would stand for a long time as proof of what things God said in His Law. If the Law is a physical representation of God (it's called perfect and righteous and true in the Psalms multiples of times), then why would it need to go away?

In the beginning, God created the old covenant. (Per Tet)

 

[JonahofAkron]

Just like when Moses was given the old covenant, there was a 40 year transition before it became 100% fully in place. For example, none of the Israelite men born for 40 years in the wilderness were circumcised. Therefore, these men couldn't participate in the feasts, but the men who were circumcised (i.e. Moses, Aaron, Joshua) did.

Was it exactly forty years? Or is this another one of those 'I can interpret how it best fits my situation' type things?

Same thing with the new covenant. After it was put in place at the cross, the old covenant still existed, but was gradually getting faded out. Hebrews tells us the old covenant was obsolete, and would soon disappear.

Interesting, where do you put Hebrews? Most scholars put it after the Temple's destruction in 70 AD. I'm open to suggestions about that, but by their understanding, it puts your hypothesis on difficult ground.

Come 70AD, the old covenant came to a complete end, and the new covenant was 100% fully in place.

Where is this stated? That would be an important thing for us to know...why don't we see historical documents about it?

The NT gets confusing because Peter was preaching to people born under the law, while Paul was preaching to people who never even heard of the law.

Except that those people that 'never heard the Law' had mostly come into the congregations of the Jews....no big deal.

To make it even more confusing, Paul at times preached to Jews under the law, and Paul said the following:

(1 Cor 9:20) To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.


Paul stopped observing the law when he placed his faith in Christ Jesus. Paul was a minister of the new covenant. However, as we see above, Paul at times acted like a Jew and observed the law only to win those under the law.

Soooooo.....Paul is a hypocrite? That's a liar's life...not anything that I would see Paul doing. You need to fact check, fella.


[QUOTE
See 1 Cor 9:20[/QUOTE]Acts 25:8. Paul is a liar or you have him confused. I'd place my money that the issue with your interpretation.

 

[tetelestai]

In the beginning, God created the old covenant. (Per Tet)

In symbolism there is always something literal, otherwise you wouldn't have symbolism.

Jesus is called the lamb of God. Jesus ate lamb at Passover. Study to show yourself approved, and you wouldn't be so confused.

 

[tetelestai]

There you go. None of these feasts or holy days matter. Who cares?! The only important thing is Christ.

That's correct !!!!

 

[JonahofAkron]

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

There you go. None of these feasts or holy days matter. Who cares?! The only important thing is Christ.

What about how He lived? Is that important?