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.

DeighAnn

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
Jun 11, 2019
2,436
760
113
The demarcation should be between prophecy vs mystery, rather than ot vs nt
I am led by God and rightly dividing the Word through lots of happy time study. I read the OT just as much as the new. God is the same always, and all that is in the Word has meaning for one purpose or another. Every Word is important. God may have to change the "covenants" because we have issues, but that doesn't change who He is. But thank you for your posting. It is our love of God and the Word that brings us here. I believe He gives us all different gifts because we have different purposes, all of them wanted by the Lord. As long as we all end up on the right side, Praise be to God
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
Mid Acts is actually quite reasonable, in my opinion, because we regard Paul's salvation as the beginning of the grace dispensation towards the Gentiles.
1. The Church came into existence on the day of Pentecost. It consisted of saved Jews.
2. Paul made it clear in Romans 11 that believing Israel (saved Jews) were the root and tree of the Church -- "the good olive tree" into which the Gentiles were grafted as branches from "the wild olive tree".
3. The first Gentiles to be added to the Church were the Samaritans.
4. The household of Cornelius was added shortly thereafter.
5. Paul made it a point to visit every synagogue in every city so that the Gospel would go to the Jew first, then to the Gentile.
6. It was only later on that Paul ministered exclusively to the Gentiles.

Therefore the Church began on the day of Pentecost and Gentiles were added shortly thereafter.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
1. The Church came into existence on the day of Pentecost. It consisted of saved Jews.
2. Paul made it clear in Romans 11 that believing Israel (saved Jews) were the root and tree of the Church -- "the good olive tree" into which the Gentiles were grafted as branches from "the wild olive tree".
3. The first Gentiles to be added to the Church were the Samaritans.
4. The household of Cornelius was added shortly thereafter.
5. Paul made it a point to visit every synagogue in every city so that the Gospel would go to the Jew first, then to the Gentile.
6. It was only later on that Paul ministered exclusively to the Gentiles.

Therefore the Church began on the day of Pentecost and Gentiles were added shortly thereafter.
You could be correct, the Church may have begun during Pentecost, but if you are talking about the grace dispensation beginning in Acts 2, there are several problems I can see with that.

Ananias and sapphire deaths for lying.
Acts 4:32 is not relevant for the church now under the grace dispensation
Peter offering the physical return of Jesus if the Jews accepted the Gospel of the Kingdom in Acts 3:19-20
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Christians planning on marriage to anyone not a fellow believer are encouraged to seek counseling. If one is willing to live a life with an unbeliever and undergo possible mistreatments, then so be it. At least they should give that a deep examination. The Bible allows the believer escape if the unbeliever departs, but meanwhile the believer might win over the unbeliever if the life is tolerable. Most marriages change as each spouse changes through growth, or for the worse. The Bible allows a Christian to depart if the spouse commits adultry.


Christianity is not about marriage to Jesus. He doesn't leave a relationship, but allows followers to 'unfollow" for whatever reason, especially if a person is a spiritual adulterer. God divorced Israel for that cause.

Hebrews 6 is not Old Testament, so read it and decide for yourself whether God lets you live in any kind of adultry and remain "saved" as a follower of Jesus.
[/quote]

This is not about who a christian should marry, It was an example. Call it a parable if you will. Does not your church use things like this to try to bring home a point?

And Hebrews does not contradict the OT. The law says any sin, no matter how small, makes you guilty.

Adultry is not a means to eternal damnation. Unbelief is. It would help you people greatly if you understood this basic fact. A person who commits adultry is just as guilty as the person who knew he needed to do something, yet did not do it, Both are in sin. And both are guilty of the law.

King david had how many wives? Thats adultry on a massive scale. Is he in hell because he continued in sin?

Your understanding of grace is lacking. Instead of judging others, you need to get on your knees and judge yourself. The adulterer should be counseled by his church, and if he does not listen or repent, And all things are performed according to scripture. He should be shown the door and asked not to come back until he repents.

But to judge his or her salvation. Your not God. Niether am I, I would leave those things up to God!
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Thank you. If you have a "rapture" post, maybe you will be able to answer the questions for me no one else has

Ja 4:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God: thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith make perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled with saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
You have to take james in context

1. He spoke of people who were hearers, Not doers (they had no works)
2. He said they CLAIMED to have faith, He never said they actually had any faith
3. He used the OT example of abraham, Who was declared righteous in Gen 15 because of his faith alone, Yet many years later, When he offered his son Issac, He proved that his faith, which saved him, decades earlier, was real by his works (not that God needed proof)
4. He said he would prove to them his faith was real by his works.
5. And his final conclusion was that if one claims to have faith, But has no works (zero zip nada) their faith is dead. (They were NEVER SAVED)

He is not saying we have to work to earn or maintain salvation. But that those who are saved WILL have works..
 

DeighAnn

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
Jun 11, 2019
2,436
760
113
You have to take james in context

1. He spoke of people who were hearers, Not doers (they had no works)
2. He said they CLAIMED to have faith, He never said they actually had any faith
3. He used the OT example of abraham, Who was declared righteous in Gen 15 because of his faith alone, Yet many years later, When he offered his son Issac, He proved that his faith, which saved him, decades earlier, was real by his works (not that God needed proof)
4. He said he would prove to them his faith was real by his works.
5. And his final conclusion was that if one claims to have faith, But has no works (zero zip nada) their faith is dead. (They were NEVER SAVED)


He is not saying we have to work to earn or maintain salvation. But that those who are saved WILL have works..
What if James doesn't have to be taken in the context you say it has to be taken in? Are you saying it is NOT saying what it is saying but it is really saying what you are saying it is saying?
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
You have to take james in context

[…]
3. He used the OT example of abraham, Who was declared righteous in Gen 15 because of his faith alone, Yet many years later, When he offered his son Issac, He proved that his faith, which saved him, decades earlier, was real by his works (not that God needed proof)
4. He said he would prove to them his faith was real by his works.

[…]
Right. And his righteousness was not in question from God's perspective during all those many intervening years (between when Genesis 15 occurred and the much later offering up of Isaac). [see Romans 4's SEQUENCE]

And to that point (pt #4 of yours), also, Abraham was called the friend of God by people (a person), in 2 Chronicles 20:7 -

"7 Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever?"
 
Mar 21, 2019
487
163
43
King david had how many wives? Thats adultry on a massive scale. Is he in hell because he continued in sin?
I agree on most of your post, but not this. Adultery is unfaithfulness. King David wasn't unfaithful to his wives. Sure, he had many, but he looked after them, and they married him knowing he was already married to others.
 

DeighAnn

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
Jun 11, 2019
2,436
760
113
What if James doesn't have to be taken in the context you say it has to be taken in? Are you saying it is NOT saying what it is saying but it is really saying what you are saying it is saying?
It would seem if you always had to have "more information" than that given then the meaning would always depend on the outside information received and it would render The Word different for all.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
EDIT to my post: I meant "justified" (Abraham "justified" in/from God's perspective), like this verse:

"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." Romans 4:2


Abraham being "justified" before God was not in question in God's mind during all those intervening (many) YEARS between Gen15 and his much later offering up of Isaac. (So... James is not making such a point.)
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
What if James doesn't have to be taken in the context you say it has to be taken in? Are you saying it is NOT saying what it is saying but it is really saying what you are saying it is saying?
James has to be interprets with the rest of scripture, So that it does not contradict.

If you read James 2 and Romans 4, you appear to have apposing/contradictory views.

So you have to interpret in context. In a way that makes them both agree.

Paul spoke often saying those who are truly saved WILL have works, In fact he said their new creation and faith will cause those good works. So you can say that if a person says they had faith, but had no works, Then if all true believers have works according to paul. Then those who do not must not have true faith.

Which is exactly what James said,

James is arguing agains tlicentiousness (people who think just because they BELIEVE then they are saved, and can live anyway they want. Hence his argument, If your one of them who believe (even demons believe yet tremble) well that good. But is it enough to save you? Paul said we are saved by living faith, not mere belief, Living faith works, so if you CLAIM to have faith, but have no works, Your faith is dead (it is powerless, it is lifeless, it is not true faith at all) can that faith save you?

No!


James used to get me, I had no argument, Until i finally sat down and actually studied it. Using the guideline I shared above (james and paul MUST be in agreement)

Pauls audience was workers for. People who thought they had to work to maintain salvation.

James audience is licentious people who think because they said a sinners prayer they are saved, no matter what.

when you use these basis of context. The word openes up and you find agreement and harmony between both Paul and James.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
I agree on most of your post, but not this. Adultery is unfaithfulness. King David wasn't unfaithful to his wives. Sure, he had many, but he looked after them, and they married him knowing he was already married to others.
Gods command was one wife, not many wives,

If your married and take another wife, You are in an adulterous affair. Whether the law of the land allows it or not. We follow Gods law.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
What if James doesn't have to be taken in the context you say it has to be taken in? Are you saying it is NOT saying what it is saying but it is really saying what you are saying it is saying?
There are different ways to handle the book of James. Different Christians will always have different conclusions about James Chapter 2.
  1. You can just take it as salvation = faith + works, which is the stand of Roman Catholic, and many other denominations.
  2. You can take it as salvation = faith only, but if you have no works after you are saved, you may lose your salvation, which is a more subtle and indirect way of saying option 1.
  3. You can take it as Paul is saying justification before God, which is faith only. But James is talking about justification before Man, which requires work.
  4. You can take a pure dispensationalist view, James being placed in the latter NT books even though it was written before Acts 15 event, means James is meant for those who will be justified after the grace dispensation is over, the tribulation period, where you need faith and works once again for salvation.
 
Mar 21, 2019
487
163
43
Gods command was one wife, not many wives,

If your married and take another wife, You are in an adulterous affair. Whether the law of the land allows it or not. We follow Gods law.
God's initial plan was certainly one man and one woman. But I disagree that having more than one wife is adultery. The bible patriarchs were never declared adulterers for having more than one wife. However, David was declared an adulterer for taking another man's wife. There seems to me a clear difference - adultery is unfaithfulness, and/or taking what belongs to another. Having more than one wife is not necessarily either, although it can be.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
God's initial plan was certainly one man and one woman. But I disagree that having more than one wife is adultery. The bible patriarchs were never declared adulterers for having more than one wife. However, David was declared an adulterer for taking another man's wife. There seems to me a clear difference - adultery is unfaithfulness, and/or taking what belongs to another. Having more than one wife is not necessarily either, although it can be.
Lol..

Gods law states one wife. (A man and woman shall leave his father and the two shall become one)

Lets please stop excusing sin.. And call sin for what it is.
 
Mar 21, 2019
487
163
43
Lol..

Gods law states one wife. (A man and woman shall leave his father and the two shall become one)

Lets please stop excusing sin.. And call sin for what it is.
Where did God declare Abraham an adulterer, or Jacob an adulterer? These men had their sins, but scripture doesn't declare multiple wives to be one of them, and therefore, neither do I. However, when the foreign kings took the wives of God's patriarchs to marry them, this God intervened in, both times, as this would have resulted in adultery (taking another man's wife).

You indicate it is God's law that states "A man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". I would describe this as God's design, rather than His law, or command.

Lets please stop excusing sin.. And call sin for what it is.
I'm happy to call sin what it is, in line with scripture. But I find labelling things as sin simply because they are abnormal in our pagan, Western world to be inaccurate, and sometimes Pharisaical. Likewise, just because sinful things are commonplace in our pagan, Western world doesn't make them any less sinful.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Where did God declare Abraham an adulterer, or Jacob an adulterer? These men had their sins, but scripture doesn't declare multiple wives to be one of them, and therefore, neither do I. However, when the foreign kings took the wives of God's patriarchs to marry them, this God intervened in, both times, as this would have resulted in adultery (taking another man's wife).

You indicate it is God's law that states "A man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". I would describe this as God's design, rather than His law, or command.

I'm happy to call sin what it is, in line with scripture. But I find labelling things as sin simply because they are abnormal in our pagan, Western world to be inaccurate, and sometimes Pharisaical. Likewise, just because sinful things are commonplace in our pagan, Western world doesn't make them any less sinful.
Your excusing sin man!

Did God have to call them adultereres fot it to be true? They were sinners, They commited all kinds of sin, not just those sins

We do not make things not a sin just because the rest-of the world does. The world today says sex before marriage is ok, DO we say it is no longer a sin because the rest of the world does it? Or do we call a sin a sin?

God said, A man and woman leave their parents and they become one, The picture is pf a child and God becoming when in salvation. God called those who tried to have God as a spouse, and other Gods as spouses adulterers. He chastened and severely punished Isreal for this grave sin

Thats why God holds the marriage to such extreme value.
 

DeighAnn

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
Jun 11, 2019
2,436
760
113
James has to be interprets with the rest of scripture, So that it does not contradict.

If you read James 2 and Romans 4, you appear to have apposing/contradictory views.

So you have to interpret in context. In a way that makes them both agree.

Paul spoke often saying those who are truly saved WILL have works, In fact he said their new creation and faith will cause those good works. So you can say that if a person says they had faith, but had no works, Then if all true believers have works according to paul. Then those who do not must not have true faith.

Which is exactly what James said,

James is arguing agains tlicentiousness (people who think just because they BELIEVE then they are saved, and can live anyway they want. Hence his argument, If your one of them who believe (even demons believe yet tremble) well that good. But is it enough to save you? Paul said we are saved by living faith, not mere belief, Living faith works, so if you CLAIM to have faith, but have no works, Your faith is dead (it is powerless, it is lifeless, it is not true faith at all) can that faith save you?

No!

James used to get me, I had no argument, Until i finally sat down and actually studied it. Using the guideline I shared above (james and paul MUST be in agreement)

Pauls audience was workers for. People who thought they had to work to maintain salvation.

James audience is licentious people who think because they said a sinners prayer they are saved, no matter what.

when you use these basis of context. The word openes up and you find agreement and harmony between both Paul and James.
So then it is by works you arrive at truth?
 
Mar 21, 2019
487
163
43
Can you quote chapter and verse which claims a man with two wives is sinning? We are all sinners, I agree, but I'm not excusing sin by stating what is not sin to not be sin.

Did God have to call them adultereres fot it to be true? They were sinners, They commited all kinds of sin, not just those sins
In general, doesn't God have to declare something to be a sin for it to be a sin?

We do not make things not a sin just because the rest-of the world does. The world today says sex before marriage is ok, DO we say it is no longer a sin because the rest of the world does it? Or do we call a sin a sin?
You say sex before marriage is a sin. I say sex before marriage is marriage. And sex outside of that marriage so covenanted becomes adultery.

God said, A man and woman leave their parents and they become one, The picture is pf a child and God becoming when in salvation. God called those who tried to have God as a spouse, and other Gods as spouses adulterers. He chastened and severely punished Isreal for this grave sin
How many Gods are there? And how many of us are there? It is certainly a sin for us to have other gods. It is not a sin for God to have many of us. God is the head of the marriage (the groom), we comprise the body (the bride).
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
So then it is by works you arrive at truth?
No, It is by FAITH we arrive at truth

If you trust God for your salvation. And you experience his true love, are you going to ignore this, and even be able to continue to live as you did?

There is no possible way.

Thats why ALL true believers WILL show works of some sort (remember, we have babies, Children, Teens and adults. All the way up to elders all are christian, and have grown in certain ways, in which their life will reflect that)

The corinthian church were called babes, and had sin issues, But even they did some works..which is more than you can say the people James directed his comments to. They had NO WORKS