The Star of Bethlehem : The date of Jesus birth and death in the stars

reply to post by adjensen


Is that the best you can come up with?

You say that Caesar was a king, and the source you cite says that he was descended from them? And you think that makes him a king?

Potato, potahto. King, emperor, whatever, he was anointed and was a divine ruler. He was a "Christ" by pagan standards. Jesus, on the other hand was neither anointed or a ruler and as a Jew, wouldn't have accepted a pagan title. In fact, early followers of Jesus the Nazarene didn't accept the pagan title and called themselves Nazarene.

Next, you say that he claimed to be a god, and the source you cite says that he was descended from a god? And you think that makes him a god?

He did. Just like Jesus claimed to be a god. They both claimed to be "sons of gods", what else could they claim, they were human after all. Both of them were made "gods" after their death by people.

Early in his reign, Halley’s Comet passed over Rome. Augustus claimed it was the spirit of Julius Caesar entering heaven. If Caesar was a god then, as his heir, Augustus was the son of a god and he made sure that everybody knew it

Your (crackpot) source is wrong. Halley's Comet has never come so close to earth or been so bright as to appear during daylight. Caesar's Comet was not Halley's comet. What else is your scholarly source wrong about?

Caesar's Comet was one of only five comets known to have had a negative absolute magnitude and was possibly the brightest daylight comet in recorded history. It was not periodic and may have disintegrated.
en.wikipedia.org...'s_Comet

Just because Augustus used the comet to his benefit, that doesn't mean the Roman people who viewed the comet didn't believe that it was Caesar's deified soul.

They killed him because he looked like he might be establishing monarchical rule.

Isn't that what the Jews wanted Jesus to do? Isn't that why he was crucified?

He was neither king nor god -- that's what historians, who have actually studied Julius Caesar, have to say. But you go ahead and side with the crackpots, just because you hate Christianity.

LOL! Historians say that Caesar wasn't a god? Do historians say that Jesus was a god?

I don't hate Christianity, I just don't believe it. But Jesus did say some cool things. If Christians just followed the teachings of Jesus, and didn't fall for the human blood sacrifice for sin, the silliness of the resurrection story and virgin birth, and all the other hocus pocus, I might be a Christian too.

The story of Caesar's death and deification is echoed in the mythology of Jesus. You haven't added anything to prove this to be wrong.

Jesus was neither a king (or an emperor) or a god, nor did he claim to be. Caesar did and was. But you go ahead and keep your superstition.

reply to post by windword


Either the bible writers plagiarized and took bits and pieces of cultures to formulate this grand conspiracy as a tool of social control ((which wouldn't make sense because Rome was the first nation to use Christianity as a mean of social control under Constantine due to the influential powers the scriptures could have that would be advantageous by being a nation of subordinates (Constantine was smart and cunning to not follow in the overt footsteps of his predecessors and taking the more insidious route, for example, supplanting the practice of infusing a state of divinity (god hood) of the rulers with a Christian theology. I mean, I wonder why Rome would make Christianity the national and the only tolerated religion with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 and why Constantine would order the Council of Nicea to quell the Arians (a disagreement of the formulated man made doctrine of the trinity is/would be bad for the state because it would undermine the religious imposition of the political discourse Constantine envisioned because the religion/social control he was trying to push was being questioned within the Christian community he sought to make everyone a part of as to make ruling a lot easier ))

or

God took pieces of all cultures and their understanding and localized it in within a geographical location where it would be advantageous (Roman occupation of the land; We can still see the influences of Rome today) for the releasing of the refined truth that is Jesus Christ.

This is just my understanding of it.

reply to post by DelayedChristmas


Personally, I think Jesus was the predicted and prophesied return of the "Good Teacher" that the Essenes were waiting for. I think that Jesus was raised as a Nazorean Essenes by the Nazorean Essenes. The people called him Rabbi, because he was ordained by the Essenes. They called him teacher and asked him how to interpret the Law, which is what the Essenes were looking for.

The Essenes thought the city Temples were corrupted and evil priests had corrupted the Torah. Jesus had the same thoughts. The Essenes didn't believe in animal sacrifice, and there is no record of Jesus performing an animal sacrifice. The Essenes only used oil for healing and cooking purposes and didn't anoint each other with oil, which explains why there is no biblical record of Jesus having been anointed.

There is an Essene thread that subtly runs through the New Testament, and even Paul is said to have initiated with the Nazorean Essenes.

The Nazarene were the first Christians, but by the 4th century, the Roman Catholic Church was bothered with them because they still were circumcising and observing the Saturday sabbath and traditional diets and Mosiac Law. They were declared heretics for clinging to the old law, and, in my opinion, the RCC tried to erase them and their influence from Biblical scripture and superimpose pagan beliefs and culture to please the masses, which is why there are so many inconsistencies within the story.

My 2 cents........

Fascinating post OP...


I find it astounding and incomprehensible that people still see randomness, luck and chance.. From the workings and movements of a single cell, to the clock like movements and precision of the galaxy and universe, how can this NOT scream design?

I have a question to those who believe Christianity was pieced together from the early believers.. Many of the disciples that walk with Jesus suffered major persecution and death.. If it was all a lie, why adhere to it till death? Family's were murdered, children torn in two.. It makes no sense..

windword
reply to post by DelayedChristmas

 

Personally, I think Jesus was the predicted and prophesied return of the "Good Teacher" that the Essenes were waiting for. I think that Jesus was raised as a Nazorean Essenes by the Nazorean Essenes. The people called him Rabbi, because he was ordained by the Essenes. They called him teacher and asked him how to interpret the Law, which is what the Essenes were looking for.

The Essenes thought the city Temples were corrupted and evil priests had corrupted the Torah. Jesus had the same thoughts. The Essenes didn't believe in animal sacrifice, and there is no record of Jesus performing an animal sacrifice. The Essenes only used oil for healing and cooking purposes and didn't anoint each other with oil, which explains why there is no biblical record of Jesus having been anointed.

..................

My 2 cents........

edit on 13-11-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Yahoshua was not an Essene.Just because the disciples called him "rabbi does not mean he was a Jewish Rabbi,.The Pharisees railed on him for not being studied.He broke many Jewish traditions and Laws(The sabbath).There is nothing that suggest he was an Essene that is pure fabrication with zero substantiation of any kind.

Yahoshua is called a great teacher yet nobody he taught learned anything from him..including the disciples(even after he explained it to them).There are numerous quotes that they didn't have clue what he was teaching and "the people" were even more clueless.The people only wanted miracle healing and food.

As for no record of never being "anointed with oil..not true.. sure he was .By the woman with the alabaster box with pure nard oil before the crucifixion.

Anoint mean smear with oil however that is not why Yahoshua is the Christ..Being anointed ..mashiach/messiah in Hebrew..was "symbolic" of when a king was "given" power.Of course that's all it was.It didn't make them more"powerful at all.It was oil.There was no "magic in it.Yahoshua said God has anointed me.Those wasn't just symbolic he "did" things with power no one has ever done.

He definitely was not a Jewish Rabbi or an Essene.Nor the founder of a religion called Christianity.Nothing that was recorded of what he did even faintly suggests that.

reply to post by windword

Potato, potahto. King, emperor, whatever, he was anointed and was a divine ruler.

For about the millionth time, he was not a king or emperor. He was a general who was appointed dictator of Rome by the Senate. He had no familial or divine claim to leadership. And you have yet to answer the request for evidence that he was ever called "The Christ", which you said yesterday.

He did not claim to be a god, all of that came from Augustus, not him.

My "crackpot source" on Augustus is PBS, which you'd have seen if you bothered to click through to the source.

Jesus, on the other hand was neither anointed or a ruler and as a Jew, wouldn't have accepted a pagan title.

Your Biblical ignorance is destroying your supposed argument again.

The anointing of Jesus is one of the relatively few events reported by each of the four Canonical gospels, although the details of the accounts differ. All report the anointing of Jesus with expensive perfume by a woman, who pours the contents of an alabastron jar of "nard" (or spikenard), a very expensive perfume, over Jesus. (Source)

Again, you have managed to draw one or two actual similarities, all the rest of it is either made up, misunderstood, or flat out ridiculous. On that last note, I again point out that the suggestion of Jewish writers plagiarizing a well known story of the leader of the people who were persecuting them, and applying that to Jesus, is laughably wrong.

My issue with you, as usual, is not rooted in religious issues -- you have such a poor understanding of Christianity that I don't even bother on that end -- but on your perversion of historical facts in order to support your biased agenda.

DelayedChristmas
reply to post by windword

 

Either the bible writers plagiarized and took bits and pieces of cultures to formulate this grand conspiracy as a tool of social control ((which wouldn't make sense because Rome was the first nation to use Christianity as a mean of social control under Constantine due to the influential powers the scriptures could have that would be advantageous by being a nation of subordinates (Constantine was smart and cunning to not follow in the overt footsteps of his predecessors and taking the more insidious route, for example, supplanting the practice of infusing a state of divinity (god hood) of the rulers with a Christian theology. I mean, I wonder why Rome would make Christianity the national and the only tolerated religion with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 and why Constantine would order the Council of Nicea to quell the Arians (a disagreement of the formulated man made doctrine of the trinity is/would be bad for the state because it would undermine the religious imposition of the political discourse Constantine envisioned because the religion/social control he was trying to push was being questioned within the Christian community he sought to make everyone a part of as to make ruling a lot easier ))

or

God took pieces of all cultures and their understanding and localized it in within a geographical location where it would be advantageous (Roman occupation of the land; We can still see the influences of Rome today) for the releasing of the refined truth that is Jesus Christ.

This is just my understanding of it.

WRong historical bit bout the Arians. THat conflict dealt with the nature of Christ, whether or not he was "created" or always is.

reply to post by adjensen

The anointing of Jesus is one of the relatively few events reported by each of the four Canonical gospels, although the details of the accounts differ. All report the anointing of Jesus with expensive perfume by a woman, who pours the contents of an alabastron jar of "nard" (or spikenard), a very expensive perfume, over Jesus. (Source)

That was NOT a religious ritual of an anointment. That was a "sinful" woman who used oil to clean Jesus' feet. A ritual anointing is a ceremony, not unlike baptism, that is performed by pouring oil over ones head. Not some random oily foot bath by some random "woman", of all people! You think that foot bath earned Jesus the title of "The Anointed One" "Christ" GIve me a break! Talk about a stretch!

Although he did not rule for long, he gave Rome fresh hope and a whole dynasty of emperors.

But his rule would be cut short. Old enemies joined forces with some of his supporters, fed up of his dictatorial style. On March15, 44 BC, the Ides of March, Caesar was assassinated in the Senate.

Although his own rule was unremarkable, his victory in the civil war replaced a republic, ruled by the consuls and the Senate, with an empire, reigned over by emperors and their hereditary successors. It was the start of a brand new age for Rome.
www.pbs.org...

Julius Caesar was nobility and he was a ruler. But, I admit that I did confuse Julius Ceasar and Augustus Ceasar, thinking that the former was an emperor. It's not important to my argument.

I'm arguing about the term "Christ" which was bestowed on various people for various reason for hundreds of years before the advent of Jesus. It was representative of pagan ideals. It meant a good person, a nice guy, a follower of Greco-Roman Ellucian mystery school, an enlighten person, or later it came to mean an anointed priest or ruler. Caesar fit that description.

The pagan term "Christ" never meant savior or god. Jesus was an Hebrew, not a Greek and not a pagan or follower of any of Ellucian mystery schools, he wasn't an anointed leader.

Chrestos, Christus and Christos are words that evolved through the years and are interchangeable with the word Christ. en.wiktionary.org...

In reality, the term "Chrestos" or χρηστὸς has been used in association with a plethora of people and gods, beginning centuries before the common era. Chrestos and its plural chrestoi were utilized to describe deities, oracles, philosophers, priests, oligarchs, "valuable citizens," slaves, heroes, the deceased and others. Importantly, chrestos appears to have been the title of "perfected saints" in various mystery schools or brotherhoods, associated with oracular activity in particular.

Would Jesus have accepted a title that was being used by pagan oracles, gods and deities? I doubt it.

The fact that Plato (424/423-348/347 BCE) frequently mentions "the good" (χρηστὸς) when discussing various figures (e.g., Plat. Rep. 5.479a) serves as an indication of the word's importance among philosophers and religionists. This association is especially germane considering the exalted place afforded Plato among spiritual seekers for centuries into the common era, including many Christians and assorted "Neoplatonists." Indeed, Plato (Theaetetus 166.a.2) uses the word to describe famed philosopher Socrates: ὁ Σωκράτης ὁ χρηστός - "Socrates the Good."

The term χρηστός chrestos was utilized not only in secular situations but also within ancient religion, philosophy, spirituality and the all-important mysteries, which concerned life and death, including near-death experiences and afterlife traditions. "Chrestos" was one of the titles for the dead in tomb writings.

As another example of the Pagan use of the word chrestos, in 2008 an evidently pre-Christian cup or bowl was found at Alexandria, Egypt, with the genitive form chrestou inscribed on it. This artifact could predate the common era by decades, part of the genre of magical bowls used for protection and incantation.
sites.google.com... istus

Again, you have managed to draw one or two actual similarities

I have shown way more than 2. But I'm curious which 2 you're agreeing to.

reply to post by Rex282

Yahoshua was not an Essene.Just because the disciples called him "rabbi does not mean he was a Jewish Rabbi,.The Pharisees railed on him for not being studied.He broke many Jewish traditions and Laws(The sabbath).There is nothing that suggest he was an Essene that is pure fabrication with zero substantiation of any kind.

................

He definitely was not a Jewish Rabbi or an Essene.Nor the founder of a religion called Christianity.Nothing that was recorded of what he did even faintly suggests that.

Fair enough, although I disagree that there is nothing to suggest that Jesus was an Essene. I think, and plenty of other people too, believe that the New Testament points to Jesus having been an Essene. www.thenazareneway.com...

You say that Jesus wasn't the founder the Christianity. Do you reject the stories of the New Testament?

This video , The Cult of Saturn is quite informative in beginning to see just why ALL religions are a front , for something the very religious people subconsciously give all there power too.

www.youtube.com...

The Deniers time is up ,

Rex282

Yahoshua was not an Essene.Just because the disciples called him "rabbi does not mean he was a Jewish Rabbi,.The Pharisees railed on him for not being studied.He broke many Jewish traditions and Laws(The sabbath).There is nothing that suggest he was an Essene that is pure fabrication with zero substantiation of any kind.

Yeshua never broke the law and to say that is utterly astounding to me. The traditions refers to the fence around the law that the rabbi's felt they had the right to impose on the people. They defined what "work" was and thus they accused Yeshua of breaking the law. They were mad that he healed a woman on the Sabbath and he called them hypocrites as they would walk their donkey to get water on the sabbath but not consider healing a woman!

This sort of teaching that Yeshua broke the law bothers me because the so called Apostle Paul encourages ignoring the law so often, and it is why we are so far from our Father. How do we go to church on a Sunday? Oh, I know, because the RCC made it the day of worship and they pull some line out saying "Yeshua is our Sabbath" as if God's covenant promises and instructions mean nothing. Yeshua kept the law, and the primary focus is to Love God and one another. Yeshua knew the spirit of the Law and did not just observe the letter of it. Life was of the utmost importance.

reply to post by windword


I think this might be an issue of identifying the fact that Yeshua did not bring in a new religion. Yeshua is the Messiah of the Jewish faith and covenant with God. Christianity resembles little of what Yeshua actually practiced. The council of Nicaea made sure to get rid of it's Jewish roots by changing the feasts and the RCC made sure to get rid of Sabbath keeping. If Yeshua showed up today, while he might love the intentions of Christians, he would not understand why they do the things they do as in keeping pagan feasts and ignoring the Feasts of the Lord.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I think this might be an issue of identifying the fact that Yeshua did not bring in a new religion.

Okay. I can agree with this statement.

The council of Nicaea made sure to get rid of it's Jewish roots by changing the feasts and the RCC made sure to get rid of Sabbath keeping.

Probably the most unChristian document ever issued by the Roman Catholic Church are the Cannons of THE COUNCIL OF LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA 364 A.D. that outlawed "Jewishness" and alienated Jewish Christians from the church.

reply to post by ParasuvO


I only watched about 15 minutes of the video. While I agree that the RCC was the unholy child of Paganism and Judaism, and broke many of the Mosiac laws, I disagree with the criticism of the image of Jesus wearing long hair as an abomination.



Jesus the Nazarene, being an ascetic Jew, may very well have taken the Vow of the Nazarite .

5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the Lord, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

Additionally, the Nazorean Essenes of Mount Carmel, which is just a few miles from the settlement of Nazareth, were called the "White Robes" because they donned the white robes after their daily bathing rituals. In my opinion, this image of Jesus, dressed in a white robe with long hair, is a relic of the truth that Jesus was actually a Nazorean Essene.

Even Paul took the oath, and after the completion of his initiation, he ceremonially shaved his head.

19 And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven:

windword
reply to post by Rex282

 

....................
Fair enough, although I disagree that there is nothing to suggest that Jesus was an Essene. I think, and plenty of other people too, believe that the New Testament points to Jesus having been an Essene. www.thenazareneway.com...

You say that Jesus wasn't the founder the Christianity. Do you reject the stories of the New Testament?

I read a few things on the Essene site and it only took a few to see the agenda and many errors by their religious extrapolations of the scriptures.They literally mauled Matt 7 closing statement say Yahoshua DIDN"T teach as one with authority and said the scribes did ..which is just the opposite of what the scriptures say and is consistent with everything he said and did..

I know the scriptures well enough(' very, very well..I'm not bragging it's fact) and more specifically the myriad of Christian false doctrine of men to recognize the agenda machine.It is common to religion...

....and that's the point I was making .Yahoshua wasn't religious at all.He didn't promote any religion.He clearly stated he only did what he heard from the Father and he was not taught by man.He proved it by everything he did.He did not keep the Jewish traditions (to numerous to name here). There is no possible way at all that he was an Essene.That is pure religious conjecture of those with a religious agenda to make false facts fit their theory.

AS for Yahoshua being the "founder" of Christianity... absolutely not.He wasn't religious in the least.I do reject the "stories"..the made up ones by Christianity (all 30,00 sects).for a very simple reason.All religion is incorrect.None of it has the slightest to do with God or "spirit"...religion is the common disease of all mankind.It is in mankinds nature to"believe "their" religion.Man has made God in their image.

I am not judging anyone I am just stating facts.I have no belief of billions of people going to the eternal punishment of hell or any of the religious doctrines of any religion.I understand completely why people believe religion (i did once upon a time)..it is complete ignorance.As Yahoshua said "they "(mankind) don't know what they are doing.This site in one way exemplifies that ..deny ignorance.I have zero desire to argue about anything.I am not trying to change anyone's mind I know that's impossible.I am simply proclaiming what I know...I don't have any kind of agenda especially not a religious one.

reply to post by Rex282



Do you think it is religious to keep the feasts of the Lord? Where did he learn of these feasts? Why did he even open a Torah Scroll in temple? I mean if he just got it all first hand from the Father, then why did he teach to keep the commandments?

I am really trying to understand if you are negating the bible OT and just saying Yeshua was not following the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). He is alive in all the Feasts of the Lord, and as Hanukkah approaches, I am very much looking forward to the time of re-dedication and thanksgiving exemplified when Yeshua who symbolizes the shamash (servant candle) that gives the light to all the others of the Menorah.

UnifiedSerenity
Do you think it is religious to keep the feasts of the Lord?

Yes.The feast days are Jewish religion.The feast days were symbolic of things to come(Yahoshua).They of themselves don't do anything.Do you still sacrifice animals on an alter.If you don't you aren't keeping the feast days .

UnifiedSerenity

Where did he learn of these feasts?

Yahoshua knew the feast days however he did not keep them as religious acts.Nowhere in the scriptures does it say he kept any of the feast days. They were symbolic types and shadows of him.There was no reason to.The pharisees got on him because the disciples didn't fast like John the baptists did.He said why would they when he (the groom) was with them.There are may instances of the same type.The religious were so blind they could not see that and they remain blind to God because of religion to this day.

UnifiedSerenity

Why did he even open a Torah Scroll in temple? I mean if he just got it all first hand from the Father, then why did he teach to keep the commandments?

I almost can't believe you asked this question.Why would Yahoshua read from a Torah scroll when he heard from the father.Are you saying the Torah is superior to hearing from the father.He said ALL the commandments were summed in one ...love God and your neighbor as yourself.

UnifiedSerenity

I am really trying to understand if you are negating the bible OT and just saying Yeshua was not following the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel).

What you are doing is reading into what I am writing(and even more so into the scriptures of things that aren't there).I never said the scriptures were invalid.They have a purpose as Yahoshua said they are a testimony of Yahoshua (God's salvation) however they have been made into the doctrines of men by religion.I am saying exactly what Yahoshua said.

UnifiedSerenity

He is alive in all the Feasts of the Lord, and as Hanukkah approaches, I am very much looking forward to the time of re-dedication and thanksgiving exemplified when Yeshua who symbolizes the shamash (servant candle) that gives the light to all the others of the Menorah.

I am not trying to compel you to not practice your religion.That is what the religious do.It is in their nature.My point is Yahoshua never practiced religion in the least.To believe that he did is to believe a lie.There is nothing in the scriptures that supports that in any form.

He came to free mankind from religion not to enslave them again.When he told some Jews that believed in him."If you continue in MY word[not religion and not the Torah] you are truly a disciple of mine and you will "know"[not believe] the truth and [ THEN] the truth will make you free.

They went on to question him of his "religious status".He eventually said you are not of your father Abraham your father is the devil the father of lies.These are Jews that believed in him.He didn't take their religion or religious activity as "favorable at all.He knew it was to their detriment.They did not hear from THE Father God they heard from their father..the father of all religion...the adversary.

Reply to Rex 282

Yes.The feast days are Jewish religion.The feast days were symbolic of things to come(Yahoshua).They of themselves don't do anything.Do you still sacrifice animals on an alter.If you don't you aren't keeping the feast days .

So, the Apostles were wrong then? You are saying they whom our Lord chose to FOLLOW in his footsteps were wrong to keep the feasts? Yes, Yeshua completes the Feasts which are perpetual feasts of the Lord. Leviticus chapter 23 details the Feasts of the Lord and they are perpetual in all your generations. We are grafted into the house of Israel, and are commanded to keep the Feasts. He has fulfilled the spring time feasts of the Lord and when he returns he will fulfill the fall feasts.

Lev 23:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

Lev 23:21 And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.

Yeshua is the final blood sacrifice and therefore we no longer need to offer the blood of animals as a covering for Yeshua's sacrifice was perfect perpetual sacrifice for all time for those who believe. Thus, in observing the sacred days we look to that blood atonement.

Apostles kept YEHOVAH's feasts

The book of Acts clearly reveals that the Messiah's apostles continued keeping the feasts of YEHOVAH after the New Testament Church of YEHOVAH God began in A.D. 31. Notice, for example, the celebration of Pentecost in Acts 2 and the keeping of the Days of Unleavened Bread in chapter 12, verses 3 and 4.

But did Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, also keep YEHOVAH's feasts?

It was Paul who was observing the Feast of Pentecost, an annual Sabbath, mentioned in Acts 16:13 and 20:16. Paul and his company also observed the Days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6), and he kept the Day of Atonement ("the fast") mentioned in Acts 27:9.

But did Paul ever keep the Feast of Tabernacles? He certainly did.

Paul, in about A.D. 50, traveled from Asia into Europe and began preaching the Gospel at Philippi "on the day of weeks" -- Pentecost, according to the Greek text (Acts 16:13). After spending a few weeks at Philippi (verse 12), Thessalonica (Acts 17:1), Berea (verse 10) and Athens (verse 15), Paul came to Corinth in the late summer of A.D. 50 (Acts 18:1). He spent several Sabbaths teaching in the synagogue (verse 4), and continued holding meetings in the house of Justus (verse 7) for "a year and six months" (verse 11). This brings us to sometime during the spring of A.D. 52. After a riot in Corinth had been quelled, Paul "tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria" (verse 18). By now it was well into the summer of A.D. 52, which means that the feasts of Unleavened Bread and Pentecost were both past. The major autumn Feast of Tabernacles was fast approaching.

"And he [Paul] came to Ephesus...When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast [of Tabernacles] that cometh in Jerusalem" (verses 19-21). Notice that he felt impelled to "keep" the Feast of Booths in Jerusalem.

Since Paul kept YEHOVAH's commanded festivals, including the Feast of Tabernacles, why do some claim that he taught it wasn't necessary for gentile Christians to keep YEHOVAH's Holy Days? Never once did he say this.

"Ye observe days"

Some misunderstand and pervert the meaning of Paul's statement in Galatians 4:10, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years." Is Paul here labeling the observance of YEHOVAH God's Holy Days unnecessary?

Remember, Paul is talking to gentile Galatians who had never observed YEHOVAH's commanded Holy Days. They had, however, observed (as did all pagan nations) certain days, months, times and years. This is what Paul was scolding the Galatians about. "I am afraid of you, lest, I have bestowed upon you labour in vain," said Paul (verse 11). "How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" (verse 9). Paul was decrying the Galatians' tendency to hold to their former pagan observances.

Many also misunderstand the meaning of Paul's statement in Colossians 2:16, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of [margin, in part of ] an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." Was Paul abrogating YEHOVAH's command to keep His feasts?

Notice. Paul was telling the Christians at Colossae not to let anyone take them to task regarding how they observed YEHOVAH's Holy Days or the Sabbath. He did not say, "Let no man therefore keep an holyday, or the new moon, or the sabbath day."

A better translation of this verse would read as follows: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in part of [not "in respect of"] an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is [not in Greek text] of Christ [should judge] you in these matters."

In other words, it was the Church ("the body of Christ") that was to judge the Christians at Colossae, not outsiders, in the way they observed YEHOVAH God's commanded Holy Days and the weekly Sabbath. The Colossians were right in keeping YEHOVAH's Holy Days, no matter what any non-Christians said. Nothing whatsoever is said about not keeping the days.

source

I would like to offer that too many forget that Jesus / Yeshua was and still is a Jew who keeps the Law and instituted a New Covenant of the LAW written on our hearts not like the old covenant of the LAW written on stone. So, when Yeshua said he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it and that not one jot nor tittle would change until ALL is fulfilled then it means that the perpetual Feasts of the Lord are still in place. I would also like to point out that Yeshua is our bridegroom. He went away to prepare a place for us, and he is coming back to claim his bride. What bride would ever think that just because her groom had satisfied the contract would not want to honor him by keeping HIS feasts? It is not a chore for me to honor my anniversary or other special days. Why do so many Christians find it a chore to honor God's?

You seem to think the Torah is not God's living word. As I recall it is the word of God and Yeshua is the physical representation of it in spirit and in truth. The Torah is not above God, it is HIS word. You seem to think it is beneath God, so are you saying Jesus / Yeshua is beneath God? He and the Father are one. Thus the Torah is sacred.

The greatest commandment is to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength. Love is a verb and thus keeping the commandments including the perpetual feasts just as Yeshua did is a sign of that love for Him. You speak of love and I will show you my love by what I do. I do not do it out of obedience but out of sincere love for Him. It is not a chore anymore than preparing a beautiful meal and celebration with friends on my anniversary is. These are God's anniversaries and by observing them in understanding the message of them, we honor God.