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

Whatever, there is no need to continue, I gave you gods definition of marriage, That defenition accoridn gto paul still stands, it has never wavered.

3 woman and one man can not become one unit. Only one man and one woman can become 1. United in harmony, the man and the wife.

You want to excuse sin, feel free.

But that is the problem with so many these days, They do not see sin for sin.

You explained God's design for marriage, which I agree with, but you disregarded the scriptures where God allowed the heroes of our faith to have multiple wives, and even tells David that He gave him His wives, and would have given him more if it hadn't been enough - but He sends Nathan to rebuke David for committing adultery with only one woman, Bathsheba, whom David stole from another man, Uriah the Hittite. So from this, one can clearly deduce God has a different perspective on having multiple wives (maybe not according to His design, but not necessarily a sin), and committing adultery (clearly a sin).

I largely agree with this, although the scriptural definition is "one flesh", not "one unit". And to a degree, a man can become "one flesh" with multiple women, but certainly I don't think the harmony will be there. One only needs to examine David's life and family to see this, although I do also believe this was part of the curse for his adultery with Bathsheba.

eternally-gratefull said:

You want to excuse sin, feel free.

Click to expand...

I don't want to excuse sin. But I think it is unhelpful to label as sin that which is not. Slavery might be a similar example. I don't think slavery is necessary sinful. It's not as per God's original design, but I don't believe it is necessarily sin, and the longer life goes on, the more the average worker becomes more of a slave.

This is not about who a christian should marry, It was an example. Call it a parable if you will. Does not your church use things like this to try to bring home a point?

And Hebrews does not contradict the OT. The law says any sin, no matter how small, makes you guilty.

Adultry is not a means to eternal damnation. Unbelief is. It would help you people greatly if you understood this basic fact. A person who commits adultry is just as guilty as the person who knew he needed to do something, yet did not do it, Both are in sin. And both are guilty of the law.

King david had how many wives? Thats adultry on a massive scale. Is he in hell because he continued in sin?

Your understanding of grace is lacking. Instead of judging others, you need to get on your knees and judge yourself. The adulterer should be counseled by his church, and if he does not listen or repent, And all things are performed according to scripture. He should be shown the door and asked not to come back until he repents.

But to judge his or her salvation. Your not God. Niether am I, I would leave those things up to God![/QUOTE]

It is also by KNOWLEDGE of the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom that we arrive at truth. Many claim to have faith enough, but know little to nothing of the Kingdom. Lacking knowledge of the Way can't possibly help know what works are useful. What you teach is like inducting a soldier into the army who has not been trained before being assigned to a project. "Ah, you say, but he had faith he could serve properly." No. No. No. One must acquire applicable knowledge to be able to serve in harmony with fellows. So it is with fellow Christians. I have no use for anyone standing upon "faith" alone. They are usually useless towards any common goal.

[/QUOTE]

I somehow sent an empty reply.

If you are anointed with so much knowledge of scripture you can teach it by new parables, then you ought to be authoring best-selling books. I believe Jesus supplied sufficient parables for the dull of hearing. So how about just sticking to scriptures?

Adultery is a deliberate sin, per the Law of Moses. It doesn't "just happen". Knowing you needed to do something but didn't do it could be as light as failing to mow the lawn before a forecast of a week of rain. You might equate that situation to having an affair with a neighbor's spouse the last ten years. I wouldn't.

As for that last line of yours, the judgment of Paul was to turn the adulterer over to Satan for destruction of his flesh, that maybe his soul be saved. The Church was forbideen from even eating a meal in his presence.

Nowadays such sinners's contributions and presence are accepted, their sins "ignored" in lieu, like RCC penance fees.

The fact that the Law of Moses set out bounds for treatment of slaves (and foreign visitors) ought to indicate God knew about slavery, and its miseries. There will always be slaves among people not willing to produce energy of work by choice, choosing to have energy of work by force. All that has to do with the New Testamant principle of
2 Thessalonians 3:7-15 (KJV)
7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

The law is and have always been the ten commandments. The food laws etc are missunderstandings.

Here is what barnabus wrote about the so called foodlaws in The Epstile of Barnabus.


CHAPTER IX.

1 That the commands of Moses concerning
clean and unclean beasts, were all de-
signed for a spiritual signification.
BUT why did Moses say Ye shall not
eat of the swine, neither the eagle
nor the hawk; nor the crow; nor any
fish that has not a scale upon him? —
I answer that, in the spiritual sense,
he comprehended three doctrines,
that were to be gathered from
thence.

2 Besides which he says to them in
the book of Deuteronomy, And I
will give my statutes unto this
people. Wherefore it is not the com-
mand of God that they should not
eat these things; but Moses in the
spirit spake unto them.

3 Now the sow he forbad them to
eat; meaning thus much: Thou shalt
not join thyself to such persons as
are like unto swine, who, whilst they
live in pleasure, forget their God;
but when any want pinches them,
then they know the Lord: as the sow
when she is full knows not her mas-
ter, but when she is hungry she
makes a noise; and being again fed,
is silent.

4 Neither, says he, shalt thou eat
the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the kite,
nor the crow; that is, thou shalt not
keep company with such kind of
men as know not how by their labour
and sweat to get themselves food;
but injuriously ravish away the things
of others, and watch how to lay
snares for them; when at the same
time they appear to live in perfect
innocence.

5 So these birds alone (seek not
food for themselves,) but sitting idle,
seek how they may eat of the flesh
others have provided being destruct-
ive through their wickedness.

6 Neither, says he, shalt thou eat
the lamprey, nor the polypus, nor the
cuttle-fish; that is thou shalt not be
like such men, by seeking to con-
verse with them who are altogether
wicked and adjudged to death. For so
those fishes are alone accursed, that
wallow in the mire, nor swim as oth-
er fishes, but tumble in the dirt at
the bottom of the deep.

7 But, he adds, neither shalt thou
eat of the hare. To what end? — To
signify this to us; Thou shalt not be
an adulterer, nor liken thyself to
such persons. For the hare every year
multiplies the places of its concep-
tion; and as many years as it lives, so
many it has.

8 Neither shalt thou eat of the hy-
ena: that is, again, be not an adulter-
er, nor a corrupter of others; neither
be like to such. And wherefore so? —
Because that creature every year
changes its kind, which is sometimes
male and sometimes female.

9 For which cause also he justly
hated the weazel; to the end that
they should not be like such persons
who with their mouths commit
wickedness by reason of their un-
cleanness; nor join themselves with
those impure women, who with their
mouths commit wickedness. Because
that animal conceives with its mouth.

10 Moses, therefore, speaking as
concerning meats, delivered indeed
three great precepts to them in the
spiritual signification of those com-
mands. But they according to the de-
sires of the flesh, understood him as
if he had only meant it of meats.

11 And therefore David took aright
the knowledge of his three-fold
command, saying in like manner:

12 Blessed is the man that hath not
walked in the counsel of the un-
godly; as the fishes before men-
tioned in the bottom of the deep, in
darkness.

13 Nor stood in the way of sinners,
as they who seem to fear the Lord,
but yet sin, as the sow.

14 And hath not sat in the seat of
the scorners; as those birds who sit
and watch that they may devour.

15 Here you have the law concern-
ing meat perfectly set forth and ac-
cording to the true knowledge of it.

16 But, says Moses, ye shall eat all
that divideth the hoof, and cheweth
the cud. Signifying thereby such an
one as having taken his food, knows
him that nourisheth him; and resting
upon him, rejoiceth in him.

17 And in this he spake well, having
respect to the commandment. What,
therefore, is it that he says? — That
we should hold fast to them that fear
the Lord; with those who meditate
on the command of the word which
they have received, in their heart;
with those that declare the righteous
judgments of the Lord, and keep his
commandments;

18 In short, with those who know
that to meditate is a work of pleas-
ure, and therefore exercise them-
selves in the word of the Lord.

19 But why might they eat those
that clave the hoof? Because the
righteous liveth in this present
world; but his expectation is fixed
upon the other. See, brethren, how
admirably Moses commanded these
things.

20 But how should we thus know all
this, and understand it? We, there-
fore, understanding aright the com-
mandments, speak as the Lord would
have us. Wherefore he has circum-
cised our ears and our hearts, that
we might know these things.

Paul also said to keep the law.
Rom 3.31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom 7.7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Both Jesus and Paul taught that the Ten commandments should be obeyed.

I agree. But slavery was permitted, as was having multiple wives. But adultery was not and murder was not. So it's inaccurate (and wrong) to equate having multiple wives with the sin of adultery, just as it is inaccurate to equate slavery with murder. I think both polygamy and slavery are unhealthy, but I don't believe they are necessarily sins, and certainly not to the extent of the sins of adultery and murder.

Do you keep the whole Law (all 613 Mitzvot)?

Here is what Jesus had to say about the old covenant.

Luke 5:27-39 (KJV)
27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.
28 And he left all, rose up, and followed him.
29 And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.
30 But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
33 And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?
34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?
35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.
36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

The "righteous" Jesus referred to were the self-righteous who adhered to the Law, the men who murmured against Jesus and His disciples. He then referred to the "righteous" versus the sinner class. Jesus came for the sinners, not the religious. The disciples of Christ enjoyed feast, not fast. The fasting for them would come when Jesus departed, until He returned. Then Jesus related a very commonly understood parable. Patching an old garment requires using a piece of similar old garment that has shrunk and faded to match the old. That was evident for me growing up having to patch holes in jeans long before the holes became popular. We had to buy old jean patches that were ironed on. If you did it right, you could extend a pair of jeans another year as long as you didn't wash and dry it hot.

If you have no idea how wine is made, then the last part is dead to you. "Young" wine bubbles and burps while fermenting. You have to "burp" the bottles to let off gas pressure. But in Jesus' day they had to use wine skins, hides, which if formerly used to store aged wine, lost the collagen necessary to use it to store new wine being processed into old wine, the preferred state. It was wise only to use new wine skin "bottles" to handle new wine on its way to becoming "old wine".

Jesus recognized that the men who complained were accustomed to the old wine in old skins, who were not at all interested in anything new concerning wine. They simply liked the old, no matter how old. Yet, it was and still is a fact that to have the taste of old wine once must allow new wine to be processed.

The whole of His comments was about the new covenant, which could not be added to the old. The new is not compatible.

So if you have returned to the old covenant in any measure, you are out of sync with Jesus the Christ, who delivered a new covenant better than the old, which will never mesh with the old covenant.

I have a few treasured old wool Pendleton jackets I wish could find same aged pieces to somehow patch. I am consistently told there is no hope to repair them without the marks of a mismatch. I would have to have purchased a "sacrificial" jacket or other garment or blanket of equal age and exposure to the elements. The next step will be to donate them so maybe someone down the way can patch theirs. I wear the newer now. It's the same for Christ, having no need for the Mosaic, though of course I respect the old covenant.

Beware the Judaizers here, for they are many. Stick to the teachings of Jesus and His disciples, or return to the curses of the Law, for you will never satisfy that covenant. It resulted in multiple carryings into slavery, and at the least a life of fear.

If you are not currently or previously a Jew, then you are of the Gentile group that wasn't ever counted under the Mosaic Covenant, but were counted under the covenant God made with Noah after the great flood. The Gentile population then fell heir to the Abrahamic covenant, which was 430 years before the Mosaic commandments. The New Covenant in Jesus relates directly to the Abrahamic Covenant of faith, which bridges over the Hebrew situation directly to the New Covenant in Christ Jesus. You may safely disregard the Mosaic Covenant which was devised to deal with the Hebrews escaping Egyptian slavery, who were directed by God to occupy Gentile territories. Gentiles were the enslavers. They (and us) were the "sinners" left out of the Hebrew religion.

Jesus first offered His solution to the Hebrew nation (we call "Jews"). The nation Israel rejected Jesus' offer, choosing a criminal named Barabus in the stead of their long awaited Messiah, the Savior of Israel. After He died on the cross, then defeated death by arising, He then opened up the Kingdom of God based on faith like that of Abraham, the grace of God the Father having made it all possible. The Jews were never heirs of the grace of God. They had to obey the Law of Moses, which had no grace from God applied. They only had a measure of mercy for dealing with their many sins. So it is that anyone yielding to the Judaizers, who try to take people back Pre-Jesus, even to requiring male cicumcision, is doomed to the same fate of ancient Israel.

BEWARE THE JUDAIZERS HERE. They seek to damn your souls, seeing that none can fully comply with their demands to obey the Law of Moses. Jesus did that for us, both Jews and Gentiles alike.

What the Apostles taught, obey, as the things Jesus taught the Jews of His time were required to not oppose the Mosaic until He died. The gospel of Christ didn't oppose the Mosaic. His gospel trumped the Mosaic, proving His way to be better, even superior, to the old ways. His better healed people of diseases of every known class, while the people He healed and freed were counted as the cursed under the Law.

Choose you this day whom you shall serve. The old failed way, or the new with eternal hope of salvation.

Teaching otherwise, while the gospel of the New Covenant in Christ Jesus has been plainly laid out in the scriptures, is an issue of idiocrasy. It's ignorance to simply believe 1+1=3. It's idiocrasy to devote to that or 2+2=6, and the like, while peers caution you.

Although, I partially agree with your assessment concerning David & Bathsheba. You are overlooking a "major" act that David did. And, in my eyes, the actual reason FOR "the curse!" In the attempted cover up of the actual crime! A crime that may have eluded the "eyes of men!" But, didn't escape God's eyes! That crime being the abuse of David's authority, in the sending Uriah to the front lines! As Uriah, of all men? KNEW that baby WASN'T HIS! And, was probably dead, long before he ever heard that his wife was with child!

I never stated otherwise.

James 4:17
Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Your argument is with James, not me. Take it up with him, And your example is lacking, it shows you do not understand.

1. Our church does this form of discipline, I never denied it
2. You missed the whole point of my post which states a fact, that your sin is no better than that adult sin from the eternal perspective, You both would suffer eternal damnation based on your sins.
3. It was not just an adulterer. He was sleeping with his fathers wife. And as he said, a sin so grievous it even offended the pagan, And to continue to allow him to enjoy fellowship with the body is not good tstimony to the pagan, And not use-full to the sinner (who is not held to conviction, but allowed to continue) and remember, this man DID repent, and in chapter 2 he was a part of the church again. So discipline works.

Judaism including Jewish Law ended as God intended with the resurrection of Christ who became our new High Priest. Most Jews came to the full realisation of this in AD70 when not only the Temple was totally destroyed by fire and man, but the whole city as well. Roman soldiers stole the Temples gold and other treasures and they killed most of Jerusalem’s inhabitants. Only a few escaped with their life. Why people would strive to keep what God destroyed, so leading to their own destruction by dint of hard work in attempting to obey hundreds of laws that cannot save, only Christ can do this, is beyond my comprehension.

First, the epistle of Barnabas is NOT Scripture. While such pseudepigraphical books may be helpful for general context, they are not to be considered for doctrinal reliability.

Second, the passage you quoted has some distinctly counterfactual (scientifically incorrect) statements, and is therefore unreliable anyway.

Third, your position on the nature of the Law is unbiblical. Circumcision is not part of the Ten Commandments, yet that is the issue that Paul addressed in Acts 15 and Galatians. The food laws are those about which Paul confronted Peter. Both Paul and James indicate that the Law is a unit; you break one commandment, you have broken the entire Law, and if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, you are obligated to obey the whole Law.

Welcome to Christian Chat, David, and thanks for your useful input. I perfectly agree that faith without actions is no real faith at all.

I also agree that all Scripture is God-breathed and therefore faultless. Many Christians, however, have doubts about the authority of Paul and tend to disregard his teachings whenever they differ from those of Jesus.

Most Christian denominations (mine included) teach that Jesus and Paul preached the exact same thing, but obviously they did not. See pastor David (your namesake) in the video below:

1. It was Biblical for more that 200 years, then it was remowed by men. Do you belive the book of Enoch? Enoch is quoted alot of times in the bible? And the apocrypha books are those also without inspiration?

2. What distinctly counterfactual (scientifically incorrect) statements are you thinking about?

3. I dident say anything about Circumcision. But i agree with you that the circumcision aint part of the ten commandments. The circumcision is the circumcision of the heart not the forskin.