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

[wokinluv]

you said " it is not a sin to observe the Sabbath, but it is a choice"

I never said or implied it was a sin to observe the Sabbath.




and, I have no issue with any who choose to observe it.
my issue is with those who say we have to.

Do you have an issue with Paul who wrote the ff:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith APART from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. Romans 3:28-31

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2:14-16

Would you be able to uphold something you do not have to keep?

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

TAnd Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

2 And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it.

3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

9 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed.

Likewise, almost all of us are Gentiles here. We belong to the Church, and in this age of grace, Paul is our apostle, his importance is equivalent to Moses, as the lawgiver to the Jews.

Paul's words are the words of the ascended Lord Jesus to his Church, and we will do well to follow what Paul is saying, as instructed in 1 Corinthians 14:37

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

As you quoted in verse 9 Aaron was in the wrong, God did not have a problem with it. We cant account their error as Biblical command or fact.

Also what you said, "Paul is our apostle"

so you do not follow Jesus words? and what about Jesus saying in Mat 28 all 12 of His disciples are sent to gentiles and what I put in my last post. (I know you said you will sleep maybe we can talk another time?)

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

We do not have the ability to live the prefect sinless life Christ did. Paul said he is our example, showing us how to live for Jesus. He is like Moses for Gentiles.

I know we will not be sinless but I disagree on the rest, because Jesus says follow Him.

John 13:15, “For I (Jesus) gave you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.”

John 10:27-30, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; neither will any man snatch them out of My hand. My Father, Who gave them to Me, is greater than all; and no man is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand: I and My Father are in accord."

 

[RickStudies]

I know we will not be sinless but I disagree on the rest, because Jesus says follow Him.

John 13:15, “For I (Jesus) gave you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.”

John 10:27-30, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; neither will any man snatch them out of My hand. My Father, Who gave them to Me, is greater than all; and no man is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand: I and My Father are in accord."

If you reject the epistles of Paul then we won`t be able to agree on much.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

If you reject the epistles of Paul then we won`t be able to agree on much.

Hmm, I guess I could say the same, but "If you reject Jesus...."

I strongly stand by the words of the King:

Jesus says follow Him.

John 13:15, “For I (Jesus) gave you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.”

John 10:27-30, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; neither will any man snatch them out of My hand. My Father, Who gave them to Me, is greater than all; and no man is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand: I and My Father are in accord."

Again I find it very odd that this causes trouble among Christians, actually believe the words of Jesus causes seperation among Christians?

 

[PS]

Let me grant your take here for a moment. Is it your position that the Sabbath law is made void lawfully because of this exception? That's a very dangerous route, don't you think? An exception doesn't make a law void. Or else it becomes, a "loop-hole" so to speak.

What I mean by the tradition, what Jesus did was show them the exception on when it is okay to "work" on the Sabbath day. Their tradition removed these exceptions. And I used the example of a later passage of Jesus healing the man. Their traditions forbids this. Basically, what the law manifested in the flesh said was that it is perfectly fine to walk and glean on the Sabbath day. If it was explicitly contrary to the law, then the Jews' accusations against Jesus stands vindicated.

Man-made Jewish rituals mean nothing to me, least of all to God who simply wants the sacrifice of our heart.

 

[PS]

To suppose one is saved by works is nonsensical: the convicted murderer is presented to the judge, and pleads, "But your honor, look at all the people I did not murder," and the judge responds, "Very well. Your works has justified you." Just because you can fix a broken window doesn't undo the fact that the window was broken in the first place. The price for fixing the window remains. Even then, paying the price doesn't yield the window to be allowed to be broken again, over and over.

The Galatians thought it that by receiving circumcision they are saved, and therefore reasoned that they can go back to doing evil. Basically, they used circumcision to justify their evil. Any law can be used to justify evil - it still remains evil. One is justified by faith. In other words, faithfulness is lawfulness and faithlessness is lawlessness. A faithful woman doesn't commit adultery, but an unfaithful woman does.

Salvation was, is and will always be a free gift. You cannot work for salvation. This is true for all mankind in all ages. A just deity demands this.

Let me grant your interpretation of Paul here. Can you show me an example of how this was applied in the Old Testament? The Old Testament is rather explicit that it is a specific day even in punishment unto death. If none is found, then Paul teaching sin for the same reason I would teach sin if I can say, "There are seven women in a room, on is your wife (one is sanctified), but it doesn't matter with which one you have sex with." By claiming all days alike is to, at the same time, claiming the seventh day's sanctity is false.

Scriptures says God gave Israel the Sabbath. It doesn't say exclusively. It is made explicit in the fourth commandment itself that this is not true. Furthermore, the seventh day serves as a memorial of creation unto the Creator (Ex 20:8-11) as well as a sign of redemption (new creation) (Deut 5:13).

Correct.

 

[page-1]

my position is that in Christ we have died, and our life is hid in Him, and that the law has no jurisdiction whatsoever over someone who has died. that it is for freedom that through this faith we have been made free, and that by this freedom the power of sin, which is the law, has been broken, the enmity taken away and the veil removed from the heart of those in whom He is pleased to make His dwelling place. that the children of the King are exempt from the tax. the free gift is not like the trespass, but it has likewise gone out to people of every nation and tongue and culture, first to those who were under the law, and also to those who never had the law. the law was not imposed on those without it, and all of the weight of the law, which was added because of transgression and in order to make sin all the more sinful, all this weight is removed - the living Word was nailed to a tree, made curse for us, willingly picking up all our guilt and bearing it, as Samson who took up the gates of Gaza, took them far off and cast them away.

Isn't it evil to declare one self indifferrent to morality because of Jesus? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, I see no freedom to being indifferent to morality.

Letter: do no physical work on the sabbath

Spirit: ??

now, i've got a conundrum if i say the Spirit says 'do no physical work on the sabbath' because then i've got what i purport to call a spiritual, non-physical, true 'meaning' which is in all actuality a purely physical restriction to be imposed on the carnal body.

I see no conundrum here.

Letter: "Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy."
Spirit: "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:" (Is 58:13)

Letter only means out of obligation. Letter and Spirit means to want to out of the heart.

He brings up two examples of breaking the law without guilt.

This raises two questions from me:
* Aren't you then vindicating the Jewish accusations against Jesus and call Jesus a liar for claiming that He has never sinned?
* How is Jesus then not "okaying" sin - breaking the law - regardless?

The only way I can see out of this is that no law is broken, regardless.

as i've put above, Jesus's rebuttal was not about their traditions being superimposed on the law. Jesus's rebuttal was, if they understood that mercy is greater than sacrifice, they would not have accused 'the innocent' -- this means that their problem is failing to understand God's mercy, not holding people to purely human, extra-Biblical traditions. so, i think you have this part a bit wrong. this becomes important in trying to sort out what the keeping/breaking of the sabbath in the heart is, because if i'm right about Matthew 12, it ties with what He said in another place about the sabbath - that anyone who owned an animal that fell in a pit on the sabbath would surely pull it out. now, it's hard to argue that's not 'work' or 'carrying a burden' to heft out a thousand pound creature from a ditch. by the strict letter of the law, 'do no work' are you supposed to just let the beast sit there overnight? no! it's lawful to do good, on the sabbath. doing good supersedes the command, do no work. so there's a clue for us, that to stand by without lifting a finger while another living soul suffers, 'because, sabbath' is evil. and here's another --

Doesn't that position directly contradicts Samuel's statement that to obey is better than sacrifice?

now, this is a very very long post already. and i've got to do some things and get to bed. so i apologize that it's not been edited well, and it doesn't really tangibly answer your question. what is the heart of the sabbath command is an enormous question, and this has only been a very brief scratching of the surface. i haven't even mentioned Hebrews or quoted Ezekiel or Genesis or dozens of other very relevant passages in the gospels or 'the 5th' gospel, Isaiah - there is a huge amount of background material still before we are even near the meat of this thing. it may take weeks lol.

so, sorry again for failing to completely explain the mystery of godliness in this post ((HA!!)) but i must with it, exit for now.

thanks for reading my drivel

more at a later time, maybe even some math

No worries. I was merely my own two cents. Thank you, for it takes long to write up comments like this and I apprreciate your effort. I won't often post here, but now and then. Take care.

 

[page-1]

I know we will not be sinless

Isn't claiming the impossibility that a sinner can stop sinning vindicating Satan's accusation that morality according to Jehovah (objective morality) is unjust because it is impossible to abide by?

 

[page-1]

If you reject the epistles of Paul then we won`t be able to agree on much.

If we grant that the interpretation of Paul's writings is correct, and that Paul's writings contradicts the law and the prophets (Word of God/Jesus), why should we then not treat it as we ought to - like we do with any writing that does the same thing -, but, instead, treat it as if it is inspired?

If we want to maintain that Paul's writings are inspired, as I do, then the only alternative I am left with, while at the same time maintain the congruency of the scriptures, is that the interpretations of Paul's writings that causes the incongruency are wrong.

 

[PS]

If we want to maintain that Paul's writings are inspired, as I do, then the only alternative I am left with, while at the same time maintain the congruency of the scriptures, is that the interpretations of Paul's writings that causes the incongruency are wrong.

Correct. People twist and corrupt scripture like they are Pharisees.

 

[PS]

Jewish law neither saves the soul or establishes peace to the nations.

 

[RickStudies]

I be really tired, why are you posting scripture going back and forth between the 2 ages?

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:19-21)

Each passage on my list has a purpose in understanding what Jesus was offering. Each passage a piece of the puzzle. In the case of Acts 3:19-21 Peter is seen preaching, saying repent, be converted so that your sins can be blotted out when the times of refreshing comes. the "time of refreshing" is the time of the earthly kingdom of messiah. the "times of restitution" is same thing the era of the kingdom.
Peter believes in and preaches an imminant return of Jesus, the kingdom come, all fulfilled and is about his task of preparing Israel.

Acts 1:6
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

 

[RickStudies]

If we grant that the interpretation of Paul's writings is correct, and that Paul's writings contradicts the law and the prophets (Word of God/Jesus), why should we then not treat it as we ought to - like we do with any writing that does the same thing -, but, instead, treat it as if it is inspired?

If we want to maintain that Paul's writings are inspired, as I do, then the only alternative I am left with, while at the same time maintain the congruency of the scriptures, is that the interpretations of Paul's writings that causes the incongruency are wrong.

I think you missed the conversation. Followtheshepard doesn`t believe in the epistles of Paul. Common for Hebrew Roots to take that position.

 

[PS]

The Jews offer pagan sacrifices that are suitable for a pagan god.

 

[RickStudies]

Do you have an issue with Paul who wrote the ff:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith APART from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. Romans 3:28-31

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2:14-16

Would you be able to uphold something you do not have to keep?

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

The law is established by God, by covenant, mankind does not have the power to establish the law. The saved are justified by faith. When he says we establish the law he means faith justification ensures the law will forever retain it`s power over the lost and it`s power over those who trust in their works for their salvation.

Paul had just been talking about it in Romans 2

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

These are the lost and those who have works but not Christ.

 

[PS]

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

The law is established by God, by covenant, mankind does not have the power to establish the law. The saved are justified by faith. When he says we establish the law he means faith justification ensures the law will forever retain it`s power over the lost and it`s power over those who trust in their works for their salvation.

Paul had just been talking about it in Romans 2

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

These are the lost and those who have works but not Christ. It makes the law null and void.

I am glad you said "the lost are those who have works but not Christ."

 

[RickStudies]

I am glad you said "the lost are those who have works but not Christ."

I have never said otherwise. All it takes to get falsely accused of works salvation around here is to post a verse promoting good works.

 

[SimpleGardner]

Ok, I had to look for awhile but I found some remarks I made on your question years ago. I got about 3 pages of scriptures but I don`t want to spend the time on all this unless you really have the interest. I`m not getting that from this website.I have to clarify something first that you got mixed up. I don`t not say Jesus would avoid getting crucified or that he would fulfill all before He was crucified. You`re getting that from the confusion being sown by my critics.

I said Jesus would have fulfilled all prophecy long ago if Israel had accepted Him as Messiah. I believe the Acts 8 persecution is what blew it for them.

The most direct answer to your question is this passage here:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” (Luke 13:34-35)

A hen gathers her brood in order to protect them. If Israel had let Jesus do that He would have been unleashed to fulfill all.

At the end of the verse He indicates that He will not return until Israel is ready for Him.

I have a lot of other scriptures to prove the case but I`m tired of wasting my time. I`m getting a lot of flak by people who don`t even read, let alone consider what I`ve tried to contribute to this site.

Good Morning RS,

Your point is good, but perhaps you should clarify that "Israel" did not reject Him during His first advent, in fact, He came only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. No, He was rejected by the House of Judah, The Southern Kingdom, and even then it was a mixed bag of a small remnant of Judahites/Benjaminites and Edomites who seem to have been His greatest rivals, even the King of Judea was an Edomite, hence Yahshua spoke directly to "Jerusalem" the "City of David". In the verses you cited Yahshua spoke of the once "God Fearing" city as "desolate". When I consider Yahshua's words regarding "house" and "desolate" since it refers to Jerusalem I often wonder if He was referring to the Temple and those who serve there? It was after all "desolate" regarding the "Presence" and "Glory" of God due to Jerusalem's sordid history, and the absence of the Ark.

Just fyi.

SG

 

[posthuman]

Isn't it evil to declare one self indifferrent to morality because of Jesus? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, I see no freedom to being indifferent to morality.

being under Moses' law is not the only possible source of morality.

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
(Romans 2:14-15)

this speaks of Gentiles who haven't even come to Christ, so if they aren't indifferent to morality by virtue of not being under Moses, why would you think those whom the Son has set free are necessarily amoral?