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

  • 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.

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
If we grant that the interpretation of Paul's writings is correct, and that Paul's writings contradicts the law and the prophets (Word of God/Jesus), why should we then not treat it as we ought to - like we do with any writing that does the same thing -, but, instead, treat it as if it is inspired?

If we want to maintain that Paul's writings are inspired, as I do, then the only alternative I am left with, while at the same time maintain the congruency of the scriptures, is that the interpretations of Paul's writings that causes the incongruency are wrong.
Or you misunderstood everything from the very beginning and the "interpretations" of Paul are 100% correct.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
I don't understand? Are you proposing that morality - as defined by the law - only come to be once the law was given?
No, i am proposing that morality was possible before the law, and as such, if the law was never given men could stull be morally upright in their actions, just as Abraham, jonah, adam and Eve (post fall), etc etc.

The law was given to condemn us, to prove to us that we can not even keep these ten commands, let alone live up to gods standard which is perfection (not one sin, for all have sinned and fall short)

All it takes is one sin to condemn, but as paul said, before the law was given sin could not be charged. After, there was no excuse.
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

The law is established by God, by covenant, mankind does not have the power to establish the law. The saved are justified by faith. When he says we establish the law he means faith justification ensures the law will forever retain it`s power over the lost and it`s power over those who trust in their works for their salvation.

Paul had just been talking about it in Romans 2

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

These are the lost and those who have works but not Christ.
When he says we establish the law he means that our Faith in Christ and what is written on our Hearts and Minds when we are reborn is what the Law intended all along. It Establishes the Law. Even though we aren't working at it like the Jewish nation.

The Spirit of the Law and not the Letter of the Law.
 
Sep 15, 2019
44
19
8
Gods standard of morality is this

Do you love god with all your heart mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself

If at any moment in your life, the answer in your thinking is no, you are in danger of sin, even to the point of knowing to do something god wants, but refusing to do it, because you are putting your own needs above others, and refusing to trust god to supply all your needs,
I mean this with respect, but making a statement like that on its own merit is too subjective on the definition of what it is to love. For example, by using that statement, we can conclude, for example, a close family having sex with each other is okay as long as they love God and love their neighbor. Aleister Crowly, for example, took that same statement and concludes that we can do whatever we want to, as long as we love. In fact, the alphabet people loves to use this word "love" to justify their actions.

It becomes, however, objective when you read that in context, and find that Jesus was quoting from Deut 6:4 and Lev 19:18; and both passages defines loving God and your neighbor to Jehovah's instructions in doing that which is right.

The law is a good starting point, but one can obey the law, yet still be a sinner,
This is unintelligible to me. If sin is the transgression of the law, then by definition if one keeps the law, he or she is not sinning, and if one doesn't keep the law, he or she is sinning.
 
Sep 15, 2019
44
19
8
Or you misunderstood everything from the very beginning and the "interpretations" of Paul are 100% correct.
Okay, then why aren't you rejecting Paul then? I mean, if the interpretations of his writings are infallibly accurate, and he is contradicting the Word of God, why aren't we treating his writings as we do the Qur'an, or any false writings?
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
Okay, then why aren't you rejecting Paul then? I mean, if the interpretations of his writings are infallibly accurate, and he is contradicting the Word of God, why aren't we treating his writings as we do the Qur'an, or any false writings?
Paul doesn't contradict the Word of God.

Just YOUR SUBJECTIVE understanding of the Word of God.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
I mean this with respect, but making a statement like that on its own merit is too subjective on the definition of what it is to love. For example, by using that statement, we can conclude, for example, a close family having sex with each other is okay as long as they love God and love their neighbor. Aleister Crowly, for example, took that same statement and concludes that we can do whatever we want to, as long as we love. In fact, the alphabet people loves to use this word "love" to justify their actions.

It becomes, however, objective when you read that in context, and find that Jesus was quoting from Deut 6:4 and Lev 19:18; and both passages defines loving God and your neighbor to Jehovah's instructions in doing that which is right.
Its only subjective if we take the english word into account, and also if we fail to see scripture as we love as god love us (sacrificial love) and also if you read my post, love is describes as any thought or action which is not selfish or canal in nature.

In your example, no true believer would think this, because they know this is not loving God with all their heart, they would onow these were selfish acts of pleasure.

And ps, god said to love your enemy,



[/quote]
This is unintelligible to me. If sin is the transgression of the law, then by definition if one keeps the law, he or she is not sinning, and if one doesn't keep the law, he or she is sinning.[/QUOTE]

Yet jesus said in his sermon, the law says to not commit adultery, nut he said if you even look at a woman with lust,

The law does not give you every possible sin you can commit, and does not even give instructions on every possible way to break each command or how to keep them,

The law was not given for that purpose (gal 3)


The law is given to prove we are sinners prove we are cursed, and show us the means of atonement (sacrifice) which was to lead us to christ.
 
May 1, 2019
1,336
744
113
Do you have any suggestions as to why Acts 3 says the following? [see also Acts 2:36,22,10,14; 3:17,19; 4:10-11, etc] :

12 But having seen it, Peter answered to the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this? Or why do you look intently on us as if by our own power or godliness we have made him to walk?

13 The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, whom indeed you betrayed and disowned in the presence of Pilate, that one having adjudged to release Him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One and requested a murderer to be granted to you. 15 And you killed the Author of life, whom God has raised up out from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.

[etc]

It would help to know who is being referred to in those citations if you would consider that YHWH gave The Northern Kingdom of Israel a writ of Divorcement and put them out of His House. Jer 3:8.

The "put them out of His House" part was first, the Assyrian captivity/exile, and then the scattering throughout the nations. Amos 9:9

The Northern Kingdom of "Israel" was "no more" and those tribes were no longer called "Israel" nor were they anywhere in Gods House. Yahshua made it clear that He was sent "Only for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" and sent them with the "Good News"

Is it your understanding that all the tribes of Israel were in Palestine?

Do you think that they had returned from exile by the time of Yahshua?

SG
 
Sep 15, 2019
44
19
8
No, i am proposing that morality was possible before the law, and as such, if the law was never given men could stull be morally upright in their actions, just as Abraham, jonah, adam and Eve (post fall), etc etc.

The law was given to condemn us, to prove to us that we can not even keep these ten commands, let alone live up to gods standard which is perfection (not one sin, for all have sinned and fall short)

All it takes is one sin to condemn, but as paul said, before the law was given sin could not be charged. After, there was no excuse.
That doesn't make sense to me. Because if that is the case, then I would argue it best that God never gave mankind the standard of morality, so that we can plead ignorance to it. But Canaan demonstrates that this isn't the case. They were judged by the laws God now gave to Israel, and He told Israel that the same will happen to Israel if they break the law as Canaan did.

I don't understand how informing someone that it is wrong to do something is to, at the same time, give him condemnation. Evil is evil, and good is good, the only thing that is changeable here is our indifference to it.
 

Marcelo

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2016
2,359
859
113
73
Well according to this verse Jesus is the one we follow:

Acts 3:21-23, " 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’

and Jesus Himself says He is the ONLY Shepherd:

John 10:14-16, " 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Welcome to Christian Chat, FS!

Correct, but we often forget that after the resurrection Jesus used Paul to speak to us.

Galatians 1:11

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

During His earthly ministry Jesus taught obedience to the Law of Moses because this law was still in force (Jesus had not yet died). The transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant didn't happen overnight. Paul was called some 3 years after the crucifixion and the Council of Jerusalem (which released Christians from the Law) took place roughly 15 years into the New Era.

As I just said Jesus taught obedience to the Law, and now let's see what Paul wrote:

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.


See? Is Paul contradicting Jesus? Not at all. Paul was a slave of Christ and he was only relaying a message received from his Master. Did Jesus then contradict Himself? No, this is not a contradiction; it is a new law. I don't think a new law contradicts a previous one; a new law replaces an old one.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

The law is established by God, by covenant, mankind does not have the power to establish the law. The saved are justified by faith. When he says we establish the law he means faith justification ensures the law will forever retain it`s power over the lost and it`s power over those who trust in their works for their salvation.

Paul had just been talking about it in Romans 2

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

These are the lost and those who have works but not Christ.
The law is established by faith

When i come to faith, i establish that the law is righteous and it is just.

It places me under a curse because i have failed to keep every word as god through moses commanded,

And it shows me the means of atonement and leads me directly to the lamb of god who was hing on a tree for my sins.

It humbles me, and destroys any pride with in me, and leads me as the tax collector to get on my knees and call out to god

That establishes the law
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Okay, then why aren't you rejecting Paul then? I mean, if the interpretations of his writings are infallibly accurate, and he is contradicting the Word of God, why aren't we treating his writings as we do the Qur'an, or any false writings?
Paul does not contradict the word of god, are you saying he does?
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
1. First and foremost, appeal the stone fallacy, or you're just lazy.
2. My "original premise" is known as the moral argument from William Lane Craig in arguing for the existence of God. Are you an atheist?
3. Let's grant I am a teacher of the law. And seeing that the law, or standard, being spoken of here is God's; according to what standard do you conclude that God's standard of morality is erroneous?
Gods standard is not erroneous.

Your view of it is.
 
Sep 15, 2019
44
19
8
Its only subjective if we take the english word into account, and also if we fail to see scripture as we love as god love us (sacrificial love) and also if you read my post, love is describes as any thought or action which is not selfish or canal in nature.
In your example, no true believer would think this, because they know this is not loving God with all their heart, they would onow these were selfish acts of pleasure.
And ps, god said to love your enemy,
As demonstrated, your position still remains subjective. I prefer to have the Word's standard of morality attached to it to make it explicit.

Yet jesus said in his sermon, the law says to not commit adultery, nut he said if you even look at a woman with lust,
The law does not give you every possible sin you can commit, and does not even give instructions on every possible way to break each command or how to keep them,
The law was not given for that purpose (gal 3)
Jesus is the Word of God (The law and the prophets) manifested in the flesh, so it is only natural that He would teach to keep the law even within the heart.

The law is given to prove we are sinners prove we are cursed, and show us the means of atonement (sacrifice) which was to lead us to christ.
This makes no sense to me. Knowing what is good and evil doesn't prove we are cursed. I would argue that knowing what is good and evil gives us the knowledge to do that which is good.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
That doesn't make sense to me. Because if that is the case, then I would argue it best that God never gave mankind the standard of morality, so that we can plead ignorance to it. But Canaan demonstrates that this isn't the case. They were judged by the laws God now gave to Israel, and He told Israel that the same will happen to Israel if they break the law as Canaan did.

I don't understand how informing someone that it is wrong to do something is to, at the same time, give him condemnation. Evil is evil, and good is good, the only thing that is changeable here is our indifference to it.
God gave the law to moses why? As a schoolmaster to lead them to christ

Everyone else understood what true sin was, but as paul said, no one can judge where there is no law.

The law was given to condemn, not to teach how to be holy or be righteous,

If there was not a sign that said speed limit 65: a person could drive 100 and no one could judge him because there was no law which told him what to do

All laws are for that purpose
 
May 1, 2019
1,336
744
113
There was remnant from all tribes in Israel or what they called Judah, when they returned from Babylon, representatives from all 12 tribes where in attendance, althought it kep yhe name judah from when the two kingdoms split,

Just saying

I agree that there were some from every tribe there as they had freely intermarried across tribes, but as far as the "tribes" themselves they were "sent away" from how I read it. Those "representatives" you speak of, can you give me the scripture that indicates they were there as representatives. I cannot seem to find it readily. Thanks
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
And yet I am making the argument for God's standard. I think you're trolling me here. ;)

Good day. :)
If you say that Paul is against Gods standard then you are NOT arguing for Gods Standard.

You just don't understand what Gods Standard is.... yet