NOTE: The following are a series of emails *excerpts, which I sent to Ian Boyne, the leader of the local Church of God International in Jamaica; which is an “offshoot” of the now extinct Worldwide Church of God which was founded by HW Armstrong. Seeing that Ian Boyne, like Armstrong (his late philosophical/doctrinal leader), fully believes in the annual feasts being still binding on even Gentile Christians, the following responses from me to his forums and CDs on the issue should show how their doctrine on annual feast days of ancient Israel can be reasonably answered.

RESPONSE TO “HOLY DAYS” AND “FESTIVALS” FORUM- Part 1

INSTANCES OF WEAK POLEMICS

Dear bro Boyne,

You do show (on the CDs you sent me) evidence of overreaching in your apologetics on the Holy Days, that is, setting out to prove what

is actually unprovable from the ‘evidence’ you appeal to:

1. On one occasion you strove to show how the annual

festivals were instituted, or at least how “provisions were made for them” in Gen. 1:14, before even the weekly

Sabbath is mentioned in Gen. 2; obviously with a view to showing that the annual Sabbaths are no less solemn since

they began to be set up or came about (in your view) before even the Sabbath institution and the first instance of weekly

Sabbath observance as recorded in Ex. 16. But Ian that weak argumentation is untenable (in certain portions) to say the

least.

Looking closely at Gen. 1:14 it shows God putting “lights”

(i.e. sun, moon, and stars) in the heavens to, FIRST, divide the day from the night ( thus a provision being made for

marking off the daily and weekly cycle before anything else), and, SECONDLY, to be “signs” or markers for “seasons” or

“moed” (Hebrew), that is, these lights are for marking off the “feasts” or “festivals” or “appointed times”. But what

are these “moed” or “appointed times? Notice firstly the

sequence in the latter part of Gen. 1:14—first, for marking off “days”, and then for “years”. You already know Ian that

the weekly Sabbath is itself a “moed” or “feast”, “festival” or “appointed time” (Lev. 23:1-3). So in all honesty Ian,

which “appointed time” was provision first made for? It had to be the time that would fall within the weekly cycle being

marked off by the sun dividing the days. This is irrefutably the weekly Sabbath falling within the cycle of smallest

portion of time the “lights in the heavens” were set up to mark off.

And Gen. 2:1-3 is irrefutably the occasion on which the Sabbath of the Lord was instituted. He first kept it Himself,

and thus that is why Heb. 4 made reference to God resting on the seventh day. God resting on the first seventh day, he

making it holy, and “hallowing” or setting it apart makes it irrefutably the first ever instituted “feast” or "appointed

time" long before the arrival of sin, or shadows and types meant to teach salvation from sin. It was God first keeping

the weekly Sabbath that made it the Sabbath. Its institution was not dependent on when man is first recorded keeping it.

This again is irrefutable Ian. So your attempt at showing how the institution of the Passover in Ex. 13 was before the

Ex. 16’s recording of Sabbath observance among men actually proves nothing.

In fact, if one is going to be technical, then the earlier recorded events in Exodus 5:1-9 and Ex. 10:1-3 does show

Moses ALREADY knowing of a “feast” long before the first annual Passover was instituted in Ex. 16, but Pharaoh

prevented the people from such an observance which would require rest from their labors. If one is going to be honest

one would have to admit that the only “feast” already in existence long before any other was instituted would be the

weekly Sabbath. So Ian, don’t overreach yourself, since the Biblical data does prove that the Weekly Sabbath is in a class

all by itself. Why? By being the first appointed “feast”

observed by God himself (even before a direct Biblical record of man doing so), by being the first ever instituted “feast” in

all history, and by being the only feast established long before sin, and LONG before types, and shadows that were

meant to teach salvation from sin; and not just that it is among the Ten Commandments (which you conveniently

cited as an argument used by the opposition as if that was

the only or main thing setting it apart and establishing its universal nature).

2. Also, I see you using the 4th century quotes from John

Chrysostom of Antioch to prove what the quotes are in fact

far from proving. I can only assume that the “Adventist friend” whom you referred in your “Holy Days” forum at the

Life of Jamaica Auditorium, as the one who "wrote you” and the one making the “fatal” mistake of saying there was no

controversy over other feast days except Sabbath and Passover, that had to be me (or so it appears). If it happens

to have been me you were referring to I should point out Ian that it evidences your carelessness in quoting the

opposition, or probably a failure to properly understand the point being made by those who oppose you. I submitted to

you the very potent point that indeed there is evidence of the Papal Church in Church Councils having a controversy

over the timing of both the weekly Sabbath and the annual Passover [or Lord’s Supper], but no such controversy over

the TIMING of the other festivals, hence indicating they

were not being universally kept by New Testament Christians [especially Gentiles] as a mark of their obligatory

nature. Notice my emphasis Ian on the “controversy over the timing” or the timetabling of the weekly Sabbath and

annual Lord’s Supper. Did you fail to recognize this as the essence of what I was saying, or was it a reckless treatment

of the arguments of the opposition so as to water down its potency?

Anyway, whatever the reason, I still contend that you have

yet to present anything in history to disprove this reality. If

Ian, as even the Chrysostom quotes proved, there was such an strong anti-Semitic spirit within the Papal system, then

obviously there would be record of the Church Councils denouncing the timetabling of the other festivals such as

feast of Tabernacles, Atonement, Trumpets, etc., within the Christian liturgical calendar; apart from the weekly Sabbath

and the Passover which was transformed into the Lord’s Supper in the new dispensation. So Ian, I ask you, where is

such a record to be found? There is actually none Ian!! And for a man as well researched as you are [*Boyne is Jamaica’s

premier media journalist], if such evidence existed then you

would have by now found evidence of the Papacy saying they would also not observe the feast of Tabernacles,

Atonement, Trumpets, Pentecost on the days the Jews were still doing. Why have you not found such an evidence Ian?

Because there is no evidence that these festivals were being universally kept by early Gentile Christians just like the

Passover/Lord’s Supper and the weekly Sabbath, and seen by them as obligatory as a matter of conscience.

What the Chrysostom quotes simply show is a FEAR this

preacher had that the other festivals of the Jews would

“SOON” be “marching into the Church” as the Christians visited the synagogues to observe their Judeo-Christian

heritage being displayed in its original way (including literal circumcision, literal sacrifices, feasts and festivals, and ALL

the old rituals of Judaism still being observed by Jews). And remember this was the fourth century Ian. So if the other

festivals had not yet “marched into the Church”, but there was ONLY a fear that they would in the near future, then this

quote you used does prove my point. These other festivals were not being universally kept by Gentile Christians, and

hence there was no dispute over the timetabling of them, when compared to the weekly Sabbath and the annual Lord’s

Supper that indeed were being observed by all and there developed a dispute as to WHEN they should be observed.

Pentecost (which some call Whit Sunday) I had also

conceded as being kept in a new way by some Churches [just like the Lord’s Supper abolished and replaced the

original Passover festival] to remind Gentile Christians of the official launch of the Christian faith upon the decent of the

Holy Spirit on that Day, and not because it was seen as being annually obligatory as a matter of conscience.

Incidentally Ian, you did inadvertently prove my point that

the early Christians of Gentile background did adopt the Jewish calendar as their preferred frame of reference over

that of the Roman calendar. Thus it can be seen even where the Gentile writer such as Luke, writing in Acts to another

Gentile Christian convert (Theophilus), would use the events

of the Jewish calendar to mark off what time of the year a matter being described occurred (since the Jews never

abandoned the events in their calendar, and it was long

before A.D. 70 when the temple would have been destroyed and temple services ended), and yet he was not necessarily

saying he himself was keeping ALL the other Jewish feasts that Paul (a Jew, with national and cultural Jewish history to

commemorate) was endeavoring to keep. Thus Ian, your historical quotes lack teeth in your attempt to prove what

you set out to prove with them, and they in fact do strengthen my position on the issue.

I WILL SHOW MUCH MORE OF YOUR FAULTY APOLOGETICS

IN MY NEXT E-MAIL IAN (AS WELL AS SHOW THE DIDACTIC

NATURE OF ALL THE JEWISH RITUALS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT EVEN WHEN MANY OF THEM CEASED AS

MATTERS OF OBLIGATORY OBSERVANCE IN THE ORIGINAL WAY FOR THE GENTILE CHRISTIAN).

*[CONTINUED BELOW]

RESPONSE TO “HOLY DAYS” AND “FESTIVALS” FORUM- Part 2

Dear bro Boyne,

As I continue to show, what I deem, certain instances of “weak polemics” used by you in your presentation on “feast days”, I must admit that I have learnt at least one thing from you in all of this (of course among other things). There is indeed much to be gained by you, and your Armstrongite brethren, subjecting your doctrines, and systems of apologetics and polemics to constant critique, since it will serve to expose the weaknesses and strengths for future refinement of your system of argumentation, as well as it does no harm to re-examine ones doctrinal positions and beliefs against the background of new emerging polemics from the opposition, and against the background of even new facts being unearthed. I have learnt that indeed this is a way of not just determining whether one really does have the truth, but also a way of determining why and how one should adapt one’s hermeneutics and

apologetics in the face of differing modes of opposition. SDA apologists should endeavor to do this as well; I know I will certainly do that hereafter. Of course, it should also be (by both you and me) an honest and open approach aimed at further searching for truth, since no one knows it all. It should not be just about making it (as you call it) a “mars hill” type exercise, just to determine how expert we are at debates (of course the heart is deceitful and we can all become prey to that). But indeed if one discovers that what one believes does not stand up to harsh and invasive Biblical and logical scrutiny then one should be willing to re-cant or at least revise same in light of truth. One should not idolize ones traditional beliefs so much that they take the place of a God Himself. With that now said, let me do point out that your argumentation against the Trinity, and in favor of human deification is seriously flawed (both Biblically and in the light of historical evidence), and is less than convincing for me, but your argumentation on Holy Days exhibit much more potency, despite there are indeed weaknesses in certain arguments you use, which makes them miss the mark of convincing me fully. By the way, I will not just be negative and point out only your weak arguments, but at the end (Part 3 to come) I will also show your strong arguments, and what you have influenced me to concede on so far regarding “feasts” and “holy days”. So here goes…

INSTANCES OF WEAK POLEMICS- Part 2

1. I see you using Daniel 7:25 as a prophecy indicating that the Papal system would change “TIMES” (plural) and “laws”, and hence you arbitrarily EXTRAPOLATE this to mean they changed all the festivals in the Christian Church. This again evidences overreaching Ian. If one is not well researched (like that brother you told me about who canceled his SDA candidacy for baptism, in favor of an Armstrongite baptism), then listening to you would certainly have a “greenhorn” bowled over by this appeal to the word “TIMES” (plural) in Daniel 7:25. But Ian, here’s the thing. I remember years ago in my online apologetics addressing this very expression “TIMES” (plural) in my efforts to prove that the Roman Papacy did indeed fulfill the prophecy. And it is true they did indeed “change”, notice “CHANGE”, God’s “times” (plural), or they altered the appointed seasons, and God’s timetable surrounding them, as entrusted to the Jews, and as inherited by Gentile Christians. Yet notice that this prophecy did not focus on an abolishment of whatever “times” it “changed”, but rather a “changing” of the times already in place. Remember the word “change” simply means “to become different in some particular way, without permanently losing one's or its former characteristics or

essence”. Abolish means something entirely different Ian.

The Papacy is a master counterfeiter. It does not deceive so much by abolishing fully an institution that God set up, but by accepting what’s already the truth, and changing it (e.g. it evidences this masterful counterfeiting of the 2nd, 4th, and the 10th of the accepted Ten Commandments, as well as the accepted institution of Christian “priesthood”, as well as the accepted “triadic” nature of the Godhead; just to name three examples from very many). And that is precisely what it did with the timing of the true “Lord’s Day” or the Sabbath of the Lord, as well as the timing of the true Lord’s Supper (or the “new” Passover) instituted at the time of the old Passover. It also changed God’s way of indicating the daily cycle from sunset to sunset, to the Roman system of from midnight to midnight (a matter the whole Western world adopted and now follows)!! The result? Bastardizing or hybridizing the truth, and leading to disobedience with Sabbath observance on Sundays, or observing appointed times from midnight, for instance. So yes, the “times” that were “CHANGED” (not abolished) by the Papacy were indeed in the plural. And so I can agree with you in that one regard!! But to arbitrarily extrapolate that they did change all the other festivals in terms of their timetabling among Gentile Christians you are yet to prove Ian.

And the historical data you are working with evidences clearly that all Christians were indeed keeping the “new” Lord’s Supper instituted at the time of the old Passover (Nisan 14), and the weekly seventh-day Sabbath; both later changed to another “time” by the Papacy because of its anti-Semetic sentiments. Do you notice today, since Vatican II, that the Papacy is urging Christians to get back to the Sabbath, but just that “Sabbath” here means Sunday that it was “CHANGED” to? The same is true for the Lord’s Supper “CHANGED” to the Easter timetable [BEING UNBIBLICALLY OBSERVED ON SUNDAY ALWAYS]. But Ian, where is the evidence of Papal Church Councils, in the face of (as you would argue) all Gentile Christians ANNUALLY and faithfully keeping (as so urgently presented by you) the feast of Tabernacles, feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, etc., and the Papacy CHANGING the timing of them? Where Ian? And don’t tell me about them changing one or the other of the other festivals for Christmas! You can speculate and tell your “Armstrongite” brethren that, but as for the living proof that it was actually decreed by Papal Church authority or by the force of Papal example as a direct

replacement you are yet to historically prove. Nothing beats evidence, and you know once I see evidence I will not brush it aside, if it is compelling. The same way history clearly records the weekly Sabbath, and the Lord’ supper, and the sunset to sunset principle as being changed by Rome, where is you evidence for the change of the timing for these other feasts? I still await that revelation from you Ian. And remember, when I say “other feasts” or “other festivals” you know full well I am consistent in my argumentation that the weekly Sabbath, just like the binding Lord’s Supper, is indeed also a “feast” or “appointed time” for assembling of the brethren.

2. I also see you using the Biblical data from the New Testament (especially the book of Acts) to extrapolate about the “other festivals” being as binding on Gentile Christians as the Lord’s Supper and the weekly Sabbath indeed are (which are already clearly evidenced by both the widespread example of the apostolic Church in secular history, and by clear Biblical injunction, that they binding on all). Using what you call “powerfully suggestive” references, and “circumstantial evidence”, in terms of the narrative by Paul in his travels, or by Luke (writing to a Gentile Christian audience) in the book of Acts, and he simply describing events in the context of the adopted Jewish calendar, in order to decide what is required for Gentile Christians also really lacks teeth!! I see you blatantly using eisogesis as the main ground of your argument, without regard for the fact the data can indeed be LEGITIMATELY interpreted in more than one way!! This renders your interpretation as not necessarily coercive in terms of indicating a specific Biblical injunctive for New Testament Gentile Christians to observe all the “other festivals” as a matter of conscience and law (as the Ten Commandments irrefutable requires about the weekly Sabbath, and the words of Jesus and Paul requires about the Lord’s Supper). I already pointed out Ian that the historical quotes you presented did indeed confirm my view that the Gentile Christians did adopt the Jewish calendar, and thus with many of the events in the book of Acts happening when even the temple was not yet destroyed in Jerusalem, and with circumcision still being practiced widely, with washings and purifications, literal animal sacrifices, and indeed all the rituals of Judaism still being practiced by the Jews, then it is understandable the Luke would describe events in the context of the Jewish calendar with all of its well-known liturgical events still in place, without him necessarily saying ALL festivals are FOREVER binding on Gentile Christian converts as matter of conscience.

DIDACTIC NATURE OF JEWISH RITUALS IN NEW TESTAMENT (AFTER THE CROSS)

The transition from the old system to the new system for the apostolic Christian church was GRADUAL, and not all things were clear in the early years (Acts 15 proves that). It took years, decades in fact, with much debate at times, for even the first clear Christian understanding to emerge, of what must be abandoned, as opposed to what should be kept (in terms of the old Jewish system of things) . Thus during the early years it was only natural that many old traditions would still be observed without it necessarily indicating their perpetual binding nature as a matter of conscience for Gentile Christians. Circumcision, for instance, was deemed as a perpetual statute, and yet it was abandoned eventually (not initially). Circumcision was initially considered in Israel as an "everlasting" ritual-Gen. 17:13-- yet it came to an end for Gentile Christians (much to the chagrin of the Jews). Another example is the formerly prophesied 'gospel age' presenting Gentile converts as 'bonafide' priests and Levites (Is.66:19-24) despite the literal Levitical priesthood came to an end since Jesus became our High Priest of the order of Melchizdek). Yet their importance as rituals still has an important didactic role in the New Testament. Explanation? Today Christians MUST be spiritually “circumcised” in heart and as spiritual “priests” (but not so literally).

And here’s another example. Literal purification rituals were practiced by early Christians, even Paul the apostle, and yet it was later abandoned, in favor of the principle spiritual that now we MUST spiritually “wash our robes in the blood of the Lamb”, or Jesus now MUST spiritually “purify to himself” a bride or Church “without spot or wrinkle” (a matter not yet fully accomplished, and will be realized only in the future). Keep that in mind for what I will show you later Ian.

The Jews continued to practice animal sacrifice long after the Christian era began, and yet despite the literal practice is no longer required of the Christian (or of anyone for that matter), yet we must still offer ourselves as “living sacrifices”, even as we must forever consider Christ our “Passover” as once “sacrificed” for us each time we observe the Lord’s Supper. Thus it can be

seen that the didactic importance and Christocentric nature of all the rituals of Judaism do indeed continue on into the New Testament era. But it cannot be argued that a ritual must be urged upon a Gentile Christian as still binding (i.e. as a matter of conscience, or for obligatory observance in the literal way) SIMPLY because its significance extend beyond the cross, or because it may have a future fulfillment. Much more is required for a matter to be seen as an injunction for the Gentile Christian Ian (since not all things are clear-cut about the practices of Judaism as it concerns what is to be observed by the Christian, as opposed to what is not specifically required). Certain principles must be applied before one can begin to see something as still binding. Such principles must extend to, for instance:

(a)Is it clearly a universal moral principle evidenced before even the nation of Israel was established, such as the prohibition against unclean foods, or the stewardship requirement of tithing one’s income? Is it a moral principle showing an expansion on the principles in the Ten Commandments after they were given by God? Obviously if the matter is already among the Ten Commandments then the law should be observed without dispute, but it is a fact that other moral principles and laws are not in the Ten Commandments, and hence other considerations (such as the above described, and the one described below) must be borne in mind too about additional principles of obedience.

(b) If it is a ritual matter, is it clearly required (as a matter of conscience) in a specific injunction in the New Testament, or is it clearly shown by widespread example in the practice of the early Christians as obviously still binding on Gentile Christians (and can be proven both from the biblical record and in secular history); just as shown by the widespread example of the observance of the Sabbath of the perpetual Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Supper specifically required of Christians by Jesus himself (and re-iterated by Paul)?

I put it to you Ian I am not convinced that the “other festivals” you espouse, as being matters of conscience or obligation in their literal observance by Gentile Christians can be irrefutably proven to be such; or at least for me you are yet

to prove them to be so. They do not fulfill the principles I outlined above when considering matters that are controversial as to what God requires of New Testament Christians. If as you claim, the true remnant “restorers of the true faith” must be “feast keepers” as the apostolic Church was, then Ian where is the recorded history of your ‘pet’ festival of the feast of Tabernacles [for instance] being widely kept by early Christians, both in the Bible and recorded in the pages of secular history? If you interpret Zechariah 14 to mean what you say it means about the feast of Tabernacles in the New Earth, then the early Christians would evidence a widespread observation of this most important feast, and would also show evidence in their writings that they understood it to be still binding, especially in light of Zech 14. It would also be inescapable that the Papacy would have to contend with the timetabling of this feast too, just like the Lord’s Supper (since it was so much a part of early Church history, as you would argue), and hence there MUST be some evidence that the Papacy changed its time of observance by Church law. Where is the clear evidence Ian? Remember, the “true remnant” is not going to be bringing any new interpretation on Zech. 14 as evidence that the feast of Tabernacles must be kept by New Testament Christians. That “remnant” will be able to point to the apostolic example, and the pages of Church history to establish, beyond the shadow of any doubt, proof of its claims about the feast of Tabernacles being always seen by Christians as such after Jesus left us. I am yet to see you presenting such evidence Ian. So let me repeat what I earlier said to you bro Boyne about Zech. 14 [with additional statements in brackets]:

“IS ZECHARIAH 14 TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY IN EVERY SENSE?

I have seen this prophecy being triumphantly paraded by the 'feasts advocates' as an indication that if the feast of Tabernacles will be required of even the Gentiles in the New Earth, then it must be a clear signal (or so they argue) that it must be observed by God's true Church today, in preparation for that reality!! But hold on now!! Did the 'feasts advocates' stop to really think this one through? Read Zech. 14:16-21 and think about the following potent questions:

1. Why is it * ONLY the feast of Tabernacles was brought into focus in the prophecy of Zechariah? "Gentiles" will not be "punished" for failing to observe in the New Earth *all the other holy days, new moon festivals, or all the other

annual feasts of Judaism (the 'feasts advocates' insist all still continue today for all)?

2. Why, if the feast of Tabernacles is so important, so as to be the only *annual feast the Old Testament prophesied about in the New Earth, we did not see the New Testament Gentile Churches celebrating it? Where can such an example be found in the entire New Testament part of the Bible, or in the pages of history about the early apostolic and post-Apostolic churches? Strange that there is such a silence (!!) over such a "critical" annual feast prophesied to be the main annual feast in the new earth!! Notice, however (in contrast) how the weekly Sabbath prophesied to be in the New Earth in Isaiah 66:22, 23 has solid evidence of its apostolic observance both in the New Testament Scriptures, with it's the perpetual Ten Commandments, and in the history of the apostolic church in Acts, as well as in the pages of secular history; THAT IT IS STILL BINDING AND WAS INDEED EMPHASISED BY THE EARLY GENTILE CHRISTIANS AS SUCH!!

3. Do the 'feasts advocates really believe that the New Earth will be populated by people who present the possibility of being disobedient to God once more after Judgment Day over a feast observed at Jerusalem?

4. Do they really believe that there will be a distinction of Jews and Gentiles in the New Earth? Even after God distinctly declares as of *now "there is neither Jew nor Gentile" (or literal "families of Egypt"), and thus we should expect this principle will carry over to the New Earth, since the distinctions are no longer literal in God's eyes, but rather spiritual?

5. Do they really expect that the New Earth will literally have new converts to Israel who will then offer "sacrifice", despite sacrifices have long been abolished?

I would expect that the feasts advocates will have to admit that several elements of this prophecy must be considered as having a spiritual application, then the question is, what gives them such license to "cherry pick" what aspect of the prophecy will be literal (such as the feast of Tabernacles), and what will not be? That is what I call *BIGOTRY of the highest order! It is axiomatic that prophecies laden with types and symbols, which the Bible is silent on regarding the exact nature of their literal fulfilment we should allow for them to unfold in the way God intends them to unfold! And since we cannot see the future we should tread softly in terms of inventing doctrines about such prophecies.

I am of the firm belief that since the feast of Tabernacles [apart from it not being a moral principle in nature, as pre-Israelic dietery laws or pre-Israelic stewardship in tithing] was not among the Ten Commandments, [or a clear injunction given in the New Testament about it] and it was not emphasized by the apostolic church, so that we could relate to it like the "Lord's Supper" then the 'feast advocates' are attaching an importance to the *literal observation of this feast today that is unwarranted; forgetting that Jesus being the "first fruits" of the harvest of souls have already been fulfilling the purpose of the feast of Tabernacles. In all possibility, since so many aspects of Zech. 14, just like aspects of many other prophecies in the Old Testament, will be fulfilled in a spiritual way (and not in every exact detail as originally described literally with Jewish typology) then I am believing that the "feast of Tabernacles" in Zech. 14:16-18 also does have a spiritual application, which the New Earth will reveal how Jesus Himself was its perfect fulfillment!!

…I personally would take no issue with any Christian preferring to 'borrow' the six other annual feasts and tailoring them to be great periods of rejoicing and reflection in the Church calendar, instead of the pagan-inspired Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc, since that is a more biblically prudent option. But I am firmly set against any doctrine 'forcing' *all of them upon Gentile Christians as a matter of conscience!!".

*[TO BE CONTINUED---IN MY LAST E-MAIL TO FOLLOW, PART 3 ON “HOLY DAYS”, I WILL ADDRESS WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE YOUR STRONGEST ARGUMENTS, AFTER OUTLINING THE REMAINING OR UNMENTIONED EXAMPLES OF WEAK POLEMICS ON YOUR PART]

RESPONSE TO “HOLY DAYS” AND “FESTIVALS” FORUM- Part 3

Dear bro Boyne,

This will be the final installment in my response to you on “feasts” or “holy days”. In this final e-mail responding to your forum on Holy Days (as recorded on the CDs you sent me) I will do two things:

(a) I will conclude my outline of what I deem to be instances of you displaying “weak polemics” on the issue, and

(b) I will show what I deemed to be your strongest arguments that I had to concede on, at least in certain portions

INSTANCES OF WEAK POLEMICS- Part 3

1. I had to smile Ian when I heard you at the LOJ forum making the same point you raised on TVJ’s “Religious Hardtalk” that if it was not for Lev. 23:32 (describing when to observe the day of Atonement) then Sabbatarians would not know when to celebrate the weekly Sabbath. Can I be frank here Ian? In your own words (said rather animatedly at your forum) this is a “FOOL FOOL ARGUMENT” (to use the rather potent Jamaican vernacular. Smile). In fact, it is simply pointless (in terms of it doing anything for your case about the “other feast days” I am yet to be convinced about, i.e. proving their binding nature on Gentile Christians), and it’s pretty laughable that you would venture to make such a claim. All we need to ask, in terms of determining when does one day change to another in the daily cycle (according to God’s system Ian) is simply this: When really does a “yom” or biblical 24 hour day begin? The rest is logical (in terms of when that same day ends). This principle was well known from creation. Each of the seven days were clearly shown to begin at, and numerically counted from “evening”. It’s like saying a year is 360 lunar days and begins from the month of Nisan. Thus it is logical that the next year would begin when Nisan starts again. As a Geography lecturer I say to you

Ian, it’s only logical. So let me repeat what I said earlier in response to you saying the same thing (as described above) on “Religious Hardtalk:

“You surprisingly denied that the principle of when a day ends is effectively signaled by when a day begins; at evening!! [Pastor] Evans was right that the days of creation (established by God himself) set the pattern for all days beginning at sundown (which happens only once in 24 hours)!! And thus, Ian, it was self-evident that the next day begins at sundown 24 hours later. Are you saying then that until Moses wrote thousands of years after the week was already in existence no one knew when the days ended until Moses wrote about the Day of Atonement being celebrated from "even to even"? Come on Ian, I expected better from you!! That was a rather simplistic argument on your part. I think you toyed a little with sophistry there!!”

This is unbeatable logic Ian, and I am sure you do realize that by now!!

2. I also wondered what’s the real reason why you started your forum on Holy Days by saying you will “leave no stone unturned”, but hastily skirted around Gal. 4:1-11 (which must be seriously considered in light of Gal. 5:1-3 and Acts 15:5,6). This is a major text used by the opposition against “holy days”, so why did you fail to delve into it? I distinctly recall you saying: “For an hermeneutical principle to be successful it must be able to deal effectively with the objections that are lodged against the particular doctrine in question, as well as provide a comprehensive cover …” Gal. 4 is a ‘bothersome text’ used by the opposition (both by Sunday and Sabbath keepers alike) against the additional “feast days” you espouse. So why skirt around it, with you only saying “I will not get into it at this time, or even look at the Greek root meaning of ‘ye observe’ as an astrological ‘watching’ of days, months, times and years”? This is an important text Ian and must be confronted. It is not good enough to say that “you can’t see how Sabbatarians can use this text against the other feast days, and not realize that it would just as equally apply to the weekly Sabbath, since they stand or fall together”, and think that is all you need to say about this text. Was your forum just aimed at presenting a polemic against SDAs and other Sabbatarians, or was it equally aimed at reaching those who keep no Sabbath at all? What is the real meaning of Gal. 4:10 which would effectively answer both groups? I do believe that in failing to delve into it you did “leave stones unturned”, and I am feeling that your polemics showed weaknesses here too. Am yet to see you properly

address this potent text Ian. I have already showed you my take on the issue of Gal. 4:10 (in light of Col. 2:14-17), no matter if you brushed it aside. What’s your take on Gal. 4:1-11 (to effectively answer both Sabbatarians and non-Sabbatarians who use it against your insistence on keeping all holy days)?

INSTANCES OF STRONG POLEMICS

I decided to leave this for last, so that the last thing to register with you in all of this is that I am not too proud to say when a good point has been made by the opposition, nor am I lacking in humility to say “I concede”. You did make some solid points in your presentations on holy days, and I am going to present them to you as I close.

1. I acknowledge the strength of the argument that the annual festivals were not just Jewish national holidays, and that God can take what was quintessentially a Jewish institution and make it have global application, as well as later having a didactic significance beyond the cross (like the Passover instituted at the exodus from Egypt, but later applied to an institution reaching beyond the Jewish economy and beyond the cross). Yet, it is also true that they cannot be denied as being festivals that have national and cultural significance in an agrarian Jewish economy (and thus would apply to the Jewish nation and literal Jews in the national context too as long as that nation exist, as seen for instance Paul endeavoring to honor his Jewish roots in observing all annual festivals). And while it is true that the “other festivals” you espouse do have lessons and significance for even future fulfillment (in some cases), yet your polemic that this means automatically that they must all be kept by Gentile Christians (almost “to the letter of the law” as written under the old covenant) is proven, in the end, to not be a strong argument for their literal observance in all instances. You are yet to prove irrefutably that the apostolic Gentile Christians did not legitimately see the “other festivals” as needing to simply gradually fade out in literal observance by Gentile Christians in favor of them still having a spiritual application under the new dispensation, as tied to Christ who fulfils all shadows and types. Go back to my points made earlier in Parts 1 and 2 of my e-mailed responses on holy days (especially under the subheading “THE DIDACTIC NATURE OF JEWISH RITUALS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT”, and see again why I say so. But I still admit that this above described argument is among the best of your

arguments, even if I am not fully buying it because of the lack of secular historical record of all Gentile Christians faithfully observing all the “other feasts”, and declaring in their writings that they understood them as still binding on all. And don’t tell me Ian that “history is written by those who won in stamping out our Jewish heritage”. The apologists and early church fathers did not fail to record the truth that early Christians faithfully kept the weekly Sabbath and the Lord’s Supper on Nisan 14, DESPITE EARLY EFFORTS TO CHANGE THE TIMETABLING OF THESE, so why is there no similar record in church history of the faithful observance of feast of tabernacles, trumpets, etc., and powerful Church laws subsequently attempting to change the timing of the observance what must have been so entrenched (as you would argue). I don’t see this CLEAR testimony from early church history Ian, and thus the reason for my resistance to your teaching that the pre-Nicene Gentile Christians were doing what you claim they were doing with all festivals of Judaism. Who knows, if new and CLEAR historical facts come to light then I may reconsider, but until then…

2. Finally you did say that the true church will be a “feast keeping church”. True, but let me qualify that for you. The true remnant will be a church keeping the TRUE biblical “feasts” of God [which are applicable to Christians in the new covenant], since all churches do keep some kind of “feast” or “festival” (in their liturgical calendar). And of course the purpose of all of this critique from me was to show you that while I believe that God clearly binds Gentile Christians to a continued observance of the weekly seventh-day Sabbath “festival” or “feast”, just like the Lord’s Supper, yet I am not convinced your polemic is solid enough to prove the same for all the “other festivals”. So indeed, the remnant church of God should be keeping the true feast of the weekly Sabbath (not Sunday), as well as the Lord’s Supper (not Easter Sunday)… You say by your keeping all the “other feasts” then you are the true remnant, but I rather doubt that Ian, since the Armstrong faith is well known for gross errors in certain doctrines (which even you are now admitting to), which therefore leaves a big question sign over your church door bro Boyne… I leave you to think on these things.