Jesus did not do away with the law in Mat 5:17

[Chaleb]

While you may, understandably, think that all things are accomplished only upon Jesus's return, Jesus himself appears to believe that at least something has been accomplished, that is finished, on the cross.

Yet, exactly.


= Had Jesus not dealt with the Law for us, then we would still be under it.

Hallelujah we are free.

"Christ is the END of the LAW for righteousness, to every one who believes" (Born again)

"Christ came to redeem the born again , from the CURSE OF THE LAW"

"The LAw is the power of SIN... The Power of SIN is THE LAW"

The Born again are "NOT UNDER THE LAW..........but , Under Grace".

The Law demands righteousness and we can't provide it as "all have sinned"......So, God on the Cross dies to provide it for us :

"The GIFT of Righteousness".

"The GIFT of Salvation".

 

[Lulav]

Salvation is Jesus on the Cross.

All the born again exist in the Kingdom of God, were "God is A Spirit".
This is why Paul teaches that the born again are "seated in Heavenly places IN CHRIST">...(where Christ is right now, and God).

= This is heaven.

Do you not understand that there is no Law of Moses in Heaven?
Do you not understand that there is no Law of Moses in Heaven?

Its time you understood it, Soyeong.

The Law of Moses is for sinners, who are directed by the Law to turn to the Cross to find Salvation.,, and ... "the born again are no longer under the law, but Under GRACE".

Paul teaches it this way..

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. =the Law.

And how does Jesus teach it?

Its the devil who wants you under the Law, after Christ has redeemed you from it, because the Law is a curse to you, as its the law that defines you as a SINNER.

Quite the opposite, it is the adversary who before mankind disobeyed God and just like in the Garden wants to teach man to do the same.

There is no where in the bible that teaches that Messiah redeems us from the Law of God/Jesus.

"Christ has redeemed the born again, from the CURSE of the Law".

So, when a person is trying to get Christians back under the law, they are "anti-Cross".

Those who do not want to follow God's Holy Commandments are anti-nomian.

 

[Lulav]

Yet, exactly.


= Had Jesus not dealt with the Law for us, then we would still be under it.

How did he 'deal with the law' for you?

Hallelujah we are free.

Free to sin? Are those laws still valid? Is it OK to murder today? Even secular pagan heathens don't agree with that.

"Christ is the END of the LAW for righteousness, to every one who believes" (Born again)

Messiah is the goal of the Law for righteousness.

"Christ came to redeem the born again , from the CURSE OF THE LAW"

"The LAw is the power of SIN... The Power of SIN is THE LAW"

The Born again are "NOT UNDER THE LAW..........but , Under Grace".

The Law demands righteousness and we can't provide it as "all have sinned"......So, God on the Cross dies to provide it for us :

"The GIFT of Righteousness".

"The GIFT of Salvation".

What's the point of having Salvation? from what if the Law is done?


And Grace is nothing new


"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."

The Lord speaking to Moses - 'You have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found grace in My sight.’

Thus says the Lord: “The people who survived the sword Found grace in the wilderness— Israel, when I went to give him rest.”

 

[Chaleb]

How did he 'deal with the law' for you?

Free to sin? Are those laws still valid?

The way Jesus dealt with the law, is by being virgin born as a man under the law to "fulfill" all "righteousness", as He told John the Baptist.
Ever read that?

So, Christ lived a sinless life, kept the law, commandments, and died for our sin.
By fulfilling the Law for us, in our place, and by living a sinless life, in our place.... God accepted Christ's life, blood, and body, on behalf of all sinners, to justify them based on the Cross., when they Give God their Faith in Christ.

"faith is counted as righteousness"......> The born again are....."justified by Faith", without the deeds of the law or works or water.

Think of the Cross like this, Lulav
Lets say you murdered your mother and are on "death row" for 10 Yrs.
This morning they came to get you and take you to be "put to sleep" to pay for your crime.
One the way there, someone steps in front of the Officers, and says....."ill die in their place, so that they can go free".
And the Offiers and the Warden say...>"Ok".
See that Substitution for your SIN for your DEED, ?
They are paying the price for the crime you committed and You get to go FREE.
See that SACRIFICE they made for you, to save your life?
That is Jesus on the Cross doing that for everyone's SINS by dying for them all.

"God made JESUS to be sin for Us", and "Jesus's paid a one time eternal sacrifice for all sin (The Cross)""


That is what Jesus did for me, and you, Lulav.

Welcome to : SALVATION

Its a "Gift" from God.


And also....You might want to realize that there is Moses Law. There are the 10 Commandments, and there are Jesus's commandments before you send me the next question.

 

[Lulav]

"Christ is the END of the LAW for righteoueness, to/for everyone who Believes."" )= Born again.

telos - translated as 'end' however it is translated in other places as 'goal'

As Paul wrote to Timothy​

​

New International Version​

The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.​

​

New Living Translation​

The purpose of my instruction is that all believers would be filled with love that comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and genuine faith.​

​

English Standard Version​

The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.​

Now restate that

"Messiah is the Purpose of the LAW for righteoueness, to/for everyone who Believes."

Yes, but if Christ is the goal of the Law, this means that Christ is what the Law was aiming at. But, when Christ arrived, the goal was achieved. When the winning goal has been scored, do you keep on playing? Here is the point: when people use this argument - about how Christ is not really the end of the Law - but rather the goal or purpose of it, they remain conspicuously silent on the possibility that it is at least plausible that the achievement of a goal and purpose can also bring something to an end. If I get on a plane with the goal of reaching Paris, do I keep on flying once I get there? Besides, look at chapter 9 - it is a retelling of the story of Israel. And stories involve beginnings and endings. As the obvious continuation of the story we get in chapter 9, the reader has every right to expect that something might come to an end.

Goal and purpose are two different things. I would be apt to agree with your premise if not for some words of the Messiah after death, resurrection and ascension.

3x it is mentioned, thus giving the witness of 3

Revelation 12:17

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which
1 keep the commandments of God, and
2 have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 14:12

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that
1 keep the commandments of God, and
2 the faith of Jesus.

Revelation 22:14

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right
1 to the tree of life, and
2 may enter in through the gates into the city.

Those of us who believe the Law has come to an end can very legitimately argue that we now turn to the indwelling Spirit for moral guidance, not a prescriptive code.

House divided. the HOLY SPIRIT is the SPIRIT OF GOD/MESSIAH they do not conflict, God' laws are Holy and Good.

 

[Chaleb]

Now restate that

"Messiah is the Purpose of the LAW for righteoueness, to/for everyone who Believes."

there is no need to rewrite the verse so that it denies that Jesus ended the Law for Righteousness.

Jesus did what the law and commandments can't do, Lulav.

They can't provide righteousness. All they can do is show you that you dont have any., and that is the "curse of the Law".

Paul said that he would not have known sin, if the LAW had not determined him and YOU to be this..>"all have sinned'.
The Law does that....as that is "the curse of the law" on us.......or the "dominion of the Law".

"Christ came to redeem us from the CURSE of the Law"

The Devil and his cults and his people would have you believe that you are supposed to be worrying about the Law.

Paul told you that the born again are "not UNDER the Law, but Under GRACE".

Law Keeping to try to be accepted by God, is what the Jews do who nailed Jesus to the Tree.

 

[Soyeong]

God did not send Jesus to the Cross so that you can go back to the Old Testament and try to obey Moses Law.

Again, in Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believed in why God sent Jesus to the cross, while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject the cross. Likewise, in Acts 3:25-26, Jesus was sent as the fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness, and the Mosaic Law is how we know what wickedness is.

Christianity is not about Moses Law.

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and Christianity is about following what Christ taught.

MOSES LAW

Do you understand that the "LAW" you are obessing on is MOSES LAW.

THe Born again are not under the "CURSE OF THE LAW".

In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not born again.

The born again are not to OBSESS on the Law.
You Obsess on it, and that is why there is NO CROSS OF CHRIST in your Posts or Threads.

According to Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't uphold the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our attitude towards the Mosaic Law. In Romans 8:4-14, those who are born of the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to obey the Mosaic Law.

The LAW is for the LAWLESS.

Those who try to say that God's law is only for the lawless in order to justify being lawless thereby become someone that it is for.

The Born again are "not under The LAW but UNDER GRACE".

Indeed, those who are born again are not under the law of sin, but are under the law of God. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, so that is what it means to be under grace.

 

[trophy33]

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and Christianity is about following what Christ taught.

No, Christ spent his ministry by warning aginst the coming judgement, healing and teaching about the coming kingdom of God.

Regarding the Mosaic Law, he literally tought some opposite things (like "love your enemy" or "all food is clean") and dismissed some Mosaic rules (like about divorce) as being only from Moses, not from God.

 

[Soyeong]

No, Christ spent his ministry by warning aginst the coming judgement, healing and teaching about the coming kingdom of God.

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walks (1 John 2:6). In Matthew 4:17-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is central to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and this was accompanied by healing, so warning against judgement for disobeying the Mosaic Law, healing, and teaching about the Kingdom of God is not contrary to the fact that he spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example.

Regarding the Mosaic Law, he literally tought some opposite things (like "love your enemy" or "all food is clean") and dismissed some Mosaic rules (like about divorce) as being only from Moses, not from God.

In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the Mosaic Law, so he was obligated to obey it, which includes Deuteronomy 4:2, which forbids adding to or subtracting to the law, so he should not be interpreted as doing that. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so for you to suggest that Jesus did that is to deny that he is our Savior. Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he should not be interpreted as hypocritically preaching something other than what he practiced.

Loving our enemy is in accordance with verses like Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 23;7, Proverbs 24:17-18, and Proverbs 25:21-22.

In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so Mark 7:14-19 should not be interpreted as Jesus turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees for doing.

In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus was asked whether a man was permitted to divorce his wife for any reason. To give some context, Gitten 90a-b interprets Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as saying that a man is permitted to divorce his wife if she ruined his meal or if he found someone prettier than her. So it was divorce over frivolous reasons that Jesus was referring to as not being the case from the beginning.

 

[trophy33]

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walks (1 John 2:6). In Matthew 4:17-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is central to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and this was accompanied by healing, so warning against judgement for disobeying the Mosaic Law, healing, and teaching about the Kingdom of God is not contrary to the fact that he spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example.


In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the Mosaic Law, so he was obligated to obey it, which includes Deuteronomy 4:2, which forbids adding to or subtracting to the law, so he should not be interpreted as doing that. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so for you to suggest that Jesus did that is to deny that he is our Savior. Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he should not be interpreted as hypocritically preaching something other than what he practiced.

Loving our enemy is in accordance with verses like Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 23;7, Proverbs 24:17-18, and Proverbs 25:21-22.

In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so Mark 7:14-19 should not be interpreted as Jesus turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees for doing.

In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus was asked whether a man was permitted to divorce his wife for any reason. To give some context, Gitten 90a-b interprets Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as saying that a man is permitted to divorce his wife if she ruined his meal or if he found someone prettier than her. So it was divorce over frivolous reasons that Jesus was referring to as not being the case from the beginning.

You are misreading the context of Scriptures. The example we are supposed to follow in 1 Pt 2:21-22 is suffering for others without retaliation.

And you are mistaken similarly in the rest of your post, but it would be too long to explain it all.

 

[zoidar]

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walks (1 John 2:6). In Matthew 4:17-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is central to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and this was accompanied by healing, so warning against judgement for disobeying the Mosaic Law, healing, and teaching about the Kingdom of God is not contrary to the fact that he spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example.


In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the Mosaic Law, so he was obligated to obey it, which includes Deuteronomy 4:2, which forbids adding to or subtracting to the law, so he should not be interpreted as doing that. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so for you to suggest that Jesus did that is to deny that he is our Savior. Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he should not be interpreted as hypocritically preaching something other than what he practiced.

Loving our enemy is in accordance with verses like Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 23;7, Proverbs 24:17-18, and Proverbs 25:21-22.

In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so Mark 7:14-19 should not be interpreted as Jesus turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees for doing.

In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus was asked whether a man was permitted to divorce his wife for any reason. To give some context, Gitten 90a-b interprets Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as saying that a man is permitted to divorce his wife if she ruined his meal or if he found someone prettier than her. So it was divorce over frivolous reasons that Jesus was referring to as not being the case from the beginning.

Sorry for the OOT, but what view do you hold of the atonement? Not Penal Substitution?

 

[IoanC]

The Old Law is the foundation of The New Law. You cannot have something without its foundation.

 

[trophy33]

The Old Law is the foundation of The New Law. You cannot have something without its foundation.

The foundation of the new is Jesus Christ. He is the foundation:

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Eph 2:20

The old covenant/law was a preparation for the new one, though. The whole old testament era was a waiting period for the promised One.

 

[IoanC]

The foundation of the new is Jesus Christ. He is the foundation:

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Eph 2:20

The old covenant/law was a preparation for the new one, though. The whole old testament era was a waiting period for the promised One.

Yes, but we have to go through that preparation like Jesus, and then we can remain in The New Testament only.

 

[trophy33]

Yes, but we have to go through that preparation like Jesus, and then we can remain in The New Testament only.

We do not have to go through the era of the old covenant, because we are born into the new one, already.

You also do not have to personally go throuth the colonial law of the Great Britain, you are born directly into the US law (if you are an American).

 

[Chaleb]

Again, in Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works,
Indeed, those who are born again are not under the law of sin, but are under the law of God. In Psalms 119:29,

Don't confuse "good works" with "law keeping"

Also, its not a good idea to try to rewrite the New Covenant using OT verses.

There is a reason that there is a new covenant.
There is a reason that the born again are "not under THE LAW........but under Grace".
There is a reason the born again are to understand that "Christ has redeemed us from the CURSE OF THE LAW".

You dont understand any of this, and that is why you want to post about """Law Law Law".

 

[expos4ever]

House divided. the HOLY SPIRIT is the SPIRIT OF GOD/MESSIAH they do not conflict, God' laws are Holy and Good.

Paul:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Well?

 

[expos4ever]

I would like to revisit this matter of Jesus and the law. I maintain that those who believe that the law remains in force systematically come up with contrived explanations for episodes when Jesus certainly appears to be breaking the law.

Let's start with the food episode in Mark 7 and its parallels. In that engagement, Jesus says "nothing that goes into a man will defile him". That seems pretty clear - a piece of shellfish or a bit of pork certainly is a thing that can go in to you. So how do the Law supporters explain this? They most frequently appeal to the fact that the conversation with the Pharisees begins with a dispute over hand washing. They seem to think that no matter what Jesus goes on to say, the focus must, by some strange principle of necessity, remain solely on handwashing. But this is manifestly absurd - certainly, Jesus can take a discussion of handwashing and then bend the conversation to a more general discussion of what actually defiles a man. It must be acknowledged, although it will not be, that this is a very natural transition to make. But, of course, the Law supporters cannot allow for this possibility. Yes, I know the confrontation ends with a return to the subject of handwashing. But this does not support the idea that, in the preceding discussion, Jesus could not have spoken more generally about what defiles, and then used the general principle he has elaborated - namely that nothing that goes in to you will defile you - to answer the specific question about handwashing.

To show how manifestly silly the handwashing argument is, consider this scenario which is structurally analogous to the Mark 7 encounter over food. Suppose I go to my doctor and ask him or her about the efficacy of homeopathic ("natural medicine") drugs for my cold. And let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that it is the case that there are no kinds of treatment whatsoever to shorten a cold (whether this is true or not is obviously beside the point). My doctor, knowing full well at nothing I can take will cure my cold will tell me "there is nothing you can take into your body that will cure your cold. Therefore, homeopathic treatments will not cure your cold"

Nobody who knows the first thing about how English sentences work would walk out of the doctor's office believing that the doctor has not ruled out all drugs, including the natural ones.

And yet this is precisely what we are being asked to believe about the Mark 7 encounter. The two scenarios are structurally equivalent in the important respects. In both cases:

1. The conversations begin with a question about a particular thing going into you (food eaten with unwashed hands vs natural medecines)
2. In both conversations, the authority figure make a general statement - "nothing that goes in you........"
3. Both conversations end with a statement about the particular thing that was the issue at first.

Yet, we know that the logic of the doctor scenario requires us to believe that the doctor believes that truly nothing that you can take into your body will cure your cold. So, how does this same logic not apply in the Mark scenario?

What kind of person would say "nothing that goes into can defile you" and mean "nothing except for A, B, and C"?

Context has a role, but it cannot miraculously make the word "nothing" mean "a whole bunch of things".

 

[Soyeong]

Don't confuse "good works" with "law keeping"

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul said spoke in regard to holy Scripture that Timothy had available to him since childhood, which could have only been referring to OT Scripture because the books of the NT had not yet been written at the time of his childhood. He said everything spoke by God is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work, which are all terms used to describe a code of conduct, and the code of conduct in the OT is the Mosaic Law, so that is what he was primarily referring to as being profitable for equipping us to do every good work.

Also, its not a good idea to try to rewrite the New Covenant using OT verses.

I have not done that. The NT authors quoted or alluded to the OT thousands of times in order to support what they were saying and to show that they hadn't departed from it, so the OT has always been central to the NT.

There is a reason that there is a new covenant.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following God's law, so the reason for the New Covenant was not. in order to reject God's law, but because the Israelites were not following it.

There is a reason that the born again are "not under THE LAW........but under Grace".

In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not born again. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, so that is what it means to be under grace. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and sin is the transgression of God's law, so we are still under it, but are not under the law of sin.

There is a reason the born again are to understand that "Christ has redeemed us from the CURSE OF THE LAW".

Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law so that we would go and sin no more, not so that we would consider ourselves free to sin.

You dont understand any of this, and that is why you want to post about """Law Law Law".

For some reason you don't seem to care that the Bible keeps contradicting what you say.

 

[Chaleb]

For some reason you don't seem to care that the Bible keeps contradicting what you say.

I had asked you why Peter's Acts 2:38, isn't the same as What Paul teaches as "my Gospel".
You've not answered that in about 8 posts, and using lots of verses., so, that's fine.

Now, let me post this, as its important for you to know it. as this will help you understand my question.

-
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.