Since you well know the OT prophets did not include any seven trumpets blowing about the "day of the Lord" events, then why would you want to add the Feast ritual ideas into it at all?
The fact is, is that in Paul's time, there was no reference in OT end-time prophecy for seven Trumpets. This was the point of another poster as well. You want to say Paul was talking about something he did not know about.
Now we have established that Paul was a Pharisee, and while he left that order, physically and spiritually, in Acts, he and the other Messianic Jews, later called Christians, still performed the rites of Biblical purification given to them by God. Jesus said He did not remove even the smallest letter from the Law; the Law is still enforce.
In that system that Paul grew up in, practiced and knew about - there is such a thing as the "Last Trumpet." THAT is why we have to look into the Festivals; Paul references it. Indeed, Paul taught that the Festivals, or "appointed times," because that's what they mean in the Hebrew,
are patterns for what is to come! The reality is in Christ, but we have to pay attention to the Festivals.
Col 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Notice that while Paul references the Law, he does not say strict adherence is necessary. This is the conclusion, and the early compromise can be found in the necessity for circumcision in order to be a follower of Christ for those who were not Jewish. This still is a commandment the Jews follow. Notice, compliance with the Law does not confer Salvation; only faith in Jesus saves. His yoke is light. We are not burdened by mindless, rote actions.
Many of the descriptions God gave through His OT prophets about the last day of this world with the "day of the Lord" events directly parallel Christ's Revelation events He revealed through His servant John. And that should be enough without having to add a bunch of ritual feast ideas to understand Christ's Revelation. Besides, the 7 trumpets of Revelation sound the 'order' of battle, which is easy to know since Jesus attached 3 separate Woe periods with the last 3 trumpets.
Your premise is false, so your conclusion is wrong.
While you can find plenty of "Day of the Lord" prophecy, which is most abundantly negative as to the consequences to un-believing in Jesus: Israel, what you cannot find is any of the desolations contained in the Wrath Trumpets two through seven. The only time Armageddon is mentioned, referencing the mountain, Har Mageddon, in the hill country of Ephraim, is in Revelation; it is not in the OT.
Since Jesus fulfilled the Spring Festivals in their order; scholars have long commented that the Fall Festivals will be fulfilled with Jesus' Second Coming.
So I am not "adding" in a bunch of feast ideas, Paul already said the Festivals were a pattern for what is to come. In other words, he introduced the concept before the commentators mentioned it. Furthermore, previously, in the chronological order they were written, Paul had referenced the "Last Trumpet" as sounding at the gathering of the Church on the earth. These two references by Paul, and Paul is the only one to mention the "Last Trumpet," and he wrote that before John wrote about the seven Trumpets of God's Wrath, point us to the Festivals.
Sounds like a Hal Lindsay novel to me; scare tactics to try and get people to believe in the false Pre-trib Rapture theory. Jesus already defined the trib time being about a time of peace, as Apostle Paul did also, and as given through Daniel also a time of prosperity. The nations throwing a big party and giving each other gifts once God's "two witnesses" are killed per Rev.11 also reveals what kind of time it will be.
Again, your thinking shows the great disconnect between what I am saying and what you are hearing.
This is nothing like Pre-Trib, Hal Lindsay, or scare tactics. That you think it is after being told otherwise, then measures your ability to learn.
If you HAD... understood about the timing of Christ's Wrath per Paul in 1 Thess.5, then you would not be so deluded. Likewise about Paul's "Peace and safety" compared to your 1st trumpet ideas.
That is your understanding, which I think is sorely lacking in the ability to comprehend things outside of your own thinking.
ITh 5:3 does not time God's Wrath other than it comes after people talk about "peace and safety." George W. Bush mentioned this phrase repeated in his State of the Union address in 2002 after 9-11. America is still seeking "peace and safety," and we still don't have God's Wrath. So 1Th 5:3 is still applicable. As long as secular people attempt to achieve peace and safety aside from God in their own quest for rigid control, no amount of airport screening, drones being flown overhead, or surveillance cameras with license plate and face recognition programs which can literally track tens of millions of people simultaneously in real time in New York, Chicago, and London - will ever provide them with what they desire. People like James Holmes will still be there, and terrorists will still disrupt that peace and safety because like the clay within the iron, they are among us in our society.
Simple to know that the Antichrist is not destroyed at Christ's coming. Don't know why you're trying to insert a change of subject into the discussion about the "last trump" of Paul, like you're trying to save face or something.
You're making this a personal argument, and that is another fallacy in argument.
The fact that it takes time for the anti-Christ to fall, goes against the classical Post-Trib position which would have Jesus wrap up the whole affair in one day, the last day of the one 'seven.' To that affect, you try to connect the "Last Trumpet" which assembles God's people to Him on the clouds, to the seventh Trumpet of God's Wrath which concludes the plan God has to wipe out man's rule on the earth.
So that fact that God's Wrath takes time, and that the anti-Christ is not destroyed the moment Christ shows up does not favor your position. It does work quite well with a Pre-Wrath eschatological view though.
God's law is NOT the religion of the Pharisees. How could you not understand that difference? The system of corruption the scribes and Pharisees and Sadduccees were following, and pushed... upon the people, was their OWN TRADITIONS THEY MADE UP.
We're not talking about that. That is red herring.
The Festivals are appointed times that God set up for man. They are important; we should pay attention to them. They are patterns for what is to come - however, the reality is found in Christ Jesus. Col 2:16-17
That vow of purification Paul agreed to because of His Jewish brethren, not for the sake of the Gentiles. And then what happened immediately after Paul had completed the 7 days of purification? The unbelieving Jews siezed him and started beating on him; why? Because of His teaching Christ crucified to the Gentiles, and not the traditions of the Pharisees!
You said that Paul did not follow the Jewish system, yet in the smaller of things, he did.
The purification process which Paul went through - seven day's worth - had no relation to his subsequent arrest in Acts 21.
Furthermore, their indictment of Paul was that he had brought Greeks into the Temple. Acts 21:29 is a parenthetical insertion which explains why they thought so. In this bit of information, we can gather that Paul went to the Temple as did John and Peter. What we can also assume from the parenthetical insertion into the history of the early Church is that Paul was innocent of their charge - that is that he kept the Law and did not bring Gentiles into the Inner Court!
So from what you would say invalidates,
rather strengthens the argument that the earliest Christians, the Messianic Jews of Jerusalem, kept the OT Law, and even worshipped within that system, set up by God in the case of the Festivals.
My Bible says nothing about Messianic Jews being those who were first called 'Christians'. My Bible says it was the disciples at Antioch that were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). How is it you think to STEAL that title of Christian away from Gentiles that were also disciples at Antioch by falsely inferring it was only about Jews? Obvously, you think much more of youself and Jews than Gentiles.
This really an ugly and stupid argument you're making.
Obviously, you say, but it is so far from the truth about me, that it is more revealing about your nature... Before you think you know what I think, I think that anytime you think you know what is going in my head - you are (literally) out of your (own) mind.
If not Christian, what were they? Today, we call them Messianic Jews. These are people who are Jewish first, and come to believe in Christ. Today, they maintain all their traditions except worshipping in the Jewish Synagogue which denies Christ. They are their own community.
Everything we have in the book of Acts would liken the first Jewish converts to faith in Christ as being exactly like Messianic Jews. In fact, there is nothing which suggests that any of the Jerusalem Jews which formed the nexus of the Church gave their identity as Jews in order to believe in Jesus.
I know 'how' Jesus referred to the idea of a wedding per His parables, but He did not call believers His bride within it anywhere.
This is incorrect.
Jesus made mention of it in John 3:29 and that picture of the bride and groom is replicated in Rev 19:7. Furthermore, Paul uses the bride analogy in 2Co 11:2.
