Christ kept the Law of Moses, so....

[TMS]

Don't be ridiculous; it's got nothing to do with me. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD. You can't bring take your offering there anymore, and you can't find a priest to make an offering for you, so you can't fulfill the Law.

The Earthly services were make void at the death of Jesus. The Earthly temple means nothing in regard to making us saved.

But the heaven still stands today.

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

The heavenly sanctuary was build by God.

The earthly sanctuary was after the pattern but was only to show us how the heavenly sanctuary worked.

Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

The first covenant had a worldly sanctuary.

Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Christ is the high priest in Heaven.

The sanctuary in heaven contains..... ?
There is not point in having a high priest if there is no blood and the blood is to forgive our sin and sin is the transgression of the law.

The heavenly temple still stands and it contains the law.

 

[cv5]

James' judgment was to "not to trouble them" with circumcision but to tell them specifically to obey a few of the more important laws while they are taught the law each sabbath day.

Bro, no Jew could even THINK about keeping the least jot or tittle of the law if he failed/refused to be circumcised. He would be immediately excommunicated aka "cut off from his people".

Orbit your thinking around that and it becomes pretty clear that the whole of the law was being spoken to in Acts 15.

Gen 17:14
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

It was a seminal (pardon the pun) part of the law codified in Lev 12:3.

Lev 12:3
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

 

[cv5]

Bro, no Jew could even THINK about keeping the least jot or tittle of the law if he failed/refused to be circumcised. He would be immediately excommunicated aka "cut off from his people".

Orbit your thinking around that and it becomes pretty clear that the whole of the law was being spoken to in Acts 15.

Gen 17:14
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

It was a seminal (pardon the pun) part of the law codified in Lev 12:3.

Lev 12:3
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Whoops......how did I miss posting this lol?

Act 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Anyways @Yahshua I think we are on solid ground here.

 

[Dino246]

But that's not what is said, Magenta. Peter made an argument specifically about circumcision, but James made the following pronouncement which was distributed:


Acts 15:19
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.


James' judgment was to "not to trouble them" with circumcision but to tell them specifically to obey a few of the more important laws while they are taught the law each sabbath day.


Now, here is a rhetorical question that's just food for thought:

If it is the case that breaking one law is the same as breaking all the laws and that attempting to in any way is not having faith in Christ, why did James pronounce to the gentiles to obey a few?

Why not take the opportunity to say - to gentiles who lived previous pagan lives, never exposed to God's law - that the entire law was a yolk, and all that is necessary was faith in Christ? Why take them "backward into bondage" as it were?

Yoke, not yolk.

The gentiles didn't attend synagogues, so James' words would be directed to the Jews. Moses was preached to the Jews every Sabbath. The Christianized Jews would know Moses' commands well, and would be committed to ritual purity, so by directing the Christianized gentiles to abstain from those four things, James was seeking to foster communal tolerance between them and the Christianized Jews while also ending the debate about circumcision. The purpose was communal toleration and peace among the believers, not forcing gentile Christians to follow the Sinai laws.

 

[Yahshua]

I'll reply to everyone as I can. This week is turning out to be busy.

So speaking to the thread title, no, we are not under the law of Moses to keep it. it is a shadow of the true commandment, a new commandment that dwells in us, even the Word of God saying 'love one another' and 'believe'

Post, you're creating a false equivalency and making a leap in logic. You said:

The priesthood was not amended but changed

...which I agreed with.

The word "amended" is specifically for documentation, and in fact means "to make an official change to a legal document".

So an Order can't be "amended" because it is an establishment of people, not a legal document. However an order can be changed, and as it is changed the legal documentation governing that order must also be altered to accommodate the change. So whether we use the word change or alter for that documentation, the meaning is still to amend it because it's the accompanying law we're taking about.

"Change" in Hebrews does not mean to "void" or "replace" the whole law for another. It means to alter the portion of the law that had to do with the levitical priesthood (no longer applicable). Paul even concludes in Romans 3 that God forbid we void.

The writer of Hebrews isnt even talking about the commandments in the chapter about changing the law. It's why it starts off comparing orders. The context is the priesthood. Meanwhile, the commandments are the SAME commandments once written in stone that now dwell in us, not a different set. To love one another is a fulfillment of that SAME law.

 

[Yahshua]

There is nothing whatsoever like YHVH Himself dictating the law here bro. Not even close.
Just some homespun solid Jewish advice about clean living is all.....

The Almighty Himself never directly dictated the law since the mountain because no one could bear to hear his voice. After that His law came through men He untrusted with it...then the Voice of God was made flesh and gave it's TRUE interpretation...followed by men imbued with His very Holy Spirit, like James, and Peter, and Paul who spoke His words.

I wouldn't minimize Jame's words for how gentiles were to live.

 

[justpassinthrough]

If your a christian, You are not under the law period. You have been saved from the curse of the law

Do you understand what being under grace means?

 

[Yahshua]

Bro, no Jew could even THINK about keeping the least jot or tittle of the law if he failed/refused to be circumcised. He would be immediately excommunicated aka "cut off from his people".

Paul circumcised Timothy (partial Jew) but argued against the circumcision of gentiles in Acts 15 FOR ONE SPECIFIC REASON:

Acts 15:1
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved

Paul was defending against the false claim that "fleshly circumcision = salvation"

Everything else that is referenced or alluded to in Acts 15 including verse 5 regarding keeping the law is within that context: "for salvation??" That was the question. Do gentiles need to be circumcised for salvation. The answer was and is still no. Only faith in Christ grants salvation from the penalty of sin.

 

[justpassinthrough]

The LAW is encompassed within the COVENANT, not the other way around. Read Exodus carefully...

19:5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession.

24:7-8
Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.” Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

As the old covenant has been superseded by a new and better covenant, the laws encompassed within the old have been rendered null and void for those people who under the new covenant. The old is fulfilled, and nothing remains owing on it. The "mortgage" is paid off.

You gain nothing whatsoever of value by adhering to the laws of the old covenant. You cannot adhere to them all (it's impossible!) and as both Paul and James tell you, unless you abide by the whole law, you are guilty. As Paul wrote, who has bewitched you?

Do you understand that the law of Moses was an extension to the Covenant, that was added temporarily until the Messiah should come?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Do you understand what being under grace means?

It means the law can't touch you. It means you are living under the blood of Jesus. and as such. living under the power of God to become like him

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Do you understand that the law of Moses was an extension to the Covenant, that was added temporarily until the Messiah should come?

Do you understand your total debt against God for every sin you commit?

 

[Yahshua]

Yoke, not yolk.

Low hanging fruit.

The gentiles didn't attend synagogues,

This is catagorically false. Please reread Acts, Dino.

 

[cv5]

Only faith in Christ grants salvation from the penalty of sin.

Yes.

 

[cv5]

The Almighty Himself never directly dictated the law since the mountain because no one could bear to hear his voice. After that His law came through men He untrusted with it...then the Voice of God was made flesh and gave it's TRUE interpretation...followed by men imbued with His very Holy Spirit, like James, and Peter, and Paul who spoke His words.

I wouldn't minimize Jame's words for how gentiles were to live.

The compendium of specific statues laws and ordinaces codified were all in fact dictated word for word to Moses. By God Himself. Who met with Moses in the clound and spoke to him face to face. Hundreds of times.

And when have I ever minimized James' word? Never.

You presume too much.....

 

[Dino246]

Do you understand that the law of Moses was an extension to the Covenant, that was added temporarily until the Messiah should come?

I disagree, but that is irrelevant to the thread topic, because the Law is not associated with the covenant in Christ's blood.

 

[Dino246]

This is catagorically false. Please reread Acts, Dino.

Chapter and verse. I'm not reading 28 chapters to satisfy your lazy ego.

 

[Yahshua]

The compendium of specific statues laws and ordinaces codified were all in fact dictated word for word to Moses.

Not at first. And this is one of the major points I wanted to reshare:

The covenant agreement was "To obey the VOICE of the Almighty", and the people agreed to the covenant. This agreement was made through Moses three days before the burning mountain.

When the Almighty started sharing His Law by voice, the people were literally feeling like they were dying...so He watered it down by writing it down and giving it through an intermediary. The original covenant was ALWAYS to obey the VOICE. The law was always intended to be given in its original form: through the voice; the breath; the Ruach (Spirit).

That's why this notion that the law was given to show it couldn't be kept is just false. It's not a contest between "the law and the Spirit" because the law IS the Spirit. The problem was the people's corrupt hearts, which is solved after Messiah. With the Spirit, we now have the ability to obey the VOICE.

The same law is placed on the inside.

And when have I ever minimized James' word? Never.

You presume too much.....

It's not a presumption when you say things like:

Just some homespun solid Jewish advice about clean living is all.....

in direct response to what James pronounced to gentiles in Acts 15:19

Am I misunderstanding that you are saying James was just sharing some "homespun Jewish advice" about clean living?

 

[oyster67]

Christ kept the Law of Moses, so....


Christ fulfilled the Law, so... we are no longer under the law, but under grace. This is elementary and fundamental Christian doctrine.

 

[Yahshua]

Chapter and verse. I'm not reading 28 chapters to satisfy your lazy ego.

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth

You're projecting the lazy ego, Dino.

I will post every single instance across all 28 chapters.

 

[cv5]

Not at first. And this is one of the major points I wanted to reshare:

The covenant agreement was "To obey the VOICE of the Almighty", and the people agreed to the covenant. This agreement was made through Moses three days before the burning mountain.

When the Almighty started sharing His Law by voice, the people were literally feeling like they were dying...so He watered it down by writing it down and giving it through an intermediary. The original covenant was ALWAYS to obey the VOICE. The law was always intended to be given in its original form: through the voice; the breath; the Ruach (Spirit).

That's why this notion that the law was given to show it couldn't be kept is just false. It's not a contest between "the law and the Spirit" because the law IS the Spirit. The problem was the people's corrupt hearts, which is solved after Messiah. With the Spirit, we now have the ability to obey the VOICE.

The same law is placed on the inside.



It's not a presumption when you say things like:

in direct response to what James pronounced to gentiles in Acts 15:19

Am I misunderstanding that you are saying James was just sharing some "homespun Jewish advice" about clean living?

What I am saying is that those verse 20 statements are not connected to the Mosaic law nor can they be. And yes, they are guidelines to be followed by gentile converts.

Act 15:19 - Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: