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

[PS]

Jesus came to save the lost, so He went to the Jews first.

 

[posthuman]

I disagree that "free" = amoral

 

[page-1]

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

It may not be all inclusive in detail, yet Moses said what he gave is the standard of morality and that it is objective, not subjective.

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?

If Jesus is the Word of God (law and the testimony) manifested in the flesh, and the Word of God is the standard of morality, then to be freed unto Jesus/Word of God is to be freed from the bondage of evil, regardless.

 

[RickStudies]

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

It would make sense to do a clarification. But if I said they did not reject first advent, people would criticize saying Israel rejected when He went to the cross. In a way that assertion would be correct and most Christians think Israel was toast as soon as Jesus was crucified so trying to add that detail would just muddy the waters. I prefer to try and move the ball downfield and jump to the book of Acts. It`s all an effort to break through the cloud of indoctrination and get somebody to see what is going on as the New Testament unfolds.


“But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. “ (Acts 2:16-21)

"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)

 

[Dan_473]

No, I don't mean that. I mean this:
Letter: "Thou shalt not murder."
Spirit: "Do not hate your brother in your heart."

Letter: "Do not commit adultery."
Spirit: "Do not look at a woman in lust for her."

Letter: "Do not eat pork."
Spirit: "Take care of your temple."

By keeping to the Spirit of the law, you will, automatically, keep the letter of the law. Or else, you're not keeping the law at all. As for loving God, Jesus was quoting Moses (Deut 5:6 & Lev 19:18). You can use that as an example as well.

Letter: "Regard all the law and the prophets."
Spirit: "Love God and love your neighbor."

Well, I guess we would disagree that keeping the spirit of the law means you automatically keep the letter of the law.

I'm not sure if the spirit of the law about eating pigs is to take care of your temple, as in to be physically healthy. The spirit of the law may be to be separate from the ravenous, greedy people around you. A reasonable amount of pork probably won't hurt you, but a large amount of milk, especially if you are lactose intolerant as much of the world is, probably will hurt you.

I've mentioned marrying your dead brother's widow. I think part of the reason for that his to take care people who need help, as a widow would need in ancient Israel. But a single adult woman in the USA might not be helpless, in many cases she might be able to earn more money than the average man.

 

[PS]

It may not be all inclusive in detail, yet Moses said what he gave is the standard of morality and that it is objective, not subjective.



If Jesus is the Word of God (law and the testimony) manifested in the flesh, and the Word of God is the standard of morality, then to be freed unto Jesus/Word of God is to be freed from the bondage of evil, regardless.

God would never have given Moses those commandments. He is lying. The pre-incarnet Jesus would never have commanded stoning people to death.

 

[SimpleGardner]

It would make sense to do a clarification. But if I said they did not reject first advent, people would criticize saying Israel rejected when He went to the cross. In a way that assertion would be correct and most Christians think Israel was toast as soon as Jesus was crucified so trying to add that detail would just muddy the waters. I prefer to try and move the ball downfield and jump to the book of Acts. It`s all an effort to break through the cloud of indoctrination and get somebody to see what is going on as the New Testament unfolds.


“But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. “ (Acts 2:16-21)

"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)

I like to remain clear on the details concerning where Israel was when Yahshua walked the earth. They were scattered and only a remnant of Judah and Benjamin were in Palestine. So to say "Israel" rejected Him is to call Judah and Benjamin Israel and they were not referred to as Israel. Don't want to confuse anything, just clarify.

SG

 

[Dan_473]

Ok. I follow the law as you well know. I study the "law" because I like the first 5 books of the Bible, alot.

I also know I am not "bound" to or "by" those laws, except the ones Jesus repeated and made clear and found in the New Test, I would love to be able to say it is all out of the spirit of love, but I have some really strong flesh and periodically, really need to pray, but for the most don't have to think about them.

Also, we are told not to judge. and again not to in food or drink or Sabbath Day?? so I try not to.

But, the food laws you mentioned pork, for all that I learned of them, I do follow them. I do not know how "Kosher" I am but I do not eat any animals that were created to clean the earth. No pork, shellfish, catfish, no scavengers of any kind. Thank God for Oscar Meyer turkey bacon.

I do not believe it is a sin against God just your own body, though

I do not believe that when Jesus died on the cross that either "our bodies" or the "scavengers bodies" changed.

I understand, God let down the sheet 3 times with the "bad foods" but 1. He never ate and 2. it was about the gentiles coming to the door anyhow.

God created "meats" for us to eat He called them clean.
God created "meats" to clean the earth He called them unclean
clean, for us, to be received by us to eat.
un clean, not for us, not to be received.

so that when you read this, you read it as ok or not , I am just a not.

1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving:
1 Timothy 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

But here is what I think. God created the earth, the animals, our flesh. He created animals that are healthy to eat and animals that are not healthy for us to eat. For me, this is such an easy way to just do it the way He created it to be done that maybe just maybe it might cover an area that doesn't come so natural for me.

Now i am thinking, I have said this before to you specifically. If so, this part was not meant for you.

But this part is, what are some of your experiences?

I'm wondering about the idea of not eating scavenger animals based on the dietary laws. I believe chickens are a clean food, but I think they are scavengers, too. So what's happening?

"Chickens left to their own devices will just as happily nibble on grasses , weeds , herbs , flowers , grains, seeds, nuts, veggies, berries and fruit as they will gobble up all the bugs and insects, larvae, spiders, worms, grubs, and even small rodents, birds, snakes, lizards and frogs they can catch.
It's important to note that chickens will eat both "live" and dead meat. While some carnivores only eat fresh meat that they kill, and some like vultures, hyenas, and other scavengers mainly eat carrion, chickens will eat both."

https://www.fresheggsdaily.com/2017/11/chickens-are-omnivores-not-vegetarians.html?m=1


So for my own experiences, I used to eat mostly vegetarian. That was partly because if you don't cook meat, keeping the kitchen clean is a lot easier. but also I didn't like the general way that animals were treated in the meat industry.

But then about 8 years ago, I developed some kind of digestion issue. Many kinds of foods brought on tummy aches. One of the few foods that didn't cause any problems was beef.

Out of respect for the cow, which in part I see in the commandment about not muzzling an ox while it is to threshing, I often eat the fat along with the rest of the meat. I think that's probably contrary to the dietary laws, which talk about not eating the fatty portions.

But if I don't eat a good bit of the fat, it's hard to get enough calories throughout the day eating just the lean meat.

Did you want more details?

 

[Grandpa]

I had an argument on my mind regarding the law of Moses, so I was merely "googling" the term "law of Moses discussion" and went through a couple of websites and landed here. Registered, and then started commenting.

May I ask why you perceive an argument from premises a lecture of sorts?

Like so many "teachers" of the law before you there are so many errors in your original premise it is hard to know where to start in explaining how badly

Difference is Elijah knew what he was doing. The failure was on the part of Israel as I have said in other posts.

Jesus didn`t fail, Israel did.

You weren`t mean at all just ignorant. Jesus won`t come back until Israel is ready for Him.

I know I wasn't mean. But I was about to be.

And I stopped. Because I know that you and DeighAnn don't comprehend what you are saying.


In a way you are kind of correct. No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws them.

But in a way you are totally wrong. Israel has been ready for Christ for thousands and thousands of years.


Its funny that you use the word ignorant. Either you haven't looked in a mirror or you don't know what that word means...

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I like to remain clear on the details concerning where Israel was when Yahshua walked the earth. They were scattered and only a remnant of Judah and Benjamin were in Palestine. So to say "Israel" rejected Him is to call Judah and Benjamin Israel and they were not referred to as Israel. Don't want to confuse anything, just clarify.

Do you have any suggestions as to why Acts 3 says the following? [see also Acts 2:36,22,10,14; 3:17,19; 4:10-11, etc] :

12 But having seen it, Peter answered to the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this? Or why do you look intently on us as if by our own power or godliness we have made him to walk?

13 The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, whom indeed you betrayed and disowned in the presence of Pilate, that one having adjudged to release Him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One and requested a murderer to be granted to you. 15 And you killed the Author of life, whom God has raised up out from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.

[etc]

 

[NayborBear]

Ten on the heart, the lamb slaughtering is finished.

Technically? "Lamb slaughtering", changed from "outward sacrificing's", to "spiritual sacrifices." That is, if your "stones" be lively.
1 Peter 2
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

 

[RickStudies]

Do you have any suggestions as to why Acts 3 says the following? [see also Acts 2:36,22,10,14; 3:17,19; 4:10-11, etc] :

12 But having seen it, Peter answered to the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this? Or why do you look intently on us as if by our own power or godliness we have made him to walk?

13 The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, whom indeed you betrayed and disowned in the presence of Pilate, that one having adjudged to release Him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One and requested a murderer to be granted to you. 15 And you killed the Author of life, whom God has raised up out from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.

[etc]

The religeous leaders were the ones rejecting at that point, not the general population of Israel which recognized Jesus as being a Prophet and some as Messiah. You can see it either way which is why I say it would muddy the water.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I like to remain clear on the details concerning where Israel was when Yahshua walked the earth. They were scattered and only a remnant of Judah and Benjamin were in Palestine. So to say "Israel" rejected Him is to call Judah and Benjamin Israel and they were not referred to as Israel. Don't want to confuse anything, just clarify.

SG

There was remnant from all tribes in Israel or what they called Judah, when they returned from Babylon, representatives from all 12 tribes where in attendance, althought it kep yhe name judah from when the two kingdoms split,

Just saying

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The religeous leaders were the ones rejecting at that point, not the general population of Israel which recognized Jesus as being a Prophet and some as Messiah. You can see it either way which is why I say it would muddy the water.

The general population, at the egging on by the teligious leaders screamed crucify Christ,

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It may not be all inclusive in detail, yet Moses said what he gave is the standard of morality and that it is objective, not subjective.



If Jesus is the Word of God (law and the testimony) manifested in the flesh, and the Word of God is the standard of morality, then to be freed unto Jesus/Word of God is to be freed from the bondage of evil, regardless.

I think people frget, people were moral before the law was given, there had to have been a source for that morality, the law never made people. Ore moral. But it did stop people from excusing their sin or making an excuse about not needed Gods provision for sin

 

[page-1]

Like so many "teachers" of the law before you there are so many errors in your original premise it is hard to know where to start in explaining how badly

1. First and foremost, appeal the stone fallacy, or you're just lazy.
2. My "original premise" is known as the moral argument from William Lane Craig in arguing for the existence of God. Are you an atheist?
3. Let's grant I am a teacher of the law. And seeing that the law, or standard, being spoken of here is God's; according to what standard do you conclude that God's standard of morality is erroneous?

 

[page-1]

I think people frget, people were moral before the law was given, there had to have been a source for that morality, the law never made people. Ore moral. But it did stop people from excusing their sin or making an excuse about not needed Gods provision for sin

I don't understand? Are you proposing that morality - as defined by the law - only come to be once the law was given?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

1. First and foremost, appeal the stone fallacy, or you're just lazy.
2. My "original premise" is known as the moral argument from William Lane Craig in arguing for the existence of God. Are you an atheist?
3. Let's grant I am a teacher of the law. And seeing that the law, or standard, being spoken of here is God's; according to what standard do you conclude that God's standard of morality is erroneous?

Gods standard of morality is this

Do you love god with all your heart mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself

If at any moment in your life, the answer in your thinking is no, you are in danger of sin, even to the point of knowing to do something god wants, but refusing to do it, because you are putting your own needs above others, and refusing to trust god to supply all your needs,

The law is a good starting point, but one can obey the law, yet still be a sinner,

 

[page-1]

God would never have given Moses those commandments. He is lying. The pre-incarnet Jesus would never have commanded stoning people to death.

The "pre-incarnet" Jesus is the Word of God Moses was teaching the people, which he received from Jehovah. Jehovah would have explicitly told Israel all Moses told them, but they were too scared.

 

[Grandpa]

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?

Yes.

You don't think there are some truths mixed in with the lies?

Satan doesn't get EVERYTHING wrong. Just a few KEY points... To lead some astray.