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

[Dan_473]

OH! And, I would, and do a whole lot more then even that!

I would make for a terrible jew in the flesh! Wouldn't I?

Yet, you keep trying to "pigeon hole" me as one! Doncha?

I can't help that ya don't "get it!"

What I do get, is in your trying to understand?

You are not understanding very much!

Not very much at all!

You are correct that I do not get why someone would both believe in Jesus and willfully sin.

So my guess is that you don't consider those two commandments to be in effect today, so that breaking them does not result in sin.

So again, while you are putting your ideas about the law out there, why not talk about the details of your life, which laws you do keep and how you keep them, so that other people can see your light shine before men?

 

[DeighAnn]

POSTS ARE GETTING MIXED UP AND PEOPLE ARE REPLYING TO REPLYS NOT MEANT FOR THEM. sO

DAN POSTED ABOUT MARRY BROTHERS WIDOW

DEIGH (I) THEN POSTED "I think I am confused. Do you believe in the New Covenant or not? Because if you do, then the only "laws of Moses" that are valid today and to be followed would be the ones Jesus commanded from them, and those that He did not command we are no longer under. (though I must admit there are a bunch more I really wish would have been brought such as recompense for theft, throwing the first stone etc) (and for those who would complain is was all one law not divided fact is some were nailed to the cross, .....""

THEN RICK POSTED IN REPLY TO MY POST TO DAN THINKING IT WAS TO HIM BUT IT WASN'T

THEN GRANDPA POSTED IN REPLY TO RICK

AND HOPEFULLY THIS IS THE END OF THAT

this is just for you, meant for you.

have you come up with a translation that defines the word " Law " as primarily plural , and not singular.


still waiting....[/QUOTE]
Why would I need to?

 

[JamOn]

I'm not a law-keeper, but I still haven't found a single piece of evidence -- in the Gospels -- that Jesus ever told us to stop keeping the Law. Should we rely solely on what Paul said?

Ten on the heart, the lamb slaughtering is finished.

 

[page-1]

Ten on the heart, the lamb slaughtering is finished.

Technically, you have a Slaughtered Lamb.

 

[posthuman]

what are your thoughts on why the Bible marks time in 30 day months, tied to lunar period, and 360 day years, tied to the sun, but the observed periods of the heavenly bodies don't match this?

The answer may be found in the events during the days of Hezekiah. II Kings 20:8-11

that's actually an wholly unsatisfactory answer, not addressing the issue at all.
if the whole time-keeping system of the sun & moon just wound back a few hours, it is only a translation - like resetting the clock.
but there has been an apparent 'stretching' of time - it's like adding gear teeth to all the inner workings of the clock. instead of the scriptural 360 day year, we have 365 & change. just setting the clock from 5pm back to 1 or 2pm doesn't change the length of the year or the period of the moon's orbit, and it would only change the apparent length of a single year for time to have be reset by a few hours once. it would not explain at all how every year in our current age is longer by the space of over 120 hours than what i expect from the Torah's lunar calendar.

you have any better answer than that?

 

[posthuman]

To argue for moral values and duties to be subjective (changeable based on time, event, people, place, etc.) is to, at the same time, argue that God/good does not exist.

The law and the prophets explicitly claims that morality is objective[1], and that God/good is immutable[2]. It also, explicitly, calls the profaning of the seventh day, the transgression of the fourth commandment, evil[3].

Therefore, to write/interpret any writings to mean that we can profane the Sabbath and maintain that this writing/interpretation is infallibly true, the author/interpreter has no choice but to, at the same time, discredit the law and the prophets as false/inaccurate.

----------------------------------------------------------

[1]
Deut 30:15-16,19; Is 5:20,24; 8:19-20

[2]
Mal 3:6

[3]
Ex 16:27-28; Neh 13:17-18; Is 56:2; Eze 22:26

[4]
Gen 2:2-3; Ex 20:11

hello, welcome to CC

i'm curious how brand new members arrive to the site, skip all introductions, go directly to a large thread already in progress in the BDF, and proceed to 'teach' everyone involved.

how did you land here, if you don't mind telling me?

 

[Dan_473]

That is one of the things that prophets do. Jesus came to fulfill all the prophecies concerning Him written in the laws and the prophets. I believe.


for the brother marry brother widow I asked but I think you missed


"I think I am confused. Do you believe in the New Covenant or not? Because if you do, then the only "laws of Moses" that are valid today and to be followed would be the ones Jesus commanded from them, and those that He did not command we are no longer under. (though I must admit there are a bunch more I really wish would have been brought such as recompense for theft, throwing the first stone etc) (and for those who would complain is was all one law not divided fact is some were nailed to the cross, with Jesus, He also brought some into the new, and left the rest for our history, instruction of holiness or edification etc) The law of Moses was valid till John the Baptist, they were set up as temporary. They were for a people who had been slaves for 400 years and knew nothing about being a nation, let alone how to be a "people" a holy people, a peculiar people, unto God. Those laws gave them rules for everything from worshipping God to Govennment, hence the "temp" ness of them.

"Jesus came to fulfill all the prophecies concerning Him written in the laws and the prophets."

When Jesus came the first time, he fulfilled some of the prophecies about him, yes.

He says he didn't come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. He says law not laws, and Prophets not prophecies.

Jesus uses the same phrase
The law and the prophets
In another place in The sermon on the Mount. You're probably familiar with that.

 

[DeighAnn]

hello, welcome to CC

i'm curious how brand new members arrive to the site, skip all introductions, go directly to a large thread already in progress in the BDF, and proceed to 'teach' everyone involved.

how did you land here, if you don't mind telling me?

I just want to say if I did that, Sorry.

 

[Dan_473]

That is one of the things that prophets do. Jesus came to fulfill all the prophecies concerning Him written in the laws and the prophets. I believe.


for the brother marry brother widow I asked but I think you missed


"I think I am confused. Do you believe in the New Covenant or not? Because if you do, then the only "laws of Moses" that are valid today and to be followed would be the ones Jesus commanded from them, and those that He did not command we are no longer under. (though I must admit there are a bunch more I really wish would have been brought such as recompense for theft, throwing the first stone etc) (and for those who would complain is was all one law not divided fact is some were nailed to the cross, with Jesus, He also brought some into the new, and left the rest for our history, instruction of holiness or edification etc) The law of Moses was valid till John the Baptist, they were set up as temporary. They were for a people who had been slaves for 400 years and knew nothing about being a nation, let alone how to be a "people" a holy people, a peculiar people, unto God. Those laws gave them rules for everything from worshipping God to Govennment, hence the "temp" ness of them.

I think I did talk about the brother marrying the brother's widow, but I can look for it if you don't see it.

 

[JamOn]

Technically, you have a Slaughtered Lamb.

Indeed no need to slaughter it again.

 

[DeighAnn]

"Jesus came to fulfill all the prophecies concerning Him written in the laws and the prophets."

When Jesus came the first time, he fulfilled some of the prophecies about him, yes.

He says he didn't come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. He says law not laws, and Prophets not prophecies.

Jesus uses the same phrase
The law and the prophets
In another place in The sermon on the Mount. You're probably familiar with that.

So does He interpret it for us somewhere else? How do you "fulfill a prophet" ?

 

[Dan_473]

So that marry brothers widow no longer applies, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

 

[JamOn]

I wonder if anybody here has actually slaughtered a living lamb for religious reasons?

 

[DeighAnn]

I think I did talk about the brother marrying the brother's widow, but I can look for it if you don't see it.

My question is, "is the marry brother widow valid" under the law of the kingdom of God, or has it been rendered "void" as the law of Moses has expired"

 

[JamOn]

My question is, "is the marry brother widow valid" under the law of the kingdom of God, or has it been rendered "void" as the law of Moses has expired"

Have you?

 

[posthuman]

Therefore, to write/interpret any writings to mean that we can profane the Sabbath and maintain that this writing/interpretation is infallibly true, the author/interpreter has no choice but to, at the same time, discredit the law and the prophets as false/inaccurate.

i'll bite:

​

have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is One greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. ​

(Matthew 12:5-7)​

​

Jesus Christ explicitly says the priests in the temple profane/desecrate/break the sabbath without guilt. moreover, that this is found in the law itself.

has Christ destroyed the integrity of scripture? what is the interpretation?

more yet, this is not a thread about sabbath, and Christ also calls us to be reminded:

Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? ​

(Matthew 12:3-4)​

​

here similarly, David and his men did what was specifically against the law to do, and the inference is abundantly clear in Christ's dialogue that he is guiltless -- not merely 'looked over' but guiltless -- in having done so.
what is the interpretation?
has Christ destroyed the integrity of the scripture by saying this?

 

[DeighAnn]

Have you?

Put you on ignore? Right now going to, and thank you for the quick eye opening session into your spirit.

 

[page-1]

hello, welcome to CC

i'm curious how brand new members arrive to the site, skip all introductions, go directly to a large thread already in progress in the BDF, and proceed to 'teach' everyone involved.

how did you land here, if you don't mind telling me?

I had an argument on my mind regarding the law of Moses, so I was merely "googling" the term "law of Moses discussion" and went through a couple of websites and landed here. Registered, and then started commenting.

May I ask why you perceive an argument from premises a lecture of sorts?

 

[JamOn]

Put you on ignore? Right now going to, and thank you for the quick eye opening session into your spirit.

My your quick to anger and to condemn, though it doesn’t bother me a bit if that is what you want Haha..

though it would be interesting to know what part of my statement you disliked, again I don’t think anyone here has killed a lamb for religious reasons.

And no you don’t have that kind of power to look into my spirit

 

[Dan_473]

Can you explain your interpretation here? Perhaps by demonstration? How exactly can one yield to the spirit and not the letter? For example, the letter of the law says, "Do not commit adultery," and the spirit of law is to, "not commit adultery in the heart." How can one commit adultery while remaining pure in the heart? I can understand how keeping the law out of obligation (only to the letter) will kill, as this was proven to be the case with Israel and the statue of Baal. They kept to the letter of the second commandment, but not the spirit, thus resulted in death. Should they keep to the spirit, then they would have been okay. But I fail to understand how one can renounce the letter in favor for the spirit: renounce the law against murder as long as you don't hate your brother in your heart.

Hi page-1, welcome to CC!

I think a good example would be jesus's teaching on divorce. As I understand it, he taught that immorality was the only legitimate reason for divorce.

Suppose that one spouse is physically abusive to the other spouse and the children in the family. In many cases, I think, the only way to provide a safe environment is with a divorce. This can also provide protection against a spouse who runs up huge debts that the other spouse would be liable for.

I have the impression from the gospels that Jesus was not intending for people to be chained to a tyrant. So that would be an example where the wise thing to do is to follow the spirit of jesus's instruction, but not the letter.