It's other verses which require that. For Jesus did abolish the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments on His Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16).
It was a simple point, Yeshua said that
He did not come to abolish the Law and Prophets, you say He did. I choose to believe Yeshua.
Even when what one verse says appears plain, it can still be misinterpreted, such as by reading into it things it doesn't say, things which would contradict what other verses say. To arrive at correct doctrine, a verse in one place in the Bible must be compared with (qualified by) other, related verses elsewhere in the Bible (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13). Our doctrine must be based on what the entire Bible says (2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 4:4), and not just on what some unqualified verses say.
An example of an unqualified verse would be John 3:36. We can't say it means all we have to believe is Jesus Christ is the Son of God. For John 3:36 must be qualified by, for example, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (and vice versa). We have to believe both that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins and rose physically from the dead on the 3rd day. So when John 3:36 is qualified, something is added to it, not subtracted from it. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 adds further belief requirements to John 3:36 (and vice versa). 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 doesn't subtract, negate or contradict the belief requirement of John 3:36 (or vice versa).
Another way John 3:36 must be qualified is we can't say it means all that Christians have to do is believe for at least one moment during their lifetime. For John 3:36 must be qualified by other verses which show Christians will obtain ultimate salvation only if they continue to believe to the end (Hebrews 3:6,14, Colossians 1:23). And this is just one of the conditions the Bible as a whole shows must be met for Christians to obtain ultimate salvation (e.g. Romans 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 9:27).
That's all fine and good but what the way you are interpreting Scripture is different. The equivalent comparison would be that while the verse in John 3 states you must believe, you would be saying that you don't have to believe. You see the difference? You were not adding to the meaning, you were stating the exact opposite of the clear and intended meaning. (Not annulling and annulling)
But let's look at the text in context:
John 3:34-36 For He whom God has sent
speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure.
35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand.
36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who
does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
So Yeshua speaks the words of God. Notice that it does not say that He annuals them.
Notice that belief is inclusive of obedience.
If you put those together then you have Yeshua speaking His Father's words (
not annulling them) and that our salvation depends on us believing and obeying Him.
This refers to the New Covenant/New Testament commandments/sayings (Matthew 5:19, Matthew 7:24-29) which Jesus, as the Christ (Matthew 5:17b, Luke 24:44-46), was just about to give in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29).
Where in the scriptures does it make that point? Where do you find that the commands of Yeshua are different from the Father's commands? In fact what we do see is that the words that Yeshua speaks are not His own but what the Father has given Him to say.
We also know that to add or to remove from the Law and the Prophets is a sin. Is this what you are claiming that Yeshua did?
He meant the prophecies in them regarding His 1st coming (Luke 24:44-48).
Yes, you've said that before but where is the scriptural evidence? What I read in the Scripture is that
ALL things must be fulfilled, not just His first coming.
It does, in that inappropriate behavior with animals would fall under the basic principle of going after strange flesh.
That passage is about the fallen angels and not the command about humans and animals. Also it is just an description of this historical account, it is not even in the form of a command.
We have a boatload of verses that speak about the Sabbath, does that mean that the Sabbath is still a command we should observe?
Note that in Matthew 19:7-9, Jesus specifically contradicted the letter of the commandment in Deuteronomy 24:1.
Not in anyway is there a contradiction. Yeshua was simply filling the meaning to its fullness.
Also, if Yeshua was deliberately contradicting His Father's commands that would be a sin. Is this what you are accusing Yeshua of?
Note that the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law can still be good (Romans 7:12) even though we Christians have been delivered from it (Romans 7:6).
Oh, not just "good" but holy, spiritual and righteous!
Is this the thing that Yeshua is delivering us from? All this time I thought it was sin.
There the law of God would be the New Covenant law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2).
Again, Yeshua did not speak on His own but what His Father gave Him to speak. His Father's words will not contradict each other nor will they be annulled before heaven and earth would be destroyed. At least that's what the Scripture says, I understand that is not what you are saying. Which is why I'm not going to argue the point any longer with you. Believe what you want to believe.[/QUOTE]
