No, you're the only one in this thread with a chip on his shoulder.
Yes,k if you could stop replying to my posts it would be greatly appreciated.
What if repentance is not about feeling guilty, regretful or ashamed? How do you define repentance?
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, you're the only one in this thread with a chip on his shoulder.
Yes,k if you could stop replying to my posts it would be greatly appreciated.
Jesus did heal on the Sabbath, which was not against the Mosaic Law
The Mosaic Law instructs both of the people accused of committing adultery to be brought before a judge to do a thorough investigation, that the witness are to throw the first stones, and that no one is to be put to death without at least two or three witnesses, so if Jesus had stoned her, then he would have been in violation of the Mosaic Law.
Everything in the Mosaic Law is either in regard to how to love God and our neighbor, which is why Jesus said that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hand on it, so it is the law of love.
The reason why Jesus went to the cross was not in order to free us to become doers of what the Law of Moses reveals to be sin but rather he gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works (Titus 2:14), so the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20). In Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten ordinance to Christ's. cross that announced the charge that was against him, which fits perfectly with the concept of the handwritten ordinance that listed the charges that were against us being nailed to his cross and with him dying in our place in order to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with nailing any laws to the cross in order to free us to become doers of what they reveal to be sin.
According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved heir neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that only Christ could do. If someone breaks any law, then that simply means that they need to repent and to return to obedience, which is what James was encouraging them to do, but it does not mean that we can't fulfill the law.
While it is possible for someone to interpret Acts 15:19-21 as ruling against followers of Christ following over 99% of what he taught, I don't think that it makes much sense to that. It would be contradictory for someone to treat Acts 15:19-21 as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which ways followers of Christ should follow Christ while also treating it as being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other ways that followers of Christ should follow Christ.
No, the goal was to avoid overwhelming new believers, which they justified in Acts 15:21 with the expectation that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues, not to reject over 99% of what Christ taught.
Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law by teaching us how to fulfill it, so there is nothing about us fulfilling it that means that what he did wasn't enough. Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so Jesus graciously teaching us to experience being a doer of it is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being a doer of it. The reason why God taught His children how to walk in His ways was not in order for us to be our own Savior, but rather that is the way that He is saving us.
The Lord led the Apostles to the understanding that He is not calling New Covenant believers to follow the law of Moses.
Because New Covenant believers are to follow the Law of Christ. Jesus is our High Priest, not Moses.
1) It was considered "works" when Jesus healed on the Sabbath. 2) Jesus never said that stoning the woman was against Mosaic law, as a matter of fact, if one had been sinless it would have been legal. Instead of answering your oft convoluted answers, which I can, I'll just let you try, and fail, to fulfill a law that has already been fulfilled. " Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES;..." Eph. 2:15 " Blotting out the handwriting of ORDINANCES THAT WAS AGAINST US, WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO US, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross;" Colossians 2:14. If you want to attempt to fulfill what has been "abolished"," the enmity ", and what is" against "and" contrary "to you, have at it.
There are a number of God's laws that appear to conflict with each other. For example, while God commanded to rest on the Sabbath, He also commanded priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however it was not the case that priests were forced to sin by breaking one of those two commands no matter that they chose to do, but rather there is a principle that a general prohibition is not intended to be understood as preventing us from obeying a specific command. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 125-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why Jesus defended his disciples as being innocent. This is also why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath, why it is lawful to get an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath, and so forth.
Some Pharisees had reasoned that it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath and that healing is work, therefore it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath, however, we are also commanded to love our neighbor, refusing to heal them would not be doing that, and no commandment was intended to be understood as preventing us from obeying the greatest two commandments, which is why it was lawful for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath. It is contradictory to take both he positions that the Pharisees were correct about it being unlawful to heal on the Sabbath a the position that Jesus was correct about it being lawful to heal on the Sabbath. Sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4), so the position that Jesus broke the Sabbath denies that he is our Savior.
Someone should be free from sin in the matter that they testify about so that they are not required to condemn themselves by their own testimony.
The Law of God is not something that we fulfill once and then no longer need to fulfill it as if someone loving their neighbor once has fulfilled their obligation to it and they no longer need to love their neighbor, but rather it is something that we need to continue to fulfill in perpetuity.
The Greek word "dogma" refers to something other than the Law of God every other time that it is used by the Bible outside of Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14, so you need to give justification for why those verses should be interpreted as referring to the Law of God, especially in light of the fact that that wound contradict the surrounding context as well as the broader context of verses like Matthew 5:17-19, where Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the Law of God and warned against relaxing the least part of it, like Romans 3:31, where Paul affirmed that our faith does not abolish the Law of God but rather our faith upholds it, and Psalm 119:160, where all of God's righteous laws are eternal. It doesn't even make sense to think that Jesus went to the cross in order to free us to become doers of what the Law of God reveals to be wickedness. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Law of God but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of God (Acts 21:20) while the way to reject everything he accomplished would be by returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from.
I'm answering what was said, that Christians should follow the Mosaic Law. Not one writer of the New Testament scriptures, that I have read, states this. I never said that the Mosaic Law was abolished, but, as the Bible states, the enmity was. The law, or handwriting of ordinances, was fulfilled and nailed to the Cross of Christ. " Stand fast in the LIBERTY wherewith Christ hath made us FREE, and be not entangled AGAIN with the yoke of BONDAGE. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you be circumcised (requirement of the law), Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor TO DO THE WHOLE LAW. Christ is become of NO EFFECT UNTO YOU, WHOSOEVER OF YOU ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW: YOU ARE FALLEN FROM GRACE." Galatians 5:1-4. Paul calls trying to be justified by the law is a yoke of bondage. To suggest that we, especially those who are young in the faith, should fulfill the Mosaic Law puts them under a yoke of bondage, when Christ has made us free. Not free to sin, as you have suggested, but free to fulfill the Law of Christ, love." Wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are you SUBJECT TO ORDINANCES,(touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments AND doctrines of men? Colossians 2:20-22. Man CAN'T fulfill the law, but THE Man, Christ Jesus, has and our faith in Him and what He has done justifies us. Now, should we, in this freedom Christ has provided for us, go back into sin? God forbid " Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Rom 6:16. Regarding your take on loving someone one time to fulfill the law, that's ridiculous, we are to love as God loves us, everlastingly, by decision. You should know that Jesus came and gave insight into the law when He said " you've heard it said, but I say unto you" Matt. 5:21-22. Jesus gave the true and deep intent of God's law rather than mans traditional interpretations and legalistic teachings. So the New Covenant teachings are better suited for followers of Christ, while still learning and being aware of the full counsel of Gods Word. What's hidden in the old is revealed in the new.
Jesus said it was abolished
Hebrews 10:9 - Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34
You were not aware of this?
All the judaizers ignore the Book of Hebrews
Have you not read Matthew 5:17? Quoting Jesus " Think NOT that I am come to destroy (abolish) the law, or the prophets: I am NOT come to destroy (abolish), but to fulfill." Were you aware of this?
You are ignoring that the verses that you've quoted don't actually speak against obeying the Law of Moses and are proceeding to post more verses that also don't actually speak against obeying it. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). The Bible is calling for us to obey the Law of Moses every time that it calls for repentance from our sins.
In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet is if they speak against obeying the Law of Moses, so if you agree that Paul was a servant of God, then you should be opposed to you interpreting the verses that you have quoted as speaking against obeying the Law of Moses, and if you think that those verses should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Law of Moses, then you should be opposed to you considering them to be written by a servant of God, but either way followers of Christ should follow the example of obedience to the Law of Moses that he set for his followers to follow.
No, you have given no justification for interpreting those verses as referring to the Law of Moses.
In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the liberty that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin. If God saved the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt in order to put them under bondage to His law, then it would be for bondage that God sets us free, however, Galatians 5:1 says that it is for freedom that God sets us free, so you are not correctly identifying what Paul was speaking against. In Psalm 119:142, the Law of Moses is truth and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of the Law of Moses that puts us into bondage while the truth sets us free. The Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying the Law of Moses, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so it is incompatible to view the Law of Moses as being bondage while also considering the Psalms to be Scripture.
God wanted His children to repent and to return to obedience to the Law of Moses all throughout the Bible and even Christ began his ministry with that Gospel message (Matthew 4:15-23), so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:1-4 as Paul warning us against obeying God and warning that we will be cut off from Christ if we believe the Gospel of Christ. In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, and he chose the way by setting it before him, this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith alone and it would again be absurd to interpret this as him wanting God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace, so again you are not correctly identifying what Paul was speaking against.
It is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so to be free from the Law of Moses means to be free to sin. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so you have no justification for taking the position that the Law of Christ is not in perfect accordance with every word that comes from the mouth of God, especially when everything in the Law of Moses is in regard to how to love.
Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, which means that they were being judged by pagans because they were celebrating God's feasts and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for obeying God. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from doing that.
According to Galatians 5:14, everyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity. The Law of Moses was never given as a way of earning our righteousness even as the result of having perfect obedience it, but rather it was given to teach us how to be a doer of righteous works (1 John 3:4-7). The only way to become righteous is through faith, but what it means to be righteous is to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of Moses.
It is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so the position that should not go back to sin is the position that we should obey the Law of Moses
In Matthew 4, Jesus preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he preceded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. The Law of Moses is part of the full counsel of God's Word, so we can't live in accordance with the full counsel of God's Word while rejecting the Law of Moses.
That notably does not say that the Law of Moses has been abolished. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the Law of Moses and warned against relaxing the least part of it, so you are calling him a liar and are disregarding his warning.
In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Law of Moses is our minds and writing it on our hearts, so those who want nothing to do with following Christ's example of obedience to the Law of Moses also want nothing to do with being under the New Covenant.
There is no. need to ignore the Book of Hebrews, just the need to avoid making the error of interpreting it as speaking against obeying what God has commanded and then compounding that error by then taking the position that we should follow the author of Hebrews instead of what God has commanded. When God has commanded something and spoken against listening to anyone who speaks against obeying what He has commanded, and you think that the author of Hebrews spoke against obeying what God has commanded, then it should not be difficult for you to figure out who has the higher authority and which one has the higher authority and which one we should follow. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if it comes down to it, then we should be quicker to disregard everything that the Apostles said than to disregard anything that God has commanded.
Soyeong, this is for you. To fulfill, as Christ did with the law, means; to complete, to carry out, satisfy a task, a promise, a need or an expectation. If Christ fulfilled the law, and He has, why would I burden myself trying , and failing, to do something that's already been done? ONLY ONE, JESUS, COULD HAVE EVER POSSIBLY FULFILLED THE LAW, BEFORE IT WAS FULFILLED AND AFTER IT HAS BEEN FULFILLED. YOU WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW IT PERFECTLY AND NO MAN CAN! Just love the Father and your fellow man, that's all.
You repeatedly mix covenants. As I said before, show me ONE verse in the new covenant that instructs us to follow the Mosaic Law. You must also understand WHO Jesus was addressing. He was addressing Jews who were under the law, not Gentiles who had no covenant with God. " For ye have heard of my conversation (lifestyle) in time past in the Jews religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews religion above my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by His grace, To reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the heathen; immediately I CONFERRED NOT with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." Gal. 1:13-18 Jesus gave Paul revelation for 3 years, alone, in how His church was to operate. Even Peter said that some of Paul's teachings were ' hard to be understood " 2 Pet. 3:16. This was brand new to the Apostles, for these revelations were given to Paul only and they learned from him, as you ought. Jesus had to break him away from those steeped in the Jews religion (law) to pour into him these new covenant instructions, renewing his mind. Paul NEVER said that we must obey the Mosaic Law. " But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye AGAIN to the weak and beggarly elements (of the law) whereunto ye desire AGAIN TO BE IN BONDAGE?" Galatians 4:9 " Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabus, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by REVELATION, and communicated unto them that Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to the which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily(stealthily) to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they MIGHT BRING US INTO BONDAGE:" Galatians 2:1-4. False brethren tried to compel Titus to be circumcised ( according to the law) and Paul equates that with being brought into bondage. Also, this shows that Paul shared with those " which were of reputation (Apostles) the revelation of the New Covenant that Jesus had revealed to him.
No, while God's covenants are distinct, everything that they teach us about God is eternal and cumulatively valid. For example, it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 long before the Mosaic Covenant, during it, and it will always be a sin no matter how many covenants God makes. It is not the case that each covenant comes with an arbitrarily different set of flesh for how to embody a different set of characters as if it were up in their air whether it would still be a sin to commit adultery under the New Covenant, but rather al of God's covenants are made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore the same eternal and cumulatively valid instructions for how to embody His character traits.
I showed that Christ taught his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and that every time the NT is calling for us to obey the Law of Moses every time that it calls for us to repent from our sin.
In Matthew 28:16-20, Jesus commissioned his disciples to teach to the nations everything that he taught them, so while it is true that Jesus focused his ministry on Jews, he did not intend for only Jews to follow what he taught.
Paul also taught the same Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace based on the Law of Moses that Jesus taught (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23).
In 2 Peter 3:15-17, Peter said that Paul is difficult to understand, that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction, and to be careful not to be carried away by the error of lawlessness men, so we can be confident that when Paul is correctly understood that he did not speak against following Christ's example of obedience to the Law of Moses.
The New Covenant involves God putting the Law of Moses in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), so there is no justification for thinking that being under the New Covenant means that we should no longer follow Christ's example of obedience to it. The reason why Jesus established the New Covenant was not so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place.
Again, Paul spoke against sin and said that it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20).
Galatians 4:8-11 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Law of Moses is to graciously teach us how to know God and Jesus by walking in His way. There is no justification for interpreting Galatians 4:8-11 as Paul criticizing them for returning to following God's instructions for how to know and be known by Him, but rather those who formerly did not know God who were slaves to those who by nature are not gods is clearly referring to former pagans who were not formerly following God's instruction for how to know and be known by him and who had started following those instructions, but were returning to celebrating pagan holy days.
If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of Moses by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.
It should not make sense to you to interpret someone who you consider to be a servant of God as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, but rather if you do that, then you should either conclude that you must have misinterpreted them or that you were wrong to consider them to be a servant of God. There are no circumstances under which you should obey what you think Paul said instead of what God has commanded.
Yes and it means Jesus kept the old covenant law perfectly which is why He was the perfect Lamb of God able to go to the Cross for the sins of mankind. He fulfilled the OT law by keeping jot and tittle of it.
The bigger question is why are you ignoring the Book of Hebrews? Do you believe there are lies in God's Word?
How do you plan to explain away the passage below from Hebrews???
Hebrews 10:9 - Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34
Hebrews 8:6 - But now hath Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
And with the changing of the priesthood, God’s Word tells us there is also a change of the law.
Hebrews 7:12 - For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
You need to learn to right understand the Word of the Lord. God does not contradict Himself in His Word because He cannot possibly lie. Those trying to live under the old covenant are fallen from grace and are no longer saved:
Galatians 5:4 - Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it and he warned against relaxing the least part of it, so should not interpret Jesus fulfilling the law as meaning that he abolished our obligation to obey it. "To fulfill the law" means "to caused God's will (as made known by the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so Jesus proceeded to fulfill the law throughout the rest of Matthew 5 by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.
Every time someone stops at a traffic light they are completing their obligation to the law, carrying out their obligation to the law, satisfying their obligation to the law, or correctly meeting the expectation of the law, but at no point are they removing their obligation to continue to stop at traffic lights, but rather it is something that they need to keep fulfilling in perpetuity. When a husband is fulfilling his marriage vows he is correctly doing what he has vowed, not doing something that is once and done.
According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so again it refers to correctly obeying it, moreover, it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that Jesus did to remove our obligation to love our neighbor.
Everything in the Law of Moses is either in regard to how to love God and our neighbor, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them, so the position that we should obey the greatest two commandments is also the position that we should obey the rest of the commandments that hang on them. For example, if someone thought that they just needed to love God and their neighbor, so they did not need to refrain from committing idolatry, favoritism, or kidnapping, then they would have an incomplete understanding of what it means to love God and their neighbor, and the same is true for everything else in the Law of Moses. The greatest two commandments are much easier said than done, so thankfully God gave us the rest on the Law of Moses to flesh out what it looks like to correctly obey them. Someone who was correctly obeying the greatest two commandments would be indistinguishable from someone who was correctly following the rest of the Law of Moses because they would both be following the same example that Jesus set for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to it. Moreover, in Deuteronomy 6:4-9, the way to obey the greatest commandment in the Bible is essentially by being zealous for teaching obedience to the Law of Moses. The way to obey the greatest two commandments in the OT did not change when the NT quoted them.
If you connect Jesus fulfilling the law with the cross in spite of Jesus making no allusion to it in Matthew 5, then you are interpreting it with the assumption that he had no intention of his audience understanding what he meant. On other other hand, if Jesus did intend for his audience to understand what he meant, then it had meaning that his audience already understood that is not specific to him. Indeed, there is much discussion in other Jewish writings about how to fulfill the law in the sense of correctly meeting our obligation to it. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that Jesus did through the cross. Likewise, in Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, so that should be interpreted in the same way as fulfilling the Law of Moses. Jesus did not fulfill the laws in regard to giving birth or having a period.
In Psalm 14:1-3, it says "there is no God", so if someone interprets those verses as denying the existence of God, then they should either conclude that they are misinterpreted those verses, such as by taking them out of context, or that those verses are not God's Word. Similarly, there are interpretation of Hebrews that should lead someone to conclude either that they have misinterpreted it or that it is not God's Word.
Indeed we are under the New Covenant, which involves God putting the Law of Moses in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).
https://ref.ly/Jer 31.31-34;esv?t=biblia
While it is true that the New Covenant is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6), it is also true that it involves God putting the Law of Moses in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Hebrews 8:10)
God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalm 119:160), so Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to do charity, but rather the context is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would require a change of the law in regard to its administration. While it is true God does not contradict Himself and His Word because He cannot possibly lie, that does not mean that we should accept every interpretation of Hebrews including those that are contrary to His Word.
I have not been speaking about living under the Mosaic Covenant, but rather I have been speaking about the way to live under the New Covenant. All throughout the Bible, God wanted His children to repent and to return to obedience to the Law of Moses, and even Christ began his ministry with that Gospel message (Matthew 4:15-23), so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning us against obeying God and warning that we will be cut off from Christ if we believe the Gospel of Christ. If you think that Paul warned us against obeying God, then you should obey God instead of Paul. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you think that Paul spoke against obeying God, then you should be quicker to disregard everything that he said than to disregard anything that God has commanded.
In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith alone and it would be absurd to interpret these verses as if he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace, so you are not correctly identifying what Paul was speaking against.
Why do you even think that you need salvation from sin if you don't think that you have an obligation to refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin through the Law of Moses? What would be the point of spreading a Gospel calling to repent from our disobedience to the Law of Moses as a light to Gentiles if Gentiles had not need to repent from disobeying the Law of Moses? In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in the Gospel that he spent his ministry teaching and accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20). So why do you think that what Jesus accomplished through the cross has any value for Gentiles if Gentiles had no need to be redeemed from all lawlessness or to be zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses?
No loving God involved as Jesus said?
Jesus said: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” (Matthew 22:37). This is part of Jesus’ teaching about the “first and greatest commandment.”
Seems as some have forgotten about the Lord and love people before the Lord.
That's idolatry to love anything before loving the Lord.
No, Jesus said He taught the Gospel of the Kingdom not the law of Moses.
In Luke 16:16 Jesus said - the law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
God stopped teaching to law of Moses to mankind starting with the ministry of John the Baptist
I have zero obligation to have anything at all to do with the law of Moses since Jesus is my High Priest Who presides over the Law of Christ. Maybe what Jesus has going isn't good enough for you or something?
You can follow the law of Moses if you so desire. I will abide in Christ which is the only place salvation can be found.
No, He's putting the Law of Christ in our hearts, aka the Perfect Law of Liberty (James 1:25), aka the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2).
There's nothing going on in Moses but death, separation from God so you really need to up your game bro man and come on over in to the New Covenant!
I didn't say anything contrary to loving God as Jesus said or anything about loving anything before the Lord. Jesus summarized the Law of Moses as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so that is how he loved God and his neighbor and how we are to love as he loved.
That is a false dichotomy because the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace and Jesus and Paul taught is based on following the Law of Moses (Matthew 4:15-23, Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23).
Neither John nor Jesus came with the message to stop repenting because the Law of Moses has ended now that they have come and we have been freed to become doers of what it reveals to be wickedness, but just the opposite, they called for us to repent from our disobedience to it, which is in accordance with Jesus being sent as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26). In Luke 16:16, Jesus referred to the Kingdom of God being preached since John, which call for us to repent from our disobedience to the Law of Moses, so he was not speaking about it ending with John. In Luke 16:17, Jesus said that it would be easier for heaven and earn to disappear than for the least part to disappear from the Law of Moses, so again he was not speaking about something that he thought had already ended. Moreover, in Luke 16:18, Jesus proceeded to teach the Law of Moses.
Then you are taking the position that you have no need for salvation from sin, no need of the Gospel, and no need of Jesus to have given himself to redeem us from all lawlessness.
Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), so you have no justification for considering the Law of Christ to be something that is not perfectly in accordance with the Law of Moses. A priesthood led by God's Word made flesh is in perfect accordance with God's Word and the way for someone to reject him as High Priest would be by refusing to follow his example of embodying God's Word. The same God who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus as the promised seed to turn us from our wickedness in disobedience to it, so there is no disagreement. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligation to walk in the same way that he walked, so someone who refuses to follow Christ's example of walking in obedience to the Law of Moses has no grounds for considering themselves to be in Christ. Someone can't be in Christ while rejecting all that he is.
In Hebrews 8:10, it is quoting Jeremiah 31:33, which uses the Hebrew word "Torah", which is also known as the Law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 30, it forms the basis for the New Covenant by prophesying about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to the Torah, which is what Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 36:26-27 are in regard to. Again, you have no justification for consider the Law of Christ to be something other than the Law of Moses. In James 1:25, it speaks about the perfect law of liberty that blesses those who obey it, with is not saying anything about the Law of Moses that wasn't already said in the Psalms (Psalm 19:7. 119:45, 119:1-3).
God has not commanded anything that is not in accordance with walking in the Spirit, but rather His character traits are the fruits of the Spirit and the Law of Moses is His instructions for how to embody His character traits, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it. In Romans 8:2-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of Moses. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in the Spirit/how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses. The reason why Jesus established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather it still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33).
I think you are misunderstanding me. I AM NOT THE ONE WHO IS SAYING, FOLLOW THE MOSAIC LAW, that's Soyeong. I am saying that the Law has already been fulfilled and to require one to follow it puts them in a yoke of bondage. You have used some of the same passages of scripture that I have used AGAINST his stance. Read the thread beginning with Soyeong and my interactions and you will find what I'm saying is true. P.S. I often use the book of Hebrews in my discussions