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

[FollowHisSteps]

Yes. That was ONE of the posts of yours which states Christ = Law.
You don't know you are doing it? You've posted that same post a few times. At least 3 that I know of, probably more.

Listen to this conversation.
"I was walking down the road, met this adulterer, murderer, thief, liar, cheat, envious, full of greed
and self indulgence, but is a great guy. And that rubbish law that say they are evil and should be
sent to hell, what a joke. Lets go and murder those jokers over there, for a laugh."

Now this is what some do and did, and the prophets spoke against them, warning of Gods judgement
and an even worse group would come and drag them away to captivity and abuse.

Now if we condemn the law, we are approving of these people under Gods judgement, and are putting
ourselves under Gods judgement. When guys like this have destroyed your family, stolen your possessions
and left you to starve, you begin to see the evil they truly represent. Thankfully in the west we rarely suffer
from this, so imagine words like law on overly strict and condemning of struggling people not see the true
fruit of rebellion which it condemns and deals with.

 

[SimpleGardner]

exactly when the new covenant was initiated is a really interesting question that i don't feel qualified to answer - the most common view i've heard is the moment He died, which is usually expressed in an argument over the thief on the cross beside Him, centering around whether this man died under the new or the old covenant, in an attempt to defend baptismal regeneration or some other related point. but i think, Christ forgave sin without blood sacrifice while He was walking with us, which is 'non-Sinai-covenant' kind of thing to do -- although David's sin was "removed" without any atonement by the Law, too. so it's complicated. but it's tangential --

i don't see how any of the tribes were exempted from the covenant while the rest were still bound by it. when it was made it was with all of them, not some, so the answer to you question is either all, or none, and only none if that covenant was done away with before the infant Christ began to walk. i don't know that i've ever heard anyone give the position that the new covenant supplanted the old as soon as Jesus was born ((think i see facts that are strong objections to it already hmm)) -- so i'd have to say, all of them were still under the Sinai covenant while He was among us.

which explains why He told the rich young ruler who didn't believe He is God to keep the commandments, and live. because that is the Law of the covenant this man - not having faith in Christ but in 'what works must i do?' - was under.

Forgive me, I leave details out and then see them later.

The two Kingdoms after the split were also referred to as the "House of Judah" and the "House of Israel"

The Kingdom names referred to the two primary blessings from Jacob in Gen 49 "

Judah received the Scepter and Joseph/Ephraim the birthright, hence the name Israel followed the birthright.

 

[gb9]

Maybe the better way to frame it so it is not offensive is that Christ is the "Spirit of the Law" and it is important to realize that the "Torah" or the "Written Law" contains the words but not the "Spirit of the Law"! The "Torah/Written Law" is good and Holy and Just, but without the "Spirit of the Law" it is incapable of reforming mens hearts. David was the anointed King of Israel" That anointing with a measure of The Holy Spirit allowed him to see the Torah and recognize the goodness, holiness, and justice with it! This is what we do now who are anointed with that same Holy Spirit. We see the beauty in it. We could not see this beauty unless and until we receive salvation through the unmerited justification given to those who are called by the Grace of God to receive this gift and that of the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

well, our agreement was short - lived.

this is a pile of garbage. Jesus did NOT come and die and rise to point the world back to the Torah. He came to point us toward Him. then, He sent Paul to the gentiles to tell them ( us) how to be saved, and then walk out that salvation.

so, when folks like you keep trying to drag us back to Sinai, it is dreadful false teaching .


so, keep worshiping and believing in the Law that could not save. I will proclaim the beauty and glory of Christ

 

[SimpleGardner]

well, our agreement was short - lived.

this is a pile of garbage. Jesus did NOT come and die and rise to point the world back to the Torah. He came to point us toward Him. then, He sent Paul to the gentiles to tell them ( us) how to be saved, and then walk out that salvation.

so, when folks like you keep trying to drag us back to Sinai, it is dreadful false teaching .


so, keep worshiping and believing in the Law that could not save. I will proclaim the beauty and glory of Christ

Perhaps you are right, perhaps we should not discuss the Torah at all in order not to lead anyone to believe that obedience to it can lead to salvation. But there is much to learn from the OT. So, how would you recommend we discuss it, or should we leave it alone?

 

[Dan_473]

Forgive me, I leave details out and then see them later.

The two Kingdoms after the split were also referred to as the "House of Judah" and the "House of Israel"

The Kingdom names referred to the two primary blessings from Jacob in Gen 49 "

Judah received the Scepter and Joseph/Ephraim the birthright, hence the name Israel followed the birthright.

After the northern kingdom and southern kingdom split does a name Israel just refer to the northern tribes?

 

[SimpleGardner]

After the northern kingdom and southern kingdom split does a name Israel just refer to the northern tribes?

Well, the way I understand it, the Name Israel belonged to Jacob, renamed Israel and by proxy or inheritance to His collective offspring the 12 or 13 tribes. Technically, the "Birthright" or family name, essentially the rights of the firstborn, or in this case the favored firstborn, Joseph got to keep the name.

But, the name was also Spiritually "One who rules with God". So that was short lived after the split for the Northern Kingdom, and perhaps the literal interpretation by default went to Judah. But the rite to use the name stayed with Ephraim. Until they were put away.

 

[Deade]

So, The Northern Kingdom of Israel, made up of Reuben, Simeon, Part of Levi, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun and Manasseh and Ephraim who were adopted by Jacob and essentially are called out in place of Joseph....were they under covenant after the divorce? No. However the southern Kingdom of Judah was. That Kingdom was made up of Judah, Benjamin and part of Levi. This was the status when Jesus was here.

While some will go along with you on this matter because some references are wrong. Below is one listing in Wikipedia:

The ten lost tribes were the ten of the Twelve Tribes of Israel that were said to have been deported from the Kingdom of Israel after its conquest by the Neo-Assyrian Empire circa 722 BCE.[1] These are the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraim. Claims of descent from the "lost" tribes have been proposed in relation to many groups,[2] and some religions espouse a messianic view that the tribes will return.

In the 7th and 8th centuries CE, the return of the lost tribes was associated with the concept of the coming of the messiah.

But we have another, more accurate, account also in Wikipedia.

According to the Bible, the Kingdom of Israel (or Northern Kingdom) was one of the successor states to the older United Monarchy (also called the Kingdom of Israel), which came into existence in about the 930s BCE after the northern Tribes of Israel rejected Solomon's son Rehoboam as their king. Nine landed tribes formed the Northern Kingdom: the tribes of Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim, and Manasseh. In addition, some members of the Tribe of Levi, who had no land allocation, were found in the Northern Kingdom. The Tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained loyal to Rehoboam, and formed the Kingdom of Judah (or the Southern Kingdom). Members of Levi and the remnant of Simeon were also found in the Southern Kingdom.

Here we see Simeon in with the Jews. Which they were fully assimilated unlike Levi and Benjamin which were only partially assimilated. Which shows on another entry of the same source. Benjamin most mostly assimilated but a few were captured by Assyria. You see in the map below the closeness of Simeon and Benjamin to Judah.

Israel continued to exist within the reduced territory as an independent kingdom subject to Assyria until around 725–720 BCE, when it was again invaded by Assyria and the rest of the population deported. The Bible relates that the population of Israel was exiled, leaving only the Tribe of Judah, the Tribe of Simeon (that was "absorbed" into Judah), the Tribe of Benjamin, and the people of the Tribe of Levi who lived among them of the original Israelite tribes in the southern Kingdom of Judah.

 

[Deade]

After the northern kingdom and southern kingdom split does a name Israel just refer to the northern tribes?

Well, the way I understand it, the Name Israel belonged to Jacob, renamed Israel and by proxy or inheritance to His collective offspring the 12 or 13 tribes. Technically, the "Birthright" or family name, essentially the rights of the firstborn, or in this case the favored firstborn, Joseph got to keep the name.

But, the name was also Spiritually "One who rules with God". So that was short lived after the split for the Northern Kingdom, and perhaps the literal interpretation by default went to Judah. But the rite to use the name stayed with Ephraim. Until they were put away.

Jacob (Israel) by direction of the Spirit of God gave Joseph's two sons the rights to his name. Gen. 48:16 "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."

God put it there and there it stayed. Prophecy concerning Israel could still be referring to Ephraim and Manasseh. Judah has no right to the name even today. Mind you, Jews can be called of Israel. Just like all bears are mammals, but not all mammals are bears.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Judah has no right to the name even today.

On what grounds do you say that?

As far as God is concerned, Judah is still Judah, and remain thus for eternity.

 

[Nehemiah6]

After the northern kingdom and southern kingdom split does a name Israel just refer to the northern tribes?

Yes and No. It will depend on the context.

 

[SimpleGardner]

Yes and No. It will depend on the context.

Israel is

Jacob (Israel) by direction of the Spirit of God gave Joseph's two sons the rights to his name. Gen. 48:16 "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."

God put it there and there it stayed. Prophecy concerning Israel could still be referring to Ephraim and Manasseh. Judah has no right to the name even today. Mind you, Jews can be called of Israel. Just like all bears are mammals, but not all mammals are bears.

It is helpful to note that OT references to Ephraim after the dispersal or sifting into the nations in many instances refers to the collective tribes of the House of Israel or of the Northern Kingdom and not Ephraim alone.

 

[Deade]

On what grounds do you say that?

As far as God is concerned, Judah is still Judah, and remain thus for eternity.

Maybe you didn't read my post:

Jacob (Israel) by direction of the Spirit of God gave Joseph's two sons the rights to his name. Gen. 48:16 "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."

God put it there and there it stayed.

 

[Deade]

Israel is



It is helpful to note that OT references to Ephraim after the dispersal or sifting into the nations in many instances refers to the collective tribes of the House of Israel or of the Northern Kingdom and not Ephraim alone.

But did you notice that all the Northern kings were from Ephraim? He had the birthright to the name and kingdom.

 

[gb9]

Perhaps you are right, perhaps we should not discuss the Torah at all in order not to lead anyone to believe that obedience to it can lead to salvation. But there is much to learn from the OT. So, how would you recommend we discuss it, or should we leave it alone?

I have no issue with discussing anything in the Bible.

but, you are not simply discussing it. you are glorifying it, throwing out hints all over the place that we Christ followers should be keeping it.

and, as i asked you a few days ago, why can't we live the way the N.T. tells us?
there are plenty of instructional Scripture, why not focus on those?

and , i have stated to you several times, gentiles were never under the Law, never told to keep the Sabbath.

you have not commented on that either way.

you called Sabbath " a third rail issue" why/

gentiles were never told to keep it. why is that hard to say?

 

[SinnerByDesign]

The Messiah said quite the opposite, "I did not come to abolish the Torah" and "until heaven and earth passes away, not one jot or one tittle will pass from the Torah". And Paul also said, "do we then nullify the Torah by this belief? Certainly not, we uphold Torah". The Torah is still binding and must be obeyed.

This means no more bacon right guys?

Shouldn't we expect that an omniscient being would know how to convey his most important of all messages to his creation without all of this uncertainty, contradiction and interpretation?

 

[Dan_473]

Well, the way I understand it, the Name Israel belonged to Jacob, renamed Israel and by proxy or inheritance to His collective offspring the 12 or 13 tribes. Technically, the "Birthright" or family name, essentially the rights of the firstborn, or in this case the favored firstborn, Joseph got to keep the name.

But, the name was also Spiritually "One who rules with God". So that was short lived after the split for the Northern Kingdom, and perhaps the literal interpretation by default went to Judah. But the rite to use the name stayed with Ephraim. Until they were put away.

Are you saying that no one has the right to use the name Israel today?

 

[SimpleGardner]

I have no issue with discussing anything in the Bible.

but, you are not simply discussing it. you are glorifying it, throwing out hints all over the place that we Christ followers should be keeping it.

and, as i asked you a few days ago, why can't we live the way the N.T. tells us?
there are plenty of instructional Scripture, why not focus on those?

and , i have stated to you several times, gentiles were never under the Law, never told to keep the Sabbath.

you have not commented on that either way.

you called Sabbath " a third rail issue" why/

gentiles were never told to keep it. why is that hard to say?

Hey gb9,

Okay, I recognize that I do enjoy the Law and that this thread is about "The Law" so here I talked a bit about the law. Seems kind of germane.

My third rail comment is in reference to Col 2. Paul talking to "Gentiles" does not prohibit the Sabbath or require it as far as I can see and for those who keep the Sabbath he says, you keep it according to your convictions. I'm happy to leave it there, so I did.

 

[SimpleGardner]

Are you saying that no one has the right to use the name Israel today?

No, Not saying that.

 

[Deade]

I have no issue with discussing anything in the Bible.

but, you are not simply discussing it. you are glorifying it, throwing out hints all over the place that we Christ followers should be keeping it.

and, as i asked you a few days ago, why can't we live the way the N.T. tells us?
there are plenty of instructional Scripture, why not focus on those?

and , i have stated to you several times, gentiles were never under the Law, never told to keep the Sabbath.

you have not commented on that either way.

you called Sabbath " a third rail issue" why/

gentiles were never told to keep it. why is that hard to say?

If you recall, the New Testament was lived and written by Jews. To Jews, keeping the laws and the Sabbath was assumed. You do not find in the New Testament anyplace where the Sabbath was taken away. Where you claim it does is here:

Col. 2:16,17 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

What it really says is there were some coming in and saying we had certain rituals that we must get right and trying to sow doubt. We do not have to keep the Sabbath. Some of us do, but we do so in the Spirit of Sabbath. We choose to because we delight in the Sabbath. Paul said all things are legal but not all helpful.

1 Cor. 10:23 "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."

 

[SimpleGardner]

If you recall, the New Testament was lived and written by Jews. To Jews, keeping the laws and the Sabbath was assumed. You do not find in the New Testament anyplace where the Sabbath was taken away. Where you claim it does is here:

Col. 2:16,17 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

What it really says is there were some coming in and saying we had certain rituals that we must get right and trying to sow doubt. We do not have to keep the Sabbath. Some of us do, but we do so in the Spirit of Sabbath. We choose to because we delight in the Sabbath. Paul said all things are legal but not all helpful.

1 Cor. 10:23 "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." View attachment 201377

I don't think anyone will argue with that.