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. 1:14first, 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. 16s 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, dont 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords
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 Jamaicas

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/Lords 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 Lords
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 Lords 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 reexamine 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 ones 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, heres 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, Gods times (plural), or
they altered the appointed seasons, and Gods 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 whats 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 Lords Day or the
Sabbath of the Lord, as well as the timing of the true Lords Supper (or the
new Passover) instituted at the time of the old Passover. It also changed
Gods 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 dont 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 heres 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 Lords 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 ones 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 preIsraelic 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 paganinspired 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 TVJs 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 its 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 Gods 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. Its 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, its 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 whats 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 cant 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. Whats
your take on Gal. 4:1-11 (to effectively answer both Sabbatarians and nonSabbatarians 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 dont 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 Lords 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
dont 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 Lords 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 Lords 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.