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

Yeah? Playing chess with "pigeons" is like that!
I just can't allow for 'em to keep knocking over the pieces and crappin' all over the board, as they "strut around" thinking, and proclaiming to everyone that they've won!

Not on my watch, anyways!

Acts 15
2 Cor 3
Rom 7:1-6
Hen 7,8
Gal 3,4
Eph 2:13-15
Col 2:16-17
Hen 10:1-4

All prove the Mosaic Law is completed in Christ. The Temple and Levitical priesthood are destroyed. The Mosaic Law cannot function without them.

Read Galatians and understand. Those trying to live by the Mosaic Covenant are like babies walking straddle legged with full diapers still sucking on spiritual milk.

1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh,
arm yourselves likewise with the same mind

for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men,

but to the will of God

for the time past of our life may suffice to have wroght the will of the Gentiles when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries.

Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you

Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead

For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Use hospitality on to another without grudging

As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.


17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God and if it first begin at us, What shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God??? (if it is all set, why is this question asked)

And if the righteous scarcely by saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? (another question that is asked, why??? because all is not set except for those who continue in the way of the Lord??)

Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to Him (how are we to know how???) in well doing as unto a faithful Creator (do you think we must remain faithful ourselves, I say yes. I also say we must remain righteous and if we don't remain righteous by willingly sinning, that God will not be mocked)

I have nothing but respect for you and the wisdom and knowledge you bring to this discussion in every post I read of yours. You are, in my humble opinion fighting the good fight and I thank you.

...especially because this passage says, "...which ARE [present indicative; plural] A SHADOW [singular] of the things COMING [plural (certain to come, because PROPHESIED to do so)]"

...but they are not for US to "observe" (meaning, "us/'the Church which is His body'")

Much obliged ma'am! Much obliged!
Anything I can do for you? Consider it yours!
Up to a point, that is.

There is no hearing or seeing the truth right before them.
There is no Mosaic law to live under or by or on top of or around or through or beside or anything a plane can do to a cloud. It expired. (it was set to expire at John the Baptist and it did) It was a shadow of what was to come and what was to come JESUS, did. It was a schoolmaster to teach us obedience, hopefully it did. It was the 1st that had to die to make way for the NEW COVENANT.

If someone wanted to with all their heart and soul, it would be like trying to live in a house that was burnt to the ground and is now just ash. It would be like trying to live in a house that was washed out to the ocean and broken up into little parts. I would be like trying to live in a house that was ripped to shreads by a tornado. It can't be done. It has been replaced. It is now something else.

And yes, anyone who "pretends" that you can or "pretends" that you can make someone has less knowledge than a baby sucking on a bottle of milk.

Making my way back through this thread (and I may have covered this ^ subject with you before, I cannot recall, as a few Members kinda look alike ... so forgive me if I have)

… I believe "sons of God" (both here and in Job 1) are referring to "humans [/men]"... and also same in Gen6.
In the Job 38 passage, I don't believe the "humans/men" being spoken of there, were literally present then and there, but this would pertain to the distinctions (elsewhere) in the phrases "BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world" and "FROM [apo] the foundation of the world" (which, as I mentioned, refer to distinct things, distinct persons, where found).

And yes, I believe (after having studied it at length) that the Job 1 setting was "on the earth" (not "up in Heaven"); and that there are THREE (main) options as to what people typically say this phrase pertains to: 1) "angels," or 2) "men/humans," or 3) "kings/rulers" [<--or something like that] (the latter TWO options cover the "men/humans" option, of course).

Do you think they "hated" Gods laws to?

I believe in the 1st earth age, with all the sons of God and when Satan went from protecting to being found in iniquity.

^ Where do you believe that falls within the Genesis 1 chapter (if you do)?

Do you believe there were humans before [the creation of] Adam? (I forget your viewpoint, sorry)

Never said any different. I like this translation
For if we are willfully sinning after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice concerning sins,
(Heb 10:26 LITV)

Not necessarily. Context and the verb being used dictates this continuous action in which you speak. Grammatically speaking V-PAP-GPM simply means something that is in a state of happening. The action can cease and never continue again. Acts 1:9 for example.

And saying these things, as they looked on, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him from their sight.
(Act 1:9 LITV)

And Mat 17:9
And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.
(Mat 17:9 LITV)

Here is an example that contrasts both schools of thought within the same context.
But concerning the dead, that they are raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, as God spoke to him at the Bush, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but God of the living. Therefore, you greatly err. And coming up, one of the scribes, hearing them arguing, knowing that He answered them well, he questioned Him, What is the first commandment of all?
(Mar 12:27-28 LITV)

The looking in Acts, the coming down in Matt, and arguing in Mark all ceased but the living in which Christ spoke is ongoing.

In verse 26 the writer includes himself in the start of this admonition by his use through the Holy Spirit of the pronoun "we". A better translation however might be "of us" since it is the genitive case. So Regardless what you or I think the writer definitely thought he and those to whom he was writing to in Hebrews could lose their salvation if they was willfully sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth.

For if WE sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

The text says in verse 29 in the KJV "he was sanctified". Sanctified is in the aorist tense 3 person singular. Which means "he was sanctified" is correct.
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite (insult) unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Heb 10:26-31 KJV)


So we see that he (the willful sinner) was sanctified (made holy); purged. And they have done despite unto the Spirit of Grace . And once again it would fail us if we we did not note that the writer in verse 26 includes himself in the start of this admonition by his use of the pronoun "we".

Let's take a look at how the writer of Hebrews was using
G37 ἁγιάζω hagiazo (ha-ǰiy-a'-zō) v.
1. to make holy, to set apart unto God and apart (alienate) from the world.
2. (ceremonially) to cleanse.
3. (mentally) to reverence.
[from G40]
KJV: hallow, be holy, sanctify

So with that basic understanding from Mickelson's Strong enhanced we see that for something to be set apart it has to be made holy.
Prior to the writer's usage of hagiszo in verse 10:27 he sets the context to which he is speaking of in 9:13,14. Let's take a look.

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

The blood of bulls and goats Sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh. Made holy on the outside: the flesh. Let's continue.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience (who we are; the inner man) from dead works (sin; acts that cause death) to serve the living God?



Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.



Not according to 10:38
(Heb 10:38 NET) But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.

Shrinks back (draws back) is in the third person singular. Which dictates that the "he" mentioned in relation to the shrinking back is the "the righteous one" (just) mentioned in the previous clause.
Incidentally how does one shrink back from being something unless they are the something to begin with.

The Purpose is to show the extreme error of the Judaizer and legalist.

Apparently the legalist is mixed up in their head if they think the 10 commandments AREN'T part of the law of Moses.


So, while the legalist may SAY things like "Moses law has ended" if they then turn around and contradict themselves by saying Christians must obey some carnal law back in the OT then they are obviously mixed up in their head.

The legalist is mixed up if they think that the New Covenant is followed in the same way as the Old.


Galatians 3:2-3
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?


These verses apply to all the things YOU think are laws. New Covenant "laws", Old Covenant Laws, Imaginary Laws, Real Laws, All of them.

Did you receive the Spirit by your works of the law or by the hearing of faith?
Having begun in the Spirit are you perfected by your work at (whichever) law?

Probably they just didn't understand what Righteousness REALLY is.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

I will tell you my purpose.

you told me a few days ago I was missing what you are saying. but, I am not.

you are pushing the judeaizer lie that the Law is divided into parts, with the sacrifices and ceremonial laws being fulfilled and the commands are still binding in the New Covenant.

except, it's not. as I already pointed out to you, Leviticus 26 makes it crystal clear that there is one Covenant.

and, in the N.T., the greek word for Law is singular, not plural, it can be, but is a minor meaning, but it is heavy singular word.

now, the other nine were all repeated in the New Testament documents, with the exception being the Sabbath.

the Sabbath is not a command for gentile Christ followers, and gentiles were never under the Law.

I just read to day in Acts when Jesus was speaking about Paul after Paul's conversion about him " taking His ( Jesus ) name to the gentiles", not the Law to the gentiles.

and again, when Christ was transfigured , the Father ( the truth of Trinity ) put Christ's words He spoke on earth separate from the Law and the Prophets . ( which was what Jews in Jesus's time called what we call the Old testament, which the romans called the jewish writings when they attached them to what we call the New Testament.).

so, my purpose is to stand up to judeaizer lies, which i just did here.

I feel sorrow for anyone taking that chance.

What is righteousness to you? Not how it is given or who it is given by but WHAT it is.

As for the word "sanctified" in Hebrews... Do you believe that the word "sanctified" in 1 Corinthians 7:14 means the unbelieving spouse was "saved" by virtue of the other [saved] spouse??

Consider the following:

[quoting William Kelly on 1 Corinthians 7:14 "the unbelieving husband is sanctified [perfect tense] by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified [perfect tense] by the husband"]

"The apostle means a sanctified, or holy, state, actually and always true of the husband and children of a believing wife, not of what generally becomes true. Not a hint is dropped in this verse of being converted or brought to baptism.
[...]
"It remains clear then that the unbelieving husband is sanctified in virtue of the christian wife, and the children holy, to the relief of those that were troubled by scruples from God's judgment of such a state of things among the Jews. God's grace in the gospel reverses the sentence of the law, to the pure making pure what had hitherto been unclean. Otherwise it might have seemed the duty of the believing husband to have put away his unbelieving wife and their children, as Gentile admixture was abhorrent to the law. Hence the apostle keeps up the language of the Jewish ceremonial, even where he determines the question by God's gracious and holy sanction of such marriages and their offspring, in contrast with the obligation of the Jews as shown in Ezra and Nehemiah."

[he also explains the concept of "[sanctify] by the washing of water by [/en/in] the Word" (Eph5:26) with regard to this ^]


[also, prior to the above-quoted portion, Kelly wrote...]

"What a relief this must have been to godly but scrupulous souls, who had been brought to God by the gospel, after being married to Gentiles or Jews, with children brought up in Judaism or idolatry! Were they troubled when they read in the scriptures that of old the requirement was to abandon the ill-assorted wife and the children so born? The grace of the gospel, as the apostle shows, delivers from all uncertainty as to God's mind, and pronounces the unbeliever, whether husband or wife, to be sanctified in the believing correlative, and the children holy, not profane.

"We have seen then the striking contrast between the gracious power of the gospel and the weakness of the law: under the one, the unbeliever sanctified in the believing relation and the fruit of their union holy; under the other, the Jew defiled and the children unclean."

[end quoting; underlined mine; source: BibleHub under Commentary]



It doesn't mean the unbelieving one is SAVED.