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

Maybe you who don't work Righteousness would be even better. Those who are lawless are not Righteous.

And those who are Righteous are obviously not lawless.

Romans 9:30-32
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;


So which of these are the ones who are working iniquity? The Gentiles who have attained Righteousness through faith in Christ or Israel which works at the law?

It should be obvious, I think.

Welcome to cc! Blessings to you in love and fellowship in His word!

You didn't ask me if you were justified, you asked me what I thought about your comment. You just now asked me are you justified. This is the first time you asked this question. ???

I'm sorry. I'm can't make assumptions. I'll answer your question now...

A1: I can't answer for everyone without knowing everyone's answer to the following question. "Do you believe Christ died for your sins and then rose again on the 3rd day to ascend into heaven and minister as high priest in a more perfect tabernacle?" If the answer is yes then the sins you/they had committed are forgiven and the answer is yes.

A2: Justification is the process of cleansing of sins. This requires a confession, which is our part. We can get dirty again as the following passage explains.

Or hope and security is only eternal if we continue in the faith that was taught and do not deliberately continue to sin.


Hebrews 10:23-29
Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?


Two things to notice from the passage:

1) These hypothetical people already received Christ and his sacrifice. So they were already justified.

2) For these hypothetical people to deliberately continue to sin afterwards is an insult to the Spirit of Grace...so no sacrifice remains for the, only judgment.

The word insult means there was a prior relationship before it was damaged. Sp these hypothetical people aren't those who were "never of us". These are folks who fell.

Anomia does not necessarily refer to breaking the Mosaic Law.

Anomia can be used in the sense of "rebellion". Those who are unprincipled in terms of their overall orientation toward God, living a life of disobedience, are in rebellion against God.

I struggled with this particular reference while being influenced by Judaizers. I John 3:4 indicates that sin is transgression of the law in I John 3:4.

Now, I don't have any issue with sin being related to transgressing the moral law of God. Notice that I said "moral law of God". I do not include calendar and dietary laws as being moral law.

However, I don't think anomia implies this. I believe it implies rebellion....the word simply describes the state of being of the unsaved person, whose fundamental orientation is toward sin and not obeying God.

In fact, I would say that meticulous lawkeepers are often in anomia because they are in rebellion against God, even while their outward actions seem to indicate obedience to their written code.

So, I think I John 3:4 is actually referring to the motive and the behavior. Hamartia (the behavior) is caused by anomia (the fundamental orientation).

Colin Kruse has a commentary on the letters of John that takes the view that I am proposing.

The same would be true of other references relating to anomia. I don't think you can claim that sin is only defined by keeping the Mosaic Law for the believer, or that all elements of the Mosaic Law are sin to the believer. How many of you are going to marry your deceased brother's wife if he dies without bearing her a son, as the Levirate law required? If you fail to do this, is it a sin?

Well, if the Mosaic Law was in effect, I'd definitely make sure my brothers only married women I'm attracted to, because I wouldn't want to be their husband otherwise..and even then, that's sort of icky. My sister-in-law is an attractive woman but I wouldn't want to have sex with her..she's like a sister.

Well this first statement you make kind of negates the point your making in the rest of your post doesnt it? because if you say a better word is "righteousness" then here's what you have Christ now saying...


"I will say to them, I never knew you. Depart from me, you that DON'T WORK RIGHTEOUSNESS."


Your words.

Freudian slip?

Notice your passage in Roman's says,

"But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law."

What they were doing wasn't done by faith. They were just going through the motions because they were told they were supposed to. There was no faith behind it. Just empty rituals that couldn't cleanse anyhow.

That still leave the future, when Christ returns. He's going to tell folks "I never knew you who practiced...PRACTICED lawlessness;" or as you put it, those who - by practice - did not work righteousness.

This perfectly mirrors Hebrews 10:23-29; "theres no sacrifice for those who deliberately continuing in sin."

Sin is to break the law.

Who, exactly, are you calling "carnal"?

Someone who doesn't trust in Jesus Christ for salvation, or someone who doesn't follow the Law?

ahh man

Justification is a judicial term, It means declared righteous or innocent.

its not a term which means washing our sins. That would be what the ba[tism of the spirit was for. And yes, I was baptized by the spirit where my sins were washed away.

What you just did here is show that you are in a process of working to earn your salvation. You do nto believe you are justified, even though the word says we are.

My faith is in christ, Your faith is in what you do (or do not do)

Anyway, I did not think you understood what I meant, and why those verses are what give me my HOPE and SECURITY in christ.

The Apostle Paul writing about Jesus tells us, "For through him (Jesus) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." (Eph 2:18 KJV)

Jesus said, "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. (Joh 10:9 KJV)

Nobody ever said there is salvation in Moses, neither is there salvation in the law.

You ignore john, Why do you all continue to ignore john?

John says he who sins has never seen God or known him. That is WHY jesus said they DON:T work righteousness, or they are lawless.
John also says those who are born of God can not live in sin, thats WHY they obey gods commands. (Not because they follow the law. But because they are born of God)

You seem to think a child of God can live like the world. When the bible says they can not.

Hi there. Welcome.

I think I get your point. While it sounds good, the unsaved are not the ones Christ says will come to him in that day saying they did great works "in his name", who he will turn away.

"Apart from the law there is no sin."

It's the scriptures that define what sin and rebellion is. We start to slide down a slippery slope when we start defining sin and rebellion in terms other than how they were specifically laid out by scripture.

And in terms of your example, with respect, notice how that instruction immediately proved what's really in your heart (i.e. the looks of the woman matter more over taking care of your widowed sister-in-law in your brothers name).

This is what the law does. It shows what's really in our hearts so we can work on it in the Spirit.

These laws were given by The Almighty, not Moses.

And at the core of it is to love.

Regarding dietary laws, what about the apostles instructing the gentiles not to eat meat with blood in it in Acts 15? It has nothing to do with morality but specifically doing something Yah required of himself.

There has been no accusation against you all, made in the entirety of the post. So you're making another assumption. But I could definitely make this accusation about you all.

I could say, You all seem to think that promoting and to encourage others to follow the law means that one is somehow NOT a child of Yah, and then you go on to confirm your accusation by calling us putrid names like judaizers and pharisees, or say "lawkeepers" in a derogatory way, etc. Proven.

Even if we remove all argument from either side, the only ones making accusations here as to who others really are, is you all.

----


Hebrews 10:24
And let us consider how to spur one another on to love and good deeds.


What is a good deed/work?

Does scripture give a definition of what a good deed/work is?

In the same verses, Christ said that those individuals who are making this claim didn't know him, ie, did not have a relationship with him. I am not sure why you think these are true believers.


This is true, and the believer is dead to the law. It has no authority over him in regards to salvation. Read Rom 6:1-14.

However, "the law" is not talking necessarily about the Mosaic Law. It is talking about the moral law of God. The Mosaic Law included aspects which are not moral in nature. Those laws are no longer in effect for the believer.

You aren't acknowledging the union the believer has with Jesus and the power of the Spirit. Read Romans 7:1-6. It says clearly that the written code is no longer in effect, and that the Spirit leads the believer to acts of service and holiness.

I acknowledge that the Mosaic Law serves a purpose if one understands the spiritual intent. Judaizers don't understand the spiritual intent, and instead focus on the written code.

Firstly, I was making a joke. Secondly, do you believe that the Levirate Law is in effect?

By the way, the Levirate Law is not as simple as you claim. One of its intentions was likely to provide for the widow, but the most important aspect was to keep the land inheritance within the same tribe.

My comments don't infer otherwise. However, those involved in Judaizing focus on the letter rather than the spirit. And, they fail to acknowledge that the letter is not always about love. For instance, what about the divorce laws of Deut 24, which allowed a man to divorce his wife, contrary to the wishes of God, as an accomodation to their evil hearts? Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? Christ specifically indicated that Moses allowed divorce because their hearts were hard, and these accomodations were part of Torah..not a separate Oral Law.

God doesn't require separation from Gentiles through peculiar diets anymore. These were part of the "separation commandments" that separated Jews from Gentiles. The Church is a new humanity, one in Christ. Read Ephesians 2:13-15. The "separation commandments" concerning clean meats are no longer applicable.

Eating blood was likely associated with idolatry. Even if it wasn't, it was extremely offensive to the Jewish person and therefore the Gentile brother would not want to offend his Jewish brother in that manner. Jews were free to observe Torah if they wanted to, as long as they didn't infer it was a requirement for salvation.

However, this is way off my main point. My point is that "anomia" does not refer to breaking the Mosaic Law necessarily. There are elements of the Mosaic Law that are moral in nature and reflect a proper relationship between the man and fellow man, or God.

Let me ask you this though...this is more interesting:

1) what is the purpose of man?
2) what does it mean for man to be in the image of God?
3) how does the law relate to this?
4) how does Jesus relate to this?
5) what does it mean to be born again?
6) why is being born again necessary?
7) what is man's ultimate destiny?

Since you are an expert on the law, do you understand what it was meant for, and how this is ultimately accomplished?

What is a deed/work?

Scripture defines it as someone someone does in which they can BOAST (nogt of works lest anyone should boast (eph 1) and if abraham was found by works he has something to boast (rom 4)

it is what someone does to earn a wage or a reward (as apposed to a gift, which is freely given)

Also. Work produced fruit..

There is works of self righteousness, Which scripture calls bloody rags (our works) also called by scripture works of the flesh

Then their are works of righteousness. Which one does through the fruit of the spirit, by seeking after the things of the spirit, or obeying the law of love.

There are good works. And there are bad works.

Sadly. Two people can do the same work (say like give to the poor) and one can be producing a fruit of righteousness, while the other produces bloody rags. And both can claim to be christian.


As for the first part of your post

This is a bible discussion forum

That means when someone makes a point, EVERYONE is allowed to discuss what that person said. And if they disagree, they are allowed to show why they disagre

If you do not like it. Go find a forum where everyone agrees with you..

Rom 8:5-7 KJV For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. (6) For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

1 Corinthians 9:21

to those [who are] without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those [who are] without law;


Do you accuse Paul of living in and teaching Iniquity?

He says he's not under the Torah.
That's the gospel. Not under the law, but not lawless.

Law here does not mean transgression of the Mosaic Law. The whole world was wicked before Moses was given "THE LAW", it is simply a reference to the human condition of all people and nations who ALL sin. It might pay us to have this in mind when discussing the law, for ALL sin by anyone at all is lawlessness in the sight of God. The Law of Moses only lists some sins and omits thousands of others. And we cannot even keep the Mitzvot laws.

G458
ἀνομία
anomia
an-om-ee'-ah
From G459; illegality, that is, violation of law or (generally) wickedness: - iniquity, X transgress (-ion of) the law, unrighteousness.
Total KJV occurrences: 15

Do you believe me to be an expert in the law? You just relatively got here and have enough info to make that judgment?

Maybe that's what this quiz is supposed to determine. Idk..

1) To have dominion on the earth as representative of The Almighty. To reflect his glory.

2) It means he was in the image of The Son. The son is the expressed image of the invisible living God. Man is not in that image now. Hasn't been since the fall.

3) The Law; The Word was in the beginning, the Word was with Yah and the word was Yah. The law is The Word in tablet form, carved out by the hand of Yah from the sapphire stone from heaven. The first tablets of the testimony were broken on account of sin, prophesying what would happen in the future to the word made flesh on account of sin.

<ordinances and rituals were then given on account of the sin of the people to prophesy what the word made flesh would accomplish in cleansing them>

Then a second set of tablets from the earth was carved out by the hand of man, and written on by the hand of Yah, in partnership. And those were the set placed into the ark forever.

4) The word became flesh and dwelled among us and those of the first century beheld him, full of Grace and Truth.

5) The same as what had to happen for Joshua to lead the Israelites into the promised land. The living waters of the Jordan had to be cut off at Adam. It means to die to one's origial family tree and be grafted into Yah's family tree, the tree of life, through the Son.

6) We inherit whatever our fathers possessed. One determines their inheritance based on the family tree they are part of. One is life the other is death. Two trees in the garden.

7) Man's ultimate destiny is either life or death. Their choice. The destiny of a child of Yah is everlasting life as Yah tabernacles with them on earth.

----

Did I pass the quiz lol?

Are you accusing me of accusing Paul of living in iniquity?

Interestingly, I simply provided the direct Greek definition of the word translated as "iniquity", showing it literally means "lawlessness". But so far I've been told that means:

- "Dont work Righteousness"

And...

- "Not necessarily the law of moses, but general rebellion" (though it was said by Christ to Jews in the first century during his ministry)

So are you accusing me of accusing Paul of living in iniquity?

Are you inferring that Jesus is not YHVH? I am unfamiliar with your use of Yah. I suppose it varies amongst Messianic types.


The Triune God is YHVH.

YHVH created man in the Garden of Eden to be his representative on earth. He was to reflect the image of God in terms of communicable attributes. You could say that he was to be like Jesus.

Adam rebelled against God. Fallen mankind is now "in Adam" and is associated with his sinfulness, condemnation, chaos and death by virtue of physical descent.

Being "born again" means to be taken out of this state of futility and to become a new creation, represented by Jesus. This state is to be "in Christ". He is now associated with Christ's sinlessness, justification, shalom and life.

The Law was meant to show man how far he had fallen from his original intended purpose, to reflect the nature of God. In that way, it acts like a mirror, showing the man his fallen nature. It had no power to change him, though, only to condemn him. In fact, it causes him to sin more, because man already has the rebellious nature and the Law gives him a channel for his disobedience.

Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father's nature, being fully God since eternity. He is YHVH. He displayed what it means to reflect the image of God in man. By being joined to him in a spiritual sense, the believer is progressively transformed into the image of God. Jesus heals spiritually from within, just like he healed through his touch. The believer is also joined with him in a legal sense, possessing his righteousness, inheritance and sonship as spiritual assets, from the first day of salvation throughout eternity.

The believer will rule with Jesus and exercise dominion over the New Creation at his return.

Well, you can judge for yourself how your understanding relates to mine. If you are saying Jesus is not YHVH, that's a heretical view. Jesus is YHVH, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have existed since eternity in a loving relationship. In fact, that is why God is love by nature, because he is community by nature. And, human marriage as well as the Church is supposed to reflect this love too.

I think some points of your explanation align with mine. Not sure they all do.

Would you like me to find another forum?

You have to read what I write and stop inferring or making leaps in conclusions.

There seems to be some sort of magic that happens when you accuse me of doing what you literally do not one post prior or after the post in question and you fail to see it each and every time. And it's astounding.

1. You accuse me of claiming you all are not children of Yah

2. I show you're the one making accusation and judgmental labels.

3. You then claim I need folks to agree with me.

Lol round and round and round we go.

Discuss away. Disagree away.

Is there a difference with disagreeing with one's argument and referring to them as a judgmental label? Or are they the same thing to you? Fair game?