The Torah is Still Binding and We Must Obey It

I don't understand. What, exactly, are you defending? The right to do . . . what?

Just your right to say your piece without expecting everyone else to conform to your own beliefs

Again, this is a forum and you wish to be a moderator to quash certain people. I don't have the details on that, but banning people because you disagree is obviously not the fix here.

I actually think you do understand what I said

Oh, ok. Well, thanks for not being overly picky . . . I guess?

You are simply misrepresenting what Christ taught. He already anticipated the end of the Mosaic Law and the establishment of the New Covenant (of which you have no clue).

My position is only not supported by the Bible if you deliberately ignore all of the verses that I've cited in support of my position, such as with you deliberately ignoring Jeremiah 31:33, which states that the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing on our hearts. Jesus gave a parable about the wineskins in order to answer a question about why his disciples weren't fasting, and I've pointed this out to you multiple times before, so you are aware that you are taking his words out of context, but you are deliberately ignoring his words in order to try to apply them to my position as if he were speaking against following what he taught. You should stop being a false accuser.

Christ specifically said that he came not to about the Mosaic Law. He spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining his ministry and what he accomplished through the cross, but rather the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

There has to be a way to resolve doctrinal disputes. I wonder if it is possible to backtrack in doctrinal understandings, going all the way back to the Garden of Eden, if necessary, to figure out whose belief is eschewed. It's got to be possible!

Don't think that would be possible, 2ndTimothyGroup:

[1Co 2:14 KJV]
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

[Luk 1:77 KJV]
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

No, your position is NOT what is taught nor is it supported by the Bible. The Torah is NOT the law put into our minds and hearts as part of the new covenant. A new covenant cannot be a new covenant if its commandments and laws remain the old ones: for a new covenant to be new, its commandments and laws must also be completely new - that is what makes it a new covenant, not how it becomes manifested; also, its new high priest must be descended from a tribe different than that of the old high priests. A covenant, its commandments, its laws, and its high priest, are all perfectly and tightly integrated and aligned as one; a change to any of them demands and necessitates a change to all of them. Therefore, you cannot correctly believe in Jesus, AND at the same time, believe that He remains a minister of the old law.
That is the meaning of the new wineskins.
And you choose to ignore the book of Hebrews because it does not conform to your view of what you would force the gospel's message into being, but of course, it is not, nor will it ever be that. Read closely the below. The truths manifested therein are self-evident, undeniable and inarguable.


[Heb 7:11-16, 18 KJV]
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. ...
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Notice that Jesus's human lineage came through the tribe of Juda - He was not from the priesthood (of the Torah) of the tribe of Levi. Nevertheless, did God make Jesus the new high priest which invalidated and replaced all that came before Him.

You are so right. However, it would be quite revealing to examine such a circumstance and see how far back into the Plan of God we go before discovering the first cause of disagreement about a core doctrine. In fact, in perhaps 99 out of 100 cases, the issue would be resolved before we even got started. The 99 would ask, "Oh, you want me to explain the Plan of God from the beginning?" - It'd be over right there. Most people who attend church haven't a clue, at least in my area of the world.

21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. Colossians 1

Your position is truly your position. It is not supported by scripture and is false teaching. The Bible has nothing good to say about those who go about teaching false manmade doctrine. You are trampling the actual gospel and the fact that Jesus is the only way to the Father.

The parable of the wineskins is appropriate however, and illustrates fully those who drink the old wine in the stagnant wineskin and those who accept the teaching of Jesus. The old wineskin is the law and the new wineskin represents the law completed in Jesus and no
more need to preserve something that has passed away.

It is interesting to note that the disciples of John the Baptist were questioning this parable because Jesus teaching was different from that which they were used to. That, which they had heard all their life.

I do not know what has led to your confusion, but you need to comprehend the truth of Jesus complete fulfillment of the law and the fact that no created being can fulfill the law because it is perfection. Jesus said 'It is finished' on the cross and continuing to bring in the law for salvation, is tantamount to exhuming a corpse over and over again.

Jesus is risen and the law is the corpse.

Once again, the op has not made one other post in this thread.

So what exactly is the intention here? Personally, I see it as nothing less than an attack against the actual gospel as presented in scripture and we have all those coming out of the woodwork to defend this false gospel and denying scripture while stating that others are ignoring it.

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15).

In Jeremiah 31:33, it uses the Hebrew word "Torah" in regard to what the New Covenant involves being put in our minds and written on our hearts, so I don't see how you can deny this without denying the truth of the verse.

There is no rule that a new covenant must have a completely new set of laws and your claim is easily proven false by the fact that many of the laws of the Mosaic Covenant are taught under the New Covenant, such as the greatest two commandments or the things listed in Acts 15:19-21.

The Bible often uses the same terms to describe aspects of God's character as it does to describe aspects of the character of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), and with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23), which is because it is because it is His instructions for how to testify about those aspects of His character. So the laws that the God of Israel has graciously given paint us a picture of His character, which means that following a completely different set of laws would involve following a completely different God with a completely different set of character traits.

The character traits of the God of Israel are eternal, so any instructions that He has ever given for how to testify about His character traits are eternally valid, such as with God's righteousness being eternal (Psalms 119:160), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160), and the only way to do away with laws for how to testify about God's righteousness would be if God were no longer eternally righteous.

Jesus is God's word made flesh, so God's word is His instructions for how to believe in Him, and it is absurd to think that we can believe in Jesus while rejecting God's word.

Jesus gave the parable of the wineskins in response to a question about why his disciples weren't fasting, but you are interpreting in a manner than has nothing to do with answering the question that he was asked.

I do not ignore Hebrews, but rather I just don't think that it should be interpreted as promoting rebellion against God, or that if it promoting rebellion against God that we should follow the author of Hebrews instead of God. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His children to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they teach against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if your interpretation of Hebrews were correct, then those who reject it as being the words of a false prophet would be correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded His children to do, so you should be the first person to reject your interpretation of Hebrews.

Do you know any commentaries that don't pretend the law has been abolished? Preferably audio commentaries.

Thanks.

Because it refers to God's "torah" - His "torah" was not the Torah given to Moses (see the next reply). The following of Moses's Torah for spiritual justification results in death not life. Just because the word "torah" was used in that verse, doesn't make it have the meaning you've assigned to it. The meaning of that verse is that there would be a new torah - a new "law" - one through Christ. By Him, a new torah (law) would be introduced, not the one God gave to Moses - that torah was done away with and replaced. This is confirmed in Heb 7:12. To come to correct understanding, you need to compare spiritual with spiritual in scripture.

The statutes
[Eze 20:25 KJV] 25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;


Yes, there is a rule that says exactly that, and I showed it to you in the verses that I posted previously. They were written by God through Paul; man did not write them.
I'll repost again. Do you see below that the priesthood was changed, and because of that change, there was of necessity also of a change of law? Laws, commandments and priesthood are totally and completely integrated and dependent upon each other. Did you not understand that Christ was from a tribe different than the ministers of the Mosaic Law? The ministering of the Mosaic law was solely given to and reserved to the sons of Aaron being from the tribe of Levi, by the command of God. Therefore, Christ, in being from a completely different tribe, and not a son of Aaron, could not minister to the Mosaic Law (neither could they minister to the new law), but that only Christ could only mister to the new law: the law of liberty - otherwise, God's command would then be violated - that Christ in the flesh was from a tribe different than was Aaron or his sons, there can be no dispute.

[Heb 7:11-14 KJV]
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Your post is based solely upon your own conjecture which is not demonstrated in/by chapter and verse. You define your own rules and essentially make up your own gospel so that it conforms it to what you want it to say. I suggest that you seriously consider what a change in law brought about by Christ represents and meditate upon that without trying to change it or cast aspersions upon it.
I am not going to give any dignity to your statements especially that we either shouldn't follow Hebrews or that its words are from a "false prophet" by replying further to your post.

I don't quite understand that. Could you rephrase? Thanks!

I frequently cite Scripture to show where I have derived my position, so if you disagree with what I've said without explaining why you think that I have misunderstood those verses, then you are disagreeing with those verses. For example, Jeremiah 31:33 uses the Hebrew word "Torah" in regard to what the New Covenant involves God putting in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so my position is based on what is directly stated in Scripture, not something that I am making up as my own position that is unsupported by Scripture, whereas your position is the rejection of what is directly stated Scripture.

Rather, you are opposing the Gospel that Jesus and Paul taught. 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 Torah 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 of the Kingdom. In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture was written for our instructions and in 15:18-19, his Gospel involved bringing Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so he also taught the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace with support from the Torah (Acts 14:21-22, Acts 20:24-25, Acts 28:23).

Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, 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 he walked (1 John 2:6). So Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example and his parable of the wineskins should not be interpreted as speaking against following what he taught.

I agree that Jesus is the complete fulfillment of the law. "To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so after Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it as it should be. However, I disagree that only he can fulfill it because according to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so again it refers to correctly obeying it as it should be, not necessarily to obeying it sinlessly.

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 becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah is the way to believe in what he finished through the cross (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject what he finished. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so while we do not earn our salvation as the result of having first obeyed it, living in obedience to it through faith in Jesus is nevertheless intrinsically the content of his gift of saving us from not living in obedience to it.

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded him without departing from it, so the Torah of Moses is the Torah of God, and it is referred to as being the Torah of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. The Bible is abundantly clear that obeying the Torah of Moses leads to life and not obeying it leads to death (Deuteronomy 30:11-20, Deuteronomy 32:46-47, Proverbs 3:18, Proverbs 6:23, Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28, Romans 2:6-7, Romans 6:19-23, Hebrews 5:9, Revelation 22:14). Moreover, Ezekiel 20 confirms three times that obeying the Torah of Moses leads to life, so it is clear to anyone who has read that chapter that you are deliberately taking verse 25 out of context by suggesting that it referring to the Torah of Moses.

In Deuteronomy 30, it is the basis for the New Covenant, where it prophesies 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 as speaking in regard to. They notably say nothing about there being a "new Torah" nor did Jesus teach anything about a "new Torah" replacing the Torah of Moses, but rather the sum of everything he taught by word and by example was in accordance with the Torah of Moses. Jesus is God's word made flesh, so he taught us how to embody God's word, not to rebel against it.

I think that Hebrews was inspired by God, but I also think that it shouldn't be interpreted as promoting rebellion against Him. If you think that Hebrews should be interpreted as promoting rebellion against God, then that should cause you to question whether it was inspired by God, especially when God instructed His people not to listen to anyone who teaching against obeying the Torah.

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160). I've not based my position solely on my own conjecture, but rather I frequently cited Scripture to show where I have derived my position. I've not made my own rules or my own Gospel, but rather I've cited Matthew 4:15-23 in support of the Gospel that Jesus taught.

Any instructions that God has ever given for how to testify about His eternal righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someones is under, if any, 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 murder or sinful to help the poor, 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. Refusing to address the major problems that you should have with your position does not cause them to go away.

And either you don't understand what you're reading in the Bible, or you choose to ignore it - Hebrews, as it stands, is abundantly clear and beyond dispute: a change of law occurred through Christ. You can confirm the statements made in Hebrews yourself by reading them in the OT- they are not secret. The logic is inescapable: were the ministers of the Mosaic Law only to be of Aaron from the tribe of Levi? Yes. Was Jesus from the tribe of Levi? No. Was He from the tribe of Judah? Yes. Was Jesus made a priest by God according to the order of Melchizedek, and not according to the order of Aaron? Yes. Is Jesus's priesthood eternal and the Aaronic priesthood not? Yes. if the Aaronic priesthood and the laws it ministered to could bring eternal life, then why would Christ even be necessary at all as eternal life could be through the Mosaic Law and not Christ? Can there be two true priesthoods? No. Does the Aaronic priesthood currently exist as such? No. Does Christ exist in the heavenlies as the eternal high priest according to the order of Melchizedek? Yes. How is it then possible the Mosaic law can still be in effect unto eternal life without a priesthood of the descendants of Aaron to minister to it just as Jesus exists eternally in the heavenlies as priest to minister to His law?

Psalms 110 KJV
4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 3:5
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

[Heb 7:17, 21 KJV]
17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. ...
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

[Heb 4:14 KJV]
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast [our] profession.

[Heb 7:4-7, 9-11 KJV]
4 Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. ...
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 8
1. Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

I agree that a change of the law has occurred, though the context is in regard to a change of the priesthood, so it is speaking about a change in the law in regard to its administration and not in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to help the poor.

The New Covenant is still made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore the same Torah for how to testify about His character traits. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore any laws that God has given for how to testify about His righteousness are eternally valid (Psalms 119:160). Melchizedek is the King of Righteousness, not the rejection of righteousness.

The Bible is abundantly clear that obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to inherit eternal life, which is also confirmed by the words of Jesus (Deuteronomy 30:11-20, Deuteronomy 32:46-47, Proverbs 3:18, Proverbs 6:23, Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28, Romans 2:6-7, Romans 6:19-23, Hebrews 5:9, Revelation 22:14). In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His way that He and Israel might know Him, and in John 17:3, eternal life is knowing God and Jesus. There is only one way to know God and that is by acting in accordance with His eternal character, which does not change between covenants. Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example, so you have no justification for thinking that him being a priest in of the order of Melchizedek means rejecting everything he is and taught and following a undefined law that he never taught. Jesus is God's word made flesh, so the way to believe in him is not by rejecting God's word.

The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if the New Covenant does everything that it does plus more, which is what it means to make something obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). So the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10), plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6). While God found fault with the Mosaic Law, the fault that He found was not with His Torah, but with the people for not continuing to obey it (Hebrews 8:7-9), so the solution to the problem was not to do away with the Torah, but to do away with what was hindering us from obeying, which is why the New Covenant involves God sending His Son to free us from sin so that we might be free to obey His Torah and meet its righteous requirement (Hebrews 8:3-4), God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us to obey His Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27), and putting His Torah in our mind and writing it on our hearts so that we will obey it (Jeremiah 31:33).