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

[lightbearer]

I am still waiting for one of them to answer what part the moral law has in helping us become christlike. Still no answer

It is of God. It is of his character. It is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure. HE said that HE would put His law in our hearts and minds. Christ in you through which His word is in the heart and mouth.

 

[posthuman]

In this forum, if you try to argue that salvation is not just by faith alone, but it requires faith AND X,, the active responders will tend to accuse you of saying salvation is by X alone. Get used to it. 😝

well it's pretty clear logic --

suppose A implies B ((i.e. faith → salvation))

we all agree.

then someone says,
only (A + X) implies B

the response is usually two-fold:

1. clearly, this is negating the premise that A → B by adding some X to A as a requirement.
2. B implies X, so the case where X doesn't exist is either null or a very rare product of special circumstances, so that if you have a situation where X doesn't exist you either:
   1. never had A in the first place ((false positive)) or
   2. do not contradict the premise A → B

the counter response is usually
"y'all preaching against X"
which isn't true at all. they aren't preaching against X, they are preaching against X → B because they maintain that A → B


it wouldn't be true to say that someone saying (A+X) → B is saying X → B, and that's often a counter-argument, because it's easy to give examples of X where there is clearly no B. what's true is that by saying (A + X) → B is the only way to get B is that you are basing at least some part of B on the necessity of X, so that B is no longer a product of A alone. i mean, that's really straightforward. if you say no B without X, regardless of A, then you are making B a function of X, rather than what scripture clearly says: B is by A alone, not of X, lest anyone should boast ((in their X))

 

[FollowHisSteps]

I am still waiting for one of them to answer what part the moral law has in helping us become christlike. Still no answer

Why do we have speed limits? Because on average when people exceed the speed limit more people
die. So the law is simple, it helps warn us when we are likely to die.

The other aspect is the law helps us sow good things that reap reward, both here on earth and later
in heaven. Sowing love and support to others in difficult circumstances, or simply recognition is a
blessing.

Loving ones enemies in some cases means leading them to the Lord.
Primarily when you love people you begin to see them as a whole, maybe insane, corrupt and evil,
but you see how they got there and sometimes how they can change and get out in meeting the Lord.

Nuance is a strange thing. Jesus listed certain attributes of life and how they would be rewarded.

These are not law in the sense of a rebuke from a judge, but wisdom from a giver of life, who is literally
saying what certain actions lead to.

Being aware of being needy, wanting more, not boastful or arrogant, is the kingdom of heaven.
Grieving for the loss of life, suffering and terrible situations will lead to comfort.
Taking the lowest path, doing what needs to be done, will inherit the earth.
Hungering for righteousness, you will find it.
If one is merciful, you will find mercy yourself.
Having a pure heart, will open ones eyes to seeing God himself.
Being a peacemaker is Gods path, and will be called His children.

These are not "moral" law, but they are part of Jesus's way to life.

Now for a believer of over 5 years one should be aware of all of this and actively sowing in ones life
these very principles. It is a wonder if such a person has no clear understanding of these foundational
principles. It would suggest they do not have the right foundation at all.

 

[posthuman]

well it's pretty clear logic --

suppose A implies B ((i.e. faith → salvation))

we all agree.

then someone says,
only (A + X) implies B

the response is usually two-fold:

1. clearly, this is negating the premise that A → B by adding some X to A as a requirement.
2. B implies X, so the case where X doesn't exist is either null or a very rare product of special circumstances, so that if you have a situation where X doesn't exist you either:
   1. never had A in the first place ((false positive)) or
   2. do not contradict the premise A → B

the counter response is usually
"y'all preaching against X"
which isn't true at all. they aren't preaching against X, they are preaching against X → B because they maintain that A → B


it wouldn't be true to say that someone saying (A+X) → B is saying X → B, and that's often a counter-argument, because it's easy to give examples of X where there is clearly no B. what's true is that by saying (A + X) → B is the only way to get B is that you are basing at least some part of B on the necessity of X, so that B is no longer a product of A alone. i mean, that's really straightforward. if you say no B without X, regardless of A, then you are making B a function of X, rather than what scripture clearly says: B is by A alone, not of X, lest anyone should boast ((in their X))

why isn't everyone a mathematician???

it is very useful.

 

[Guojing]

well it's pretty clear logic --

suppose A implies B ((i.e. faith → salvation))

we all agree.

then someone says,
only (A + X) implies B

the response is usually two-fold:

1. clearly, this is negating the premise that A → B by adding some X to A as a requirement.
2. B implies X, so the case where X doesn't exist is either null or a very rare product of special circumstances, so that if you have a situation where X doesn't exist you either:
   1. never had A in the first place ((false positive)) or
   2. do not contradict the premise A → B

the counter response is usually
"y'all preaching against X"
which isn't true at all. they aren't preaching against X, they are preaching against X → B because they maintain that A → B


it wouldn't be true to say that someone saying (A+X) → B is saying X → B, and that's often a counter-argument, because it's easy to give examples of X where there is clearly no B. what's true is that by saying (A + X) → B is the only way to get B is that you are basing at least some part of B on the necessity of X, so that B is no longer a product of A alone. i mean, that's really straightforward. if you say no B without X, regardless of A, then you are making B a function of X, rather than what scripture clearly says: B is by A alone, not of X, lest anyone should boast ((in their X))

Can you explain mark 16 16 based on the algorithm you used?

 

[FollowHisSteps]

well it's pretty clear logic --

suppose A implies B ((i.e. faith → salvation))

we all agree.

then someone says,
only (A + X) implies B

the response is usually two-fold:

1. clearly, this is negating the premise that A → B by adding some X to A as a requirement.
2. B implies X, so the case where X doesn't exist is either null or a very rare product of special circumstances, so that if you have a situation where X doesn't exist you either:
   1. never had A in the first place ((false positive)) or
   2. do not contradict the premise A → B

the counter response is usually
"y'all preaching against X"
which isn't true at all. they aren't preaching against X, they are preaching against X → B because they maintain that A → B


it wouldn't be true to say that someone saying (A+X) → B is saying X → B, and that's often a counter-argument, because it's easy to give examples of X where there is clearly no B. what's true is that by saying (A + X) → B is the only way to get B is that you are basing at least some part of B on the necessity of X, so that B is no longer a product of A alone. i mean, that's really straightforward. if you say no B without X, regardless of A, then you are making B a function of X, rather than what scripture clearly says: B is by A alone, not of X, lest anyone should boast ((in their X))

Hi Post,

Your analogy has some power. There is though another proposition.
In set theory you define what is included in certain sets and what is outside.

If A → B is a true statement so A + X → B would be false.

But if the actual situation is A(X+Z) → B but some are claiming A(Z) → B
it is a false analogy that X is being added when X was always part of A but is being
removed.

And the truth is faith and actions are linked in Gods eyes, from the beginning of
time.

God chose Able because his offering was acceptable while Cains was not.
Keeping the law is a sign of alignment to God. But when you look at the law you are
actually looking at love, service for others and working things through.

The foundation of our faith has always been such ideas as charity and the work ethic,
we are working for God not man. As principles go, it is woven into all of scripture so to
oppose it declares those who do so do not know scripture. No serious committed believer
has ever done otherwise.

The real issue has always been how to tie up the heart with ones outside reality, where
emotions and motivations appear to have a mind of their own. But that is a separate issue
here. God bless you

 

[posthuman]

Can you explain mark 16 16 based on the algorithm you used?

well it's not an algorithm lol just translating into set-theoretic language

but yes:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(Mark 16:16)

let A = believe, B = baptized, S = saved

this says,

A ∩ B ⊂ S​

​

¬A ⊄ S ​

​

these two statements do not imply that A\B ⊄ S and they do not imply that B → S

what needs to be taken into account, and which is always brought up, is that there are also dozens of scriptures that say A ⊂ S ((whoever believes has eternal life)). which is not 'preaching against B' it's just saying, you cannot contradict A ⊂ S --
which A\B ⊄ S would be a direct contradiction to A ⊂ S, because A\B ⊂ A

 

[lightbearer]

well it's pretty clear logic --

suppose A implies B ((i.e. faith → salvation))

we all agree.

then someone says,
only (A + X) implies B

A=X

 

[posthuman]

well it's not an algorithm lol just translating into set-theoretic language

but yes:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(Mark 16:16)

let A = believe, B = baptized, S = saved

this says,

A ∩ B ⊂ S​

​

¬A ⊄ S ​

​

these two statements do not imply that A\B ⊄ S and they do not imply that B → S

what needs to be taken into account, and which is always brought up, is that there are also dozens of scriptures that say A ⊂ S ((whoever believes has eternal life)). which is not 'preaching against B' it's just saying, you cannot contradict A ⊂ S --
which A\B ⊄ S would be a direct contradiction to A ⊂ S, because A\B ⊂ A

some definitions:

∩ = 'intersect' -- A intersect B means all the things that are in both A and B
⊂ = 'is a member of' or 'is contained in' -- A ⊂ B means everything in A is also in B
¬ = 'not' or 'negation of' -- 'not A' is anything not in A.
⊄ = 'not contained in' -- A ⊄ B means anything in A is not in B
\ = 'modulo' -- A\B is the set of things in A which are not in B; could be written also as A ∩ ¬B

 

[SimpleGardner]

You haven't found it because it's not there. Paul does not contradict Christ, don't know why people say/imply that. Remember what Peter said of Paul's letters?:

some things are difficult to be understood, which the ignorant and unestablished distort to their own destruction, as also the other Scriptures.
17Therefore beloved, knowing this beforehand, you beware, lest you should fall from the own steadfastness, having been led away by the error of the lawless.

Ignorant in what? Unestablished in what? Scriptures! What scriptures? Why the only ones they had of course, the Torah. Do not be led away by the error of the lawless! Pretty clear to me.

Greetings Karraster,

Good citation, but several still insist that the Laws of God are disassociated with the walk of the child of God.


You will never hear them respond to verses like:

Rev 14:12 KJV Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

written after Paul's writings which many pick and choose from to construct their doctrines.

What is at work here from what I see is this; and it starts with most of us in agreement; The Law was offered to the Israelites at Mt Saini, but they refused to receive it from the Spirit/Mouth of God so they requested a mediator, Moses. The chose the letter over the Spirit.

Exo 20:18-21 KJV And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. (19) And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. (20) And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. (21) And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

So when God spoke The "Written Law" or the Torah to Moses not only did He hear the words, but he received the Spirit that accompanied it when God gives it directly.

All the people of Israel were to become a “kingdom of priests,” not just a “kingdom with priests" and what made the difference was their refusal to "draw near to God"

So Moses was the only one until we read of the ordination of Aaron and his sons in Leviticus 9 and in vs 23-24 we read where once again the Glory of the Lord appears again, but then only the family of Aaron are added to those who are Priests with the Levites in their company.

Moses, speaks of His disappointment at the "Kingdom with priests" vs a "Kingdom of priests" in;

Num 11:29 KJV And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!

Moses knew first hand that the written Laws of God are insufficient to make men priests...to do this the letter of the Law must be accompanied by the Spirit of God.

So what do we say now?

2Co 3:1-18 NIV Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? (2) You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. (3) You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (4) Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. (5) Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. (6) He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (7) Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, (8) will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? (9) If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! (10) For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. (11) And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (12) Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. (13) We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. (14) But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. (15) Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. (16) But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (17) Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (18) And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.


So the Letter as Paul says is

Rom 7:7-25 NIV What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." (8) But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. (9) Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. (10) I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. (11) For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. (12) So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. (13) Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. (14) We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. (15) I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. (16) And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. (17) As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. (18) I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. (19) For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. (20) Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. (21) So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. (22) For in my inner being I delight in God's law; (23) but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. (24) What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? (25) Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Sadly, I beleive that dogma has prevented many from hearing that the Law is good, but without the Spirit of God it is grevious. So when a man receives the Spirit of God the Law becomes LIFE!

IF IF IF:

Rom 8:6-11 NIV The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; (7) the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. (8) Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. (9) You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. (10) But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. (11) And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.


The ifs are critical to a new relationship with the righteous requirements of God

 

[posthuman]

A=X

you've got a problem with Acts 10, with the thief on the cross, with millions of christians in the first few centuries AD who put off baptism because they thought they couldn't be forgiven for sins committed afterwards.

((if you define X as H2O baptism)).

you've also got a problem because '=' is commutative; A = X is the same as X = A, so your statement is basically Armstrongism, and you need to explain why evangelism doesn't consist simply of taking a garden hose and spraying down everyone you see, voila, X, therefore A.

 

[SimpleGardner]

well it's pretty clear logic --

suppose A implies B ((i.e. faith → salvation))

we all agree.

then someone says,
only (A + X) implies B

the response is usually two-fold:

1. clearly, this is negating the premise that A → B by adding some X to A as a requirement.
2. B implies X, so the case where X doesn't exist is either null or a very rare product of special circumstances, so that if you have a situation where X doesn't exist you either:
   1. never had A in the first place ((false positive)) or
   2. do not contradict the premise A → B

the counter response is usually
"y'all preaching against X"
which isn't true at all. they aren't preaching against X, they are preaching against X → B because they maintain that A → B


it wouldn't be true to say that someone saying (A+X) → B is saying X → B, and that's often a counter-argument, because it's easy to give examples of X where there is clearly no B. what's true is that by saying (A + X) → B is the only way to get B is that you are basing at least some part of B on the necessity of X, so that B is no longer a product of A alone. i mean, that's really straightforward. if you say no B without X, regardless of A, then you are making B a function of X, rather than what scripture clearly says: B is by A alone, not of X, lest anyone should boast ((in their X))

Greetings Posthuman,

Interesting...would you be willing to give a legend for this clearly defining A, B & X?

Thanks

 

[lightbearer]

you've got a problem,
.

You've? That is as far as I got. Have a nice day.

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ (word; the law) down from above Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ (word; the law) again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word (through Christ) is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
(Rom 10:6-8 KJV)

 

[FollowHisSteps]

some definitions:

∩ = 'intersect' -- A intersect B means all the things that are in both A and B
⊂ = 'is a member of' or 'is contained in' -- A ⊂ B means everything in A is also in B
¬ = 'not' or 'negation of' -- 'not A' is anything not in A.
⊄ = 'not contained in' -- A ⊄ B means anything in A is not in B
\ = 'modulo' -- A\B is the set of things in A which are not in B; could be written also as A ∩ ¬B

Hi Post,

Set theory in the end is fine, except faith is nuanced.
Baptism does not save, except those who avoid it stand alone, as to why?

This is the same quandry of confession of faith. I believe so why do I have to confess it.
Because in eternity the difference between a thought and a conviction and it being true
in the individual is its demonstration.

The logic is almost inverted. The reality is the action, showing what has become.
The lead up to the action is only true if it leads to the resulting action.

We can always claim and be deceived that we truly had all the ingredients to perform the
action, so should be judged as if we performed the action, except what was missing was
the action. The deception is we do not know what other things are stopping us until we
succeed which shows the answer nothing.

I suspect this is an eternal reality. I have found myself agreeing I need to repent of something
have all the feelings in a line, so believe I have actually repented so should feel relief and forgiveness
while actually I have not taken that step. Only when I repent, confess and accept forgiveness does
the spiritual reality take place.

I hear these very principles spoken by some, who have rejected repentance in truth and just say
we have to agree with God, that is enough. This is just a sinful heart looking for excuses and a way
of avoiding real repentance, and actually changing.

God sent prophets with strict instructions as to what they could or could not do. If they broke these
conditions they died. It did not matter how they felt, it was this brutal. Man always wants to compromise
soften, take the problem and dilute it. Take King Saul not wanting to kill a king who God commanded
should die. We are no different, and equally should take seriously Gods instructions. God bless you

 

[Guojing]

well it's not an algorithm lol just translating into set-theoretic language

but yes:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(Mark 16:16)

let A = believe, B = baptized, S = saved

this says,

A ∩ B ⊂ S​

​

¬A ⊄ S ​

​

these two statements do not imply that A\B ⊄ S and they do not imply that B → S

what needs to be taken into account, and which is always brought up, is that there are also dozens of scriptures that say A ⊂ S ((whoever believes has eternal life)). which is not 'preaching against B' it's just saying, you cannot contradict A ⊂ S --
which A\B ⊄ S would be a direct contradiction to A ⊂ S, because A\B ⊂ A

Is there a cut off point to decide?

If x number of scripture says you need faith and baptism, how many more than x you would need to say, majority wins?

Would that be more ridiculous than using different time periods to understand the distinction?

 

[seed_time_harvest]

I'm not a law-keeper, but I still haven't found a single piece of evidence -- in the Gospels -- that Jesus ever told us to stop keeping the Law. Should we rely solely on what Paul said?

A single piece of evidence?I’m sure you understand what the Bible means by line upon line line upon line,here a little there a little.

JESUS told the rich young ruler to keep the Ten Commandments but the Bible says that no one can keep the Ten Commandments so then how do you make sense of keep the commandments If no one can keep them?

Mark 10:17-19
King James Version

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
+++
Romans 7:12-15
King James Version


12 Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

 

[posthuman]

You've? That is as far as I got. Have a nice day.

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ (word; the law) down from above Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ (word; the law) again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word (through Christ) is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
(Rom 10:6-8 KJV)

I don't understand, you didn't read my post so you replied with a contextless misapplication of scripture?
And I'm supposed to have a nice day because you don't understand what I'm saying?

 

[posthuman]

Greetings Posthuman,

Interesting...would you be willing to give a legend for this clearly defining A, B & X?

Thanks

It'd already in the post you quoted.
A faith, B salvation. X any requirement for B added to faith.

But these are specific instances of A B X for the purpose of relevance to the thread. I put it in abstract terms specifically to show the logic being applied is independent of specific context

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It is of God. It is of his character. It is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure. HE said that HE would put His law in our hearts and minds. Christ in you through which His word is in the heart and mouth.

But that is not what Jesus says, He says the law and prophets (the whole of the OT) is found in two commands. Love the lord with all your heart mind and soul. And your neighbor as yourself.And he showed our neighbor is everyone, including our enemy.

So if these are the two commands he saiid to focus on. And do And if you do these two you will by practive follow everythign else. Why do you need the moral law?

I already proved a few times in this ery thread people can follow the law yet have no love in their hearts. And even then, THEY STILL can not live up to Gods standard.

People keep watering the law down to their standard. And say God thinks that is fine, at least we are following it. Well the pharisee did this. Where did it get them?

You want to be like the pharisee? Feel free

As I said earlier I will follow Christs example.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Is there a cut off point to decide?

If x number of scripture says you need faith and baptism, how many more than x you would need to say, majority wins?

Would that be more ridiculous than using different time periods to understand the distinction?

That assumes “baptism” spoken if of the water variety, and not the spirit variety.

If it is of the spirit variety (which I think it is) then al scripture is united

If it is of the water variety, Then it contradicts or at the very least calls into question the rest of the scripture which leaves out this requirement.