Did Jesus ever tell us that we no longer need to keep the law of Moses?

[Marcelo]

Did you forget Matthew 11:28?

Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Oh, yeah, you told me that some time ago! But Jesus just hinted at the New Covenant, he didn't explicitly say we would no longer need to obey the Law.

 

[Guojing]

If rejecting a mark is a requirement we have to earn salvation

You twist it however you want I will interpret it and keep scripture in agreement that no one who has faith in Christ would even think of receiving the mark. Not to stay saved but because they are saved

I have already pointed out to you that if you believe p implies q, it’s the same as believing not q implies not p.

You don’t want to accept the logical equivalence of the two points, and you want to deem that as twisting what you have said.

 

[posthuman]

Yes, it's not there (in the Gospels)! So, we have to rely on what Paul said, if we want to be free from the burden of the Law.

Did you forget Matthew 11:28?

Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

or

This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you​

(Luke 22:20) ​

because,

When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. ​

(Hebrews 8:13) ​

?

i do hope someone has already pointed this out by now ((haven't read the whole thread))

 

[oldethennew]

"But never can that cord be broken
For it is the token of that musical splendor
That plays and lays the universe on its course..."

 

[posthuman]

Oh, yeah, you told me that some time ago! But Jesus just hinted at the New Covenant, he didn't explicitly say we would no longer need to obey the Law.

the Law is the old covenant

He declared to you His covenant, the Ten Commandments, which He commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.​

(Deuteronomy 4:13) ​

a 'ministry' of a certain kind, written on tablets of stone.

and when He also said 'a new commandment I give you' - doesn't the logic of Hebrews 8:13 also apply?

 

[posthuman]

I have already pointed out to you that if you believe p implies q, it’s the same as believing not q implies not p.

that's not necessarily true, and i will prove it:




U is the blue area
B is the orange area
A is the purple area


U is 'the whole space' and A ⊂ U and B ⊂ U
((A & B are both contained in U))

here, A ⊂ B , but ¬ A ≠ ¬ B

¬ A = U \ A = (B \ A) ∪ (¬ B)




¬ A is the green area


look at what you have here:

x ∈ A → x ∈ B

which is, A implies B
but you do not have the converse 'x ∉ A → x ∉ B'
which would be, 'not A implies not B'
because some of 'not A' is still in B.

this is what we have in Mark 16:16, and Romans 4:5 tells us us that (¬ A) ∩ (B) ≠ ∅

(( ¬ A ∩ B ≠ ∅ means that the intersection / overlap of 'not A' and B is nonempty: there exist people whom God accounts as righteous even though they do nothing other than believe Him))

 

[posthuman]

that's not necessarily true, and i will prove it:


View attachment 201089

U is the blue area
B is the orange area
A is the purple area


U is 'the whole space' and A ⊂ U and B ⊂ U

here, A ⊂ B , but ¬ A ≠ ¬ B

¬ A = U \ A = (B \ A) ∪ (¬ B)


View attachment 201090

¬ A is the green area


look at what you have here:

x ∈ A → x ∈ B

but you do not have the converse 'x ∉ A → x ∉ B'
because some of 'not A' is also in B.

this is what we have in Mark 16:16, and Romans 4:5 tells us us that (¬ A) ∩ (B) ≠ ∅

(( ¬ A ∩ B ≠ ∅ means that the intersection / overlap of 'not A' and B is nonempty: there exist people whom God accounts as righteous even though they do nothing other than believe Him))

sorry, please forgive me? @PennEd

 

[FollowHisSteps]

to understand scripture perfectly, to know the fullness of the gospel, we have to discover the answer to the question, who is Romans 4:5 written about?

5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Rom 4

There is a confusion here in language. Paul is talking about working for wages, not good works done
from a heart of love, because one wants to with no sense of obligation or a desire to get recognition.

Paul is saying we are given a gift by God, because we have put our faith in Him, righteousness.
But part of this faith is the acknowledging love is expressed through action, it is not just nice thoughts
and intentions, but actual help and delivery of good things. The world is full of people with good intentions
and evil actions, a rosy view of a doomed condition.

What you are pointing at is a common mistake made, confusing different uses of a word like work, and not
acknowledging the power of its context and meaning. But as with all things in God, He is happy to let those
who wish to construct excuses to do this, one less to consider in eternity. God bless.

 

[FollowHisSteps]

that's not necessarily true, and i will prove it:


View attachment 201089

U is the blue area
B is the orange area
A is the purple area


U is 'the whole space' and A ⊂ U and B ⊂ U
((A & B are both contained in U))

here, A ⊂ B , but ¬ A ≠ ¬ B

¬ A = U \ A = (B \ A) ∪ (¬ B)


View attachment 201090

¬ A is the green area


look at what you have here:

x ∈ A → x ∈ B

which is, A implies B
but you do not have the converse 'x ∉ A → x ∉ B'
which would be, 'not A implies not B'
because some of 'not A' is still in B.

this is what we have in Mark 16:16, and Romans 4:5 tells us us that (¬ A) ∩ (B) ≠ ∅

(( ¬ A ∩ B ≠ ∅ means that the intersection / overlap of 'not A' and B is nonempty: there exist people whom God accounts as righteous even though they do nothing other than believe Him))

The problem with this kind of analogy, belief is just a thought, no more.
If there is no intention of change in Gods work, why does God only reward those who
change because of interaction with Him?
Why does God punish those who refuse to repent and change or acknowledge righteousness
and evil when He calls for judgement?

The prophets of Baal died because they worshipped a false god. God has not changed, or His
ways. What has changed is the communion with God in our hearts. That is profoundly different,
if one finds the reality of it in ones life.

 

[Guojing]

that's not necessarily true, and i will prove it:


View attachment 201089

U is the blue area
B is the orange area
A is the purple area


U is 'the whole space' and A ⊂ U and B ⊂ U
((A & B are both contained in U))

here, A ⊂ B , but ¬ A ≠ ¬ B

¬ A = U \ A = (B \ A) ∪ (¬ B)


View attachment 201090

¬ A is the green area


look at what you have here:

x ∈ A → x ∈ B

which is, A implies B
but you do not have the converse 'x ∉ A → x ∉ B'
which would be, 'not A implies not B'
because some of 'not A' is still in B.

this is what we have in Mark 16:16, and Romans 4:5 tells us us that (¬ A) ∩ (B) ≠ ∅

(( ¬ A ∩ B ≠ ∅ means that the intersection / overlap of 'not A' and B is nonempty: there exist people whom God accounts as righteous even though they do nothing other than believe Him))

You came up with all that and you never heard of modus tollens ? That is incredible.

 

[Dino246]

You came up with all that and you never heard of modus tollens ? That is incredible.

No, it's just logical.

 

[Guojing]

No, it's just logical.

Are you saying you reject modus tollens?

 

[posthuman]

5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Rom 4

There is a confusion here in language. Paul is talking about working for wages, not good works done
from a heart of love, because one wants to with no sense of obligation or a desire to get recognition.

Paul is saying we are given a gift by God, because we have put our faith in Him, righteousness.
But part of this faith is the acknowledging love is expressed through action, it is not just nice thoughts
and intentions, but actual help and delivery of good things. The world is full of people with good intentions
and evil actions, a rosy view of a doomed condition.

What you are pointing at is a common mistake made, confusing different uses of a word like work, and not
acknowledging the power of its context and meaning. But as with all things in God, He is happy to let those
who wish to construct excuses to do this, one less to consider in eternity. God bless.

oh? is it the language that informs you of that?
Paul uses two men as examples of what he is talking about here: Abraham and David
did neither of them do works out of love? did they both work as though for wages?
no, Abraham did nothing but believe, and it was credited as righteousness. and David said, blessed is the man against whom the Lord does not count his wrongs - his sin was removed; it was not because he offered any sacrifice for absolution.

we love, because He first loved us

 

[Dino246]

Are you saying you reject modus tollens?

If I were saying that I reject modus tollens, then I would say, "I reject modus tollens".

 

[posthuman]

You came up with all that and you never heard of modus tollens ? That is incredible.

it's just math.

nope, never heard of it.
looked it up. turns out ((no surprise)) the philosophy department is poor at math.
that falls apart when P ∩ Q = P but Q ∩ P ≠ Q

here's an example:
being a woman implies being an human being.
not being a woman does not imply not being an human being.

 

[Guojing]

If I were saying that I reject modus tollens, then I would say, "I reject modus tollens".

Then what do you mean when you say No?

 

[Guojing]

it's just math.

nope, never heard of it.
looked it up. turns out ((no surprise)) the philosophy department is poor at math.
that falls apart when P ∩ Q = P but Q ∩ P ≠ Q

here's an example:
being a woman implies being an human being.
not being a woman does not imply not being an human being.

You are giving the wrong counter example. You are committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Its no wonder you never heard of modus tollens.

 

[posthuman]

You are giving the wrong counter example. You are committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Its no wonder you never heard of modus tollens.

"the wrong counterexample" ?

that implies there's a right one -- therefore at least one counterexample exists, which means you are denying modus tollens

 

[Karraster]

oh? is it the language that informs you of that?
Paul uses two men as examples of what he is talking about here: Abraham and David
did neither of them do works out of love? did they both work as though for wages?
no, Abraham did nothing but believe, and it was credited as righteousness. and David said, blessed is the man against whom the Lord does not count his wrongs - his sin was removed; it was not because he offered any sacrifice for absolution.

we love, because He first loved us

Abraham did nothing but believe? You call packing up the family, moving to parts unknown nothing? You call demonstrating a willingness to kill your own son nothing? Genesis 28:5because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions."

 

[posthuman]

You are giving the wrong counter example. You are committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Its no wonder you never heard of modus tollens.

look,dude. it's not an universally applicable logical construct. i have proven it in the abstract, and i have given you two definite counterexamples. look up De Morgan's rules: your error in Mark 16:16 is because you are not negating the intersection correctly. or, if you'd rather use philosophical pseudo-logic, you are affirming the consequent.

trying to impress with latin phrases does not make up for being poor at math.
if my math is wrong, point it out.
if not being a woman really implies that you are not an human, please explain why men are not people.