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

[eternally-gratefull]

Ok, my mistake. You are correct. It`s a copy of the verse from the NIV which is known for errors. I used it because you boys seem to have a hard time understanding King James. Sorry I didn`t recognize it at first.

The word I would use is establish which is what`s in the King James.

I have no problem understanding king james or the new king james (which i use)

So can you answer

How does my faith establish he law or make it stand?

Again, the question is easy, its not hard, paul answered the question himself, if you know scripture you should know the answer

 

[PS]

That is a problem but it will always come down to one answer being right.

And when you get the right answers, everything will fall into place, it will all be in context, and one doctrine will support another without contradiction or error.

 

[RickStudies]

I never said studying from the ot was bad now did I

That is not even what we are talking about now it it?

Can you please stick to the topic? Which is mosaic law.

The first 5 books of the Old Testament are the Mosaic Law.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The first 5 books of the Old Testament are the Mosaic Law.

No

Mosaic law is the law given to moses in exodus and deuteronomy

Yes, the first 5 books is called by hebrews the law or torah, but that is not the context of this thread. Once again, please stick to contect.

This thread does not ask if the 1st 5 books needs to be kept, it asks of the oaw of moses needs to be kept.

 

[RickStudies]

I have no problem understanding king james or the new king james (which i use)

So can you answer

How does my faith establish he law or make it stand?

Again, the question is easy, its not hard, paul answered the question himself, if you know scripture you should know the answer

You misunderstand the verse. Paul is contending that faith does not nullify the value of the law. He is not saying that your faith somehow is making the law stand. The law was already established before you had faith.

 

[RickStudies]

No

Mosaic law is the law given to moses in exodus and deuteronomy

Yes, the first 5 books is called by hebrews the law or torah, but that is not the context of this thread. Once again, please stick to contect.

This thread does not ask if the 1st 5 books needs to be kept, it asks of the oaw of moses needs to be kept.

Torah keepers would consider the first 5 books the law and the thread asks if Jesus ever said that we no longer need to keep it
not whether it needs to be kept.

 

[RickStudies]

He reminds me of a few others who like to deflect

Speaking of which, I noticed no one cared to tackle Acts 21.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You misunderstand the verse. Paul is contending that faith does not nullify the value of the law. He is not saying that your faith somehow is making the law stand. The law was already established before you had faith.

The law was not established in my heart, until i came to faith it has to bring us all to faith, or many, like Isreal, and their misinterpretation of the law, will reject christ in their hearts, (they crucified him) and even if they do not outright reject him but have just mental belief. They still have not found him not have they established the law. Because at this point, the law is not yet fulfilled in them.
Thats the one part you fail to realise

And this is what paul is saying

When the schoolmaster leads me to faith, it is established to be truth, it is made to stand, it is fulfilled in my life

It does not mean it is done away.

This is how my faith establishes the law. I was praying you would see this, but even now, i doubt you will

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Torah keepers would consider the first 5 books the law and the thread asks if Jesus ever said that we no longer need to keep it
not whether it needs to be kept.

Whatever

Younare evasive and argumentative

And no different than others who have come before and tried to argue your case.

When non law keepers say the law does not have to be kept, they say the law as given to moses during the exodus, not the first 5 books

Since this thread is a statement against this thinking, it must be taken in context, of the law given to moses including the commands, the ceremonies, and then he festivals.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Speaking of which, I noticed no one cared to tackle Acts 21.

Once again, i have to prove things,

It was responded to

He kept it?

Says who?

Who can keep the law?

Now when he was with jews he acted as if with the jews, but no one can keep the law. Only christ did

Once again, you ignored it, or at the very least did not see it, in which case i apologize.

 

[RickStudies]

The law was not established in my heart, until i came to faith it has to bring us all to faith, or many, like Isreal, and their misinterpretation of the law, will reject christ in their hearts, (they crucified him) and even if they do not outright reject him but have just mental belief. They still have not found him not have they established the law. Because at this point, the law is not yet fulfilled in them.
Thats the one part you fail to realise

And this is what paul is saying

When the schoolmaster leads me to faith, it is established to be truth, it is made to stand, it is fulfilled in my life

It does not mean it is done away.

This is how my faith establishes the law. I was praying you would see this, but even now, i doubt you will

Your argument woud work better if you had scripture references and some direct quotes for your contentions.
As is it all sounds disconnected.

What you are trying to tell me has nothing to do with the law. You are talking about the circumcision of the heart which is the action of God`s Spirit within you. It is the thing that creates the new nature and having the new nature doesn`t mean you`ve established the law. You don`t establish your own law and you can`t keep the righteusness of the law unless you know at a little bit about it. Study is necessary.


25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[RickStudies]

Once again, i have to prove things,

It was responded to



Once again, you ignored it, or at the very least did not see it, in which case i apologize.

If that is a response, it`s not a good one. Paul took part in an expensive cleansing ritual and swore an oath that he himself kept the law and did not teach other Jews to abandon Moses.

To be fair I would not expect you to know how to deal with my assertion.

 

[RickStudies]

Once again, i have to prove things,

It was responded to



Once again, you ignored it, or at the very least did not see it, in which case i apologize.

There are provisions in the law for atonement and sacrifices. Torah observant Jews made mistakes and sinned just like anyone else. But these provisions made it possible for them to cover their transgressions.

 

[RickStudies]

Whatever

Younare evasive and argumentative

And no different than others who have come before and tried to argue your case.

When non law keepers say the law does not have to be kept, they say the law as given to moses during the exodus, not the first 5 books

Since this thread is a statement against this thinking, it must be taken in context, of the law given to moses including the commands, the ceremonies, and then he festivals.

If I am argumentative it is because I seem to be battling everybody here. If I seem evasive its because I`m not a fast typer and have limits as to how much matereal I can respond to, hence I complain sometimes when I am bombarded with irrelevant questions.
Have it your way. Maybe Moses only wrote two books.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Your argument woud work better if you had scripture references and some direct quotes for your contentions.

I was hoping you knew enough of scripture you could see what inwas saying and the light would go off, but it also gave you 1 more chance to deflect and refuse to listen

Gal 3 -
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed iseveryone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is [d]justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

As you can see, and as i have said many times, The law is given to prove to everyone who does not keep every word, they are under a curse, and it also shows what must be accomplished to remove that curse (blood) (by the way paul quotes moses words when he gave the law, and james agrees, when he says if we can keep every word yet fail in one point we are guilty.. do i need to post those verses also, or do you already know them? If you do jot, i can post them!

So when i have come to faith, i have established the law in that

1. I acknowledge i have failed to keep gods standard, and because of my actions am under the curse of the law, which is death
2. There is only one means of atonement of my sin, and that is the death of the sacrificial animal who was innocent and pure without defect,
3. Jesus fulfilled th law, as he never brok one command, he kept gods standard
4. As such, he is the perfect lamb without blemish that was sacrified for my atonement

When i have assurance of these things, and have trust that these are true, i do what jesus jesus said, and come to FAITH in christ (not just mere belief)

When this is accomplished, i establish the law. As true and faithful

Which was the purpose of the law to begin with

Again, gal 3:
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, [f]kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our [g]tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

So you see

The law is established by my faith because it led me to christ

Are you led to christ? If not, then yes, you need to study the law, because it has not yet proven to you your need.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There are provisions in the law for atonement and sacrifices. Torah observant Jews made mistakes and sinned just like anyone else. But these provisions made it possible for them to cover their transgressions.

But the blood of bulls and goats never took away sins, they were symbols, given to lead them to the true atonement

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If that is a response, it`s not a good one. Paul took part in an expensive cleansing ritual and swore an oath that he himself kept the law and did not teach other Jews to abandon Moses.

To be fair I would not expect you to know how to deal with my assertion.

Why do you continue to resist?

If paul kept the law as required, why did he need christ?

In that same chapter, what was the charge against Paul? That he told gentiles they did not need to get circumcised according to the law.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If I am argumentative it is because I seem to be battling everybody here. If I seem evasive its because I`m not a fast typer and have limits as to how much matereal I can respond to, hence I complain sometimes when I am bombarded with irrelevant questions.
Have it your way. Maybe Moses only wrote two books.

If you think you are fighting everyone you prove you are closed. Which means nothing anyone says to you can be understood by you, and you will never give them a time of day, then i ask, Why then are you here?

And yes, that is why people do that, because they are defensive.

 

[RickStudies]

No

I am like paul hostile to people trying to insert jewish things into christianity, that have no purpose or place there

I missed this post earlier. I love it Paul was Jewish as Jew can be. He was a high ranking Pharisee, a scholar, a torah observant expert who often taught and quoted from the torah. He always preached to Jews first and his churches were mixtures of Gentiles and Jews with a very Jewish church culture. This is what he said about himself.

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

That is Paul`s own summation of himself.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Has anyone seen @SimpleGardner lately?