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

[Dan_473]

Regarding the High priests and the bells...While the Holy of Holies represented the very place that God dwelt among His chosen people, in the period just preceeding the Babyloninan invasion, defiling and eventual exile of Judah from Jerusalem, the actual presence of the Glory of God ceased dwell in the temple. Wasn't it Jeremiah who removed and Hid the Arc of the Covenant? So the bells were more necessary when the presence of God was physically there rather than symbolic as it was after that point in time.

I think it's interesting also that a lot of people tend to think of the northern kingdom as going to Assyria and the southern kingdom going to Babylon.
But it looks like most of the southern kingdom ended up in assyria as well
2 Kings 18: 13. Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them.

 

[gb9]

Go ahead, and show examples.

Show where I time and time again refuse to answer questions

Show where I time and time again beat around the bush, and as someone else said, take a polita=ical aprroach to tryign to answer questions.

Show where I in defence of my position, when confronted with trying to prove an accusation I made, I attacked, Belittled and called people names instead of just answering the question and proviing my accusation.

I will be waiting.

And if you want to continue, I will report you also. I am sick of christian who profess to be holy and preach and judge being the worse liars and slanderers there are. They give god a bad name, they give his people a bad name, and they give Christian Chat a bad name!

they won't answer or give straight answers to questions.

they mis-represent what others say.

they throw out false accusations.

but, somehow, you , doc, and myself are the " bad guys"????

 

[lightbearer]

Greetings, Just noted you are pressed for time, Be Well!

Thank you SimpleGardner.
Praise God! May HIS wellness press upon us all!

 

[SimpleGardner]

I don't think the Bible says what happened to the ark, does it?

Not directly, no. No reference to the Ark after;

Jer 3:16 KJV And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

With the exception of Heb 9:4

 

[eternally-gratefull]

they won't answer or give straight answers to questions.

they mis-represent what others say.

they throw out false accusations.

but, somehow, you , doc, and myself are the " bad guys"????

Lets see

We hate the law (Lie)
We Hate Obedience (lie)
We hate works (lie)
We love sin (Lie)
We think we can say a little prayer and magically we are saved (Lie)

Instead of listening to us. And tryig to understand, they mock and attack us, yet we are the bad guys.

Its laughable.

 

[SimpleGardner]

I think it's interesting also that a lot of people tend to think of the northern kingdom as going to Assyria and the southern kingdom going to Babylon.
But it looks like most of the southern kingdom ended up in assyria as well
2 Kings 18: 13. Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them.

Yes it is true. And, many people think that their "exile" meant their captivity specifically the Northern Kingdom, but it meant thier removal from Gods House. They were not captives in the typical sense. Many of the Southern Kingdom merged into the Northern Kingdoms vicinities.

Note James;

Jas 1:1 KJV James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

 

[posthuman]

About the bells on the priest so they knew if he was alive or dead when he went in to talk to God.

also a rope tied on him, so if the high priest was struck dead, they would know because the bells stopped jingling, and they could pull him out, because anyone who went in to get the body would also be struck dead, because absolutely no one was to enter the holy place except the high priest, once a year, on Yom Kippur.

but Christ entered the true holy place in heaven and put His own blood on the true altar -- and the veil was rent.

i think Eusebius wrote hyperbolically -- maybe inspired by this:

Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, His body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for He who promised is faithful.​

(Hebrews 10:19-23)​

this isn't speaking about the literal holy of holies in the temple, but it is speaking spiritually of heavenly things.
and just think about this realistically for a moment:
James had become a believer in Christ. the Jews still controlled the temple and Jerusalem ((so much as possible, under Roman occupation)). the church in Jerusalem was heavily persecuted -- hence the collection Paul took up from all the churches scattered around the Mediterranean, to help the believers in Jerusalem.
does it really seem likely that the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin allowed a non-Levite, Christian believer - who they considered a blasphemer worthy of death - to regularly go into the holy of holies? because he was a 'pretty good fella' ?

or is it more likely that what Eusebius wrote about James is an hyperbolic statement, with reference to Hebrews 10, about James faithfully interceding in prayer? entering a spiritual 'holy of holies' to meet with God in prayer, able to do so now by the blood of Christ?

 

[posthuman]

Jesus also said this "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Did that turn out to be true? As I have asked the question previously in another thread, do you think God the Father knew a bit more than God the Son?

Once the Jewish nation rejected Christ as their Messiah about one year after the Crucifixion, the Tribulation was suppose to have come upon them. Luke 13:8.

However, God the Father revealed the biggest plot twist in the history of scripture, with the grace dispensation mystery thru Paul. Ephesians 3:9.

That Tribulation was postponed, to usher in his grand plan to save the Gentiles, independent of the Jews.

when i read something and the way i interpret it makes God a liar, or makes God an idiot, or in any way makes God wrong about something, i know i have not understood it correctly.

why would you try to defend a position that has God making mistakes and God saying things that aren't true?

that's a whopping big red flag that you haven't found the right interpretation.

 

[posthuman]

I think it's interesting also that a lot of people tend to think of the northern kingdom as going to Assyria and the southern kingdom going to Babylon.
But it looks like most of the southern kingdom ended up in assyria as well
2 Kings 18: 13. Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them.

it's interesting too that by the time of the Babylonian captivity, Babylon had also first conquered Assyria.

An attacker advances against you, Nineveh.​

Guard the fortress,​

watch the road,​

brace yourselves,​

marshal all your strength! ​

(Nahum 2:1) ​

Ninevah fell in 612 BC
Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem around 597 BC

((i think 612 is a reliable date, but iirc some people argue about whether Jerusalem fell in 597 or it was 587. i dunno, would need to research))

 

[SimpleGardner]

also a rope tied on him, so if the high priest was struck dead, they would know because the bells stopped jingling, and they could pull him out, because anyone who went in to get the body would also be struck dead, because absolutely no one was to enter the holy place except the high priest, once a year, on Yom Kippur.

but Christ entered the true holy place in heaven and put His own blood on the true altar -- and the veil was rent.

i think Eusebius wrote hyperbolically -- maybe inspired by this:

Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, His body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for He who promised is faithful.​

(Hebrews 10:19-23)​

this isn't speaking about the literal holy of holies in the temple, but it is speaking spiritually of heavenly things.
and just think about this realistically for a moment:
James had become a believer in Christ. the Jews still controlled the temple and Jerusalem ((so much as possible, under Roman occupation)). the church in Jerusalem was heavily persecuted -- hence the collection Paul took up from all the churches scattered around the Mediterranean, to help the believers in Jerusalem.
does it really seem likely that the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin allowed a non-Levite, Christian believer - who they considered a blasphemer worthy of death - to regularly go into the holy of holies? because he was a 'pretty good fella' ?

or is it more likely that what Eusebius wrote about James is an hyperbolic statement, with reference to Hebrews 10, about James faithfully interceding in prayer? entering a spiritual 'holy of holies' to meet with God in prayer, able to do so now by the blood of Christ?

Well laid out PH,

I was not inferring that I thought James entered the Physical temple either. I was only making a point that the Temple in Jerusalem was essentially ichabod too. The thought of this should bring forward many prophetic warnings about Jerusalem too.

 

[posthuman]

I don't think the Bible says what happened to the ark, does it?

tradition is that it, and the articles of the temple, were hidden before Jerusalem was sacked. some of the Jews who advocate for rebuilding the temple rumor that they know where it is, and can retrieve it when and if they regain control of the temple mount.

according to the documentary ((?)) movie i saw, a Nazi archaeological group found it, but were all melted when they opened it, and after some adventures, it was stored in some vault of the Smithsonian museum, where it remains, collecting dust & being a bit of a fire hazard, iirc.

 

[SimpleGardner]

it's interesting too that by the time of the Babylonian captivity, Babylon had also first conquered Assyria.

An attacker advances against you, Nineveh.​

Guard the fortress,​

watch the road,​

brace yourselves,​

marshal all your strength! ​

(Nahum 2:1) ​

Ninevah fell in 612 BC
Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem around 597 BC

((i think 612 is a reliable date, but iirc some people argue about whether Jerusalem fell in 597 or it was 587. i dunno, would need to research))

Sometimes Hollywood makes us look for instantaneous results. From my studies it took almost 25 years for Assyria to finish removing the Northern Kingdom from Gods House. The last place to relent being Samaria.

 

[Dan_473]

Not directly, no. No reference to the Ark after;

Jer 3:16 KJV And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

With the exception of Heb 9:4

Possibly it was burnt with the temple
2 Chronicles 36: 19. They burnt the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels of it.

 

[Guojing]

when i read something and the way i interpret it makes God a liar, or makes God an idiot, or in any way makes God wrong about something, i know i have not understood it correctly.

why would you try to defend a position that has God making mistakes and God saying things that aren't true?

that's a whopping big red flag that you haven't found the right interpretation.

I didn't say Jesus made a mistake, I am saying there are things hidden in God that only the Father knows. Jesus himself stated that only God the Father knows when he will return to Earth again. Matthew 24:36

We can agree to disagree there. Anyway, it doesn't matter to the main point. James came out of nowhere to end up the head of the Jerusalem HQ. If you don't find that fascinating, I have addressed it to the wrong person then.

 

[Dan_473]

Yes it is true. And, many people think that their "exile" meant their captivity specifically the Northern Kingdom, but it meant thier removal from Gods House. They were not captives in the typical sense. Many of the Southern Kingdom merged into the Northern Kingdoms vicinities.

Note James;

Jas 1:1 KJV James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Yes. Of course many of them actually were carried away very far.
2 Kings 17: 6. In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away to Assyria, and placed them in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.

 

[posthuman]

Actually this is what you posted, verbatim.

you're right, and i am sorry, i was mistaken -- i had more recently been talking about Matthew 12 -- tho can't seem to get any of these teachers of the law to interpret it, sadly -- and what you had responded to is 15 or 20 pages ago, so i misunderstood, being in a bit of a hurry posting from my phone at work where i don't have much time to interact with the forum, just spurts of a few minutes at a time.

that doesn't change anything at all in relation to this tho:

So I ask again, "So you believe as do the Jews of that moment? That Jesus through God sinned. That healing and doing good deeds on the Sabbath is a sin?"

can you honestly read anything i have posted and come away thinking i am trying to accuse God of sin?

look at Matthew 12 for me, would you?
what does Jesus say there?
He cites two examples from scripture of innocence despite clear transgression of the law, and He makes two claims of having authority greater than the law:
He says He is "One greater than the temple" and He says He is "Lord of the sabbath"

can the king be guilty of trespassing in his own palace?
is a king liable to pay taxes to himself, on the income of taxes he receives?

do you imagine i have never read "it is lawful to do good on the sabbath" ?

He is Lord of the sabbath and Lord of the temple. He is not under these things, but they are under Him.
to be Lord of the sabbath does not mean the sabbath is greater than Him - that is to be 'servant of the sabbath'

 

[posthuman]

Okay we can agree to disagree there.

we can agree to disagree?
wut??
on the question of whether an interpretation that makes God wrong can be a right interpretation?

you are comfortable calling God a liar and a fool?
and i'm supposed to just say 'meh whether God can be wrong is an open question' ??

 

[Guojing]

we can agree to disagree?
wut??
on the question of whether an interpretation that makes God wrong can be a right interpretation?

you are comfortable calling God a liar and a fool?
and i'm supposed to just say 'meh whether God can be wrong is an open question' ??

You are the one saying that, not me.

Ironically, as you have asked lightbearer, you are also misinterpreting my point into saying what I didn't say.

 

[posthuman]

Anyway, it doesn't matter to the main point. James came out of nowhere to end up the head of the Jerusalem HQ. If you don't find that fascinating, I have addressed it to the wrong person then.

yeah, it really does matter.

it is fascinating, but not because Jesus was totally wrong.
it is fascinating because Jesus, who is God, was 100% correct -- and the fact that the man Peter isn't the foundation of the church proves that the way you & the RCC read Matthew 16 is wrong.

it's a great thing to explain to a Catholic, great not because it proves Jesus didn't know what He was talking about but because it proves that the Catholic interpretation which you share is incorrect.

it really does matter because you are either blaspheming or you are refuting heresy. you ought not to fall on the blasphemy side, but to find out that truth which harmonizes all scripture.

 

[SimpleGardner]

Possibly it was burnt with the temple
2 Chronicles 36: 19. They burnt the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels of it.

Now that just ruined all the Indiana Jones movies for me!

Yeah, it would fit with the New Temple pattern to have it removed & replaced