Is Dispensationalism Darwinism?

[evenifigoalone]

My argument against following OT law was not based on the scriptures mentioned, but the mere fact that many (most?) aspects of the OT law are simply outdated for this day and age.

Rather than paralleling this with evolution, I propose that it's more like a parallel with laws for nations, cities, and communities in general. Would all of the laws that were in place 100, 200 years ago in the US still work today, or would some need to be updated in order to serve their true purpose today? Some of them wouldn't even have a need to exist anymore because the circumstance(s) requiring their existence is no longer there. The purpose and morals behind those laws don't change, but circumstances may change requiring the laws to be updated.
Which is, IMO, why the NT gives more general laws to be followed while the OT is very, very specific. The NT laws are for Christians who existed both then (and even then it wasn't just one nation, but Christians from all over) and in centuries, millenniums to come. The OT laws were written for a nation that existed thousands of years before. However, the driving morals behind the OT laws are still very much there in the NT commandments.


I suppose if I wanted to keep from posting in this thread again as I said (in order to keep from getting too involved in the debate), I should have unsubscribed from it...

 

[Ryan]

Ryan, thanks for the last post.

I am weighing various thoughts that occur to me while reading the thread and understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you are saying is that we need to understand Ephesians 2:15-18 correctly.

I would like to ask you to discuss the decision made early in the ministry to Gentiles regarding the Law. Specifically, the passages found in Acts 15:28-29.

Cordially,
Sparrow

Sure, you have to look at the previous verses leading up to Acts 15:28-29 and let's begin in Acts 15:1. The question was one of status. Would their ethnic status or the faith be their assurance of a place in the kingdom to come?

So Peter was witness to many Gentiles coming to the faith alongside the Jewish brethren. But there was a huge issue. Imagine if one day you show up to church and there are all of a sudden 100 Buddhists who have now become believers in Jesus in the last week. Now they know nothing about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they want to learn and thus they show up for church to learn. However, they still have various habits or customs they need to shed from their former life, to their new life in Jesus. They have to shed their idolatry and pagan ways, but to also properly fellowship with the other believers. So in Acts 15, the Council determined a minimum list of dont's of the new converts to fellowship with new believers. In asking the GEntiles to divorce themselves from idolatry practices as the pagan practices were detestable to the Jewish brethren. Acts 15:21 is so telling because it had listed the 4 prohibitions, but then included because Moses had been taught every Sabbath for generations. So they would learn as they went along.

Just think of the chaos that ensued in synagogues when you have many many new converts to Christ all of a sudden overwhelming the churches with new Gentile believers who had little to no background in how a believer in Jesus was to act. Think about the same if all of a sudden 100 former Buddhists came to your church. What instructions would you give them to start off with? Should they only stop at the 4 things mentioned in Acts 15, or would you provide them with ongoing teaching and learning in how to live out a live for Jesus? What do you get out of Acts 15:10?

 

[Ryan]

My argument against following OT law was not based on the scriptures mentioned, but the mere fact that many (most?) aspects of the OT law are simply outdated for this day and age.

Rather than paralleling this with evolution, I propose that it's more like a parallel with laws for nations, cities, and communities in general. Would all of the laws that were in place 100, 200 years ago in the US still work today, or would some need to be updated in order to serve their true purpose today? Some of them wouldn't even have a need to exist anymore because the circumstance(s) requiring their existence is no longer there. The purpose and morals behind those laws don't change, but circumstances may change requiring the laws to be updated.
Which is, IMO, why the NT gives more general laws to be followed while the OT is very, very specific. The NT laws are for Christians who existed both then (and even then it wasn't just one nation, but Christians from all over) and in centuries, millenniums to come. The OT laws were written for a nation that existed thousands of years before. However, the driving morals behind the OT laws are still very much there in the NT commandments.


I suppose if I wanted to keep from posting in this thread again as I said (in order to keep from getting too involved in the debate), I should have unsubscribed from it...

Other then what is commonly called the ceremonial laws, yes they cannot be practiced or observed. If you look at Genesis through Deuteronomy as being God's constitution, of which there were explicit instructions to not take away or add to them (Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32). Imagine the outcry in the US and the controversy erupting if there was all of a sudden a big push by the government, or instead they just up and upped changed the constitution without consulting the people? Would that not be huge news around the world? Imagine the uproar if Jesus taught that God's constitution had changed? He was accused of breaking it, not changing it. There was some that even erroneously believed Paul was teaching against converts to disregard God's commandments, but that was solved with him taking a Nazarite vow to show his continued Torah observance.

Heaven and earth have still not passed away, so your premise that it was for a different people or time, holds little water I am sorry to say. If you are a believer, you are now a citizen of Israel (Ephesians 2:12; Numbers 15:15-16)

 

[evenifigoalone]

What do you get out of Acts 15:10?

What do you get out of it?
The verse reads:

Now therefore why ztempt ye God, ato put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Verse 5, which leads up to it, from the same chapter reads:

But there * rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, cThat it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

The beginning of the chapter records a dispute about whether the newly saved gentiles should do such things as circumcize, and it even specifically mentions the law of Moses.

I'm asking mainly out of curiosity.
If you're trying to say that they only need to wait until later to do those things, though...IDK, to me that explanation doesn't seem to fit too well with what I'm reading.
The person speaking in verse 10 was Peter, correct? He was a Jew and if I remember correctly followed the Jewish law himself. So why would he word it the way he did, 'which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear"?

I'm actually not interested in continued argument, usually am not which is why I try to avoid debates. Just pointing something out. So I'll try not to argue with your explanation, even though in all probability I'll disagree with it.

 

[evenifigoalone]

My argument against following OT law was not based on the scriptures mentioned, but the mere fact that many (most?) aspects of the OT law are simply outdated for this day and age.

Rather than paralleling this with evolution, I propose that it's more like a parallel with laws for nations, cities, and communities in general. Would all of the laws that were in place 100, 200 years ago in the US still work today, or would some need to be updated in order to serve their true purpose today? Some of them wouldn't even have a need to exist anymore because the circumstance(s) requiring their existence is no longer there. The purpose and morals behind those laws don't change, but circumstances may change requiring the laws to be updated.
Which is, IMO, why the NT gives more general laws to be followed while the OT is very, very specific. The NT laws are for Christians who existed both then (and even then it wasn't just one nation, but Christians from all over) and in centuries, millenniums to come. The OT laws were written for a nation that existed thousands of years before. However, the driving morals behind the OT laws are still very much there in the NT commandments.


I suppose if I wanted to keep from posting in this thread again as I said (in order to keep from getting too involved in the debate), I should have unsubscribed from it...

Other then what is commonly called the ceremonial laws, yes they cannot be practiced or observed. If you look at Genesis through Deuteronomy as being God's constitution, of which there were explicit instructions to not take away or add to them (Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32). Imagine the outcry in the US and the controversy erupting if there was all of a sudden a big push by the government, or instead they just up and upped changed the constitution without consulting the people? Would that not be huge news around the world? Imagine the uproar if Jesus taught that God's constitution had changed? He was accused of breaking it, not changing it. There was some that even erroneously believed Paul was teaching against converts to disregard God's commandments, but that was solved with him taking a Nazarite vow to show his continued Torah observance.

Heaven and earth have still not passed away, so your premise that it was for a different people or time, holds little water I am sorry to say. If you are a believer, you are now a citizen of Israel (Ephesians 2:12; Numbers 15:15-16)

I don't look at them as God's constitution, though. I see morals as God's constitution. The constitution is meant to be a guideline whereon the laws of the nation are based. Seems to me these would be more like morals, since laws should be based on morals.

The morals remain unchanged, but I cannot see the logic in following, say, the sanitation laws of the OT to the letter. We still observe them today, in essence, but we use modern and improved ways to do so. Do we make women wash everything they sit on when they have their period? We don't need to, we have maxipads.

The law has not passed away:
1. The morals are still there.
2. You can sign onto the OT laws if you want to.

 

[evenifigoalone]

As for supposedly being a citizen of Israel, I don't know what to say to that. I tend to disagree, but I don't have the knowledge to argue either way.
I will say, though, that the verse you gave in Numbers can't apply to today, because the method of salvation is different now than it was then. Now it's through Jesus, then it was through following the law and making animal sacrifices...ergo, during that time, in order to go to heaven you needed to basically become a Jew.

 

[Ryan]

Acts 15:10 is the belief in that day was that only Jews had a plance in the world to come as God had made the covenant of blessings with only Israel, and no other nation. The rabbi's taught that in order to secure their standing, they had to become proselytes to being a Jew. "Unless you are circumcised" was the theology of the day and was what the Council was dealing with. If God expected a Gentile to become a Jew, there would be no reason for Numbers 15:15-16. You know the whole circumcision camp and what not as highlighted in Galatians.

The Apostles were dealing with the dominant theology of the day and specifically the man made oral Torah, or rabbinic add-ons the Rabbi's had made that had become almost indistinguishable between the written Torah and the oral Torah. James refers to the Torah as the "the perfect Torah," "liberty" and the "royal Torah." Far from being a burden instead he calls it a blessing. Jesus referes to these yokes in MAtthew 23:4, and also tells us to take his "yoke" in Matthew 11:29-30. As Jesus is the Word made flesh and the walking Torah, he is telling us to take his teachings and walk of faith, not the Pharisees way. The Pharisees way was the yoke the Apostles were unwilling to place upon the shoulders of the Gentiles, a burden they all would have expected to bear. It negated man's commandments and traditions, not God's.

 

[jasoncran]

uhm [MENTION=91415]Ryan[/MENTION] would you really want to go back and eat lamb and cows from that era where they didn't have soap and means to clean the cooking area. especially with the really powerful bugs today that we have now that we are used to. if we didn't have the immunity to them we would be a lot sicker if we didn't sanitize. case in point.

simple leprosy,. that is mentioned in the torah. and yet there is simple preventive medicine for that, its called TAKING a bath! yup that and a sewage removal system. why didn't god tell the jews that? im sure they were more healthy compared to the goy around them but compare that to today and we might beg to differ.

 

[JLB]

but then included because Moses had been taught every Sabbath for generations. So they would learn as they went along.

So they would learn as they were going?

How would an unsaved Rabbi, disciple Gentile Christians?

Jesus instructed His disciples, to make disciples of every nation, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Only a person that has been discipled is qualified to make disciples.

I don't see that a Jewish Rabbi, no matter how well meaning, is qualified to disciple new believers, and baptize them and teach them to cast out devils, and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit...

If maybe we saw this practice in Paul's letters or John's or Peter's instructing believers to go to a synagog to "learn as they go", then maybe it might have some credibility.

The whole of Acts 15, as well as the book of Galatians and Colossians, teaches that the elements of the Law of Moses were a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ.

For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.", yet has never produced a single disciple of the Lord, is the context in which this statement is made.

Not one!

Not even Saul of Tarsus.

23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment--

If the Jerusalem Council decided together with the Holy Spirit, that Gentile Christians are not required to keep the law, nor be circumcised, then why would anyone else?


JLB

 

[JLB]

According to the Law, the feast's were to be kept at the place where the Lord chooses.

Jerusalem!

That is why there were Jews from every nation in town when the feast of Pentecost took place.

Here are three scriptures from Deuteronomy 16, that instructs us that Israel, specifically Jerusalem is where the feast are to be celebrated.

Not in other countries.

5 You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you; 6 but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover at twilight, at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt…

11 You shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your gates, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are among you, at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide.

15 Seven days you shall keep a sacred feast to the Lord your God in the place which the Lord chooses, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you surely rejoice. 16 Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed.


Unless someone can show us from the law where Gentiles who live in other countries are to keep the feasts in their own country rather than Israel, then it is adding to the law to teach Gentiles to keep the feast's in their own country.




JLB

 

[jasoncran]

the thought of circumcision for the goy is a bit odd as a mandate given the origin of why that was given. It was sign to Abraham that God would bring the Hebrew to the land he promised and that the Hebrew was his. what land does the goy have in said promises?

 

[evenifigoalone]

Regarding Acts 15, that doesn't seem to be what the verse says to me. It says they wanted them to be circumcised AND follow Moses' law. Peter was basically saying, why make them?
However, it is possible that the additions to Moses' law may have been a factor here. I have heard of that before and more than once.

And James? I've read the book at least once, and it doesn't say the word "Torah". It does mention the law(pretty sure) works, and salvation, but I have seen no indicators of it meaning for believers to follow OT law. It basically says that works are evidence of salvation.
The Bible also says the law is written on our hearts (morals, what some would call a conscience), so whenever the word "law" is used it doesn't necessarily mean OT law.


Matthew 24, just looked it up and Jesus dies say to do as the Pharisees "observe", but not as they do.
But this was before he died on the cross and the new plan if salvation was complete.
Something my dad used to point out:
Notice that when people asked Jesus how to be saved, to some of them he said, follow the law. To others He basically said, believe on me. My dad suggested that Jesus knew whether or not they would be still be alive after His death and resurrection.


...well, screw not debating, I guess...:P That's what I get for not unsubscribing before my latest posts.
(I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe and I don't care if you stick with it or not--heck, it certainly doesn't effect salvation-- but debate always makes me feel like I have to defend myself and that's what I hate about it. And yet its hard not to respond. So forgive me for keeping saying Ill leave and then sticking around anyway. It probably makes me look like an idiot.)

 

[Ryan]

My argument against following OT law was not based on the scriptures mentioned, but the mere fact that many (most?) aspects of the OT law are simply outdated for this day and age.

Rather than paralleling this with evolution, I propose that it's more like a parallel with laws for nations, cities, and communities in general. Would all of the laws that were in place 100, 200 years ago in the US still work today, or would some need to be updated in order to serve their true purpose today? Some of them wouldn't even have a need to exist anymore because the circumstance(s) requiring their existence is no longer there. The purpose and morals behind those laws don't change, but circumstances may change requiring the laws to be updated.
Which is, IMO, why the NT gives more general laws to be followed while the OT is very, very specific. The NT laws are for Christians who existed both then (and even then it wasn't just one nation, but Christians from all over) and in centuries, millenniums to come. The OT laws were written for a nation that existed thousands of years before. However, the driving morals behind the OT laws are still very much there in the NT commandments.


I suppose if I wanted to keep from posting in this thread again as I said (in order to keep from getting too involved in the debate), I should have unsubscribed from it...

Other then what is commonly called the ceremonial laws, yes they cannot be practiced or observed. If you look at Genesis through Deuteronomy as being God's constitution, of which there were explicit instructions to not take away or add to them (Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32). Imagine the outcry in the US and the controversy erupting if there was all of a sudden a big push by the government, or instead they just up and upped changed the constitution without consulting the people? Would that not be huge news around the world? Imagine the uproar if Jesus taught that God's constitution had changed? He was accused of breaking it, not changing it. There was some that even erroneously believed Paul was teaching against converts to disregard God's commandments, but that was solved with him taking a Nazarite vow to show his continued Torah observance.

Heaven and earth have still not passed away, so your premise that it was for a different people or time, holds little water I am sorry to say. If you are a believer, you are now a citizen of Israel (Ephesians 2:12; Numbers 15:15-16)

I don't look at them as God's constitution, though. I see morals as God's constitution. The constitution is meant to be a guideline whereon the laws of the nation are based. Seems to me these would be more like morals, since laws should be based on morals.

The morals remain unchanged, but I cannot see the logic in following, say, the sanitation laws of the OT to the letter. We still observe them today, in essence, but we use modern and improved ways to do so. Do we make women wash everything they sit on when they have their period? We don't need to, we have maxipads.

The law has not passed away:
1. The morals are still there.
2. You can sign onto the OT laws if you want to.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.â€

The Torah/Law is unbreakable and nothing can be added to, or taken away from it. Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32

I don't know where you live, but seriously just imagine the constitution of your country suddenly going up in smoke. Think of the uproar. Now think of a bunch of religious people, who are way more fanatical, and their constitution being re-written. If that was truly the case, the Epistles and letters would look so much differently.

As for supposedly being a citizen of Israel, I don't know what to say to that. I tend to disagree, but I don't have the knowledge to argue either way.
I will say, though, that the verse you gave in Numbers can't apply to today, because the method of salvation is different now than it was then. Now it's through Jesus, then it was through following the law and making animal sacrifices...ergo, during that time, in order to go to heaven you needed to basically become a Jew.

And what you said about salvation being by a different way is what I was talking about theological evolution. There is no evolution in nature, so how can there be evolution in the bible? Right from Adam to you we were always saved by the same way, and it was no amount of law keeping that one could ever do to earn their status in heaven.

Regarding Acts 15, that doesn't seem to be what the verse says to me. It says they wanted them to be circumcised AND follow Moses' law. Peter was basically saying, why make them?

And James? I've read the book at least once, and it doesn't say the word "Torah". It does mention the law(pretty sure) works, and salvation, but I have seen no indicators of it meaning for believers to follow OT law. It basically says that works are evidence of salvation.
The Bible also says the law is written on our hearts (morals, what some would call a conscience), so whenever the word "law" is used it doesn't necessarily mean OT law.

http://studybible.info/KJV_Strongs/Jeremiah 31:33
http://studybible.info/KJV_Strongs/hebrews 8:10

Click on the link and then the link on the word law and find out which "Law" will be written on our hearts.

You are right, some of the times in the NT when it says "law" it doesn't necessarily mean the written law/Torah. There was what was called the oral Torah that rabbinic Judaism nowadays is based upon, and that is the yoke that was a burden, not God's laws or God would be a liar in Deuteronomy 30:11. What could not be to difficult back then, all of a sudden be onerous and burdensome. Oh right, whenever man get's involved, we really complicate the simplicity of God's ways and add our own traditions and customs.

Matthew 24, just looked it up and Jesus dies say to do as the Pharisees "observe", but not as they do.
But this was before he died on the cross and the new plan if salvation was complete.
Something my dad used to point out:
Notice that when people asked Jesus how to be saved, to some of them he said, follow the law. To others He basically said, believe on me. My dad suggested that Jesus knew whether or not they would be still be alive after His death and resurrection..)

Lost...:dunno

...well, screw not debating, I guess...:P That's what I get for not unsubscribing before my latest posts.
(I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe and I don't care if you stick with it or not, but debate always makes me feel like I have to defend myself and that's what I hate about it. And yet its hard not to respond. So forgive me for keeping saying Ill leave and then sticking around anyway. It probably makes me look like an idiot.)

It's not my business how you live your live, but just want people to look at their bible's in a different perspective.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I think Romans refers moreso to the law in our hearts than the OT law.
It's difficult to look up scripture on my iPod, though, so I can't go look up the context at the moment.
But even if it is referring to the OT law, yes, it shows us why we need a savior. This is what I was taught since I was very young. But IMO, it doesn't mean to follow laws that are outdated and obviously just by looking at the context and purpose behind it can't apply anymore.

I think the OT law is to be compared not to the constitution, but rather to the laws that are based on the constitution. The constitution is more like morals, the framework behind the laws.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Since I'm using my iPod right now, I'll have to put my replies to your post with several small posts. Just easier that way and makes it easier to recover if Tapatalk crashes or something. Please bare with me.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Question:
If nothing can be taken from or added to the OT law, why does the Bible itself do this by saying in the NT that circumcision is no longer necessary? Why does it take away from the OT law by making animal sacrifices no longer necessary after Jesus' resurrection?

Perhaps not adding to or detracting from the law applied only to that time?
Or perhaps it was so that the law would be intact today so that whether we follow it or not we could read it and understand it in a historical context?

 

[evenifigoalone]

How was the method of salvation not different back then?????
The Jews had to do animal sacrifices in order to obtain forgiveness of sins and it was only temporary. If it wasn't, they would have only needed to do it once. And were they or were they not expected to make sacrifices to ask forgiveness for not following the law?

Today we don't need to do that because Jesus was our perfect, sinless sacrifice. We obtain forgiveness because we believe on him. Following the law ( and here I mean the law in our hearts) is not the way to salvation, but something we do because we want to please God and evidence of our salvation.

How do you believe salvation works today versus how it worked back then?

 

[Ryan]

but then included because Moses had been taught every Sabbath for generations. So they would learn as they went along.

So they would learn as they were going?

How would an unsaved Rabbi, disciple Gentile Christians?

Jesus instructed His disciples, to make disciples of every nation, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Only a person that has been discipled is qualified to make disciples.

I don't see that a Jewish Rabbi, no matter how well meaning, is qualified to disciple new believers, and baptize them and teach them to cast out devils, and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit...

If maybe we saw this practice in Paul's letters or John's or Peter's instructing believers to go to a synagog to "learn as they go", then maybe it might have some credibility.

The whole of Acts 15, as well as the book of Galatians and Colossians, teaches that the elements of the Law of Moses were a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ.

For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.", yet has never produced a single disciple of the Lord, is the context in which this statement is made.

Not one!

Not even Saul of Tarsus.

23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment--

If the Jerusalem Council decided together with the Holy Spirit, that Gentile Christians are not required to keep the law, nor be circumcised, then why would anyone else?


JLB

Where else were new converts gonna hear the Word of God. Not like Torah scrolls were in print as they were today.

Acts 26:11 And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities

Gentile Christians, Jewish believers, whatever you wanna call them, were still meeting in synagogues, along with the unbelievers. Acts 9:1-2 Paul was going to synagogues to round up the believers.

It is interesting after the Lord revealed himself to Paul, within a few days he immediately preach Jesus in the synagogues Acts 9:19-22. But notice that he never was given any more formal training or discipleship. In fact, he was the pre-eminent spokesperson of that time concerning Jesus crucified and resurrected. He never met with the Apostles for long periods of time to study, and be mentored in a new way that was separate from the Torah. Never read about any type of unlearning and relearning new practices and customs. Why was that? It was because he knew the Torah better then anyone alive and knew all the principles of mercy, grace, forgiveness, compassion, love, Holy Spirit because they are all based from the Torah. He never had to relearn anything, or teach anything new because the only thing new for him was Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection. Look at the NT as not being new, but it is just true.

According to the Law, the feast's were to be kept at the place where the Lord chooses.

Jerusalem!

That is why there were Jews from every nation in town when the feast of Pentecost took place.

Here are three scriptures from Deuteronomy 16, that instructs us that Israel, specifically Jerusalem is where the feast are to be celebrated.

Not in other countries.

5 You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you; 6 but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover at twilight, at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt…

11 You shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your gates, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are among you, at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide.

15 Seven days you shall keep a sacred feast to the Lord your God in the place which the Lord chooses, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you surely rejoice. 16 Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed.

Unless someone can show us from the law where Gentiles who live in other countries are to keep the feasts in their own country rather than Israel, then it is adding to the law to teach Gentiles to keep the feast's in their own country.

JLB

No, the sacrifices were to be prescribed only at the place where the Lord dwelt. Given the extreme prophetic significance with them in the past, and with what is to happen in the future, does it make any sense that God would want us to of forgotten them? If there are appointed times in the destiny of this universe, and I want my people to remember when their redemption came, and when the conquering King will make his triumphant return, why would I want my people to forget these appointed times and it be just another day in the Gregorian calendar that has in small letters "Passover" or "Yom Teruah?"

It would be like saying one could only love somebody in Israel as it was only for the Israelites. Or Leviticus 19:13 is only in the land and not for anybody in the Daispora.

Remember the Feast Days were Sabbaths and were/are incorporated in the 10 commandments.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Regarding the links to scripture, I cannot see how that means the OT law will be put in our hearts.. That makes no sense. To know the OT law, you have to read it and basically memorize it. No, I think it refers moreso to the morals behind the law.
Jesus summed up the basic morals that the laws are based on:
1. Love The Lord with all of your heart, min, and strength
2. Love your neighbor as yourself

 

[evenifigoalone]

It's not my business how you live your live, but just want people to look at their bible's in a different perspective.

Oh I know, it's just psychological on my part, I think. Debating can be a good thing, I just tend to shy away from it because I find it stressful a lot if times. But it can also help me to dig deeper into something, although I rarely come out if a debate with a changed mind, it at the very least helps me to understand both my beliefs and others' more.